So, you think you are free and the government treats you right ...

[Bind]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=179368

Good old David Icke.  If we didn't have such a fine creator of conspiracy theories, we would have to invent him.

Yea Icke is out there with the lizard stuff, but alot of his other stuff hits close to home, even though Jordan Maxwell gave most of it to him.

The name game is lame. I think thats intentional disinformation to put the kibash on the sovereign movement.

The guy posted bail ?

would appear to be a contract as would be the paying of the fines ?

wonder if he had a license and registration (contracts).

[Hawker]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=179368

Good old David Icke.  If we didn't have such a fine creator of conspiracy theories, we would have to invent him.

Yea Icke is out there with the lizard stuff, but alot of his other stuff hits close to home, even though Jordan Maxwell gave most of it to him.

The name game is lame. I think thats intentional disinformation to put the kibash on the sovereign movement.

The guy posted bail ?

would appear to be a contract as would be the paying of the fines ?

wonder if he had a license and registration (contracts).

I am not sure you know what a contract is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

When you get bail, a man with a gun says "Pay up or I will chain you up."  A contract require "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Mutual_assent" and I'm sure you will agree with me that "mutual assent" is totally lacking from a bail arrangement.  Its also lacking from payment of fines where the man with the gun also says "Pay up or I will chain you up."

Maybe if you stop trying to reinterpret these things as contracts and accept them as acts of governance, it will make the legal process easier to understand.

[Bind]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=179368

Good old David Icke.  If we didn't have such a fine creator of conspiracy theories, we would have to invent him.

Yea Icke is out there with the lizard stuff, but alot of his other stuff hits close to home, even though Jordan Maxwell gave most of it to him.

The name game is lame. I think thats intentional disinformation to put the kibash on the sovereign movement.

The guy posted bail ?

would appear to be a contract as would be the paying of the fines ?

wonder if he had a license and registration (contracts).

I am not sure you know what a contract is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

When you get bail, a man with a gun says "Pay up or I will chain you up."  A contract require "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Mutual_assent" and I'm sure you will agree with me that "mutual assent" is totally lacking from a bail arrangement.  Its also lacking from payment of fines where the man with the gun also says "Pay up or I will chain you up."

Maybe if you stop trying to reinterpret these things as contracts and accept them as acts of governance, it will make the legal process easier to understand.

a contract is an agreement between parties that is intended to be enforceable by law.

surety bond is not telling a person, "pay up or I will chain you".

you are already chained up (in custody) and to get out of custody you have to AGREE to certain conditions stipulated by the state, whether its at the side of the road and you sign a ticket AGREEING to show up in court, or you are handcuffed at the magistrate AGREEING to show up later for court.

If that isnt an agreement/contract, I dont know what is. I deal with contracts daily. Its a contract, just like all the other agreements between a person and the state I mentioned previously.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I am not sure you know what a contract is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

When you get bail, a man with a gun says "Pay up or I will chain you up."  A contract require "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Mutual_assent" and I'm sure you will agree with me that "mutual assent" is totally lacking from a bail arrangement.  Its also lacking from payment of fines where the man with the gun also says "Pay up or I will chain you up."

Maybe if you stop trying to reinterpret these things as contracts and accept them as acts of governance, it will make the legal process easier to understand.

a contract is an agreement between parties that is intended to be enforceable by law.

surety bond is not telling a person, "pay up or I will chain you".

you are already chained up (in custody) and to get out of custody you have to AGREE to certain conditions stipulated by the state, whether its at the side of the road and you sign a ticket AGREEING to show up in court, or you are handcuffed at the magistrate AGREEING to show up later for court.

If that isnt an agreement/contract, I dont know what is. I deal with contracts daily. Its a contract, just like all the other agreements between a person and the state I mentioned previously.

An agreement where one person has a gun and will use it if the other person does not agree is not a contract.  Read it up.  

You are confusing yourself if you think that a judge who sets bail conditions is entering a contract with you.  He doesn't ask your agreement and even if you don't want bail, you get kicked out.

EDIT: you may be referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Released_on_recognizance which is an agreement you enter into?  Its one form of bail where you don't need someone to put up security.  Breach of the bail conditions is not considered a breach of contract

[Minsc]

thats where free flesh and blood sovereigns who go about it right seek and get their remedy.

if its not done correctly, you get in more trouble ... but then even with that there is ALWAYS a remedy. They can not deny you remedy from what I understand.

the police are the enforcers ... the overseers ... i expect nothing less ... the remedy is in court.

there are many successes. I dont like the freeman label .. i like to think of is as standing up for your sovereignty

I watch all these freeman videos on the internet.  Freeman are using their own unique legal theories that vary from one to the other.  And they're just words.  What matters is whether a judge will back them up.  If you can get a legal precedent than the judge will have to back it up, but they don't do that.  They just interpret the law themselves and do things like interpreting "understand" as "stand under" which the court doesn't do.

