Cagiva22

Resident Members
  • Content count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Cagiva22

  • Rank
    Forum Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Policed by Consent

    Reasonable man, I would but it's impossible to reason with closed minds. For anyone that is interested I'll post the following again from another thread that got locked. Lawful Common Law Law of tradition Set by precedence and established fact The law that is common to all Can only be determined after due process of law (a jury trial) Deals in fact (living beings, truth) Language -English No crime without an injured party Treats you as a man or woman Broken when harm is caused to another Has full force of Law Seeks justice Legal Acts of Parliament Set by corrupt politicians (often bribed by lobbyists) Statutory Obligations Forced compliance is unlawful Unenforceable (without consent) Deals in fiction (corporations, legal entities, statutes, codes, policies) Language - Legalese (sounds like English, has different meanings) To break legislation is an infraction of a policy. Treats you as a corporate person Broken when the rules are not adhered to, essentially a breach of contract Has no force of Law without consent Seeks profit and control As you can see, you are still failing to understand the difference between established laws that deal with actual crimes, and acts of parliament, which have no inherent force of law without consent. That distinction must be realised and fully understood if you are to grasp my point. If the government can make up any rule they like, then demand we obey, we are no better than any tin pot dictatorship. You don't have to take my word for it. Research it for yourself.
  2. Policed by Consent

    You are correct, please excuse my incorrect term. I meant the Road Traffic Act. What is the legal definition of traffic? You traffic goods, which is an act of commerce rightfully regulated by the government. I don't traffic when traveling. Your roads? The roads are a common right to all, they are not owned by any one particular group or society. If you are concerned about how they are paid for, take a look at the three separate taxes levied on fuel. That more than covers the cost of their upkeep.
  3. Policed by Consent

    Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. Hence the reason the police are used to manufacture the consent of the natural person. Which is in itself an act of fraud, as the intent is to deceive. A contract signed under threat and duress is unlawful, null and void from the start.
  4. Policed by Consent

    And still no one has be able to refute the original post. It's hard to get someone to understand when their pay check depends on them not understanding. If what was said was merit-less there would be no need for such a reaction. It's not that I'm wrong, it's that what I'm saying is a direct threat to the paradigm view you have all invested much of your time and energy in. What you are experiencing is called cognitive dissonance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Why was the Lawful vs Legal thread locked? It was an honest exploration of the intricacies of the legal system. Am I only allowed to post so long as I don't question some unwritten belief system that many seem to share here?
  5. Lawful vs Legal

    Ignorance is not bliss, despite what you may have been led to believe.
  6. Lawful vs Legal

    Lawful 
Common Law 
Law of tradition Set by precedence and established fact
 The law that is common to all
 Can only be determined after due process of law (a jury trial) Deals in fact (living beings, truth) Language -English No crime without an injured party Treats you as a man or woman Broken when harm is caused to another Has full force of Law Seeks justice Legal 
Acts of Parliament Set by corrupt politicians
 (often bribed by lobbyists) Statutory Obligations
 Forced compliance is unlawful Unenforceable (without consent) Deals in fiction (corporations, legal entities, statutes, codes, policies) Language - Legalese (sounds like English, has different meanings) To break legislation is an infraction of a policy. Treats you as a corporate person Broken when the rules are not adhered to, essentially a breach of contract Has no force of Law without consent Seeks profit and control No condition can be placed upon a fundamental human right. The government cannot take what is already established as an inalienable right and turn it into a privilege with conditions attached. It can only offer terms to which your agreement is needed to implement a legally binding contract. If you were born free then where and when does the obligation come from to obey government policy? There is no obligation, it is presumed. Only when we consent does the corporate legal fiction have any jurisdiction, as it is we who granted it. The people are the source of all authority. We created the government to serve us. It is a matter of fact that the created cannot be master to that which created it - namely, us. Implied consent has no force of law as equal consideration was never offered. There is no such thing as a social contract. Therefore the legal framework has no inherent force of law and can only act on terms and conditions agreed to by you.
  7. Registration

    Because common law is in place to deal with real crime. It is not the decree of a group of bribed statesmen, as are statutes, policies, codes etc.And I'd like to thank you for at least being reasonable. Accurate name : )
  8. Registration

