They are searching for some legal procedure, some great air-tight line of reasoning, some great legal brief that just ties it all together, to throw at the IRS and Traffic Court judges. These folks are missing the boat, so to speak, all together: Because the origin to their frustration lies in invisible contracts, and you become a party to those invisible contracts because you accepted some benefit someone else was conditionally offering. Remember that your use of those Government highways is your acceptance of a special benefit that Government created and offers, and since reciprocity is expected back in return, contracts are in effect: Automatic and invisible. Another way to get out of a State asserted contract is to be a Federal Employee and start using those highways while engaged in Federal work.
|Published (Last):||19 November 2013|
|PDF File Size:||19.55 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.73 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
They are searching for some legal procedure, some great air-tight line of reasoning, some great legal brief that just ties it all together, to throw at the IRS and Traffic Court judges. These folks are missing the boat, so to speak, all together: Because the origin to their frustration lies in invisible contracts, and you become a party to those invisible contracts because you accepted some benefit someone else was conditionally offering.
Remember that your use of those Government highways is your acceptance of a special benefit that Government created and offers, and since reciprocity is expected back in return, contracts are in effect: Automatic and invisible. Another way to get out of a State asserted contract is to be a Federal Employee and start using those highways while engaged in Federal work. In an Opinion written by Mr. Justice Holmes, the Supreme Court once ruled that it is not Constitutionally permissible for a State to throw a slice of regulatory LEX at a Federal Employee driving a motor vehicle on State highways while on Federal business.
That was decided long ago by Mr. HART [Pet. But even the most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct of a Marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the Laws of the United States.
Yes, working for the King does have some peripheral benefits. By comparison, the Framers were also negligent in making sure the First Amendment was applicable to all potential future forms of communications media, that an organic technology would bring forth some day, because the First Amendment, frozen in the hard paper media technology of the s, does not apply to restrain the establishment of a regulatory speech and content-supervised jurisdiction over television and radio media propagating through the electromagnetic spectrum, that the King grabbed for himself by his RADIO ACT OF Based on this factual premise of frequency scarcity, the radiant liberating qualities of the First Amendment was held not to apply here; but actually the King, as usual, was lying in his arguments to the Supreme Court in justification of this grab [but a successful like requires two, the Supreme Court fell for it].
Down to the present day, there has been nothing but a never ending organic enlargement of the number of frequencies used since the inception of radio transmission, because an organic technology has reduced bandwidth frequencies through increasingly more sophisticated transmission and reception hardware.
The frequency bandwidth technology claimed to have been limited in number has, as a factual matter, simply grown to accommodate the demand. Not only are higher frequencies now being used, but several channels are now scrambled onto one frequency bandwidth with multiplexing and demultiplexing taking place at the points of transmission and reception. Therefore, with a regulatory jurisdiction nestled in place, the Federal Communications Commission now has broad authority to determine the right of access to broadcasting.
ABC, U. FCC, U. Nowhere did our Fathers require the application of the restrainment Principles found in the Bill of Rights to be applied to technology then not existing, even though in the printing press was a relatively recent technological development.
One might think that even in , something might come along not contemplated by the word "Press" in the First Amendment -- but no, our Fathers did not provide for that. UNITED STATES, dissenting Justice Louis Brandeis had a few words to say about the inherently organic nature of Constitutions: "Legislation, both statutory and constitutional, is enacted, it is true, from an experience of evils, but its general language should not, therefore, be necessarily confined to the form that evil had theretofore taken.
Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes. Therefore, a principle to be vital must be capable must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth.
This is particularly true of constitutions. They are not ephemeral enactments [meaning short-lived or transient], designed to meet passing occasions. In the application of a constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only what has been, but of what may be. Under any other rule indeed, a constitution would indeed be as easy of application as it would be deficient in efficacy and power. Its general principles would have little value and be converted by precedent into lifeless and impotent formulas.
Rights declared in words might be lost in reality. In another case, Justice Brandeis then continued on in his own words: "Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet.
The progress of science in furnishing the Government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wiretapping. Ways may someday be developed by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts, and emotions.
The uses of new technologies are so hard to detect that even if the courts articulate clear-cut rules, enforcing them will be unusually difficult.
Yet, our experience with surveillance technology teaches, if we are to preserve the freedoms the Framers sought to guarantee, we must guard against much more than the specific evils they feared. The emerging wizardries of chemotherapy, psychosurgery, behavior modification and genetic engineering, with their "clockwork orange" overtones, might seem an unlikely source of moral dilemmas.
But like all technological advances, these developments carry promise as well as peril. There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies, as they may happen; and as these are When you operate a motor vehicle over those state highways, you have accepted special benefits created and offered by the state, and so when accepting juristic benefits, in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, then there lies a contract -- quietly, invisible, automatic, and rather strong.