Freemen would do better forming political parties and electing politicians that serve their interests.  Also they need to form legal assistance groups to find out what actually works in court, it's not right or wrong, it's what you can get the judges to agree with.

[Bind]

An agreement where one person has a gun and will use it if the other person does not agree is not a contract.  Read it up.  

You are confusing yourself if you think that a judge who sets bail conditions is entering a contract with you.  He doesn't ask your agreement and even if you don't want bail, you get kicked out.

EDIT: you may be referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Released_on_recognizance which is an agreement you enter into?  Its one form of bail where you don't need someone to put up security.  Breach of the bail conditions is not considered a breach of contract

Well, I do not know where else to go with this other than to say the gun is not relevent. The state does not care if you agree to surety requirements at all, so there is no force, no coercion, and no ambiguity. If you want something from someone else, there is an agreement to some terms, either vocal or written. If you do not want something, you do not enter into that agreement. You are assuming everyone wants to be free. I want to be free as well. However there are some who commit crimes just to have food to eat and a place to live and sleep in a moderate climate, so they never enter into a surety bond contract, so where is the force and coercion?

[Hawker]

An agreement where one person has a gun and will use it if the other person does not agree is not a contract.  Read it up.  

You are confusing yourself if you think that a judge who sets bail conditions is entering a contract with you.  He doesn't ask your agreement and even if you don't want bail, you get kicked out.

EDIT: you may be referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Released_on_recognizance which is an agreement you enter into?  Its one form of bail where you don't need someone to put up security.  Breach of the bail conditions is not considered a breach of contract

Well, I do not know where else to go with this other than to say the gun is not relevent. The state does not care if you agree to surety requirements at all, so there is no force, no coercion, and no ambiguity. If you want something from someone else, there is an agreement to some terms, either vocal or written. If you do not want something, you do not enter into that agreement. You are assuming everyone wants to be free. I want to be free as well. However there are some who commit crimes just to have food to eat and a place to live and sleep in a moderate climate, so they never enter into a surety bond contract, so where is the force and coercion?

You are all over the place logically.  "The state does not care if you agree to surety requirements at all, so there is no force, no coercion, and no ambiguity"

In simple terms, if you don't do what they say, they kill you or lock you up.  That is coercion.  There is no definition of coercion that is not covered by a man with a gun saying "Do as I say or I shoot."

So please stop calling that a contract.

[Bind]

You are all over the place logically.  "The state does not care if you agree to surety requirements at all, so there is no force, no coercion, and no ambiguity"

In simple terms, if you don't do what they say, they kill you or lock you up.  That is coercion.  There is no definition of coercion that is not covered by a man with a gun saying "Do as I say or I shoot."

So please stop calling that a contract.

I never said I agreed with government. I said that bail is an agreement to appear in front of the judge (sometimes with additional stipulations you must agree to or not be released). An agreement is a contract. Plain and simple.

I think you should go to some bailbonds and courthouse websites and look for yourself or talk to your attorney to add some clarity.

[Hawker]

You are all over the place logically.  "The state does not care if you agree to surety requirements at all, so there is no force, no coercion, and no ambiguity"

In simple terms, if you don't do what they say, they kill you or lock you up.  That is coercion.  There is no definition of coercion that is not covered by a man with a gun saying "Do as I say or I shoot."

So please stop calling that a contract.

I never said I agreed with government. I said that bail is an agreement to appear in front of the judge (sometimes with additional stipulations you must agree to or not be released). An agreement is a contract. Plain and simple.

I think you should go to some bailbonds and courthouse websites and look for yourself or talk to your attorney to add some clarity.

Agreement under duress is not a contract.  Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

[Bind]

You might feel that you under duress, but you have the free choice of whether or not you enter into a bail contract. There is no "compulsion by threat, force, coercion, restraint nor constraint" applied to you for the purpose of entering into that contract. You are in custody because the state has accused you of doing soemthing illegal. You are not in custody for refusing to enter into a bail contract, even though you remain in custody if you do not.

The court could care less if you enter into a bail contract. Either way they get their pound of flesh. Most likely they prefer you not enter into a bail contract because thats more money  for the state, more prisoners, more lobbying for more public funds to pay for more corrections infrastructure, services, supplies, and personel.

One point is that you are in custody.

The other point is that you have the FREE CHOICE to get out of custody or stay in custody until the preceedings ocurr. Ergo, no duress, coercion, or force concerning the contract.

The situation of being IN CUSTODY is what what would be causing the duress you speak of.

