PDA

View Full Version : Question: At what point does a man gives up or waives his Natural Rights?



BillBoard
21st May 2010, 01:23 PM
I want to start this simple, and be fully able to comprehend it, so I may be able to defend my rights.

Let us say, hypothetically, one is a man with no political unions.

You are sitting in a public park bench, when suddenly another man hurts your foot.

Let us say that he was riding his motorcycle, ran into you and broke your ankle.

Since you have no political unions, you do not have State issued identification cards or anything.

Can you sue this other man that has hurt you to recover damages?

I want to do a bare bones recovery on this type of scenario. I know under the common law you can sue the man that hurt you as a way to obtain remedy for your damages, as long as you can identify him you can have him summoned into court to answer your complaint.

This is all I have for now, as I give it more thought and can be more specific about what I mean, I will update this post.

BillBoard
21st May 2010, 01:30 PM
Re: the question posted on the subject line.

I wanted to ask, are the courts open to him to seek a remedy?

Does he lose any rights, or waive any rights by the mere action of seeking assistance from the courts in trying to obtain remedy?

Libertarian_Guard
21st May 2010, 01:37 PM
First you would have a claim for your damages against his insurance.

If he does not have insurance, you have a claim against the individual.

You win your case against the driver, but he has no assets to put a lien on, so you're out of luck. Can't get water from a stone either.

Did you have your own insurance? If not, you're stuck with medical, lost work time and lawyers & court costs.

What else did you want to hear?

You can't get something from nothing. So there is no sense chasing after nothing.

Book
21st May 2010, 01:38 PM
Since you have no political unions, you do not have State issued identification cards or anything.



You don't acknowledge the "State" until you need the "State" to do something on your behalf?

???

kregener
21st May 2010, 01:39 PM
Yes, you can seek redress.

Libertarian_Guard
21st May 2010, 01:40 PM
He will lose his drivers license for a period of time.

BillBoard
21st May 2010, 02:16 PM
First you would have a claim for your damages against his insurance.

If he does not have insurance, you have a claim against the individual.

You win your case against the driver, but he has no assets to put a lien on, so you're out of luck. Can't get water from a stone either.

Did you have your own insurance? If not, you're stuck with medical, lost work time and lawyers & court costs.

What else did you want to hear?

You can't get something from nothing. So there is no sense chasing after nothing.


Hi Libertarian_Guard.

I am afraid you are getting way ahead of the exercise.

I mean, before getting insurance involved, think about just two men in their Natural capacities. You do not know who he is and he does not know who you are.

In the case illustrated above, although both men are not malicious and let us say honorable, they cannot agree what is the proper amount in compensation. So can the injure man, sue the other man? I think yes. But how does he bring the man that caused the injury into court? How can he ID him without detaining him until the man that caused the injury has been identified?

Libertarian_Guard
21st May 2010, 03:38 PM
BillBoard

I'm very bad with playing out hypothetical situations that have no basis in reality.

On the one hand, you're almost talking about something akin to a hit and run. Yet you're saying that they are honorable?

A few years I slowly sideswiped a parked car. After locating the owner I identified myself and asked the other party NOT to involve auto insurance, as I would rather pay it myself without raising my rates. He agreed and got one quote that I figured was about $300 higher than it should have been. I paid it and that was that.

In my mind, the one that causes the trouble can't nickel and dime the party seeking restitution.

BillBoard
22nd May 2010, 07:30 AM
BillBoard

I'm very bad with playing out hypothetical situations that have no basis in reality.

On the one hand, you're almost talking about something akin to a hit and run. Yet you're saying that they are honorable?

A few years I slowly sideswiped a parked car. After locating the owner I identified myself and asked the other party NOT to involve auto insurance, as I would rather pay it myself without raising my rates. He agreed and got one quote that I figured was about $300 higher than it should have been. I paid it and that was that.

In my mind, the one that causes the trouble can't nickel and dime the party seeking restitution.



Libertarian_Guard:

Your post made me step back and clear the cob webs out of my head.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, which wasn't for me until I read your post.

If two honorable men have a dispute, they would resolve through an honorable solution.

However, the trouble arises when one or more parties are not honorable.

Now, I can understand how grievous a hit and run is!

jetgraphics
22nd May 2010, 04:34 PM
Since you have no political unions, you do not have State issued identification cards or anything.



You don't acknowledge the "State" until you need the "State" to do something on your behalf?

???


Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted to (a) secure rights, and (b) govern those who consent.

If the man in question doesn't consent to be governed, it doesn't affect his legal ability to petition for justice in securing his rights.

The problem, post 1933, is that no one has lawful money to pay claims. Federal Reserve notes have no par value (worthless), and are only tender upon enumerated "human resources" pledged as collateral on the public debt.

Any settlement paid with FRNs would necessitate perpetuating a fraud upon the non-consenting free man.

