Quoted: Where else have you posted your "manifesto" and "enlightened" thoughts???

Anywhere people seeking to perpetuate tyranny congregate.  You are welcome to check out http://members.cox.net/frdmftr  though only part of it refers to the right to keep and bear arms.  Actually the big deal going on right now might allow the people to eventually make a choice between owning a gun and buying groceries, paying rent, etc.  See "There Is A Tyranny Sneaking Up On You" on that page.

Quoted: Quoted: I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice.  The above is based upon my personal knowledge, research, and ethics, and is expressed as an exercise of my right to free political speech.  Do not take or omit any action based upon the above without first consulting your own lawdog or legal beagle, for the judicial system subversively disagrees with much of the above. You're not telling us anything we don't know about already. What's your point?hr

If you don't understand the point, then:  "Go home from us in peace.  We seek not your counsels or arms.  Kneel before your master and lick his boots, and may your chains rest lightly upon you."
(Well, that's not a strict quote from Sam Adams, but it will do.)

Quoted: At this rate, frdmftr1 will be passing my post number in about a week.  Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.   I better start posting 24/7.   Colt_SBR

Nah.  If I don't find anyone here willing to advocate liberty and discuss methods of achieving it, I'll be gone in a week.  I haven't time to try teaching pigs to fly.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: IBTL.......I am just gonna go out on a limb here.hr Okay.  I'll go for the bait:  What means "IBTL"? In Before The Lunatic....hr

Oh.  Okay.  Whatever.  Thanks.

Not being a lawyer, I think that what he is saying is that if a 'corportation' opens a facility to the public, they cannot upsurp your rights by making rules that forbid lawful behavior.

In one of his posts above, he brings up the theater issue, where one of our members was tossed out for open carry, which is lawful in AZ, but was forbiden by the corporation that owns the facility.

The facility is open to the public, and is not private property in the same sense as your house.

You do not allow the public to come and go through your house at will, or during posted buisness hours, so it is not a 'public' space, and you have the right to deny access because it is PRIVATE property.


Am I close?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: FALSE. Corporations are persons and entitled to due process of law under the US Constitution. You can actually say that with a straight face -- you are wearing a straight face, aren't you? -- and then invoke George W. Bush and the shade of Ronald Reagan in your tagline? Regardless.  What you said is nonsense.  To the extent corporations are "persons" (I gag at the mere thought) they are "persons" because government currently chooses to regard them as "persons".  They can cease to exist in the blink of an eye if government decides they are not in the best interests of those in power.  They may be currently "entitled" to due process, but they have no "right" to due process and never have had, sleazy pronouncements by government propagandists notwithstanding. The SCOTUS first ruled that corporations are entitled to the full equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment in the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. This case has NEVER been overturned, and is treated by  the courts as a binding precedent. And I say that with a very straight face. I did my doctoral work in Constitutional Law and History. Try to at least make a cogent argument in reply. Citing legal precedent would be nice, since your opinion on the matter has exactly ZERO force of law.

I notice you ignored this completely. Maybe you did not see it. It's been the "law of the land" for 116 years.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: FALSE. Corporations are persons and entitled to due process of law under the US Constitution. You can actually say that with a straight face -- you are wearing a straight face, aren't you? -- and then invoke George W. Bush and the shade of Ronald Reagan in your tagline? Regardless.  What you said is nonsense.  To the extent corporations are "persons" (I gag at the mere thought) they are "persons" because government currently chooses to regard them as "persons".  They can cease to exist in the blink of an eye if government decides they are not in the best interests of those in power.  They may be currently "entitled" to due process, but they have no "right" to due process and never have had, sleazy pronouncements by government propagandists notwithstanding. The SCOTUS first ruled that corporations are entitled to the full equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment in the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. This case has NEVER been overturned, and is treated by  the courts as a binding precedent. And I say that with a very straight face. I did my doctoral work in Constitutional Law and History. Try to at least make a cogent argument in reply. Citing legal precedent would be nice, since your opinion on the matter has exactly ZERO force of law.  hr

Ah, yes.  The ubiquitus 14th Amendment that changed forever the meaning of the term "Citizen of the United States" and due to which the Clearfield Doctrine 318 U.S. 363 (1943), 318 U.S. 744 effectively made every "Citizen of the United States" a chattel (commercial commodity Unit) of the federal government corporation known as "The United States".

SCOTUS has also ruled that any law which is absent subject matter jurisdiction derived from the Constitution of the United States is null and void not merely from the moment of its discovery as color of law, but from the moment of its inception.

Here's a newsflash, Mr. lawyer-twister:  The United States Supreme Court doesn't not issue me my rights and the United States Supreme Court doesn't take them away and does not (has no lawful authority to) create a special class of citizen with rights superior to those of a natural individual at law.  To the extent that it does, it reveals itself as part and parcel of the tyranny that has befallen us, and that doesn't make it "legal".  If you support the legal doctrine that the 14th Amendment changed our nation from one in which the sole, exclusive, absolutely only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. into one in which the sole exclusive purpose of government is to restore feudal control to the same banking dynasties we fought off in the American Revolution, then I suggest you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Quoted: You are operating on half truths.  The officer's of the corporation, the board of directors and the employees of the corporation are all individuals. There are very few individual actions that they can claim immunity to..... For instance, they can't punch you in the nose. They can't steal a bagel under the auspices of the .corp and expect not to be held accountable. Hell, under Sarbanes-Oxley the CFO's and CEO's can now be held criminally responsible for negligently causing a company to tank. You are talking out of both sides of your ass.

But they can require me, in direct and egregious violation of both the state wage payment law and the Uniform Commercial Code, to find some third party willing to give me permission to receive my wages, provided I pay an extortion to said third party, provided I waive my right to the privacy of my fingerprints, providing I waive my right to be secure from prior restraint on my right to due process of law, providing I waive my right to contract with some other third party with whom I am not interested in contracting, and providing -- at the bottom line -- I waive my right to my property which is my earned wages lawfully due me.  I have two court rulings saying the employer can do exactly that and I have no recourse because limited liability of a corporation trumps my right to require the employer to cash the check dishonored by his bank as the UCC requires.

