Posted on 12/15/2001 6:23:07 PM PST by LibertyRocks
See http://www.motorists.org/nmaf/taxfiling.html
Anarchists, Greens and Libertarians teaming up to make public donkeys of themselves. It's about ego gratification.
Any source that is not Roscoe's source is a "crackpot." Everyone knows that only Roscoe's sources are "valid. "
However, in this case, the NMA did lobby for repeal. Dispute it if you can.
But not much chance of you standing up for freedom, now is there?
Pissants.
And this is your reliable source? Couldn't be more pathetic.
I see you didn't dispute they lobbyied for repeal. You also can't dispute their existence. And now it seems you may be making things up about them. Why is that Roscoe? What motivates you? Your ego? You lost the argument. Avocados claim as backed by has been disproved. Live with it and get over it cuz.
by Dale Pond, Howard Fisher, Richard Knutson and North American Freedom c. Copyright © 1995. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved
All law in America is based on the status of the individual. All legislation, judicial actions, and administrative policy is based on status, for there are different classes of citizens and subjects. (For example, under the 14th Amendment, "equal protection" is applied to corporate "persons" as "citizens," even though, strictly speaking, they are simply subjects.) Though a law be termed "general" and not special, it must be decided by the court as to whom it will apply. The application of laws, or statutes (as they really are only expressions of the law) is basically unknown as to the fullest extent of their range. Only in individual cases can it truly be determined according to the facts surrounding the respective case.
Therefore, the status of the party must be determined before the Court should proceed and before the Court can make an intelligent decision. How can status be determined if it is not pleaded? How can it be pleaded except by statements of fact, and of the constitutional application and intent of the particular statute in the case? The way to determining law is to plead all the facts in a case in such a way as to show the status of the parties, and therefore, the rightful scope of the statute. "Where fundamental rights are in question, there shall be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." (Miranda vs. Arizona) Among the most important rights the people hold are those protected by the Bill of Rights, but these are only a scant few of all the capacities, abilities and potentials of any one human being. The Bill of Rights was only a statement, brief and definite, that the Founders considered the Constitution to be a strictly expressed grant of political power by the people to a governmental structure designed to protect their rights first and foremost, and never, under any pretense, to violate any right held by the people.
Perhaps the right of greatest importance, of greatest value to the free citizen of these United States in his association with his fellow man and his government, is the absolute ownership of property.
From this absolute dominion, said Thomas Jefferson, flows all free society, and without it, of course, comes dictatorship and oppression. If the owner of the property shall not have unconditional control and use of it --- who shall? If the owner shall not reap the profits of the use of property, who shall? Who shall have the fruits of labor? Should it be the man whose right it is to labor? Who, but a freeman, can claim this right?
---------------------------Read roscoe, and weep for your ignorance.
That sign is already posted, mama. It's the most prominent one on the door. It says "DO NOT BRING LOADED GUNS INSIDE THIS STORE." Clear enough? You and the rest of the people here flaming me are talking big from your perspective. What you DON'T know is my perspective. And in any event, rights are conditional upon exercising them in a fashion where you don't trample anyone else's rights in the process. Do I not have a right to say how affairs should be conducted on MY PROPERTY? If you're offended, don't come back. Free market system working as it should.
MM
On that we agree, because liberalism is inherently devoid of logic.
MM
The History of American Constitutional or Common Law With Commentary Concerning : Equity and Merchant Law
by Dale Pond, Howard Fisher, Richard Knutson and North American Freedom c. Copyright © 1995. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved
----------------------------------It's a well respected textbook roscoe. Go to Amazon and read the reviews.
Move to egypt. You are in a constant state of deNile.
I wouldn't. But your intellect is really questionable.
deNile
dementia
See http://www.motorists.org/nmaf/taxfiling.html
?? And you accuse me of talking in code?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.