As I said in the original post, I could explain all of this in terms of what the law actually says, but it’s been done before and if you are among those who have bought the nonsense being sold by the “Redemption Theory” or “Natural Sovereignty” or “Moorish Nation” crowds, then you probably think that I’m a member of the British Accreditation Registry (BAR) with an interest in perpetuating the slavery of the American justice system. So instead of explaining the law to you, I’ll lay down some practicalities.

Practicalities—observable behavior of the system—laid down, and ignored in favor of vaguely UCC-sounding demands and claims.

“Gavin” is not willing to say what he thinks “law” means—not a legal question, but a philosophical and epistemological one. A person who can’t discuss that question and provide a working definition can’t have meaningfully discussion about the law in society. You don’t have to be a lawyer to say what law is. I’ll give my working definition: law is the command of the sovereign, to violations of which a penalty attaches. It’s not might-makes-right, but might-makes-law. It’s a functional Austinian positivist definition. It is the same whether we are dealing with caselaw, statutory law, regulations, bar rules, admiralty, criminal, civil, UCC, or any other set of rules intended to guide people’s conduct in society.

Contract law does not apply to everything. The UCC is not authority that governs ordinary relations among human beings. Can I prove it? Not to the satisfaction of someone who wants so badly to believe it that he will disregard the system’s observable behavior. It’s just not. Trying would be a fool’s errand. Which is why I lay down the practicalities and let people decide what conclusions they will draw from those practicalities.

I lead the horse to water, but I don’t care whether it drinks.

(I realize that sarcasm doesn’t always come through on the internet. That is what makes it so much fun… )

What I recognise, is that I am a man, that you are a man and that you are trying to get me to believe your claims and I have not seen any relevant valid proof of your claims although I have now given you two opportunities to furnish proof.

Unless you can show that all men are not equal before the law, then I take it we stand equally.
I reserve all my rights and do not consent to whatever terms and/or conditions you think you can subject me to in this forum.
If you dont like that, then delete my posts – or even better, retract your claims by deleting the whole web page, but I will take any action you take other than proving up your claims as your admission to me that you can not prove up your claims and therefore I will take it that your claims are unsubstantiable.

Show your use of the word “whim” is not a fallacial appeal to trigger the emotions fear and/or anger?

Could you be doing so thinking that it is easier to trigger my emotions than it is to furnish my intellect with facts in support of your claims?

Why do you think it is up to me to “shed light” on your claims?
Is that not your responsibility, as is it not you that made the claims?
What are your rules of evidence?
How is being silent interpreted in your courts?

For me to believe your claims, all I need is supporting relevant and valid proof.
You are the Teacher, and therefore I am the Student.
Is a wise student not a cautious one? Does a cautious student not require proof?

So, my Teacher I have many questions about your references:
Is your reference to a “court” not an illogical overgeneralisation?
What classes of “laws” do you find in the courts?
Common law? Civil law? Commerce? Admiralty? Chancery?
Is it one, some or all, or is there more?
Is “law” exactly the same as “Law” and exactly the same as “LAW”? If not, what are the differences?
What does remedy mean? What does cure and maintenance mean?
What exactly is a person? Is a person a corporation? If so, isn’t a natural person still a person? Did God create Man or a Person?
What is a cestui que trust? What are the roles in a trust and what are their relationships?
How can the average state educated man be distinguished in all this?
How does he know what presumptions are being made by the court if they are done silently and without his knowledge?
How can he question and/or correct presumptions should they not be realistic?
Is full disclosure and full discovery not mandatory in law?
What chance does the average man have of protecting his rights without knowing law? Could that explain what you claim to see in court?

My dialectic is only intended to give you the opportunity to prove your claims necessary for me to allow my belifs to align with yours or for me to realise by your inaction of presenting proof, to conclude that you have no relevant valid proof in support of your claims.

—
Are you attempting to solicit a contract?
Is there not already an agreement, being you furnish all available valid relevant proof and I will belive your claim?

So what are you asking of me?
-You want me to define Law to you?
-Would me defining “Law is…” not be considered as legal advice?
-Could it have something to do with me having no “certified” legal expertise?
-Does this not mean I can not give legal advice to you?
-If I can not, why would you ask me to furnish you with legal advice?
-Do you not have sufficient “certified” legal knowledge?
-Do you not have better access to those who do have “certified” legal advice?
-Why else would you turn to me for legal advice?
-Are you trying to entrap me into giving legal advice?
-Could this be why Winston says his presentations are only for entertainment purposes only?