The corporate veil can be pierced only when it is government's policy that it can be pierced.

(See There is a Tyranny Sneaking Up On You, http://members.cox.net/frdmftr.)

Quoted: <snip> Here's a newsflash, Mr. lawyer-twister:  The United States Supreme Court doesn't not issue me my rights and the United States Supreme Court doesn't take them away and does not (has no lawful authority to) create a special class of citizen with rights superior to those of a natural individual at law.  To the extent that it does, it reveals itself as part and parcel of the tyranny that has befallen us, and that doesn't make it "legal".  If you support the legal doctrine that the 14th Amendment changed our nation from one in which the sole, exclusive, absolutely only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. into one in which the sole exclusive purpose of government is to restore feudal control to the same banking dynasties we fought off in the American Revolution, then I suggest you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If this is what you believe, I may safely dismiss whatever you have to say on this topic, since you are an uniformed nitwit. Have a nice day.

Quoted: Shut up whack job.  You are full of shit. What this boils down to is you don't have a bank account and are crying about no place to cash your paycheck??? Is that right? Cry me a fucking river.......boohoo...... BTW, the issuing bank MUST cash the check, assuming funds are present in that account.  Period.

If you are not an account holder they may require a fingerprint, in addition to photo id.

Wachovia told me that unless I opened an account, they would charge me $5 to cash my paycheck, even though it was drawn on a Wachovia account.

THAT is BS.

Quoted: Quoted: FALSE. Corporations are persons and entitled to due process of law under the US Constitution. Bingo

Section 10-7-2
Service of notice and copy; when case stands for trial.
Such notice and copy may be served upon any officer or agent of the defendant corporation authorized by law to receive service of summons or other civil process issuing against such corporation, and upon the return of the sheriff showing proper service, the indictment stands for trial.

(Code 1896, §5317; Code 1907, §6625; Code 1923, §3728; Code 1940, T. 10, §200.)


Section 10-7-3
Entry of not guilty plea for corporation failing to appear, etc.
If the defendant corporation fails to appear and plead to the indictment, the court must cause the plea of not guilty to be entered for it, and the trial shall proceed as if the corporation had appeared and pleaded not guilty; but, in such case, proof must be made to the court that the person upon whom the notice and copy of the indictment were served was an officer or agent of the corporation authorized by law to receive such service.

(Code 1896, §5318; Code 1907, §6626; Code 1923, §3729; Code 1940, T. 10, §201.)

By the way, have I mentioned the comet that is going to destroy Earth next weekend? Or it might have been the next, I forgot.  

Well, someone with at least a thoughtful reply.  But I point out that everything Hitler did was according to law at the time.  Everything Mussolini did was according to law at the time -- and the sheeple were so pleased with his fascist dictatorship because after all, the subways ran on time.  I will comment below.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: FALSE. Corporations are persons and entitled to due process of law under the US Constitution. You can actually say that with a straight face -- you are wearing a straight face, aren't you? -- and then invoke George W. Bush and the shade of Ronald Reagan in your tagline? Regardless.  What you said is nonsense.  To the extent corporations are "persons" (I gag at the mere thought) they are "persons" because government currently chooses to regard them as "persons".  They can cease to exist in the blink of an eye if government decides they are not in the best interests of those in power.  They may be currently "entitled" to due process, but they have no "right" to due process and never have had, sleazy pronouncements by government propagandists notwithstanding. Under the law, a corporation is a person. Period.  Corpus -> body, corporation is a legally 'created body' -> 'created person'

Exactly.  And if we don't get busy and rescind that law, and preferably put its feudal advocates in jail for a minimum of 20 years, we are going to find out what it is like to live in a Hitleresque dictatorship that will make Hitler look like an angel.  What you apparently fail to realize is that the various political ideologies -- communism, fascism, Fascism (capitalized), Nazi-ism, socialism, and yes, capitalism (which is an economic system operable only under a political ideology called "liberty"), etc., are all a crock.  There are only two political ideologies:  Liberty and Feudalism.  The rest are smoke and mirrors to keep the sheeple in line.  And yes, CAPITALISM is no better than the rest if its practitioners fail to respect the fundamental rights of all people, in public, in private, on commercial property, on public property, and upon invitation, on private property.  So far I have seen no one here advocate liberty:  Every response, with the exception of a couple I couldn't figure out what they were trying to say, has strongly supported the very infrastructure that is conniving to deprive us all of our right to keep and bear arms.

As a legal person, they have the same legal rights as anyone else, with the exception that they may be bought & sold. And it should stay that way...

And unless we wake up and put a stop to at least part of it, it will stay that way until you don't work, or if you do, you don't receive your wages, unless you satisfy the political agenda of some twerp with corporate power over you including banks.  We don't have to abolish corporations altogether, although ultimately that may prove to be the only defense available to freedom.  All we have to do is establish a doctrine of law -- that I believe about 250 local municipalities have already established it -- that says corporations have no rights superior to the fundamental rights of a natural individuals at law.  Sure, corporations -- or the individuals that run them -- can keep people off their premises, can prohibit disruption of their commerce, can maintain order on the premises, etc.  But if they invite the public to enter upon the premises for commercial purpose, they have no right to interfere with the rights of the public that do not disrupt their commerce or damage the facilities, etc.

If I don't want you on my premises, weather I am the owner of the corp, or the sole proprietor, your ass is OFF, or the police haul you off... Just like an unwelcome guest in my home...

In your home you are within your rights regardless (unless you have opened your home to the public for commercial or other purpose).  As the owner of a corporation, or the sole proprietor of a business, if you throw me off your premises because I am a minority, or because I am handicapped, or because I belong to a religion you dislike, or because of my politics, you can be sued into your next decade's profit margin, and rightfully so.  I assert most strongly that if you throw me off your premises because I am exercising my right to peacefully keep and bear arms, I should be able to sue you into your next decade's profit margin as well.

