Thread: Britian requires ID cards for foreigners

You are confusing contracts under Common Law and agreements, often euphimistically called "contracts," that arise under the lex mercatorum, UCC, or other commercial jurisdiction. You further appear to not comprehend that our original courts of equity created by Article III were not administered under the international jurisdiction, but rather under Common Law.

I perceive that you have taken some sort of basic case in administrative law, or some other junk course and have absolutely no education in legal history or the original jurisdictions in this nation. You demonstrated this by attacking one of the cases I cited as being "old" as though age has anything to do with stare decisis in the case of a standing decision. The typical case in which "old" cases are now dismissed is the case in which the "old" case was adjudicated under the Common Law and is being cited in a case heard under lex mercatorum or administrative jurisdiction.

For anyone wondering how much this troll actually knows, please contrast his naked claim (yet another of his endless naked claims, despite his demand that anyone else fully substantiate their claims) regarding duress with this commentary from an actual legal site:

What Are Unconscionable Contracts?

Unconscionable contracts are those contracts which are so unfair to a party that no reasonable or informed person would agree to it. In a suit for breach of contract, a court will void an unconscionable contract. That means the court will not award damages or order specific performance against the person unfairly treated.


When Are Contracts Unconscionable?

Contracts are unconscionable if a party was misled, lacked information or signed under pressure or misunderstanding. Generally, unconscionable contracts are grouped into one of three categories:

Duress
Undue Influence
Unconscionable Bargaining

Duress

Duress involves either physical threats or unacceptable commercial pressure used to make someone sign a contract. A successful plea of duress will result in a contract being held to be voidable. There are three recognized forms of duress:

Physical Duress
Duress of Goods
Economic Duress

Physical duress is the use of force, false imprisonment or compelling someone to act contrary to his/her wishes or interests. Physical duress cases are relatively rare.

Duress of goods occurs when someone will not release goods in order to persuade the other party to sign a document or pay some money. The threat not to release the goods must be an illegitimate threat. However, there are situations where it is perfectly legal to hold onto someone’s goods to pressure them to pay, for example, in car repair; it is perfectly legal for the repairer to hold onto a car until the bill is paid.

Economic duress occurs when some form of unacceptable commercial pressure results in advantages secured by the use of such pressure. However, it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between unacceptable and acceptable commercial pressure.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... wyers.html

So despite his bluster, this fellow is no lawyer (nor am I) but has sufficient superficial knowledge of terminology and of the limited topic of commercial/ administrative law to put up a good bluff.

Again, this guy is a known troll and this is standard fare for his primary persona (while many of his other personas range from childish to prurient).

Bamajdphd,

I have reviewed most of your posts and Im having trouble finding any that are not directed at Crockett as rebuttals of some sort.

Would you mind sharing with our group your views on the current illegal immigration crisis in America?

What are your positions, what do you feel should be done, how did you find ALIPAC and what are your goals here?

W

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Bamajdphd,

I have reviewed most of your posts and Im having trouble finding any that are not directed at Crockett as rebuttals of some sort.

Would you mind sharing with our group your views on the current illegal immigration crisis in America?

What are your positions, what do you feel should be done, how did you find ALIPAC and what are your goals here?

W

I did address this topic for you in another thread.

Without checking the times of your two posts, I'm not sure if you have further questions of me, or whether the post I responded to earlier in essence superseded the questions you ask here, which may have been asked there. I could check, I guess, but I'm already typing, and that would mean closing this window when I've got to get to bed!

To answer your question, I remember distinctly posting a google search along the lines of "I oppose illegal immigration" and Alipac came up on the first page or two. My goals are to learn about the issue, that's it -- but where I see unsubstantiated, unsourced posts like Ghost's, running roughshod over the truth about matters of law or whatever else, I think it's surely within the spirit of this board that I be able to address his claims.

As I stated earlier, I understand your position to avoid "trolling". But are these questions common of new posters?

And I don't mind saying that, while I understand your questions to some extent, particularly with some Nazi hacking troll in our midst and shutting down the PM mechanism, I do wish you'd consider whether to give much quarter to what's obviously Ghost's desperate attempt to paint me as someone unworthy of response, when I've completely refuted, with sources, his errant claims.

He's using you.

He's using you.

You've got to be kidding me! My history here and involvement in the issue that is the focus of this site speaks for itself, just as your history here and previously at other sites speaks for itself. You are not as clever as you think.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

[1] You are confusing contracts under Common Law and agreements, often euphimistically called "contracts," that arise under the lex mercatorum, UCC, or other commercial jurisdiction.

[2] You further appear to not comprehend that our original courts of equity created by Article III were not administered under the international jurisdiction, but rather under Common Law.

