Date:   11/26/2007 10:05:09 AM ( 17 y ago)
Hits:   2,027
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1049741

"He owes no duty to the state since he receives nothing therefrom..."

Precisely.

But, Marine-Patriot may want to refer to the TVA case that came later, during the WWII years I believe where it was decided that even the ability to receive a benefit is sufficient nexus with the public trust to make one subject to the jurisdiction.

That's why 99+% of the "patriots" arguments are frivolous. They want the ability to receive a benefit, but not be subject to the other conditions that come with it and want to live as "sovereigns". One can't have it both ways - one is either free of contracts, or they are contractually-bound. It's the "patriot's" own lack of knowledge that they use to suicide themselves with in the courtroom. Most don't even understand why they're subject to the jurisdiction of the Legislative courts of Article I. For enlightenment, they need to start with the understanding that jurisdiction in rem depends solely upon physical control of the res by the soveirgn exercising jurisdiction. But most couldn't tell a res from a french fry.

Where's your res ?
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1049741