Property rights apply, universally...

And as long as gun owners think property rights apply universally to those who are exempt from any accountability for your protection while you are on their premises, gun owners will continue to lose ground in the fight to restore our right to keep and bear arms.

Oh, as for why you're being called a troll... We've had enough 'lunatic fringe' posters show up with post #1, spouting off stuff about how the law isn't what it is,, or how 'you too can legally evade taxes',. and so on... It generally gets regarded as trolling...

Well, excuse me.  I thought people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms would respond favorably to an argument that supports the right to keep and bear arms.  I guess either I was wrong, or the people on this board don't support the right to keep and bear arms unless their self-appointed betters give them permission.

Most of us recognize that OUR RIGHTS only go so far as to when they don't infringe on SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS. Property rights, in most states, trump carry rights... It's just the way the law is written.

Property rights should trump carry rights -- so long as the property owner is not exempt from accountability for his exercise of his property rights and so long as he is not acting as the cats paw of local, state, or federal government thugs who want you to be disarmed everywhere they can arrange it.  Just keep on supporting this twerp's color of right to tell you to disarm yourself and pretty soon you will find government ordering him to do so as a condition of his limited liability privilege.  If you don't stop him now, you will find government emboldened to do more, because you have told government you don't care about your rights.

In AZ, in that case, the real question was did the owner take the proper steps to exercise his rights (consensus: NO), not weather or not he had the right to decide 'what goes' on HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY.

That consensus was exactly why I jumped in.  That's like trying to decide whether an extortionist or burglar should take all big bills or all small bills, and the consensus is that it is his choice.  Hey, the consensus of opinion was 'way off the subject, which is the right to keep and bear arms -- not the privilege, not the permission, not the "mommy may I", but the God-given RIGHT.  The man who determines policy for that government-issued feudal title of nobility is a member of this society too, and he has a serious obligation to protect the rights of everyone with whom he interacts.  If he refuses to meet that obligation then he is no better than any other criminal marauder.

The Constitution only protects you from actions of government - the market protects you from commercial abuse, That is life in a FREE MARKET society. The correct response is not to scream 'AH HAV MUH RIGHTS!!! AH GONNA SUE U!!!', it's to recognize that they are within their rights to ask you to leave, and you are within YOUR rights to never spend a penny there again...

I'll remember you said that when you find it within your rights to never spend anything anywhere again because you can't do it anywhere without giving up your right to keep and bear arms -- and, incidentally, every other right you ever thought you had.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Shut up whack job.  You are full of shit. What this boils down to is you don't have a bank account and are crying about no place to cash your paycheck??? Is that right? Cry me a fucking river.......boohoo...... BTW, the issuing bank MUST cash the check, assuming funds are present in that account.  Period. If you are not an account holder they may require a fingerprint, in addition to photo id. Wachovia told me that unless I opened an account, they would charge me $5 to cash my paycheck, even though it was drawn on a Wachovia account. THAT is BS. I guess that is within their rights as a business.  Is it a violation of someone's freedoms?  Or simply just a shitty thing to do?

A shitty thing to do. They will honor the check, for a $5 charge.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice.  The above is based upon my personal knowledge, research, and ethics, and is expressed as an exercise of my right to free political speech.  Do not take or omit any action based upon the above without first consulting your own lawdog or legal beagle, for the judicial system subversively disagrees with much of the above. You're not telling us anything we don't know about already. What's your point? If you don't understand the point, then:  "Go home from us in peace.  We seek not your counsels or arms.  Kneel before your master and lick his boots, and may your chains rest lightly upon you." (Well, that's not a strict quote from Sam Adams, but it will do.)

A G N T S A.....

We've heard all this stuff before. We know all about it. And we know it's easier to say this stuff as a keyboard commando than to actually use this stuff in the real world. Go to school, son. Take some pre-law courses. Read up on the history, or rather, the pre-history of our laws and the Constitution.

And then go take a Dale Carnegie course.

You'll catch a lot more flies with honey, than with vinegar, as Dale used to say.

Quoted: Quoted: A shitty thing to do. They will honor the check, for a $5 charge. Agreed.   Still doesn't make this loon any less looney though.

I have to say that I can see where he is coming from in regards to buisness that operate strictly for the public buisness.

THe corporate buildings are not open to the public, but outlets like the mall, theaters and resturants are strictly for public use, and as such, should not be able to strip you of your legal rights.

Kind of like getting thrown out of a theater for talking about supporting George BUsh or John sKerry.

Note:  This message indents two tiers; I hope I get the quote markers in the right places.  Sorry if I don't.

Quoted: Quoted: A corporation is an government-created "artificial person" and has no natural rights.  Like government, is has only certain delegated authority. Actually, a corporation is deemed a legal entity that holds its identity separate from the ownership.  As such, it is entitled to certain protections guaranteed under the due process clause and other areas of the constitution to protect the rights of the entity.  However, I have never seen a corporation that has been granted substantive due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.  Nor can a corporation vote or serve on a jury.

As I said in an earlier response:  "Entitled" by government fiat.  Not by fundamental right.  This is an "entitlement" that can be rescinded at the drop of a hat -- for refusing to prohibit firearms on the premises, for example.

A corporation may be considered a citizen of two states dependent upon its state of incorporation and state in which its principal place of business reside, however the term citizen really only applies in the area of person jurisdiction and state regulation of the corportations affairs.   A corporation is a "creature of government" and has no lawful authority not delegated to government -- if government doesn't have the lawful authority, it cannot delegate the lawful authority to its creation.   Now you are starting to lose it.  A corporation is a creature of STATE government.  Therefore our duly elected representatives MAY agree to create such an entity.