So what are you offering in exchange?

Why do you intend to “demonstrate” (to my satisfaction) guys with gavels and guns when use or availability of such contraptions enable duress, tyrrany, terror, war all of which can be taken to aid the guys in kidnap, injury and loss of life?

When you say “why what the guys with the gavels and the guns say the law is the law”, are you offering me

to “benefit” from first hand experience from these “guys” equipped with “gavels” and “guns”?

Are you attempting to get me to consent to your offer to receive “why” in the presence of “guys” with “gavels” and “guns”.

Is this not another fallacial appeal to the emotions fear and anger and therefore logically invalid?

I do not give consent to contract, without dishonour. There is no need to contract and for the reason that there is potential to do harm.

Prove up your claims. I will not offer you any more opportities. Three opportunities are enough.
My own judgement will be there is no valid claim without valid and relevant proof and therefore my action will be to disgard them as erroneous.

I am a peaceful man. I intend no harm, but I can not prevent you from doing harm to yourself.
If you can’t prove up your claim, I urge you to consider deleting this whole web page as could others be misled? Is that what you intend?
Your failure to do or not to do so is solely your responsibility.
You made your claims, not me.

You insist on logical proof of truths that can be observed any day in the criminal courthouse. Apparently you define “law” differently than I do. Which is fine—define it how you will—but as a result none of your “dialectic” shed any light on anything.

So I’ll tell you what, “Gavin”: Tell me how you define “law” (“Law is…”), and I’ll either demonstrate to your satisfaction why what the guys with the gavels and the guns say is law is law, agree with you that law (as you define it) is what you say it is, or express puzzlement.

Fair?

Until you do prove up all your claims, my judgement will be your persuasion is lacking of real evidence and logically invalid – rhetoric of a sophist propagandist unworthy of my serious consideration. Have a Good day.

You Say: “When you are prosecuted for a crime, it is not your “straw man” that is prosecuted.”

I Say: In order to accept your statement as reality, Proof of Claim is required.
. . . .

["Mr. Grimshaw" -- a pseudonym, I presume -- goes on at great and excruciating length.]

My wife and I have closed down the local court FOUR times. Visit my site and above all click on the link to listen to the audio recording of her court appearance.

http://runnymede1215.wordpress.com

I have not got my car back but without my consent there is no jurisdiction and without jurisdiction they are check-mated!

They only got themselves deeply into shit.

Cheers

Bernard
And then have the chutzpah to tell me you know anything about the law!

Bernard

People in Canada have gotten the proof that the human being and the person are two different entities, from the courts, from the government, even from the bank. Jacques-Antoine:Normandin is an example of this, his person died years ago, but the human being is still alive, and a judge in the Court of Quebec recognized this.

I will only defend myself as a true human being in a Common Law court, never as a person in private law courts.

The only thing these people have on their side is their gullibility. Certain tax offenses require that you know or believe you owe the taxes to be criminally liable. His customers who honestly (though ignorantly) fall for his schtick have been acquitted. Of course, he takes this as proving his schtick is true.

But it isn’t — and being acquitted doesn’t get you off the hook for taxes, penalties and interest. So instead of being incarcerated, his clients just go broke. Woo-hoo!!!

Alot of these folks glom onto jury nullification, but don’t bother to learn much about juries. So they spout psuedo law, essentially (to use a militia-type term that they can understand) end up shooting blanks while sitting on real ammunition.

I know of a case in which, while a “pro-per” defendant was making his admiralty law argument based on the gold fringed flag, the judge had the bailiff simply remove the flag from the courtroom. By the time the arcane argument was over, the defendant found that the flag was gone… What I’ve told people is that interior decorators do not get to dictate the jurisdiction of the court.

I would go so far as to say that 80-90% of what these people spout is true. However, ask a prosecutor what he gets for proving 80-90% of the elements in his case. (OK, in Harris County, maybe a conviction, but in a fair county…) That’s why people fall for it: give them enough you CAN prove, and they’ll buy the part they know nothing about on a leap of faith. And then, when lawyers say that Psuedolaw Guy is full of BS, they remember that 80-90% of what they were told was verified, and the lawyers lose credibility, not the Psuedolaw Guy. And when the 10-20% that they took on faith later bites them in the butt, they blame the corrupt lawyers.

You’d better be careful, though. You’re approaching dangerously close to the truth with that last sentence.