Topic: LEGAL "FACTS" MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW, BUT SHOULD - page 3. (Read 613 times)

The only really acceptable society is one that allows freedom for all individuals who are adults.

The only exception is when it is proven that an individual has harmed or damaged another human or his property. The freedom is taken from the guilty person until he has paid off the debt of harm or damage.

Judgment as to guilt must be based on at least one witness besides the harmed/damaged person, and substantial evidence... and the defendant gets to cross examine the accuser and the witness.

A judge may make the judgment, but the defendant may require a jury of 12 impartial men and women.


Do Muslims have rules like this? These are the basic rules in the USA.

Seems to me that rules for Muslims are found in the Koran and Hadiths. Islamic rules promote lack of freedom, and violence at times.

you literally quote stuff straight from freeman crap sites. you even use their buzzwords.
i would spell it out for you how innaccurate you are in many things, but i guess if i did spell it out you would just reply that you require me to teach you the alphabet to before you even consider doing something for yourself and looking beyond your limited resources

you have no clue.
so last time ill give you a hint.
stop quoting the freeman crap. they have been debunked by many people many years ago. making your mindset flawed and outdated by a fad that died out years ago

You're the on who failed using your stuff I don't use. So, console yourself with the thought that someone else is using your daffy stuff that failed, even if it isn't true. Licking your wounds often makes them feel better.

your the one who just copies and pastes stuff from freman-esq sites without even bothering to think/research it.
this very thread has shown how you didnt even do the background check on the sources. nor see if the legal cases even relate to what the points were even asserting.

you got called out tooo much

some kind advice
maybe next time, check your sources twice before posting. or it can end up being used against you if they dont play out to what you assert

Sounds like franky1 is still head-in-the-sand ostrich hole.

And it doesn't mean that the definition isn't true. Black's is used for all kinds of legal stuff. If it is untrue, we are entirely being scammed by using it.

The thing that is needed is corroboration by some other paperwork somewhere.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/World-Bank - "World Bank, in full World Bank Group, international organization affiliated with the United Nations (UN) and designed to finance projects that enhance the economic development of member states."

Just because the words "federal employees" is not found, doesn't really have anything to do with what #5 says.

If you have a bird in your birdcage in your house, and you sell the whole cage, bird and all, as far as you are concerned, there is no bird in your cage? Why? You don't even have a birdcage.

All that EO 12803 means is that if you want to find out if there is any government left that is not private, you have to go to all the paperwork in the world to find out if there has been a sale of government to the private sector. We know that this has happened in part, and happens continually as government property is sold off. The question has to do with the sale of the whole government.

Police can't be held responsible for delivering a specific outcome, because police aren't in the God-capacity, and there are all kinds of "things" that can influence the outcome that police have no control over.

Any law or directive that requires police to keep someone safe, where it is beyond the ability of police (or anybody) to do so, is a foolish law or directive. Each incident will need to be judged based on its own circumstances.

So, where and what is the law or directive that police are required to protect people?

As for Florida, without seeing the details, nobody would know. Anybody can sue anybody else for anything at any time. If the cop lost in court, there may be more than one reason, including that the judge or jury simply wanted the court to look good in the eyes of the people.

Court cases are not always won or lost the same, even when circumstances are very similar between cases.

Actually just copy n pasted that comment from a snopes forum where this same list was posted 

you could have saved alot of googling but just knowing the IMF is american just by the pure fact that the reserve currency is US dollar.
why do you think trump is so easily able to hand out sanctions to other countries but other countries cant easily sanction the us

is badecker still running down the freeman rabbit hole


gotta love the point 9.
'no judges since a couple centuries ago'. but if you actually read the mentioned case that suppose to be proof. the case is where a guy is trying to claim that the particular court should only be handling constitutional laws not civil laws(contracts/corporation business)
firstly the case has nothing to do with if there are judges or not. it doesnt say judges are vapour and imaginary
secondly the constitution is a civil law in itself
thirdly the guy was trying the foolish thing of thinking it has a case of saying (analogy) in a family court that the court should not be judging non family stuff
(facepalm)
the supreme court is the highest court of all and can see many different cases if all lower courts have been used