All political power flows from the people (aka "body politic").  Where did the STATE get the authority to create a legal fictional "person" superior in rights to the natural born individual?  And does the STATE not agree to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States as a condition precedent to statehood?  And does not the much-maligned 14th amendment incorporate the Bill of Rights into STATE obligations?  And do you really think the founding fathers intended to prohibit the U.S. government from infringing upon the rights of the people, while telling the STATEs "Go for it!"?  I'm sorry, but I have had it up to here with wannabe paralegals in black robes ruling without reference to the law, and with STATE legislators who have never read their own STATE constitution passing laws that have no subject matter jurisdiction whatever.  I'm not impressed with the argument "That's how things are done."  That argument is why we are subject to the tyranny we are fighting -- er, that I am fighting.  You folks seem to be happy with the current state of affairs.

A person or group of persons seeking incorporation do so for the specific purpose of exempting themselves from the legal consequences of any action they take in the name of the corporation.  This is the exact analogue of, and exists for the same reasons as, the feudal "Title of Nobility" that is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States at Article I Section 9 Clause 8 and Article I Section 10 Clause 1. I must tell you that anyone who quotes the "Title of Nobility Clause" in any legal argument should be instantly recoginzed as a complete NUT.  It instantly tags one as a follower of some right-wing-pseudo-intellectual cult who lacks the ability to think for himself.

What a bunch of crap!  That's the most blatant example of psychopolitics used in an argument I have heard yet!  You might as well claim that the word "freedom" used in a legal argument should identify the user as some kind of right-wing radical -- and these days, it apparently does.  Okay, so you tell me:  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and fluffs its feathers like a duck, why isn't it a duck?  Is the entire legal profession so brainwashed that a pile of crap by any other name smells like a rose?

Furthermore, the legal analysis in your first sentence is completely flawed.  There are methods in the law for holding the individuals behind a corporation accountable.  Do a seach on the internet for a concept called "piercing the corporate veil" or "alter ego" and you will see what I mean.  Additionally, the corporate limitation of liability does not provide immunity to the individuals for there criminal liability or civil liability resulting from an intentional tort.  In such cases, the individual can be held PERSONALLY LIABLE even if the corporation is legit.

Uh-huh.  That's if government policy is supported thereby, and the wannabe paralegals in black robes have respect for the law and for the rights of the individuals before them.  Government policy at the current time is that no wage-earner has any right to his wages unless he first asks permission of some twerp in a bank and pays a (currently small, but open-ended fixed fee), or asks permission of some other twerp who has no obligation to cash the payroll check at all and charges a percentage.  If the bank can charge $3 to cash a payroll check (written on an account at that bank) there is nothing to prevent the bank from charging a $300 fee -- and if you refuse to jump through the hoops the bank requires, well, that's okay, because the UCC completely exempts the bank from any liability for refusing to convey a payee's property to him.  Now, the UCC says if the bank dishonors the check, the signer of the check is required to cash it according to its terms at issuance.  But two courts now have ruled that the signer of the check doesn't have to do that and is not accountable for refusing to do it, so don't quote me the law:  The judges care less about the law.

A private individual may prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms (or designate who may and who may not exercise the right) on his private property maintained exclusively for his private use.  He may open his property to the public for commercial purpose and he may at his choice retain, or relinquish, his right to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms on his property PROVIDED he personally remains responsible for any injury, death, or damage to property that results.  Unless he expressly informs members of the public that arms are prohibited, AND that members of the public traffic upon his premises exclusively at their own risk, he is and rightfully should be personally liable for the safety of those who traffic upon his premises. WTF does this mean?  Its gibberish.  Its worse than one of those stupid "Redemption Schemes" that I have seen floating around.  Honestly, I don't like the tactics of the FBI and the ATF anymore than the next man on this board, but Jeseus freaking Christ you cannot actually believe this???

So you are saying that a property owner is not responsible for the safety of his guests, and especially so if he disarms them?  What kind of gibberish is that?  [BTW, I have no clue what you are talking about re "redemption schemes".]  I take it that you don't believe any human being has any responsibility for the safety of any other?  Especially on the private property of one of them?  Is that a lawyer mentality talking?

Do the terms invitee, licensee and trespasser mean anything to you?  Additionally, where in the history of the common law (upon which our tort system is based) do you find justification for this?

Yes, those terms have a meaning for me, and I am referring to the "invitee".  If you invite me onto your property, you have at least a responsibility to not place me at risk of life and limb by simple negligence and certainly not by gross negligence.  You probably could not be held accountable to me if home invaders attacked without warning, but you would be guilty of simple negligence if you knew the risk of attack was present and you inadvertently left the front door unlocked.  You would be (or rightfully should be, which rarely occurs to today's judges) grossly negligent and perhaps criminally liable if you required me to be disarmed as a condition of visiting, and then failed to protect me from the home invaders.

The exercise of rights has a concurrent responsibility:  If a private individual deprives members of the public of their right to defend themselves while on his property, then his concurrent responsibility is to guarantee their safety while on his property.

Again, I take issue with your legal analysis, but I can agree with the general intention.  Unfortunately, as a private citizen no one is making me go onto the private property of such individual so therefore you cannot impose this "duty" of personal defense.  I may have a duty to protect you form defects and hazards on my land, but I have almost no duty to protect you from another person.

How things have changed since the gun-banners talked us into accepting their gun control agenda and the lack of legal and moral responsibility for each other.  I just find it appalling that so many gun-owners seem to buy into the whole gun control shtick, and then whine and moan and snivel when increment by increment, they lose their right to keep and bear arms -- and most other rights not "entitled" by government.

Conversely, if such a private individual honors and respects the right of the people on his property to keep and bear arms, both he, and they, have a mutual responsibility to protect and defend each other and the property of the owner.  This is a condition of the invitation to traffic on the private property of another, whether for personal or commercial purpose.

NO NO NO.  There is not such thing as a mutual duty of defense under U.S. law.

Well, there used to be.  It is still a moral duty, and the legal duty should be restored.