    You are correct. I'm looking at this from a completely different perspective than most on this forum, which has led to a lot of ridicule and flat out dismissal. But that's okay, I expected it. People often attack that which they don't understand. Everything you say may be true within your framework. But the legal framework is a series of corporate rules, it's private law. It has no inherent force of Law without consent, as with any contractual agreement. Practicable benefit? I wouldn't agree to pay up. That is the difference. There is no crime and so there is no jurisdiction. We are protected in this country from fines and forfeitures before due process of Law. The police are not judge, jury and executioner. They cannot issue Lawful judgements. But if you volunteer to pay it you have contracted. I would ask for proof of claim. There is none and so there is no case. Most people act out of fear and so don't challenge jurisdiction. Look up Corpus Dilicti if you are interested in the criteria needed for a case. I've already successfully dismissed an alleged "fine", as have many others. It's a racket that has reached its end.
  9. Registration

    You mock, but you are closer to the truth than you even realise. That gets into the corporate person/legal fiction which would need its own thread to cover fully.
  10. Registration

    Whose rules? Written by whom? To which society are they applicable? Where do those rules get their authority from? 'The created cannot be greater than the creator.' - Maxim of Law. Government is an idea created by man, to serve man. Not some God like figure who must be obeyed. Sovereignty lies within each and every one of us. Only you can give it away.
  11. Registration

    Buy into? Speak for yourself. We are governed by consent as I keep having to repeat. You don't get to speak for me, or anyone else. Word mangling? Have you ever had to deal with legalese. The whole legal system is built on "word mangling."
  12. Registration

    Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Peace Officers who uphold the oath they took, keeping the peace in the process. I have little respect for Policy Enforcers who, unknowingly albeit, manipulate people into contracting with the crown, which is a sole corporation. It's business, not justice.
  13. Registration

    I recognise the Law, I do not agree to abide by corporate policies. You fail to understand the difference.
  14. Registration

    Released without charge. No crime was committed and unlike most, he refused to contract with the police. He now has a civil case against every man and women acting as policy enforcers that caused him harm, should he choose to take it that far. Reasonable man - how does not having a piece of paper from the government make my activity unlawful, where is the victim? And how does being extorted out of money for not obeying someone elses set or rules absolve the alleged crime? Please think beyond the framework you have been given. Governed by consent remember. You submit to a set of rules all you like, that does not give you the right to force them on anyone else.
  15. Registration

    A look at the registration process from outside of the generally accepted consensus. The act of registering with the government is what creates a legally binding contract. You are giving legal title to them while you retain equitable title and use of said property. Since they own the legal title they can dictate the terms of use of the property that you registered with them. Take your car for example. One of the terms you agreed to when registering was to abide by the rules of the Motor Vehicle Act, which includes staying within certain speed limits. To break the speed limit is therefore not a crime but a breach of contract. Should you fail to pay up, the courts are then used as a form of conflict resolution to settle the contractual dispute, they are not administering justice. No individual, corporation or organisation can compel you to register your property. You did so voluntarily, whether you realise it or not. More than likely your consent was manufactured by making it appear that your were Lawfully obliged to register. This is called deception. Any contract where deceptive use of language is used to coerce agreement or where full disclosure is not given as to the nature of the contract is illegal, and thus null and void. It's not inherently unlawful to engage in an activity without government approval. It's only against the rules they have created. In fact, any act licenced or permitted by the state has to be 100% Lawful outside of the licensing or permitted framework, otherwise they would be allowing you to commit a crime for a fee. Those rules are only applicable within the framework of their system. As we are governed by consent, non consenting members can in no way be held accountable for the consequences of an infraction of a rule that they did not agree to, let alone having never read. The grounds for committing a crime come under certain guidelines. The has to be harm caused to an actual person (natural person, not a corporate/legal entity) or their property, or fraudulent activity. No victim, no crime. An infraction of a statute, code or policy is a breach of contract, which of course can not apply to someone who has never made that contract. Implied unilateral contracts are fraudulent and are null and void from the start. As are contracts where deception was used or where full disclosure was never given. As is the case with the registration process. It was made to appear that you would be breaking the Law if did not register your personal property. When it was the act of registering that gave the government legal determination over it. That is completely fraudulent. If I coerced you into signing over the rights of your property via deception I would be committing a crime. The only difference when the government does it is that they have the backing of a monopoly on force, intimidation and violence. Might does not make right. We are all equal before the Law. I welcome alternative views, but please keep it respectful. I mean no harm to anyone.