[3] I perceive that you have taken some sort of basic case in administrative law, or some other junk course and have absolutely no education in legal history or the original jurisdictions in this nation.

[4] You demonstrated this by attacking one of the cases I cited as being "old" as though age has anything to do with stare decisis in the case of a standing decision. The typical case in which "old" cases are now dismissed is the case in which the "old" case was adjudicated under the Common Law and is being cited in a case heard under lex mercatorum or administrative jurisdiction.

[5] For anyone wondering how much this troll actually knows, please contrast his naked claim (yet another of his endless naked claims, despite his demand that anyone else fully substantiate their claims) regarding duress with this commentary from an actual legal site:

What Are Unconscionable Contracts?

Unconscionable contracts are those contracts which are so unfair to a party that no reasonable or informed person would agree to it. In a suit for breach of contract, a court will void an unconscionable contract. That means the court will not award damages or order specific performance against the person unfairly treated.


When Are Contracts Unconscionable?

Contracts are unconscionable if a party was misled, lacked information or signed under pressure or misunderstanding. Generally, unconscionable contracts are grouped into one of three categories:

Duress
Undue Influence
Unconscionable Bargaining

Duress

Duress involves either physical threats or unacceptable commercial pressure used to make someone sign a contract. A successful plea of duress will result in a contract being held to be voidable. There are three recognized forms of duress:

Physical Duress
Duress of Goods
Economic Duress

Physical duress is the use of force, false imprisonment or compelling someone to act contrary to his/her wishes or interests. Physical duress cases are relatively rare.

Duress of goods occurs when someone will not release goods in order to persuade the other party to sign a document or pay some money. The threat not to release the goods must be an illegitimate threat. However, there are situations where it is perfectly legal to hold onto someone’s goods to pressure them to pay, for example, in car repair; it is perfectly legal for the repairer to hold onto a car until the bill is paid.

Economic duress occurs when some form of unacceptable commercial pressure results in advantages secured by the use of such pressure. However, it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between unacceptable and acceptable commercial pressure.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... wyers.html

So despite his bluster, this fellow is no lawyer (nor am I) but has sufficient superficial knowledge of terminology and of the limited topic of commercial/ administrative law to put up a good bluff.

Again, this guy is a known troll and this is standard fare for his primary persona (while many of his other personas range from childish to prurient).

[1] I confuse nothing. First, let's get this out of the way, you' keep referring to a "commercial jurisdiction": what do you think it is? And how do you think it differs (it doesn't) from any court of general jurisdiction? Please cite a source.

[2] Ludicrous. You think THAT I THINK that American courts set up by the constitution were done under the auspices of international law? I defy you to see where I made any thing remotely close to that claim.

[3] You perceive wrongly. Unsurprising. Especially given your posts on anything approaching law or history. I will concede that perhaps you've got me on crop circles. Operative word: "perhaps".

[4] This is absolute drivel. First, the common law still exists! It is nothing but law coming from the judiciary, i.e., noncodified, unlegislative law. Think the evolution of "proximate cause" in the PALSGRAF case, not that you've ever heard of it. But the age of a case is extremely important. Ask Plessy, ask Ferguson; ask Brown and the Topeka Board of Education. Ask Alipac in a year or two as the common law develops to include cyber crashing as a form of trespass. For every new case decided is done so on the basis of the cases before it. That's the theory, anyway. You think the law is static. It is not. It is constantly evolving, yet staying essentially the same. It's fascinating tha way. But I can tell you this for sure: there is no such thing as "administrative jurisdiction" or anything like this lex mercatorum you bandy about -- WHICH YOU BANDY ABOUT WITHOUT CITATION, AS YOU DO ALMOST ALL OF YOUR "STUFF".

[5] First, let's notice this. You made a bland, vanilla claim about my not knowing about "duress" and then you posted a ridiculously vacuous entry from somewhere. But I AM glad you're at least trying to source matters. Still, the two key things are that you (1) didn't state what you took exception with -- you just left the issue undefined except that you broadly "disagreed" with it; and (2) posted a generic thing on "duress".

NOTHING IN YOUR PROFFERED SOURCE DISPUTES A SINGLE THING THAT I SAID.

And so I ask, to narrow the issue, to find our point of contention, what is it PRECISELY that you disagree with about my post regarding duress?

I know you'll not answer this. Not because of some obsession you have with trolls, but because to answer it is to foretell your doomed argument.

But. I've been wrong before. So. Cough it up. What precisely do you say that I've got wrong?

I look forward to your answer.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

He's using you.

You've got to be kidding me! My history here and involvement in the issue that is the focus of this site speaks for itself, just as your history here and previously at other sites speaks for itself. You are not as clever as you think.

I'm not saying you're using him in general. I think your membership and posting here is probably bona fide.