None of the above applies to commercial property owned by a corporation.  The corporation itself, and the commercial property upon which it does business, exists for the specific purpose of exempting the owner(s) from any personal accountability derived from opening the premises to the public and doing business with the public.  If the law specifically exempts an individual from personal accountability for depriving others of their right to self-defense while on the corporate commercial premises, then the law MUST prohibit that individual from enforcing a policy, in the name of the corporation, that deprives members of the public of their right to self defense.

Why must the law prohibit the corporation from enforcing its policy?  Like the individual, the corporation extends permission to the priviate individual to enter its land.  Such permission may be therefore be withdrawn, thus rendering the individual a trespasser.

Because the policy to which we are referring is a violation of the fundamental rights of individuals.  And like the individual, the corporation may extend permission to the private individual to enter its land, or deny permission.  But if it does so because the private individual is an unacceptable minority, or practices an unacceptable religion, or has an unacceptable handicap, or exercises unacceptable rights, the corporation may, and rightfully should be, sued.  (This does not apply to the private owner; he has a right to freedom of association.  The corporation does not.)

I urge the members of this board to stop assuming some twerp with limited liability exemption from responsibility has any lawful authority to tell members of the public on his premises that are open to the public that they may not exercise their right to keep and bear arms on said premises.

So in essence, while you are advocating personal freedom and liberty, in doing so you attempt to justify violating the most basic concept of property rights?

Only for legal fictions who have no rights, whose "rights" are not "rights" at all, but are government "entitlements" that government and lawyers like to pretend, for their own power and profit motive, are rights.  They are not rights.  Only natural-born human beings have rights.  To argue otherwise is to destroy -- utterly destroy -- the whole legal concept of individual sovereignty and liberty.  It is but a shadow of its former self even now.  (The private individual running the corporation has rights in his own name.  He has only entitlements in the name of his corporation.  He cannot set policy for the corporation or the property in his own name; therefore he cannot exercise his own rights in the name of the corporation.

I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice.  The above is based upon my personal knowledge, research, and ethics, and is expressed as an exercise of my right to free political speech.  Do not take or omit any action based upon the above without first consulting your own lawdog or legal beagle, for the judicial system subversively disagrees with much of the above.

No shit?  Actually, the first time I read this post I thought that my dog had got out of hiskennel again, drank my bottle of Jim Beam, chowed down on my extra spicy chili and let his bowels erupt all over my screen.  

I respect your right to free speech, but you have no right to be free of the repercussions of your blather.

SBG


Do tell?  Well, those who profit from the tyranny of others regard freedom the same way the southern plantation owners regarded it.  The benefits of slavery, to them, was too great to allow some abolitionists to abolish it.

Alright ....who keeps feeding the troll

Quoted: Not being a lawyer, I think that what he is saying is that if a 'corportation' opens a facility to the public, they cannot upsurp your rights by making rules that forbid lawful behavior. In one of his posts above, he brings up the theater issue, where one of our members was tossed out for open carry, which is lawful in AZ, but was forbiden by the corporation that owns the facility. The facility is open to the public, and is not private property in the same sense as your house. You do not allow the public to come and go through your house at will, or during posted buisness hours, so it is not a 'public' space, and you have the right to deny access because it is PRIVATE property. Am I close?

Right on the mark.  Perhaps those who couldn't understand my plain english will understand yours.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: FALSE. Corporations are persons and entitled to due process of law under the US Constitution. You can actually say that with a straight face -- you are wearing a straight face, aren't you? -- and then invoke George W. Bush and the shade of Ronald Reagan in your tagline? Regardless.  What you said is nonsense.  To the extent corporations are "persons" (I gag at the mere thought) they are "persons" because government currently chooses to regard them as "persons".  They can cease to exist in the blink of an eye if government decides they are not in the best interests of those in power.  They may be currently "entitled" to due process, but they have no "right" to due process and never have had, sleazy pronouncements by government propagandists notwithstanding. The SCOTUS first ruled that corporations are entitled to the full equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment in the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. This case has NEVER been overturned, and is treated by  the courts as a binding precedent. And I say that with a very straight face. I did my doctoral work in Constitutional Law and History. Try to at least make a cogent argument in reply. Citing legal precedent would be nice, since your opinion on the matter has exactly ZERO force of law.  hr I notice you ignored this completely. Maybe you did not see it. he

Really?  I thought I addressed it.  I said the Supreme Court does not issue my rights and does not lawfully take them away.  Since you didn't understand what that means, let me put it another way:  Clearly, then, we have been living in a capitalist dictatorship for 116 years, and that was not the nation founded by our founding fathers.  It is an Occupation Government and it derives no lawful authority to govern from the U.S. Constitution.

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> Here's a newsflash, Mr. lawyer-twister:  The United States Supreme Court doesn't not issue me my rights and the United States Supreme Court doesn't take them away and does not (has no lawful authority to) create a special class of citizen with rights superior to those of a natural individual at law.  To the extent that it does, it reveals itself as part and parcel of the tyranny that has befallen us, and that doesn't make it "legal".  If you support the legal doctrine that the 14th Amendment changed our nation from one in which the sole, exclusive, absolutely only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. into one in which the sole exclusive purpose of government is to restore feudal control to the same banking dynasties we fought off in the American Revolution, then I suggest you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. If this is what you believe, I may safely dismiss whatever you have to say on this topic, since you are an uniformed nitwit. Have a nice day.

