Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21-03-2012, 12:05 AM   #41
freedom2020
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 965
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

well you stop because the police are the biggest GANG you will ever meet in your life!!! and they are a gang bigger than anything any drug lord could wish for!! dont you see what im getting at??? and they will try everything they have to steal from you!! money or your car!!!as in said highwayman!!
freedom2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2012, 07:32 PM   #42
moobs
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

So are we all in agreement on this point?
moobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-03-2012, 09:52 AM   #43
danster82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 3,923
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

It has no basis in law. Contracts can be created by deeds and conduct and implied which trumps any express contract but writing somthing wrong or saying the wrong word in no way creates a contract. However if you find at a later date some obligation is being made of you because of one of these acts you can then of course rebut their assumptions.

Many people only understand express contract and so in that way they might not realise that their actions can create contracts, however this does not mean they have "accidentally" entered into a contract because they were always fully aware of their actions. It would be reasonable to argue that someone under the influence of drugs or deception that caused them to act a certain way could not be held responsible for contacts created by those acts either express or implied.
__________________
http://danster82.com//

Last edited by danster82; 25-03-2012 at 10:03 AM.
danster82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-03-2012, 08:52 PM   #44
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post
Where does this element of contracts have any backing in the law? Note that I am talking about The Law, not the wangdoodle. Also, if the government has no more authority or lawful power than private individuals (a key element of The Law), then couldn't private individuals trick others into contracts by using any of the judges' little tricks?
This is my current understanding:

The court thing is about jurisdiction.

Following a clam of broken obligation from a government department a 'freeman' would most likely want to start with a some PRIVATE remedy to reslove the situation PRIVATELY, without the need to receive a PUBLIC benifit or privillage. This is usually done with some Notices with conditional acceptances. 3 step process

1. Notice of Conditional Acceptance
2 . Notice of Fault & Opportunity to Corrct (or Cure)
3. Notice of Default.

This is all done in the PRIVATE.

WWe all have a duty to try and resolve our disagreements / afairs PRIVATELY before resorting to going to a PUBLIC hearing to get it sorted.

If an invitation to attend court is sent to a PRIVATE man then he might send in his paperwork and Conditionaly accept the offer to attend (as a private man) if the court can proof that the PRIVATE paperwork doesn't show that the matter has been resolved / an agreement (through aquesense possibly?) has been reached between the parties.

If he still chooses to go to the court AS MISTER MAN, third party intervener [NOT being the name]... Then he is there in the private, as long as he states that BEFORE entering the court fully to the judge and gets agreement (which he is unlikely to as it's a PUBLIC hearing...

There's more to it but the name game in court / NOT Accepting orders is all about jumping from being a PRIVATE MAN to entering the PUBLIC jurisdiciton... this can only be done by the man accepting PUBLIC benifits or following orders.

If an order is ordered... this is how to deal with it:

SIT DOWN OVER THERE MISTER MAN.

Would it be okay if I sit over there AS MISTER MAN, whilst reserving all my rights and remedies for the purpose of assisting the parties settle and close the matter?


-----------

So to answer you question - NO, as a general rule, I don't think PRIVATE people can trick other PRIVATE people to go in to the public relm (very easily?)... only PUBLIC officials can try.
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2012, 03:13 PM   #45
jlord
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by britishnick View Post
We all have a duty to try and resolve our disagreements / afairs PRIVATELY before resorting to going to a PUBLIC hearing to get it sorted.
Do you believe this is a requirement of the de facto law, or is this a requirement of freeman philosophy?

Quote:
So to answer you question - NO, as a general rule, I don't think PRIVATE people can trick other PRIVATE people to go in to the public relm (very easily?)... only PUBLIC officials can try
According to your view then the court must get the private person to enter the public realm before they can punish the person? Or are you just saying they should have to do this, but they in fact don't?

