- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Slashdot | UK: Software And Business Methods Not Patentable
by Jim Choate 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/13/0043219.shtml -- ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: If law is based on precedence
by ubik_heisenberg＠freedom.net 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:52:17 -0800 (PST), Alan Olsen wrote: > >On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > >> Why is the Constitution not the root precedent? > >Because that system gott r00ted long ago. > >We live in a country that is governed by how prosecutors feel about the >case, not what the law says. That's exaclty how Admiralty (military) law works. It is in the contract that you signed by becoming a U.S. citizen that they can do whatever "laws" they want... In Admiralty (U.C.C. and civil) court, the jury has only an advisory role to the judge, when there is one. In essence, what counts most is not justice for the subject, but the integrity of the "boat". The captain is the only authority on the boat. >The game is rigged by the people running it. No. It is CONTRACT law, aka Admiralty Law, aka Roman Law, aka U.C.C. >We don't have a fair legal system any more. You have, under Anglo-Saxon Common Law (ASCL). But you MUST claim it otherwise, UCC applies. In ASCL, you MUST void the claims against you. UCC claims it has jurisdiction over you. You must void their claim. Putting "without prejudice" and "all rights reserved" are sufficient to reserve your rights. But you must know what the "without prejudice" expression means. The text "The UCC Connection: Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny" by the late Howard Freeman states: ------------------------- Remedy The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-207.7) It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then, we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME -- I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged -- not under some other jurisdiction. So, in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under the UCC 1-207. UCC 1-207 goes on to say: When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date. (UCC 1-207.9) You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says: The Sufficiency of the Reservation -- Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4) Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes -- in any way, shape or manner -- under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-207.2 This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights. It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone .... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means. --------------------------------------- This text was recently posted on the Cypherpunks. If you want a repost, ask me. ________________________________________________________________________ Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net

1 0

Re: [Cypherpunk Psychobabble]
by LUIS VILDOSOLA 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

To me, humor constitutes sound proof that you are sane Jim Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> wrote: > > > It isn't that you think that I'm nuts that funny. > > It's that you think you aren't. > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution > not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

1 0

Re: [Re: Consensus? We don't need no stinkin' consensus...]
by LUIS VILDOSOLA 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

I support your judgement about "Medicalizing" your opponent's arguments with the belief of having some practical value. Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote: > > An anonymous twit writes: > > > Anger expressed by commission is usually justified by laudable motives, > > e.g. concern for the well-being of the victim. The expression of the > > anger is dictated by the desire to wound while concealing the intention > > to wound -- even the existence of the anger. This is not to spare the > > feelings of the victim but to wound them more effectively. The intent is > > to provoke counteranger with such subtlety that the victim blames > > himself and believes his anger is not justified. That way, people with > > PAPD can assume the role of innocent victim (Kantor, 1992, > > pp. 178-180). They may make directly hostile statements because they > > fail to perceive their own motivating attitude, perceive their hostility > > too late, or believe that their attitude can be concealed. > > Can't we do without Victimologist prattle on a cryptography and privacy > list? Shrinks should be next after all the lawyers are fed to the lions. > > "Medicalizing" your opponent's argument, instead of responding to it, is a > tactic of police states, religious nuts, controlling relatives, and > idiots. > > Which one are you? > > -- > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

1 0

Cypherpunk Psychobabble
by Jim Choate 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

It isn't that you think that I'm nuts that funny. It's that you think you aren't. ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: RE: My .sig
by David Honig 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

At 08:45 PM 3/12/01 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: > >Not many people use fixed width fonts to read mail, so I'll let the They deserve to die, along with HTML posters.

1 0

papd.sig
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

> Out of the half-dozen or so lists I frequent, the 'Cypherpunks' is the > only list where anyone, and I mean anyone, has said anything about my > previous sig, privately or on the list. > > I wonder what that says, hmmmmmm...... > Is that what all the psychoanalytic babble was about? Hurt feelings? The .sig is an attitudinal antecedent to the Jefferson quote that Tim used to use and is not particularly original. I think the analogy is a bit off too - an analogy that equates the members of the power structure to those of a feudal system like an organized crime syndicate might better fit. Also, note the way that a "logical" discussion of PAPD can be used to classify anyone who disagrees. Next step after we've identified those with deflicted vision - get the reporters to write about internet-using subversives, get a judge to sign the papers, tattoo a number on 'em and take 'em away for reeducation. Fill lots of pages, make it sound as logical as you want too, it's still leukocytoid dogdoo. Longing for the good old days of "concealement grilles" and universal ground straps, Mike

1 0

One source of JC's inferiority complex
by Blank Frank 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

At 05:54 PM 3/12/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >course content, lab design, etc. Not bad for somebody without a degree >I've always felt. Plenty of folks sans degrees have a clue, though, Jim...

1 0

DoJ subpoena guidelines for journalists
by Declan McCullagh 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

See: http://squid.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=28&PART=50&SECTION=1… They say: "(c) Negotiations with the media shall be pursued in all cases in which a subpoena to a member of the news media is contemplated. and "All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain information from alternative sources before considering issuing a subpoena to a member of the news media and "No subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media or for the telephone toll records of any member of the news media without the express authorization of the Attorney General

7 12

Re: An observation about 'cypherpunks'
by aluger＠hushmail.com 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

At Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:17:42 -0600 (CST), Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote: >Out of the half-dozen or so lists I frequent, the 'Cypherpunks' is the >only list where anyone, and I mean anyone, has said anything about my >previous sig, privately or on the list. > >I wonder what that says, hmmmmmm...... All of the personality disorders are composed mostly of abrasive traits that are negative in nature. Maladaptive traits are usually favored over adaptive traits (though there are adaptive traits within all personality disorders) (Kantor, 1992, p. 10). PAPD is a particularly abrasive personality and interpersonal problems are readily identifiable. However, individuals with PAPD do not frequently seek treatment for relationship issues as they consistently blame others for the problems they have. Even if they do come in for treatment for a marital or parent and child problem, they will uniformly demand that the treatment providers "fix" the other person or persons who are at fault for the problems within the relationship. Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com

1 0