The relational non-Commercial, non-Resident, and non-Citizen status of the operator off of the highway is irrelevant in attaching contract liability by accepting the use of the benefit of Government highways. In a highway Tort Law liability setting, this Doctrine would surface where a guest who accepts a gratuitous ride in your car is deemed to have assumed the risk of any defects that exist in your car that were unknown to you.
This Doctrine is related to a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that mandates that there has to come some point in time, regardless of any other mitigating element present in the factual setting, that requires to pull that thumb of theirs out of their mouths and start taking some responsibility for the uncontrolled knocks and circumstantial aberrations that make their infrequent appearance in our lives down here, as they knowingly entered into risk environment situations [like driving on highways] where they knew something adverse could happen, and yet, they went right ahead and took the ride any way.
If Government can force a licensing environment over you, they will and if they cannot, they will not; and then they will remain silent on their legal and practical disabilities. Criminals too operate in similar ways: Imagine yourself being at a ski resort; there are 60 pairs of skis and poles leaning against a rack; and along comes a criminal casing the place over.
Fifty pairs of the skis are locked down, and 10 of them are not. If you were a criminal, what would you do? Criminals take what they can take, and leave behind that which is relatively too difficult to grab and make off with. This process is normally used in such areas like probing for the probable subject reaction to one more turn of the screws, or in estimating the likelihood of actually achieving, and then getting away with, some desired damages somewhere -- some murder, some revolution, or some war, conquest, asset grab, or famine being manufactured someplace.
Gremlins have had a few words to say about structural risk analysis and assessment I selected this discourse due to its Highway setting and the political overtones it brings to light : "There is no such thing as a risk free society. There is no point in getting into a panic about the risks of life until you have [made comparisons]. Some 7, people are killed and some , injured each year on the roads of Britain. Yet this perpetual carnage -- nearly 1, killed or injured every day -- generates no public outrage.
And then all the other goodies they have in mind for you, less unemployment, less inflation, less taxation, and increasing standard of living, fair shares for all I want to go faster than 50 miles per hour on all those marvelous motorways I paid for.
The results of risk accounting are surprising The answer to that Question lies within yourself. And just as Federal Judges can be competency deficient in scientific knowledge, thus rendering their judgments in that area prone to error, so too can they be, and in fact are, competency deficient in other areas as well, generating similar erroneous judgment results.
Sorry, Mr. Rehnquist, but there are many people who are questioning such a licensing requirement, and they have more than sufficient minimum legal authority, based on several THOUSAND State and Federal Court Opinions from a different era, as to warrant both a hearing and an extended Judicial response -- and not the snortations of a Judge who spent virtually his entire isolated life working for Government. I did not say that they are entitled to prevail.
Under some conditions, the amount and nature of relief damages that can be awarded under contracts is sensitive to the status of the contracts falling under an OBJECTIVE meeting of the minds test [meaning some type of an Adhesion or quasi-contract forced in whole or part on people is in effect]; or in the alternative, a SUBJECTIVE meeting of the minds [meaning a purely negotiated contract is in effect].
Costigan, 33 Harvard Law Review This is an important concept to understand with contracts. Remember that invisible contracts are in effect whenever benefits have been accepted and reciprocity is being expected back in return. They cite the Common Law Doctrine that: " Those Interstate Highways are special purpose limited use highways constructed along sealed corridors where any type of use limitation is purely discretionary by their Government owners. Government is not required to build those Interstate Highway s for you, so when they do so, they are built and offered for use on their terms.
Patriots have been silent on a judicial enlightenment analogy that should be made here, as some Patriots like to enlighten Judges on reasoning and Principles applicable to favorite Patriot factual setting confrontations. The Supreme Court has ruled that shopping center owners, who open up their premises for public ingress and egress, lose some of their property rights, i.
“Invisible Contracts” by George Mercier
Order of dismissal Feel free to visit Pacer and read more complaints filed by Mercier. Frankly, after reading one of his first complaints about bombing Paris , I immediately concluded he was nuts. Draw whatever conclusion you want; I have drawn the conclusion that he is a pothead suffering from delusions. Some believe that Mercier was either some judge or clerk of court.
Its contents are on the equivalent level of a Ph. It assumes that you have, at a bare minimum, a good working knowledge and understanding of law and legal concepts related to the Patriot Movement and its primary concerns and issues. It assumes that you have ALREADY passed through numerous mental barriers erected by society and our Rulers to lead you down blind alleys and dead ends, fighting worthless fights or just plain giving up and turning on the Boob Tube. It assumes that you are somewhat intelligent, and more importantly, in a "teachable state.