How would your reasoning apply to a situation where a person doesn't attend court at all and gets convicted and punished without ever setting foot inside a court room or responding in any other way that would bring them into the public realm?
jlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2012, 05:27 PM   #46
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

dont think that a person can be convicted in their absence in a criminal court but a judgment can be made against them in a civil court.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2012, 06:08 PM   #47
jlord
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
dont think that a person can be convicted in their absence in a criminal court but a judgment can be made against them in a civil court.
You can be convicted in your absence in criminal court as well. At least this is the case in Canada. I would assume this would be true in other common law jurisdictions.
jlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2012, 06:35 PM   #48
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlord View Post
You can be convicted in your absence in criminal court as well. At least this is the case in Canada. I would assume this would be true in other common law jurisdictions.
sorry after some reading i have seen a few cases where the accused has been tried in their absence. kinda goes against the right to mount a defense tho
__________________
The Person
The Common Law
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2012, 06:41 PM   #49
moobs
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by britishnick View Post
This is my current understanding:

The court thing is about jurisdiction.

Following a clam of broken obligation from a government department a 'freeman' would most likely want to start with a some PRIVATE remedy to reslove the situation PRIVATELY, without the need to receive a PUBLIC benifit or privillage. This is usually done with some Notices with conditional acceptances. 3 step process

1. Notice of Conditional Acceptance
2 . Notice of Fault & Opportunity to Corrct (or Cure)
3. Notice of Default.

This is all done in the PRIVATE.

WWe all have a duty to try and resolve our disagreements / afairs PRIVATELY before resorting to going to a PUBLIC hearing to get it sorted.

If an invitation to attend court is sent to a PRIVATE man then he might send in his paperwork and Conditionaly accept the offer to attend (as a private man) if the court can proof that the PRIVATE paperwork doesn't show that the matter has been resolved / an agreement (through aquesense possibly?) has been reached between the parties.

If he still chooses to go to the court AS MISTER MAN, third party intervener [NOT being the name]... Then he is there in the private, as long as he states that BEFORE entering the court fully to the judge and gets agreement (which he is unlikely to as it's a PUBLIC hearing...

There's more to it but the name game in court / NOT Accepting orders is all about jumping from being a PRIVATE MAN to entering the PUBLIC jurisdiciton... this can only be done by the man accepting PUBLIC benifits or following orders.

If an order is ordered... this is how to deal with it:

SIT DOWN OVER THERE MISTER MAN.

Would it be okay if I sit over there AS MISTER MAN, whilst reserving all my rights and remedies for the purpose of assisting the parties settle and close the matter?


-----------

So to answer you question - NO, as a general rule, I don't think PRIVATE people can trick other PRIVATE people to go in to the public relm (very easily?)... only PUBLIC officials can try.
But this explanation about "public" realms being different to private ones conflicts with freeman claims that everyone is equal and the government is just another organization that has no more power than any other group. In fact, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with contracts at all. Are you saying that people in the government don't follow the same rules as the rest of us?
moobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2012, 06:41 PM   #50
jlord
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
sorry after some reading i have seen a few cases where the accused has been tried in their absence. kinda goes against the right to mount a defense tho
These happen in cases where the person has refused or declined to mount a defence or where they apparently have chosen not to appear. If you are convicted in your absence in some situation where you did actually have a defence and wanted to appear then you can get the conviction overturned.

But I have seen it happen first hand with freemen who are actually in the courtroom but refuse to identify themselves. They get a not guilty plea entered when nobody in the courtroom identifies themselves as the accused, and then get found guilty in absentia if they do the same on the trial date. These cases seem especially dumb to me because the freeman is actually there in the courtroom anyways but they just choose not to speak up for themselves.
jlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2012, 08:51 PM   #51
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post
But this explanation about "public" realms being different to private ones conflicts with freeman claims that everyone is equal and the government is just another organization that has no more power than any other group.
1. "Freeman" are not a hive mind... There are many different opinions, many different angles and many different solutions and strategies in implimenting and asserting freedom and ones rights. Sorry if this doesn't support your 'all freemen are numpties POV' (yes I'm paraphrasing I don't think you've typed those exact words)
2. Everyone being equal doesn't conflict with the right to contract privatey and / or publicly. The government is in the PUBLIC, so what I was talking about means that they need to follow certain rules. They are not in the private. The government needs another corporation to interact with, something in the PUBLIC, like a name that they issued someone at birth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post
In fact, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with contracts at all. Are you saying that people in the government don't follow the same rules as the rest of us?
(some people in government don't follow the rules, agreed. stone clad fact.)
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2012, 09:15 PM   #52
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Originally Posted by britishnick View Post
We all have a duty to try and resolve our disagreements / afairs PRIVATELY before resorting to going to a PUBLIC hearing to get it sorted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlord View Post
Do you believe this is a requirement of the de facto law, or is this a requirement of freeman philosophy?
I think we have a duty to be responsible for our own actions and not act like some whining child throwing all our toys out of the prams if something doesn't go our way...

