Authority of state codes to mandate action

[prollins Participant]

Typing with my left pointer only so be gracious please…..

Any law or code that requires a person to do something is automatically viewed in my mind as “private law”, only enforceable if consented to by the subject. The motor vehicle codes are this way, and they trick consent in many ways.

In researching homeschooling rights, if the children have never been to public school, don't have slave numbers, don't receive ANY benefits from any organization or government, and neither do their parents, is their any other way that consent has been given? I don't see any way that consent has been given. If an intent to homeschool form has been filled out in the past, i can see needing to send in some form to break away from the assumed authority that goes with the intent form.

Defense tactics would seem to be (in no order);

1. Do not declare the place that you live so they can't come and harrass you or steal your children.

2. Research the basis of authority for state authority over your children and show that you do not qualify.

3. Challenge of jurisdiction of authority of school system and state code.

I have learned about how to determine if federal code applies to me (thanks FG), but do not understand yet how state code applies and how to determine if state codes apply only after consent as well. Any input is appreciated, I can do the rest after a little nudge.

Thanks

[fg_admin Keymaster]

Sounds like a good plan.

The place to start in determining whether a state code applies is the definition section. There are usually lots of tells in the definitions you can use to establish that the code only applies on federal territory or to public officers on official business engaging in government franchises. For instance, if they require an SSN or TIN, and 26 CFR 301.6109-1 says the number is only mandatory for those engaged in a “trade or business”, then they are only talking about public officer activity on federal territory.

The de facto bastards LOVE putting the definitions at the end of a title or body of law to avoid giving you legally required “Reasonable Notice” UP FRONT of WHO the proper audience for the “code” is. And that is what it is: They call it a “code” because it is, in fact, usually a compact and franchise that activates and acquires the FORCE OF LAW only by your consent. Otherwise, it behaves like an unsigned commercial contract. Hence, it isn't really “law” as legally defined, and they would be committing FRAUD to call it “law”. Franchises and compacts, strictly speaking, are NOT “law”:

Quote:

Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.”

[. . .]

It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, “I will, or will not, do this”; that of a law is, “thou shalt, or shalt not, do it.” It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be “a rule.”

[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]

A very good place to research state codes is:

1. State Legal Research Sources

http://famguardian.o…alResources.htm

2. SEDM Jurisdictions Database

http://sedm.org/Liti…onsDatabase.pdf

"Two things I request of You (Deprive me not before I die): Remove falsehood and lies far from me; Give me neither poverty nor riches— Feed me with the food allotted to me; Lest I be full and deny You, And say, “Who is the Lord?” Or lest I be poor and steal, And profane the name of my God."
[Prov. 30:7-9, Bible, NKJV]

[prollins Participant]

Thanks a bunch, interesting definition for “person” in the state code, see the full definition below.

“Person” includes a corporation.

The infamous “includes” ;).

So the entire state code, whenever stating “persons”, only applies to corporations… 😀 .

[prollins Participant]

I am still studying and learning here and on the SEDM site as well, and in order to further my understanding and make that knowledge “applicable” where the rubber meets the road, I am posting some things I have noticed in the Georgia Constitution and/or codes and I am commenting on these observations in order to allow any others to comment. I am wanting to learn from any input, so thank you in advance for any comments.

Title 1 Chapter 2 of the OCGA, which is labeled as “Persons and their Rights”, has the following entries;

Quote:

§ 1-2-1. Classes of persons generally; corporations deemed artificial persons; nature of corporations generally

(a) There are two classes of persons: natural and artificial.

(b) Corporations are artificial persons. They are creatures of the law and, except insofar as the law forbids it, they are subject to be changed, modified, or destroyed at the will of their creator.

§ 1-2-2. Categories of natural persons

Natural persons are categorized, according to their rights and status, as:

(1) Citizens;

(2) Citizens of the United States but not of this state; and

(3) Aliens.

I notice that the definitions for the OCGA are not stated until Title 1 Chapter 3 Section 3, where I find the inclusive and limiting definition of the “term” of “person”. (Thank you FG for sounding the alarm regarding the difference between “word” and “term”. Trying to Evade the Regular Meaning is what I think of now when I read “term”, so I know to think like a snake.)

Quote:

§ 1-3-3. Definitions

As used in this Code or in any other law of this state, the term:

(14) “Person” includes a corporation.

There is no wording that ties Title 1 Chapter 2 of the OCGA, which is labeled as “Persons and their Rights” to the definitions section in chapter 3. The wording that I would expect would be something like “in addition to” or “as well as”. When I don't see this wording, I understand that the item 14 definition above is limiting the definition of “person” to include and ONLY include a corporation.

It seems to me that the sections § 1-2-1 and § 1-2-2 are general statements, but have no application or force in the rest of the OCGA. There is nothing that indicates where or how these general statements are to apply to any other part of the OCGA, or to the definitions in any chapter or section. The wording does not say “we define” or “for the purpose of this code”, or any other standard method for stating intent, implementation, or application. § 1-2-1 and § 1-2-2 are not in the primary definitions section, and have no wording that indicates the section itself or the content therein is to be used as definitions or terms in any way throughout the code or in any law or court of the land.

Section 1-3-3 is titled “Laws and Statutes” and is pretty clear that the definitions therein govern the entire OCGA and “any other law of this state”. Other titles in the code have general statements, but they appear in order to establish a department or serve some specific purpose and those sections specifically say why they are written, such as the following section:

Quote:

§ 2-2-1. Department of Agriculture established

There is established a Department of Agriculture for this state.

Why § 1-2-1 and § 1-2-2 are not listed in the definitions section or tied to definitions sections, or implemented or applied clearly is beyond my current understanding. In trying to determine who is subject to a part of the OCGA or the OCGA entirely, I first must be clear on how the OCGA defines “person” in each section of the code. So far as this code is concerned, I only see “person” as a corporation.

§ 40-1-1 section of the OCGA, the motor vehicle section, has another definition for “person” that is more encompassing but only covers the Title 40 section of the code.

Quote:

(43) “Person” means every natural person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or trust.

With natural persons being “defined” in section § 1-2-2 as

Quote:

(1) Citizens;

(2) Citizens of the United States but not of this state; and

(3) Aliens.

…and Citizens being “described” as…

Quote:

§ 1-2-3. Duration of citizenship

Until citizenship is acquired elsewhere, a citizen of this state continues to be a citizen of this state and of the United States.

…and Aliens being “described” as…

Quote:

§ 1-2-11. Rights of aliens generally; purchase, holding, and conveyance of realty

(a) Aliens are the subjects of foreign governments who have not been naturalized under the laws of the United States.

(b) Aliens who are subjects of governments at peace with the United States and this state, as long as their governments remain at peace with the United States and this state, shall be entitled to all the rights of citizens of other states who are temporarily in this state and shall have the privilege of purchasing, holding, and conveying real estate in this state.

…it seems like anyone participating in this forum would be none of the 3 listed under natural persons.

I still don't understand the implications of everything that I have looked at tonight, but I am tired so probably blundered around in this post.

[Author]

Posts