Bigjon
23rd May 2010, 11:12 AM
study the material at this site

http://www.1215.org/

jetgraphics
25th May 2010, 09:12 AM
study the material at this site

http://www.1215.org/


I am not convinced that they are on point.
All citizens, "C" or "c", are subjects.
All citizens waive inalienable rights.
Proof: the militia (1777).
By definition, all male CITIZENS are obligated to train, fight, and if necessary, die, on command. The Supreme court ruled that militia duty is not involuntary servitude. Ergo, citizenship must be voluntary.
{The Draft Dodgers of the 1960s apparently did not know that they had volunteered - go figure.}

Bigjon
25th May 2010, 10:36 AM
study the material at this site

http://www.1215.org/


I am not convinced that they are on point.
All citizens, "C" or "c", are subjects.
All citizens waive inalienable rights.
Proof: the militia (1777).
By definition, all male CITIZENS are obligated to train, fight, and if necessary, die, on command. The Supreme court ruled that militia duty is not involuntary servitude. Ergo, citizenship must be voluntary.
{The Draft Dodgers of the 1960s apparently did not know that they had volunteered - go figure.}


Do you have a legal precedent?

jetgraphics
25th May 2010, 12:39 PM
study the material at this site

http://www.1215.org/


I am not convinced that they are on point.
All citizens, "C" or "c", are subjects.
All citizens waive inalienable rights.
Proof: the militia (1777).
By definition, all male CITIZENS are obligated to train, fight, and if necessary, die, on command. The Supreme court ruled that militia duty is not involuntary servitude. Ergo, citizenship must be voluntary.
{The Draft Dodgers of the 1960s apparently did not know that they had volunteered - go figure.}


Do you have a legal precedent?

To which point?
Militia?
Subjugation of citizenry?
Or Supreme court cite?

http://gold-silver.us/forum/constitution-and-law/both-wings-of-the-same-vulture/msg14448/#msg14448

BillBoard
28th May 2010, 05:00 AM
JetGraphics:

All I am trying to do is to learn and comprehend how to exercise my rights without getting killed.

Do you have any practical knowledge you want to share?

iOWNme
29th May 2010, 07:44 AM
He doesnt give them up.

Can you find 1 person who can tell you "This is the day i gave up my creator endowed rights"....No. It is done maliciously and fraudulently.


But then i could argue that i have never given up those rights. I just havent chosen to defend them. (My fault)


Remember, under the Common law you must claim your rights yourself. (not a warden of the State = using an attorney). Next everything revolves around affidavits, oath or affirmation, and or contract, usually using the Public record, instead of the courts. Using the Maxims of Law is the very foundation of our system...

I would suggest becoming very comfortable with these:

Maxims of Law (http://ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html)


Accidents and Injury

# An act of God does wrong to no one.
# The act of God does no injury; that is, no one is responsible for inevitable accidents.
# No one is held to answer for the effects of a superior force, or of an accident, unless his own fault has contributed.
# The execution of law does no injury.
# An action is not given to one who is not injured.
# An action is not given to him who has received no damages.
# He who suffers a damage by his own fault, has no right to complain.
# Mistakes, neglect, or misconducts are not to be regarded as accidents.
# Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing; is presumed to give.
# What one has paid knowing it not to be due, with the intention of recovering it back, he cannot recover back. [If the IRS accuses you of owing them money, if you want to go to court to dispute it, you must pay them in full what they demand and then sue them to get it back. Which places the burden of proof upon the accused rather than the accuser]
# No man ought to be burdened in consequence of another's act.
# There may be damage or injury inflicted without any act of injustice.
# Not every loss produces and injury.
# A personal injury does not receive satisfaction from a future course of proceeding.
# Wrong is wiped out by reconciliation.
# An injury is extinguished by the forgiveness or reconcilement of the party injured. [Luke 17:3-4, 2 Corinthians 2:7-8]


PEACE

BillBoard
29th May 2010, 07:16 PM
Sui Juris:

Thank you for that insightful post!



Remember, under the Common law you must claim your rights yourself. (not a warden of the State = using an attorney). Next everything revolves around affidavits, oath or affirmation, and or contract, usually using the Public record, instead of the courts. Using the Maxims of Law is the very foundation of our system...

You brought to my mind what my dad used to say when I was a child: " In Law: The Legal Game is all about serving Notice."

iOWNme
29th May 2010, 07:52 PM
Sui Juris:

Thank you for that insightful post!



Remember, under the Common law you must claim your rights yourself. (not a warden of the State = using an attorney). Next everything revolves around affidavits, oath or affirmation, and or contract, usually using the Public record, instead of the courts. Using the Maxims of Law is the very foundation of our system...

You brought to my mind what my dad used to say when I was a child: " In Law: The Legal Game is all about serving Notice."




Smart man.....


I say: "In the legal world, if it doesnt exist on paper, then it doesnt exist".

BillBoard
30th May 2010, 01:57 PM
A person is one of three things: a word, an action or representation.



Could you please expand on the above? I would like to better understand what you mean. Any good books you may recommend?

BillBoard
30th May 2010, 03:00 PM
Thank you Palani.

jetgraphics
2nd June 2010, 09:43 PM
JetGraphics:

All I am trying to do is to learn and comprehend how to exercise my rights without getting killed.

Do you have any practical knowledge you want to share?

"All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent."
Or as stated in the Declaration of Independence:
Job #1 = secure rights ,
Job #2 = govern those who consent.

It appears that consent waives job #1.
Proof is found in the definition of the militia and the duty to train, fight, and die, if necessary, on command.
Since only CITIZENS are so obligated, and the Supreme court ruled that militia duty is NOT involuntary servitude, then it follows that CITIZENSHIP is a voluntary election on our part.

Restating, we are born with inalienable rights to life, liberty, property ownership, and so forth. But are swiftly tricked into surrendering those rights in exchange for privileges of "membership" in "the club".

Discovering all the ways that each individual has surrendered his rights, by consent, is beyond the scope of this topic. But a good rule of thumb - if the government wants you to sign anything - it probably involves a loss of a right - by consent.

When there are no property rights to protect, all that remains is policy.

Hope that helps.