But you are doubtlessly using him to hide from my busting of the untruths you so blithely speak.

You won't provide a source to ninety nine point infinite nine of what you merely type. You won't honestly characterize my arguments in your enfeebled responses. And intellectual honesty on matters that I've encountered from you on this board is startlingly absent.

You are begging for protection from the moderator, conjuring some sort of crop circle villian of a "troll," only because you cannot provide the facts or sources to meet me head on.

You know it. I know it.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

He's using you.

You've got to be kidding me! My history here and involvement in the issue that is the focus of this site speaks for itself, just as your history here and previously at other sites speaks for itself. You are not as clever as you think.

I'm not saying you're using him in general. I think your membership and posting here is probably bona fide.

But you are doubtlessly using him to hide from my busting of the untruths you so blithely speak.

You won't provide a source to ninety nine point infinite nine of what you merely type. You won't honestly characterize my arguments in your enfeebled responses. And intellectual honesty on matters that I've encountered from you on this board is startlingly absent.

You are begging for protection from the moderator, conjuring some sort of crop circle villian of a "troll," only because you cannot provide the facts or sources to meet me head on.

You know it. I know it.

I'm not begging for protection from anyone. I'm just letting the site know that you are Strother Martin, a highly disruptive troll who has infested many sites. To paraphrase you, I know it and they know it. How any site deals with you is their business. I just want the readers here to understand that your bluster is the result of an obsession with disrupting political chat sites and not rooted in any desire to post factual information.

The difference between my responses and yours is that I have actually gone back and substantiated my claims of your errors in several places while you have not reciprocated with anything but personal slurs, as is your modus operandi. You have offered in several places personal opinions masquerading as facts that have been dismissed with facility, and the proof of your trolldom is that you have yet to acknowledge or rebut one of these successful rebuttals.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

You are begging for protection from the moderator...

Please review the ALIPAC forum rules:

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=26071

Do not question moderator actions on the open boards until you have tried to resolve your question via Private Message.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

He's using you.

You've got to be kidding me! My history here and involvement in the issue that is the focus of this site speaks for itself, just as your history here and previously at other sites speaks for itself. You are not as clever as you think.

I'm not saying you're using him in general. I think your membership and posting here is probably bona fide.

But you are doubtlessly using him to hide from my busting of the untruths you so blithely speak.

You won't provide a source to ninety nine point infinite nine of what you merely type. You won't honestly characterize my arguments in your enfeebled responses. And intellectual honesty on matters that I've encountered from you on this board is startlingly absent.

You are begging for protection from the moderator, conjuring some sort of crop circle villian of a "troll," only because you cannot provide the facts or sources to meet me head on.

You know it. I know it.

I'm not begging for protection from anyone. I'm just letting the site know that you are Strother Martin, a highly disruptive troll who has infested many sites. To paraphrase you, I know it and they know it. How any site deals with you is their business. I just want the readers here to understand that your bluster is the result of an obsession with disrupting political chat sites and not rooted in any desire to post factual information.

The difference between my responses and yours is that I have actually gone back and substantiated my claims of your errors in several places while you have not reciprocated with anything but personal slurs, as is your modus operandi. You have offered in several places personal opinions masquerading as facts that have been dismissed with facility, and the proof of your trolldom is that you have yet to acknowledge or rebut one of these successful rebuttals.

Really now? You've provided me a single case, just one law review article, a solitary legal treatise, or a citation to a respected jurist on ANY OF YOUR CLAIMS?

I must've missed that.

Perhaps you can direct me.

Seriously, Ghost, merely because you type a claim doesn't mean the claim is to beleived.

And so now we've worked ourselves into a most curious situation, owing solely to your ducking of the issue. What is that curious situation?

This: Please cite for me the particular thread in which you say you've supported your strange claims with anything meaningful. In short, cite for me where you've cited any such thing.

Me? I've REPEATEDLY SOURCED the preponderance of my claims, which trul calls into question your claim (and I'm momentarily disregarding your stunning misidentification of me) that I "disrupt[] political chat sites and [am] not rooted in any desire to post factual information."

Check my threads. I post fact after fact after fact, with substantiation.

You? You do not.

Finally, please, PLEASE, tell me what you're deal is with this inveterate repeititon to "Strothre Martin". It's been like that from nearly word one. Can I go to snopes and debunk it as with your crop circle belief? But seriously, this is very bizarre behavior on your part. I have no idea why you'd call me such a thing or person or whatever. Please explain.

Originally Posted by Dixie

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

You are begging for protection from the moderator...

Please review the ALIPAC forum rules:

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=26071

Do not question moderator actions on the open boards until you have tried to resolve your question via Private Message.

I think it's self evident that I'm referring to Ghost's conduct. Not anyone else's.

But thanks for the heads up.