also other points.
badecker in another post links a freeman video about parking tickets.
with the whole mumbo jumbo about consent. and how people can refuse parking tickets by not giving consent.
sorry but the consent to form a government is not a daily thing. that individuals get to select at a whim
instead its a 4-5yearly election which forms a contract for a government to manage the country
once in each 4-5 year period an individual cannot revoke consent and abolish the law himself. because the majority gave consent to follow the law. thus the law is still enforcable



as for the stuff about cops are servants to the people. no
police are civil servants. they do work for their master which is their employer(government).
its the employer who then has policies look after its members(people/citizens) but just like having a gym membership does not mean a gym employee is a customers servant.
the customer still has to follow the directions of the employee and the customer can be banned or punished for breaking the gym rules

and yes the gym customer has to pay the monthly subscription(tax) if they want to enjoy all the services provided by the system

also you cant live in the gym and be expected not to pay to be there.

i hope that i have simplified things down so that even an idiot could understand

Fact 2)
Well, you are giving ONE definition of ONE dictionary. 


source : https://epdf.pub/blacks-law-dictionary-6th-edition.html




Interesting definition for Work permit (same document, same page as World Bank) :


This confirm Aliens,  area 51 and everything 



So, conclusion of #2 : the definition of ONE book, written by someone doesn't mean it is true. 


PS : i am pretty sure if you look at a North Korean dictionary for "internet" it will say : "fake web imagined by the enemies of the Party, where spiders are writing false information"
Would that be the truth ?

5.  https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-12803-infrastructure-privatization
 
  Read that.  Thats the EO cited ny your list.  Nothing to do with "no federal employees" BS.  Pretty easy to see what it says.  You dont need you local road crew to fix the bridge, you can contract a private construction company.  
  Whoever made that list needs to stop spreading lies.


I think thats enough google for me tonight

Fact 16 ) : checked (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fr-1782.asp) , yes it looks like he did.

No reference to the word Versailles on the wiki page of the american revolution.

1.    Well, according to google, the court case Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al only exists to support "Fact" #1 on the list.

It's not been cited as a precedent in any case since whenever it was ajudicated.

Interestingly, the IMF was created in 1944, beginning operations in 1947. The IRS was created, sort of, in 1862.

Oh, and Public Law 94-564? It's about Mexican debt.

29.  The "police dont legally have a duty to protect you" crap all started with a Sec 1983 lawsuit out of Chicago years ago. In short, someone called 911 from an apartment building. No apartment was given. Police responded and couldn't find anything wrong anywhere. They left.  A second call came in, same thing. Cops responded again, and again, no problem was found.  Cops left again.   Later on, woman was found stabbed or injured or something, in the rear alley.  Lawsuit was filed, claiming the cops violated her civil rights by not protecting her when two prior 911 calls were made. Claiming if the cops did their jobs right the first time, she wouldn't have suffered the injury she did.   Judge ruled no, you dont win the ghetto lottery.   And thats what birthed the phrase "cops dont have to protect you"..... always taken out of context.
    If it were true, how were they able to charge that p.o.s. Sheriff in Florida for not reacting to the school shooting?

Thanks, PopoJeff. I looked for Britain in 6209, as well. I couldn't find it, but I didn't look through the whole document. My only thought about this is that it might be in there through some kind of indirect reference. But I'm not going to take the time to try to find it out. The whole doc is reasonably large.

As for "29. It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you," I have read this in several places, but right at the moment I would have to dig to find where... where it directly said that police are not required to protect people. I agree that it might have said this from the standpoint that police can't be held responsible for delivering a specific outcome.

Anyway, thanks, again.

Browsed a few of these nonsensical items.

22. I read the IRS Publication 6209.... no reference of Britain in there at all  https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/document-6209-adp-and-idrs-information

29. Incorrect. I see that mentioned all the time, and always out of context. The cases cited all involve people that tried to BLAME THE COPS and sue for something they didnt like... (example: an 8 minute response time instead of 4 minutes, believing the cops should be their personal security guards, I told you my husband would beat me when you left, etc..)

You can find all kinds of things that work sometimes, and don't work other times.

And, I want to thank all you jokers who think that the good info that I showed in the OP is my info. How do you jokers even survive in something like a forum? You can't even read. You can blab, but you can't even read enough to comment on any numbered part in the OP.

Watch this to get out of paying traffic tickets legally - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgXKq02U-m4.