Ah, yes.  The Lord of the Manor dismisses the indentured servant for demanding his liberty from tyranny.  After all, the Lord of the Manor gets to eat cake, which he purchases with the fees he embezzles under color of law from the laborer's earned wages.  Why, indeed, should the Manor-born consider liberty?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You are operating on half truths.  The officer's of the corporation, the board of directors and the employees of the corporation are all individuals. There are very few individual actions that they can claim immunity to..... For instance, they can't punch you in the nose. They can't steal a bagel under the auspices of the .corp and expect not to be held accountable. Hell, under Sarbanes-Oxley the CFO's and CEO's can now be held criminally responsible for negligently causing a company to tank. You are talking out of both sides of your ass. But they can require me, in direct and egregious violation of both the state wage payment law and the Uniform Commercial Code, to find some third party willing to give me permission to receive my wages, provided I pay an extortion to said third party, provided I waive my right to the privacy of my fingerprints, providing I waive my right to be secure from prior restraint on my right to due process of law, providing I waive my right to contract with some other third party with whom I am not interested in contracting, and providing -- at the bottom line -- I waive my right to my property which is my earned wages lawfully due me.  I have two court rulings saying the employer can do exactly that and I have no recourse because limited liability of a corporation trumps my right to require the employer to cash the check dishonored by his bank as the UCC requires. The corporate veil can be pierced only when it is government's policy that it can be pierced. (See There is a Tyranny Sneaking Up On You, http://members.cox.net/frdmftr.) Shut up whack job.  You are full of shit. hat Is that right? Cry me a fucking river.......boohoo...... BTW, the issuing bank MUST cash the check, assuming funds are present in that account.  Period.

Do tell?  Please to examine U.C.C. 3-408:  "A check or other draft does not of itself operate as an assignment of funds in the hands of the drawee available for its payment, and the drawee is not liable on the instrument until the drawee accepts it."  In Arizona that is codified as Arizona Revised Statutes Title 47 Section 3408.

I will graciously accept your apology, as soon as you tender it, for being a foul-mouthed asshole who has no clue what he is talking about.

Quoted: Quoted: Shut up whack job.  You are full of shit. hat Is that right? Cry me a fucking river.......boohoo...... BTW, the issuing bank MUST cash the check, assuming funds are present in that account.  Period. If you are not an account holder they may require a fingerprint, in addition to photo id. Wachovia told me that unless I opened an account, they would charge me $5 to cash my paycheck, even though it was drawn on a Wachovia account. THAT is BS.

Thank you, sir.  You are beginning to get a hint.  If they can charge you $5, they can charge you $500.  If they have plenipotentiary authority to withhold your property from you pending a fingerprint (which is not used for ID unless the check is bogus, which makes it a prior restraint on the right to due process), and an extortional fee (the property is yours; they have an obligation to give it to you stat, and pending extra ID from two institutions of the bank's choosing ("right to contract?"), then they can withhold your property because you are a gun-owner or because you operate a firearm-related business.  They have already refused merchant account services to two gun businesses (until gun owners started closing accounts) and they already charge 25-cents per check for a business to deposit customers' check -- what makes you think they won't apply this fee to account-holders as soon as they think it is entrenched well enough for non-account holders?

Quoted: <snip> Really?  I thought I addressed it.  I said the Supreme Court does not issue my rights and does not lawfully take them away.  Since you didn't understand what that means, let me put it another way:  Clearly, then, we have been living in a capitalist dictatorship for 116 years, and that was not the nation founded by our founding fathers.  It is an Occupation Government and it derives no lawful authority to govern from the U.S. Constitution.

I recommend you read Federalist 78 and 79 before you go spouting off about the illegitimacy of judicial review. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess you are also one of those nuts who believes the 16th Amendment was never actually ratified either.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Shut up whack job.  You are full of shit. hat Is that right? Cry me a fucking river.......boohoo...... BTW, the issuing bank MUST cash the check, assuming funds are present in that account.  Period. If you are not an account holder they may require a fingerprint, in addition to photo id. Wachovia told me that unless I opened an account, they would charge me $5 to cash my paycheck, even though it was drawn on a Wachovia account. THAT is BS. I guess that is within their rights as a business.  Is it a violation of someone's freedoms?  Or simply just a shitty thing to do?

No, it is not within their rights as a business.  The property represented by the check is the property of the payee.  To withhold the property of another, particularly when they have it without the owner's permission in the first place, is "unlawful detainer".  To require payment of a fee as a condition precedent to remitting the property to its rightful owner is extortion.

The UCC is supposed to cover this.  The section quoted that exempts the bank from liability is based upon refusing to cash a check for insufficient funds, and there is nothing wrong with that.  The UCC provides that if the bank dishonors the check (for insufficient funds or any or no reason; it doesn't mater), then the signer of the check is obligated to cash it.  But when the bank sticks its nose into the transaction and determines as a matter of their own internal policy whether they will cash a check or not, then it should be liable for refusing to cash an otherwise valid check.  And the G-D employer should be REQUIRED by the court to cash the check when his bank refuses, and the UCC does require him to do so.  But the courts won't enforce it because it is against government and banking policy.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Shut up whack job.  You are full of shit. hat Is that right? Cry me a fucking river.......boohoo...... BTW, the issuing bank MUST cash the check, assuming funds are present in that account.  Period. If you are not an account holder they may require a fingerprint, in addition to photo id. Wachovia told me that unless I opened an account, they would charge me $5 to cash my paycheck, even though it was drawn on a Wachovia account. THAT is BS. I guess that is within their rights as a business.  Is it a violation of someone's freedoms?  Or simply just a shitty thing to do? A shitty thing to do. They will honor the check, for a $5 charge.

I will remember you said that when they increase the charge (extortion) to $500 if you own a gun.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip> Here's a newsflash, Mr. lawyer-twister:  The United States Supreme Court doesn't not issue me my rights and the United States Supreme Court doesn't take them away and does not (has no lawful authority to) create a special class of citizen with rights superior to those of a natural individual at law.  To the extent that it does, it reveals itself as part and parcel of the tyranny that has befallen us, and that doesn't make it "legal".  If you support the legal doctrine that the 14th Amendment changed our nation from one in which the sole, exclusive, absolutely only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. into one in which the sole exclusive purpose of government is to restore feudal control to the same banking dynasties we fought off in the American Revolution, then I suggest you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. If this is what you believe, I may safely dismiss whatever you have to say on this topic, since you are an uniformed nitwit. Have a nice day. Ah, yes.  The Lord of the Manor dismisses the indentured servant for demanding his liberty from tyranny.  After all, the Lord of the Manor gets to eat cake, which he purchases with the fees he embezzles under color of law from the laborer's earned wages.  Why, indeed, should the Manor-born consider liberty?