Now if they threatened, coerced, or held you in prison specifically because you refused to enter into a bail contract, and/or until you did enter into a bail contract for the sole purpose of entering into a bail contract, THEN that would be duress and an unlawful contract/action, because that would be forcing you to enter into contract. You have every right to sit in jail instead of entering into a bail contract.

[Hawker]

Someone who enters into a bail contract is not under duress. You might feel that you under duress, ...snip...

There is no such thing as a bail contract.

This is getting sad.  Please read a little law before making posts like that.

[Bind]

well, if there is no bail contract then how could there be duress that you failed at using to defend your uneducated opinion ?

[Hawker]

well, if there is no bail contract then how could there be duress that you failed at using to defend your uneducated opinion ?

Ah very clever.  You deleted your post saying there was a contract.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49109.msg592587#msg592587

Luckily I quoted you   Otherwise it would get confusing wouldn't it?

[Bind]

well, if there is no bail contract then how could there be duress that you failed at using to defend your uneducated opinion ?

Ah very clever.  You deleted your post saying there was a contract.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49109.msg592587#msg592587

Luckily I quoted you  Otherwise it would get confusing wouldn't it?

Not quite, son, but nice try at trying to divert attention away from yourself.

we already went through this...

...snip...

right, because police never unlawfully intimidate.

for all we know this guy is being intimidated ... the police cant even answer the question of what he';s being charge with or for. For all we know this sovereign never rescinded, severed, or removed himself from existing contracts with the state that allows them to hold statute over his head ... we just do not know. Not enough information to do anything but guess. I see a rational calm man being oppressed and telling the cops they are acting unlawfully.

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2875189.html

He was charged with driving without insurance.  He was convicted of it and paid a fine to avoid jail. 

You really should read the article. 

yea i posted in the wrong place and deleted my post. I thought this was the thread where they cops were intimidating the sovereign in another thread

  Now your reply makes more sense. 

and you know it ... or did you forget your acknowlegement ?

it was about another thread entirely.

I have been ramming home bail is a contract for days now.

the question remains ....

well, if there is no bail contract then how could there be duress that you failed at using to defend your uneducated opinion ?

[Hawker]

Its the duress means there CANNOT be a contract. 

[Bind]

Its the duress means there CANNOT be a contract.  

ok so I am sitting in jail.

my attorney comes in with some  paperwork for my divorce preceedings ... a contract.

I am under duress from being in jail, does that make my contract I just signed for something else entirely, void because of the duress ??

thats what you are saying.

where is the compulsion by threat, force or coercion ?

let me quote the facts for you again.

You might feel that you under duress, but you have the free choice of whether or not you enter into a bail contract. There is no "compulsion by threat, force, coercion, restraint nor constraint" applied to you for the purpose of entering into that contract. You are in custody because the state has accused you of doing soemthing illegal. You are not in custody for refusing to enter into a bail contract, even though you remain in custody if you do not.

The court could care less if you enter into a bail contract. Either way they get their pound of flesh. Most likely they prefer you not enter into a bail contract because thats more money  for the state, more prisoners, more lobbying for more public funds to pay for more corrections infrastructure, services, supplies, and personel.

One point is that you are in custody.

The other point is that you have the FREE CHOICE to get out of custody or stay in custody until the preceedings ocurr. Ergo, no duress, coercion, or force concerning the contract.

The situation of being IN CUSTODY is what what would be causing the duress you speak of.

Now if they threatened, coerced, or held you in prison specifically because you refused to enter into a bail contract, and/or until you did enter into a bail contract for the sole purpose of entering into a bail contract, THEN that would be duress and an unlawful contract/action, because that would be forcing you to enter into contract. You have every right to sit in jail instead of entering into a bail contract.

please ... just call the courthouse information office ... or a bail bond agent.

I will give you one out .. I will admit that a contract might be unenforceable if someone was under enough mental anguish and could be found to be mentally incapable of entering into a contract, if proven by a competent medical professional. But that wouldnt relate to bail I am affraid... unless you admit being in jail was the better alternative. You would be argueing TO be put back into jail.

[Hawker]

If bail were a contract, the prisoner would be able to breach it any time he wants and get his surety back simply by saying "I was under duress."

[Bind]

If bail were a contract, the prisoner would be able to breach it any time he wants and get his surety back simply by saying "I was under duress."

You can not get out of a contract by simply claiming duress. You need to prove duress to the court by "a preponderance of evidence".

Bail agreements have been around for hundreds of years and I know of no cases where duress was sucessfully used to disolve that agreement.

[Minsc]

You can not get out of a contract by simply claiming duress. You need to prove duress to the court by "a preponderance of evidence".

Bail agreements have been around for hundreds of years and I know of no cases where duress was sucessfully used to disolve that agreement.

You feared rape?

[Minsc]

I found legal precedents that freeman arguments don't work in court.  http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp