Only slaves ask for permission to exercise rights.

Actually, the title to this post is wrongheaded. Slaves don't have rights. They only are granted privileges by their masters. They MUST beg for permission to exercise those privileges.

Think about that the next time your about to beg them for permission to do something.
Ask yourself:

1. Is what I want to do lawful to do?
a) If yes, then why do you need to be licensed to do it?
b) If No, then how would asking government somehow make it a lawful activity?

2. Is it my right to do this?

3. Do I have the right to do this?

4. Does it harm another or their rights if I do this?

5. Is there ANY fraud involved? (Gov can not license fraudulent activities, even though they do it all the time)

6. Does my asking for permission to do lawful acts grant them my consent to step in and tell me what to do?

7. Do they then have MY permission to tell me just how I can exercise a right because I consented by asking for their permission?

8. Who died and made them god?

9. Are they MY public servants or MY masters?
a) If public servants, then why are you asking them for permission to exercise your rights?
b) If "masters" then learn why granting them your consent makes that so! And learn what granting them your consent even means!
c) Do I even have rights after I granted them to someone else?

Some stuff to think about before you go begging some pointy headed bureaucrat public servant for permission to exercise your rights such as a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. 

I disagree with some of the information presented in this video, but for the most part, I do agree with the content.
 

Maxims Of Law Defined

 By: Chris otf: Duke

I added another feature to the blog again tonight. I went threw a book on Latin legal maxims and picked out quite a few choice ones. I then added further definitions, descriptions, a few links, and commentary. This is not by any means a complete list of legal maxims Latin or otherwise. It is however a good starting point. I plan on adding more as I come across them. In any case, there is a lot for people who don't already know this stuff to look at, and a good reference point to return to. These phrases are where our law comes from. This is OLD law. Very old law. Much of it is derived from custom that dates back tens of thousands of years. I don't like using the word legal when describing them because they reference more natural law than they do legality, but hey, they are what they are. I hope they can be of some use to people here on my law blog.

Legal Latin phrases and maxims

• Actio non datur non damnificato - An action is not given to one who is not injured. NOTE: Statutory acts ask for compensation when there is no injured party. This is theft by coercion under duress.

  
  
• Actori incumbit onus probandi - The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. NOTE: The Officer is the complaining party. The court presumes to represent the People, but there is a direct conflict of interest. They both represent the State / municipality Incorporated / corporation for whom they draw their paychecks. This is NOT justice. This is just-us!

  
  
• Argumentum ab auctoritate fortissimum est in lege - An argument drawn from authority is the strongest in law. NOTE: Who are you? The People from who they draw their authority, or a citizen who is a subject under their authority by consent?

  
  
• Assentio mentium - The meeting of minds, i.e. mutual assent. NOTE: Mutual consent.

  
  
• Assignatus utitur jure auctoris - An assignee is clothed with rights of his assignor. NOTE: Government has NO sovereignty of it's own. It is lent to them by the People.

  
  
• Bona fide - Sincere, in good faith. NOTE: "Is that contract Bona-fide?"

  
  
• Catalla reputantur inter minima in lege - Chattels are considered in law among the minor things. NOTE: AGAIN, Who are you? Chattel citizens, or one of the sovereign People? You can't be both!
• 
  
• Consensu - Unanimously or, by general consent.
• 
  
• Contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio - No prescription runs against a person not able to act.

  
  
• Coram non judice - Before one who is not a judge. NOTE: The guys in the black dresses you see in court today for the most part are not Judges. They are equity court administrative trustees under maritime admiralty law. Real judges are elected, swear an oath of office to abide by the constitution, and are bonded. A commissioner is without a doubt NOT a judge!

  
  
• Corpus delicti - The body, i.e. the gist of crime. NOTE: The body of a crime. No crime has been committed unless injury, harm, fraud, or a violation of rights has been committed against another. The Corpus Delicti describes those injuries. In most civil matters, there is no Corpus Delicti whatsoever.

  
  
• Crimen omnia ex se nata vitiat - Crime vitiates every thing, which springs from it. NOTE: What is going on in our so called justice system today can only be described as fraud. Fraud IS a crime! People serving jail and prison sentences without Corpus Delicti IS a crime!

  
  
• Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelam; et ad inferos - He who owns the soil owns it up to the sky; and to its depth. NOTE: If you hold a Deed to property, it may be surprising for you to know that you only own the property sitting on the land. Even your garden and lawn are owned by the State threw usufructory. You pay property taxes as rent on the land.

  
  
• De facto - In fact. NOTE: What is De facto? In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful. legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or v.-ifiirespect to lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but who has never had plenary possession of the same, or is not now in actual possession.

  
  
• De jure - Rightful, by right. NOTE: Rightfully; lawfully; by legal title. Contrasted with de facto.
  Of right: distinguished with de gratia (by favor). By law: distinguished with de æquitate (by equity).
  A government de jure, but not de facto, is one deemed lawful, which has been supplanted; a government de jure and also de facto is one deemed lawful, which is present or established; a government de facto is one deemed unlawful, but which is present or established. Any established government, be it deemed lawful or not, is a government de facto.
  Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8^th Edition)(1914)

  
  
• Delegata potestas non potest delegari - A delegated authority cannot be again delegated. NOTE: The US government, having been given it's authority by the People, to act under the constraints of the constitution, can NOT delegate away it's duties to other governmental establishments such as the United Nations.

  
  
• Derivativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva - The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived. NOTE: The created, can not have ANY powers greater than it's creator. People created government. If the People did not possess a power or right, then they can NOT give it to their creation!

  
  
• Dominium - Ownership. NOTE: Dominion. Also see, Alodium, and usufruct.

• Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat - The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies. NOTE: Innocent until proven guilty. Or is that the other way around these days?

  
  
• Error, qui non resistitur approbatur - An error not resisted is approved. NOTE: You must first learn your rights and who you are in status before you can do this properly. Every assumption then made as to your standing can be rebutted successfully, and must be done immediately or it will stand in law for a given case.

  
  
• Ex dolo malo actio non oritur - A right of action cannot arise out of fraud. NOTE: See above 'Corpus Delicti.'

  
  
• Facultas probationum non est angustanda - The right of offering proof is not to be narrowed. NOTE: You can NOT be denied use of evidence weather it be case law, or simple photographs of an area where some supposid violation of private code allegedly took place. This happens a lot!

  
  
• Fictio cedit veritati; fictio juris non est, ubi veritas - Fiction yields to truth. Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

  
  
• Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis - Man is a term of nature, person of the civil law. NOTE: Man is the name used to describe the living breathing human. Person is used to represent a dead fiction under legality. "Corporations are persons too." ~Mitt Romney

  
  
• In fictione legis aequitas existit - A legal fiction is consistent with equity. NOTE: Where do we go to court these days? Courts of equity. Essentially bankers courts unless the charge is in fact a legitimate criminal charge. You represent the legal fiction (surety) in these courts.

  
  
• Invito beneficium non datur - A benefit is not conferred upon one against his consent. NOTE: If you are a US (corporation) citizen, then you have unwittingly traded in your rights in exchange for government benefits and privileges (civil rights).

  
  
• Nemo plus juris transferre ad alium potest quam ipse habet - No one can transfer to another a larger right than he himself has. NOTE: The creator can NOT give his creation (government) something that he himself does not possess ie the right to violate others rights, etc.

  
  
• Nemo potest facere per alium, quod per se non potest - No one can do through another what he cannot do himself. NOTE: You can not delegate powers you yourself do not possess to another to act on your behalf.

  
  
• Nemo tenetur armare adversarium contra se - No one is bound to arm his adversary against himself. NOTE: You have the right to remain silent. ANYTHING you say will be used against you in a court of equity. And anything you provide them with such as proof of adhesion contract will also be used against you. You really need to learn what you can say and what you should not say or do. Just shutting up gives them consent and makes their assumptions law, so you can NOT just shut up. Learn what your rights really are, and where they really come from. Not what you have been told they are in STATE Run School. Then you will know what to say to every question, false assertion, and how to rebut every assumption they are trying to put over on you.

  
  
• Qui tacet consentire videtur - He who is silent appears to consent.