Your satire abilities are as weak as your Constitutional king-fu.

Quoted: <snip> Thank you, sir.  You are beginning to get a hint.  If they can charge you $5, they can charge you $500.  If they have plenipotentiary authority to withhold your property from you pending a fingerprint (which is not used for ID unless the check is bogus, which makes it a prior restraint on the right to due process), and an extortional fee (the property is yours; they have an obligation to give it to you stat, and pending extra ID from two institutions of the bank's choosing ("right to contract?"), then they can withhold your property because you are a gun-owner or because you operate a firearm-related business.  They have already refused merchant account services to two gun businesses (until gun owners started closing accounts) and they already charge 25-cents per check for a business to deposit customers' check -- what makes you think they won't apply this fee to account-holders as soon as they think it is entrenched well enough for non-account holders?

You really are clueless. If a bank refuses to do business with a gun company, some other bank will step in to take that business. It's called the free market.

Your tinfoil must need adjustment.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice.  The above is based upon my personal knowledge, research, and ethics, and is expressed as an exercise of my right to free political speech.  Do not take or omit any action based upon the above without first consulting your own lawdog or legal beagle, for the judicial system subversively disagrees with much of the above. You're not telling us anything we don't know about already. What's your point?hr If you don't understand the point, then:  "Go home from us in peace.  We seek not your counsels or arms.  Kneel before your master and lick his boots, and may your chains rest lightly upon you." (Well, that's not a strict quote from Sam Adams, but it will do.) A G N T S A..... We've heard all this stuff before. We know all about it. And we know it's easier to say this stuff as a keyboard commando than to actually use this stuff in the real world. Go to school, son. Take some pre-law courses. Read up on the history, or rather, the pre-history of our laws and the Constitution. And then go take a Dale Carnegie course. You'll catch a lot more flies with honey, than with vinegar, as Dale used to say. hr

I'm comfortable with my level of understanding of the constitution and the law.  FYI, I have taken the IRS and their superdog DOJ trial lawyer to federal court for confiscating $112K of my money from my agent that wasn't taxable and which they never asserted was taxable, applying it to the trumped-up tax liabilities of someone else who had no tax liabilities, and then -- because I wrote two letters to a newspaper critical of the communist exploitation of women and gun control -- was assessed 100% taxes on the money the Illegal Revenue Service had already confiscated.  I won, and the superdog was roundly criticised by the court.  (But, I didn't get my money back:  You have to apply for a refund within 9 months, but they can keep a lien on you for ten years.)

I admit I might have been cocky after that win to take my wage case to Justice court and then Superior Court, but then I expected those courts to rule pursuant to law.  Both of them ignored the law completely and never referenced it in their rulings.  Part of it was the government policy favoring doing away with physical money (so everyone can deduct their fee and no one can stop it), and part of it was the fact that wannabe paralegals (who aren't even lawyers) who sit on Justice Court benches don't like pro se litigants playing in their sandbox.  Neither do thugs in bat robes that sit on Superior Court appeal division benches.

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> Really?  I thought I addressed it.  I said the Supreme Court does not issue my rights and does not lawfully take them away.  Since you didn't understand what that means, let me put it another way:  Clearly, then, we have been living in a capitalist dictatorship for 116 years, and that was not the nation founded by our founding fathers.  It is an Occupation Government and it derives no lawful authority to govern from the U.S. Constitution. I recommend you read Federalist 78 and 79 before you go spouting off about the illegitimacy of judicial review. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess you are also one of those nuts who believes the 16th Amendment was never actually ratified either. hr

I've read it.  I've also read Jefferson's concerns that there was no way provided in the U.S. Constitution to prevent a tyranny of the judiciary such as we acquired within 80 years or so of the Constitution's ratification.

As to your second stupid remark:  Okay.  Go to your local library reference desk and have a look at the two volume set titled "The Law That Never Was".  It contains the certified legislative records of all the states that Secretary of State Philander Knox claimed ratified the Sixteenth Amendment.  See if you can find more than two that actually ratified the proposed amendment.

I will graciously accept your apology, as well, for calling me a nut, as soon as you tender it.

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> Thank you, sir.  You are beginning to get a hint.  If they can charge you $5, they can charge you $500.  If they have plenipotentiary authority to withhold your property from you pending a fingerprint (which is not used for ID unless the check is bogus, which makes it a prior restraint on the right to due process), and an extortional fee (the property is yours; they have an obligation to give it to you stat, and pending extra ID from two institutions of the bank's choosing ("right to contract?"), then they can withhold your property because you are a gun-owner or because you operate a firearm-related business.  They have already refused merchant account services to two gun businesses (until gun owners started closing accounts) and they already charge 25-cents per check for a business to deposit customers' check -- what makes you think they won't apply this fee to account-holders as soon as they think it is entrenched well enough for non-account holders? You really are clueless. If a bank refuses to do business with a gun company, some other bank will step in to take that business. It's called the free market. Your tinfoil must need adjustment. www.refugepics.com/members/Pennswoods/afdbsmiley.gif

Think so, huh?  Well, the two banks in question -- Citibank in Nevada and Bank of America in Phoenix -- exercised their free market by rapidly rescinding the policy about a week later when they discovered gun owners were leaving in droves.

You know, you really ought to lose the sarcastic attitude; you are making an ass of yourself.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip> Really?  I thought I addressed it.  I said the Supreme Court does not issue my rights and does not lawfully take them away.  Since you didn't understand what that means, let me put it another way:  Clearly, then, we have been living in a capitalist dictatorship for 116 years, and that was not the nation founded by our founding fathers.  It is an Occupation Government and it derives no lawful authority to govern from the U.S. Constitution. I recommend you read Federalist 78 and 79 before you go spouting off about the illegitimacy of judicial review. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess you are also one of those nuts who believes the 16th Amendment was never actually ratified either. I've read it.  I've also read Jefferson's concerns that there was no way provided in the U.S. Constitution to prevent a tyranny of the judiciary such as we acquired within 80 years or so of the Constitution's ratification. As to your second stupid remark:  Okay.  Go to your local library reference desk and have a look at the two volume set titled "The Law That Never Was".  It contains the certified legislative records of all the states that Secretary of State Philander Knox claimed ratified the Sixteenth Amendment.  See if you can find more than two that actually ratified the proposed amendment. I will graciously accept your apology, as well, for calling me a nut, as soon as you tender it.

