Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

People not generally subject to law

Expand Messages
  • legalbear
    Code is not the law (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261) defined by Black s Law Dictionary as prima facie, which is color of law, color is counterfeit or
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 27, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      Code is "not the law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261) defined by Black's Law Dictionary as prima facie, which is color of law, color is "counterfeit or feigned".

       

      What the real law is the common law as described in the above case and the code itself.  The People are not "subject to law" generally (Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370) except for the criminal codes which is codified common law.

       

       

      For mailing use:  Excellence Unlimited, 17795 E. Eldorado Place #201, Aurora, CO  80013 303-484-9895 fax 810-958-6113
      www.legal-research-video.com
      www.legalbears.com
      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:

       

    • legalbear
      Jim: I just reposted that. It looks like you could look up the definition for Code in Black s the cite would be there. You could do a search at
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment

        Jim:  I just reposted that.  It looks like you could look up the definition for Code in Black’s the cite would be there.  You could do a search at Versuslaw.com for the name of that case.  Also, Yick Wo v. Hopkins would be more authoritative being Supreme Court.  Inside the cover of West’s Digests there is a table of abbreviations that you could look up what reporter Wn(2nd) refers to.  I suspect that it is an obscure case from a foreign jurisdiction to the one you’re in.  The most it could do is point you to cases in your jurisdiction using Sheppard’s.  It occurred to me the other day that we need to do more studying on principles of contracts because that’s where they’ve tricked us.  How can they compel us to contract?  Can a government use force to compel us to contract?  I guess they could if the courts let ‘em.  At one point the use of “without prejudice” on drivers licenses and registrations was effective, but, they’re like the mafia.  They make us pay protection money; who cares about law.  Bear

         

        For mailing use:  Excellence Unlimited, 17795 E. Eldorado Place #201, Aurora, CO  80013 303-484-9895 fax 810-958-6113
        www.legal-research-video.com
        www.legalbears.com
        To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
        tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: lookin2c@
        juno.com [mailto:lookin2c@juno.com]
        Sent
        : Monday, March 03, 2003 6:21 AM
        To: shining@...
        Sub
        ject: Re: People not generally subject to law

         

        Greetings,

         

        YES, we know that we "contract into sub j ection"!

        Do you have the Rhay case or a more informative cite for it?


        Deo volente,
        Jim

         

        "...as He died to make men Holy,
        Let us live to make men free."

         

        On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 23:49:26 -0500 "Milo" <shining@...> writes:

        From: legalbear [mailto:bsmyth13@...]
        Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:10 AM
        Sub
        ject:  People not generally subject to law

        Code is "not the law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261) defined by Black's Law Dictionary as prima facie, which is color of law, color is "counterfeit or feigned".

         

        What the real law is the common law as described in the above case and the code itself.  The People are not "subject to law" generally (Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370) except for the criminal codes which is codified common law.

         

         

         

      • cshrclrd@eastex.net
        There is some fruitful research in the area of trusts which can be legally form without your knowledge and consent. -Scott Harclerode ... From: legalbear Sent:
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          There is some fruitful research in the area of trusts which can be legally form without your knowledge and consent.
          -Scott Harclerode


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: legalbear
          Sent: 3/3/03 8:30:28 AM
          To: lookin2c@...;tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] People not generally subject to law

          > Jim: I just reposted that. It looks like you could look up the
          > definition for Code in Black's the cite would be there. You could do a
          > search at Versuslaw.com for the name of that case. Also, Yick Wo v.
          > Hopkins would be more authoritative being Supreme Court. Inside the
          > cover of West's Digests there is a table of abbreviations that you could
          > look up what reporter Wn(2nd) refers to. I suspect that it is an
          > obscure case from a foreign jurisdiction to the one you're in. The most
          > it could do is point you to cases in your jurisdiction using Sheppard's.
          > It occurred to me the other day that we need to do more studying on
          > principles of contracts because that's where they've tricked us. How
          > can they compel us to contract? Can a government use force to compel us
          > to contract? I guess they could if the courts let 'em. At one point
          > the use of "without prejudice" on drivers licenses and registrations was
          > effective, but, they're like the mafia. They make us pay protection
          > money; who cares about law. Bear
          >
          > For mailing use: Excellence Unlimited, 17795 E. Eldorado Place #201,
          > Aurora, CO 80013 303-484-9895 fax 810-958-6113
          > <http://www.legal-research-video.com/> www.legal-research-video.com
          > www.legalbears.com
          > To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
          > <mailto:tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
          > tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: lookin2c@... [mailto:lookin2c@...]
          > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 6:21 AM
          > To: shining@...
          > Subject: Re: People not generally subject to law
          >
          > Greetings,
          >
          > YES, we know that we "contract into subjection"!
          > Do you have the Rhay case or a more informative cite for it?
          >
          > Deo volente,
          > Jim
          >
          > "...as He died to make men Holy,
          > Let us live to make men free."
          >
          > On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 23:49:26 -0500 "Milo" <shining@...> writes:
          > From: legalbear [mailto:bsmyth13@...]
          > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:10 AM
          > Subject: People not generally subject to law
          > Code is "not the law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261) defined by
          > Black's Law Dictionary as prima facie, which is color of law, color is
          > "counterfeit or feigned".
          >
          > What the real law is the common law as described in the above case and
          > the code itself. The People are not "subject to law" generally (Yick Wo
          > v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370) except for the criminal codes which is
          > codified common law.
          >
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.