I think it's the actions of a responsible, mature, honourable man who attempts to resolve issues PRIVATELY before placing a burden on the PUBLIC. Don't you?



Quote:
Originally Posted by jlord View Post
According to your view then the court must get the private person to enter the public realm before they can punish the person?
One of my views... If they want to punish them for breaking a public law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlord View Post
How would your reasoning apply to a situation where a person doesn't attend court at all and gets convicted and punished without ever setting foot inside a court room or responding in any other way that would bring them into the public realm?
From my current understanding the judge / magistrate temporarily takes on role as trustee for the PERSON/NAME/GOVT issied PUBLIC ID TAG... and decides if they've been bad. Given that they are not there to ACT AS the NAME then they're gunna lose I'd have thought...

unless of course they've sent in their paperwork in advance to the private part of the court, and as long as the paperwork shows that there is a private agreement then he should win (potentially)

The paperwork would need to be something like a 3 step process to the DVLA or Transport Secretary Conditionally accepting their offer to be punished. Condition being that the living man was ACTING AS the NAME at the time of the alleged OFFENCE... and proabbly some other conditions too. ending with something like if you fail to respond within teh 21 days / 7 days then you tacitly agree that there is no offfence and you will cease and desist.

I'd assume that the Transport sec wouldnt' provide any proof of such a thing so accoridng to my current understanding of contract law there would be a PRIVATE contract between the parties. Copies of this could then be sent PRIAVETLY to the court chambers to show that there is no controversy or jurisdiction.
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-03-2012, 10:10 PM   #53
jlord
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by britishnick View Post
I think we have a duty to be responsible for our own actions and not act like some whining child throwing all our toys out of the prams if something doesn't go our way...

I think it's the actions of a responsible, mature, honourable man who attempts to resolve issues PRIVATELY before placing a burden on the PUBLIC. Don't you?
Well there is no legal duty to resolve disputes in this way according to the de facto legal system. From a moral standpoint it makes sense to try to do things this way. But that's why I am asking whether you are saying this is a legal duty under the de facto system, or a moral duty of some kind.


Quote:
From my current understanding the judge / magistrate temporarily takes on role as trustee for the PERSON/NAME/GOVT issied PUBLIC ID TAG... and decides if they've been bad. Given that they are not there to ACT AS the NAME then they're gunna lose I'd have thought...
But doesn't this contradict what you said immediately above where you agreed that the court must get the private person to enter the public realm before they can punish him? Here they are just deciding to become his temporary trustee with seemingly no need to get the private person to do anything to enter the public realm.

Quote:
unless of course they've sent in their paperwork in advance to the private part of the court, and as long as the paperwork shows that there is a private agreement then he should win (potentially)
So then in your view the court would have to ensure that there are no private agreements in existence before they could punish the person?

Quote:
The paperwork would need to be something like a 3 step process to the DVLA or Transport Secretary Conditionally accepting their offer to be punished. Condition being that the living man was ACTING AS the NAME at the time of the alleged OFFENCE... and proabbly some other conditions too. ending with something like if you fail to respond within teh 21 days / 7 days then you tacitly agree that there is no offfence and you will cease and desist.

I'd assume that the Transport sec wouldnt' provide any proof of such a thing so accoridng to my current understanding of contract law there would be a PRIVATE contract between the parties.
According to my understanding of contract law (which is based on the de facto courts rulings) none of this would constitute a contract at all. It doesn't meet any of the normal elements of a contract, offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to be obund, etc. How do you satisfy these elements under contract law?

Quote:
Copies of this could then be sent PRIAVETLY to the court chambers to show that there is no controversy or jurisdiction
Do you know of any instance where a de facto court has recognized such a private contract, or even any cases where the court has made any inquiries about whether one exists? If this is necessary to get a conviction then it should be an issue in every case as to whether the accused has entered into a private contract or not.
jlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2012, 08:21 AM   #54
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlord View Post
Well there is no legal duty to resolve disputes in this way according to the de facto legal system. From a moral standpoint it makes sense to try to do things this way. But that's why I am asking whether you are saying this is a legal duty under the de facto system, or a moral duty of some kind.
moral.
As far as I can tell there's no legal duty to sort things out privately before accepting a public benifit, but this action would only serve to confirm that this man is actually a child in need of a nanny.




Quote:
Originally Posted by jlord View Post
But doesn't this contradict what you said immediately above where you agreed that the court must get the private person to enter the public realm before they can punish him? Here they are just deciding to become his temporary trustee with seemingly no need to get the private person to do anything to enter the public realm.
It does contradict in a way, unless the judge can be a trustee of the name in the absence of the man who;s name it 'is'. To clarify I meant that as the man is not there to ACT as the name, the judge can do it for him.

It might be nawty or it might be some trust law thing... but as far as I can tell the name is a state created trust so I'd have thought they have written something in their trust law about them being able to bring it in to the public relm if the man isnt' there, not sure. It might well depend upon the mans ability to steer his good ship throguh the seas, if he's acting like a child then perhaps they take over, but if he is able to conduct himself with honour then there's no way they could justify taking over his ship.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jlord View Post
So then in your view the court would have to ensure that there are no private agreements in existence before they could punish the person?
no. There would have to be a specific private agreement in order to avoid punishment I think. i.e. that the rule they are trying to enforce does not apply in some way. The "court" would only be able to get involved if both parties went in to the public. as far as I can tell the court is perfectly well equipt to TRY and get the man to go in to the public relm, but ultimately it is the mans choice. He must act in honour to stay private though...



Quote:
Originally Posted by jlord View Post
According to my understanding of contract law (which is based on the de facto courts rulings) none of this would constitute a contract at all. It doesn't meet any of the normal elements of a contract, offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to be obund, etc. How do you satisfy these elements under contract law?
Like I said this is my current understanding... The Transport Sec (or whoever) makes an offfer, then it's conditionaly accepted by the man up proof of this and that within a time frame. As long as it's writen correctly in the notices - Failure to respond within the time frame constitutes agreement to the mans terms (the counter offer / conditional acceptance) of somethingliek the freedom to travel freely without govt interference. The mans paperwork would point to this and the transport sec wouldn't have any agreement at all to their terms becuase the counter offer was laid over their and tacitly agreed to.
Also worth noting that if your understanding of contract law is based on (PUBLIC) court rulings then it may not include the seperation of public and private matters, as all your understanding comes from matters that have already transfer from private to public [which is what I'm saying is the point where everything changes]. Visa Versa for me, we are coming at it with different eyes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jlord View Post
Do you know of any instance where a de facto court has recognized such a private contract, or even any cases where the court has made any inquiries about whether one exists? If this is necessary to get a conviction then it should be an issue in every case as to whether the accused has entered into a private contract or not.
I think this is the point - A (PUBLIC) court CANNOT recognise a PRIVATE agreement if that agreement is to remain private. The judge might be able to look at it in his PRIVATE chambers, but as soon as it goes in to the PUBLIC court then everything is in the PUBLIC.
but no I don't know of any recorded instances of a court recognising a priavte contract that I can provide for you.
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2012, 10:33 AM   #55
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by britishnick View Post