  
  
• Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt - The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep.

  
  
• Volenti non fit injuria - An injury is not done to one consenting to it.

Robin Hood Philosophy

I understand the concept of fighting fraud with fraud. I'll call it the Robin Hood philosophy. While I won't claim it's all bad, I would add that it is the same as fighting fire with fire, or an eye for an eye.  
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi 

My own recent quote on the subject 

"You can fight Bullshit with Bullshit, but in the end you both wind up covered in shit" ~Chris Duke

How far you wish to go in using the Robin Hood Philosophy depends entirely on how much shit your willing to deal with, or more eloquently put, how much you are willing to become that which you despise. As I get older, I see much of what I have hated in the past in myself. 

"hate begets hate" and "violence begets violence" Does "fraud beget fraud?"

Despite my understanding of the concept, I still can't help but feel it justifiable on some level. Where it gets stuck in the mud for me is when you are presented with a violent act, and are in need to defend yourself and or your possessions or others from attack. I don't believe that scenario fits into the whole Robin Hood philosophy. I believe that to be another concept entirely, but have not been able to conceptualize a soft dividing line between the two. The hard dividing line is easy to see. A man comes after you with a knife, you pull out a gun and kill the fool. I don't consider that fighting fire with fire even if you were to use a knife to fight off a knife wielding attacker. But what got me to write this post in the first place was in reply to a comment about how to deal with the courts and cops who are using fraud to steal from the people. That is the soft dividing line in my opinion, that's difficult to justify with the Robin Hood philosophy. Do you risk becoming like them in using fraud to fight back? Or do you take the high ground? Any REAL LAW ALWAYS provides remedy. What these fraudsters are doing provides NO remedy whatsoever. That's one way you can tell they are not real laws. 

So to answer my own question, I would suggest vacating the fiction, removing ones self from their privileges, stop consenting to be a party to their fraud, and then, once that has been accomplished, ones hands would be clean in whatever one does to recover or defend from their unlawful activities. But there is the catch 9 again. Should you consider (once ones hands are clean) conducting ones self in fraud to get compensation or battle the fraud once ones hands are clean? They would inevitably wind up covered in shit if you do.

Legalization

I've been making the very same point Dean is in this video. Legalization of anything is bad. If it's not unlawful to do, then why legalize it? Why would you want to beg someone for permission to do something that is not unlawful to do in the first place? As soon as something is made 'legal' then it is subject to regulation, fines, taxes, and penalties. Legalization is a scam to steal money from people who have committed no crime, breach of the peace, fraud, or harmed, or stolen from anyone, and that is all it ever will be.

Warrants, we don't need no stinkin warrants!

What constitutes a valid search warrant?

A valid search warrant must meet four requirements: (1) the warrant must be filed in good faith by a law enforcement officer; (2) the warrant must be based on reliable information showing probable cause to search; (3) the warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; and (4) the warrant must state specifically the place to be searched and the items to be seized.

Can police conduct a search without a search warrant?

Yes. Under some circumstances, police are authorized to conduct a search without first obtaining a search warrant. Common exceptions to the warrant requirement include:

• Consent. Police may conduct a search without a search warrant if they obtain consent. Consent must be freely and voluntarily given by a person with a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area or property to be searched.
• Plain View. An officer may seize evidence without a warrant if an officer is on the premises lawfully and the evidence is found in plain view.
• Search incident to arrest. While conducting a lawful arrest, an officer may search an individual's person and their immediate surroundings for weapons or other items that may harm the officer. If a person is arrested in or near a vehicle, the officer has the right to search the passenger compartment of that vehicle.
• Exigent Circumstances. Police are not required to obtain a search warrant if they reasonably believe that evidence may be destroyed or others may be placed in danger in the time it would take to secure the warrant.
• Automobile Exception. An officer may search a vehicle if they have a reasonable belief that contraband is contained inside the vehicle.
• Hot Pursuit. Police may enter a private dwelling if they are in "hot pursuit" of a fleeing criminal. Once inside a dwelling, police may search the entire area without first obtaining a search warrant.

The above text sourced from: http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/search-seizure-faq.html