Gee, my prediction was correct. You are one of the nuts who believe the 16th was never ratified. And yes, I have read The Law That Never Was. It is a work of shoddy scholarship which has been unable to find a reputable publisher. There is a reason for that, and it does not involve a grand conspiracy.

The requisite number of states ratified the 16th. There were some minor spelling, capitalization, and grammar differences between the versions ratified, just as there were similar differences in the Bill of Rights ratified by the original states. So I guess those do not apply either?

You really are in way over your head.

frdmftr1 said, Not post number one. I was here three years or so ago and I posted a lot.


Did I miss it?  frdmftr1 responded to everyone’s post except mine where I asked,

May I ask, why did you choose to log on under a different member name? Why didn't you use your original member name from three years ago? I guess people can have multiple member names but why?

 

I'm curious what the answer is.    

Colt_SBR

What we need here is the pic with the bunny and a pancake....

Quoted: What we need here is the pic with the bunny and a pancake....

Quoted: Quoted: I will remember you said that when they increase the charge (extortion) to $500 if you own a gun. Yes, all services should be free of charge and all companies should be at the whim of a few nuts that are allowed to run around off their meds. No charge for customers of the bank.  I cash checks for free all day long.... Imagine that........

His point here is that the bank is charging you a fee to get what is yours, whithout having previously entered into an agreement or contract for services.
What is different between me cashing my paycheck at Wachovia, and depositing it at my regular bank and having them redeem it? Other than the fact that they are a bank?

I understand the ATM fee thing, you are paying a fee to use THAT bank's money instead of your own, but in the case of a payroll check, or anyother check drawn on an account at that bank, it is wrong, even though it's legal.

Remember, just because it's a law that doesn't make it okay.

His arguements are convoulted, to be sure, but he has some good points.


OF course, then you get into issues of fee based services, minimum account balances, and other things that banks do to make money, other than the intrest off of loans.

Makes me glad that I use a credit union to the bulk of my banking.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I will remember you said that when they increase the charge (extortion) to $500 if you own a gun. Yes, all services should be free of charge and all companies should be at the whim of a few nuts that are allowed to run around off their meds. No charge for customers of the bank.  I cash checks for free all day long.... Imagine that........ His point here is that the bank is charging you a fee to get what is yours, whithout having previously entered into an agreement or contract for services. What is different between me cashing my paycheck at Wachovia, and depositing it at my regular bank and having them redeem it? Other than the fact that they are a bank? I would stop trying to make HIS point -- he is a little off base. The bank is charging him a fee because he is not a customer of theirs.  The teller who helps him is not free.  The building in to which he walks does not pay its rent by itself. If he chooses this method he has made a willing choice.  He chooses NOT to engage in business with his bank, or any bank, therefore he pays for bank services on an "as needed" basis. I pay for services from my bank in the form of interest gained on my money sitting in their coffers. Banks are a service industry. As he stated in his quotation of the UCC...blah blah blah.....that check is not a binding instrument until he signs it.  If he wishes to deal in cash then he may want to consult with his employer about paying him in cash. Then we will see ANOTHER rant about how his employer is being unreasonable, etc. Let him make his OWN arguments.

WHat is to stop the bank from charging YOUR bank money to transfer the funds? After all, the computer system that does that isn't free, nor does the person why verifies the transaction work for free.

I know that banks have service fees for members, such as minimum account balances, service fees, early withdrawl fees, and stuff like that. But to have to pay a fee to get what is yours out of a bank, without ever having entered an agreement like the customer reeks of legal extortion.

Quoted: Quoted: What we need here is the pic with the bunny and a pancake.... photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=28826

Heheheh. Thanks.

Quoted: Quoted: WHat is to stop the bank from charging YOUR bank money to transfer the funds? After all, the computer system that does that isn't free, nor does the person why verifies the transaction work for free. I know that banks have service fees for members, such as minimum account balances, service fees, early withdrawl fees, and stuff like that. But to have to pay a fee to get what is yours out of a bank, without ever having entered an agreement like the customer reeks of legal extortion. I don't go to another bank, why would I?  They charge fees to do business with them. Upon signature of the check you agree that the check has becoming a binding document, haven't you?  Your signature, among other things binds you to a contract with the bank.  If that check ends up being a fake, or is being drawn on a closed account, or is being drawn on insufficient funds YOUR signature binds you to pay the bank for that error. The $5 service charge you are paying to Wachovia to cash THEIR check is to cover their fees. Main Entry: ex·tort Pronunciation: ik-'stort Function: transitive verb Etymology: Latin extortus, past participle of extorquEre to wrench out, extort, from ex- + torquEre to twist -- more at TORTURE : to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power : WRING; also : to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument synonym see EDUCE - ex·tort·er noun - ex·tor·tive  /-'stor-tiv/ adjective The power to assign a fee for services rendered in not illegal.  Period.  You may go elsewhere, they are extorting nothing from you.

Actually, that part in red would apply to the bank. They use the arguement that it costs them time and money to cash a check drawn on an account at their bank, when that is what their JOB is.
If I'm cashing a check, they can pull the account info off of the check, and verify if the account is valid or not.

Alrighty then - I think we all understand your point now.

You don't want to follow any laws that you disagree with , based on your PERSONAL interpretation of what you want to Constitution to mean, despite clear legal precedent and the laws of the land.



If you feel so strongly about it, then I encourage you to start carrying openly everywhere you go - instead of posting half-baked legal nonsense on internet sites where people actually understand the law better than you do.  Walk the walk, and send us a postcard to let us know how it worked out.