Also worth noting that if your understanding of contract law is based on (PUBLIC) court rulings then it may not include the seperation of public and private matters, as all your understanding comes from matters that have already transfer from private to public [which is what I'm saying is the point where everything changes]. Visa Versa for me, we are coming at it with different eyes.
Wow. So you are saying there is an alternative contract law to the law of contract that is decided by the courts? A contract law whose principles do not stem from previous decisions? Citing previous decisions would have no authority when deciding cases that involve this alternative contract law? Where can I read about this other contract law? I really wish to read the rules and to learn how these rules have been made if not by court decisions. I really wish to see evidence that this other contract law even exists and who uses it.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2012, 11:00 AM   #56
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
Wow. So you are saying there is an alternative contract law to the law of contract that is decided by the courts? A contract law whose principles do not stem from previous decisions? Citing previous decisions would have no authority when deciding cases that involve this alternative contract law? Where can I read about this other contract law? I really wish to read the rules and to learn how these rules have been made if not by court decisions. I really wish to see evidence that this other contract law even exists and who uses it.
I would also like to know this.

If contracts are the only law what enforces the contracts? FE say a companies terms and conditions are unfair or deliberately misleading a court can rule it unfair and such contracts are subject to the regulations of the office of fair trading .

Also where do contracts that are illegal fit into this? if i was a landlord that made a contract (lease) with my tenant that breached their rights the contract would be void.

The flaw with the premise that contracts make the law is that any one with expert knowledge of contract law could take advantage of anyone who does not have knowledge.

Contracts do not create law rather contracts are enforced by law.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law

Last edited by jon galt; 27-03-2012 at 11:03 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2012, 11:16 AM   #57
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
Wow. So you are saying there is an alternative contract law to the law of contract that is decided by the courts? A contract law whose principles do not stem from previous decisions? Citing previous decisions would have no authority when deciding cases that involve this alternative contract law? Where can I read about this other contract law? I really wish to read the rules and to learn how these rules have been made if not by court decisions. I really wish to see evidence that this other contract law even exists and who uses it.
no, that's what you're saing... I think? Citing previous rulings on court cases regarding contracts has no bearing on a whether a seperate contract is in exsistance as far as I'm aware.

For the full, in depth explanation of what I'm attempting to shine a light on, I highly recommend heading to the www.creditorsincommerce.com website and listening to the audio, watching the vids and reading the material.
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2012, 11:27 AM   #58
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
I would also like to know this.

If contracts are the only law what enforces the contracts?
men and women ACTING in a certain capacity enforce contracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
FE say a companies terms and conditions are unfair or deliberately misleading a court can rule it unfair and such contracts are subject to the regulations of the office of fair trading .
A company is a government created fiction and therefore bound by the governments rules is it not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
Also where do contracts that are illegal fit into this? if i was a landlord that made a contract (lease) with my tenant that breached their rights the contract would be void.
Breached which rights? is it not possible to contract away rights? Can I not contract away my right to feed myself by contracting with the government to get a fishing licence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
The flaw with the premise that contracts make the law is that any one with expert knowledge of contract law could take advantage of anyone who does not have knowledge.
Flaw? People who do not understand that everything is conracts are at a disadvantage, I agree. Which is probably why there no such teachings at school. It's much easier to trick people in to contracting if they do not understand the principals at work isn't it? If a group of people desired control over people it would make it easier if they kept the law of contracts out of their knowledge wouldn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
Contracts do not create law rather contracts are enforced by law.
My understanding of what 'Law' is changes, I think there are different types of law. The whole purpose of a contract is to create a law between 2 or more parties is it not?

Contracts are a law of their own.

I'm not sure if I have a contract with gravity, but I see it as a type of law. Perhaps I could find a way to recind that conract and start flying ;-)
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2012, 01:56 PM   #59
aulus agerius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by britishnick View Post
Like I said this is my current understanding... The Transport Sec (or whoever) makes an offfer, then it's conditionaly accepted by the man up proof of this and that within a time frame. As long as it's writen correctly in the notices - Failure to respond within the time frame constitutes agreement to the mans terms (the counter offer / conditional acceptance) of somethingliek the freedom to travel freely without govt interference. The mans paperwork would point to this and the transport sec wouldn't have any agreement at all to their terms becuase the counter offer was laid over their and tacitly agreed to.
Also worth noting that if your understanding of contract law is based on (PUBLIC) court rulings then it may not include the seperation of public and private matters, as all your understanding comes from matters that have already transfer from private to public [which is what I'm saying is the point where everything changes]. Visa Versa for me, we are coming at it with different eyes.
I agree with Rumple, you are claiming the existence of a distinct "freeman" law of contracts which differs from the conventional law of contracts (i.e. the body of law which determines when a contract has been formed, breached, performed, frustrated and terminated). It is apparent that your concept of contract law differs from the current law: In you example you talk about conditional acceptance. In conventional contract law an offer can either be accepted or rejected. A counter-offer is a rejection of the offer. For the offer to be accepted, the acceptance must conform to the terms of the offer. So even supposing that a threat to take you to court for driving without insurance were an offer, a "conditional acceptance" would not be a valid acceptance: it would be a counter-offer because it does not conform to the offer. In order for the counter-offer to be accepted there must be a corresponding acceptance. The mere silence of the department of transport, in your example, is not acceptance.

So, for your example to work, there has to be some different body of contract law in which there are some fundamental differences about how contracts are formed.

To say that this freeman contract-law is not enforced by the public courts is tantamount to saying that it is no more than freeman philosophy. Even to meet your minimum claim, that the public courts cannot try a matter in which there is a "private" contract (according to freeman contract-law), the public courts would have to be able to determine the existence of such a contract, which in turn would mean knowing and enforcing the freeman contract law. There is no evidence whatsoever that the courts do this. There is no evidence, beyond the comments of various freemen, on what the content of this freeman contract-law is. As you have pointed out freemen are not a hive-mind and their comments are not always consistent.

On the issue of oppression through contract, I don't agree. One doesn't need to trick someone into signing a bad contract. People often do so voluntarily, because they have no real choice. The reality is that if you want a job, you're probably going to agree to whatever terms your prospective employer demands. Ditto with bank accounts, energy services, internet, telephone etc. But in order to avoid any problems you may have with companies already being in the public domain, lets look at a simpler situation:
Poor Guy is poor and needs money to fix the leaking roof of his house. No one he knows can lend him enough money to fix the roof, so he asks Rich Guy to lend him the money. Rich Guy offers to lend the money at an APR of 1000%, on the condition that, if Poor Guy defaults, Rich Guy will be entitled to seize Poor Guy's house and possessions and imprison Poor Guy in his cellar until someone comes up with the money to pay the remaining debt, with interest. Poor Guy feels he has no choice but to agree in order to get the roof fixed. Besides, he's sure that he won't default on the loan and will pay it back aright.
Then, Poor Guy looses his job and defaults on the loan.
You see the problem: Poor Guy has agreed to some really awful contract terms. Can Rich Guy really seize the house and imprison the debtor? In conventional contract law he certainly can't, because conventional contract law has been modified over the years by statute to reduce the potential for abusive contracts. But what about freeman "private" contract law?
aulus agerius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2012, 01:59 PM   #60
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by britishnick View Post
men and women ACTING in a certain capacity enforce contracts.
under what authority? and according to fmotl you need to consent to any authority.

Quote:

Breached which rights? is it not possible to contract away rights? Can I not contract away my right to feed myself by contracting with the government to get a fishing licence
rights only exist in law.
for example a tenancy agreement that said the landlord can evict you with out notice would breach the tenants rights and would not be enforced by law
Quote:
Flaw? People who do not understand that everything is conracts are at a disadvantage, I agree. Which is probably why there no such teachings at school. It's much easier to trick people in to contracting if they do not understand the principals at work isn't it? If a group of people desired control over people it would make it easier if they kept the law of contracts out of their knowledge wouldn't it?
i think teaching school kids the complexities of contract law would take a lot away from their other studies. which is why people tend to specialize in a subject at uni. not to mention university is free in my country and any one is able to study law
Quote:
I think there are different types of law.
my point exactly contracts are not the source of law

Quote:
I'm not sure if I have a contract with gravity, but I see it as a type of law. Perhaps I could find a way to recind that conract and start flying ;-)
gravity does not obey any laws, our laws of physics are merely descriptions that best describe observation.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law

Last edited by jon galt; 27-03-2012 at 08:21 PM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:00 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.