ZG

[Dale Eastman]

Dear prosecutor, dear judge, but I repeat myself.
How does a claim become a fact in a court room?
Is it true that fraud vitiates everything is touches?

Is it true that there are four minimum basic elements required in order for a contract to exist?
Is it true that these four elements; an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds); are the minimum elements for a contract to exist?
Is it true that the Declaration of Independence is one of the organic documents creating government in the United States?
Does the Declaration of Independence claim governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?

Does the prosecutor have any evidence to prove I consented to be governed, such as my signature on a certified consent form containing the rules I consented to?

Is it true that a contract is void if fraud has touched it?

Motion for dismissal with prejudice.

I DEMAND to know where the certified copies of my alleged consent,
with my signature on the consent form is being stored.

I DEMAND to know where the certified copies of the terms
 I allegedly agreed to are being stored.

I DEMAND proof of this alleged consent
to be governed, ruled, or owned
be presented IMMEDIATELY.

Failure to do so immediately is government's testimony,
and my evidence, that this alleged consent does not exist.

synapticsparks.info

Depends on the standard, in most criminal when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
No, this doctrine, while absolute where it applies, only applies to contracts.

Depends on the state, but generally, yes. Some break them into 5 elements or 6 elements, but the 4 minimum contain all of the parts of the 5 or 6, so it's really semantics.

No, those are not the four elements. The for elements are mutual assent (a meeting of the minds), which is prove by an offer and acceptance; consideration; capacity to contract; and legality.
No. While it is a founding document, it is not a governing document. It has none of the contours of a legal document, and is, in essence, a philosophical text. Virtually no judge would consider it a governing document. Put a different way, what proscriptions or prescriptions does it have? It has a declaratory statement and a list of grievances.
Sure, but it draws the concept of the consent of the governed from Locke, for whom the very purpose of a government is to tamp down humanity's excesses in seeking justice (the revenge spiral and whatnot). The idea of the people's consent is not something the individual can withdraw unilaterally.
He doesn't need to.
There is no fraud here.
Denied.

D: Dear prosecutor, dear judge, but I repeat myself.
D: How does a claim become a fact in a court room?
Z: Depends on the standard, in most criminal when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

D: Is it true that fraud vitiates everything is touches?
Z: No, this doctrine, while absolute where it applies, only applies to contracts.

D: Is it true that there are four minimum basic elements required in order for a contract to exist?
Z: Depends on the state, but generally, yes. Some break them into 5 elements or 6 elements, but the 4 minimum contain all of the parts of the 5 or 6, so it's really semantics.

D: Is it true that these four elements; an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds); are the minimum elements for a contract to exist?
Z: No, those are not the four elements. The for elements are mutual assent (a meeting of the minds), which is prove by an offer and acceptance; consideration; capacity to contract; and legality.

D: Is it true that the Declaration of Independence is one of the organic documents creating government in the United States?
Z: No. While it is a founding document, it is not a governing document. It has none of the contours of a legal document, and is, in essence, a philosophical text. Virtually no judge would consider it a governing document. Put a different way, what proscriptions or prescriptions does it have? It has a declaratory statement and a list of grievances.

D: Does the Declaration of Independence claim governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?
Z: Sure, but it draws the concept of the consent of the governed from Locke, for whom the very purpose of a government is to tamp down humanity's excesses in seeking justice (the revenge spiral and whatnot). The idea of the people's consent is not something the individual can withdraw unilaterally.

D: Does the prosecutor have any evidence to prove I consented to be governed, such as my signature on a certified consent form containing the rules I consented to?
Z: He doesn't need to.

D: Is it true that a contract is void if fraud has touched it?
Z: There is no fraud here.

D: Motion for dismissal with prejudice.
Z: Denied.

D: How does a claim become a fact in a court room?
Z: Depends on the standard, in most criminal when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

How does "it" (a claim) become "proven beyond reasonable doubt" in a court room?

D: Does the Declaration of Independence claim governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?
Z: Sure, but it draws the concept of the consent of the governed from Locke, for whom the very purpose of a government is to tamp down humanity's excesses in seeking justice (the revenge spiral and whatnot). The idea of the people's consent is not something the individual can withdraw unilaterally.

You seem to be unclear on what consent actually is. Lemme help you.

Does consent require the human giving consent to have a choice in the matter and actually give consent?

I will wait for you to answer the two questions presented in this post. Please stick to the topics asked. I will then continue with my reply to your post that I have not fully replied to.

"How does "it" (a claim) become "proven beyond reasonable doubt" in a court room?"
With evidence sufficient such that a reasonable person would not doubt the veracity of the claim.

"Does consent require the human giving consent to have a choice in the matter and actually give consent?"

Not when it comes to the consent of the people, which is a collective concept. The consent is not an amalgamation of the individual consents of each member. It is a single consent which exists at the behest of the people writ large. Your personal consent is totally irrelevant.

D: Does consent require the human giving consent to have a choice in the matter and actually give consent?
Z: Not when it comes to the consent of the people, which is a collective concept. The consent is not an amalgamation of the individual consents of each member. It is a single consent which exists at the behest of the people writ large.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Thank you for admitting you have no fucking clue what consent means.

Lemme help you again:
𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶-𝔀𝓮𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻.𝓬𝓸𝓶 › 𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂 › 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓸𝓯 𝓒𝓞𝓝𝓢𝓔𝓝𝓣 𝓲𝓼 𝓽𝓸 𝓰𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓻 𝓪𝓹𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓵 : 𝓪𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓮.

𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓷𝓲𝓬𝓪.𝓬𝓸𝓶 › 𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂 › 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽
𝓒𝓞𝓝𝓢𝓔𝓝𝓣 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰: 𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓮 𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓸𝓻 𝓪𝓵𝓵𝓸𝔀 𝓼𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓸 𝓰𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓶𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓼𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓸 𝓱𝓪𝓹𝓹𝓮𝓷 𝓸𝓻 𝓫𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓷𝓮

Z: Your personal consent is totally irrelevant.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

D: How does a claim become a fact in a court room?
Z: Depends on the standard, in most criminal when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
D: How does "it" (a claim) become "proven beyond reasonable doubt" in a court room?
Z: With evidence sufficient such that a reasonable person would not doubt the veracity of the claim.

Please present your evidence that I consented to be governed.
Then please present your evidence that slaves consented to be enslaved.

"Thank you for sharing your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Thank you for admitting you have no fucking clue what consent means.
Lemme help you again:
𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶-𝔀𝓮𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻.𝓬𝓸𝓶 › 𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂 › 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓸𝓯 𝓒𝓞𝓝𝓢𝓔𝓝𝓣 𝓲𝓼 𝓽𝓸 𝓰𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓻 𝓪𝓹𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓵 : 𝓪𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓮.
𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓷𝓲𝓬𝓪.𝓬𝓸𝓶 › 𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂 › 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽
𝓒𝓞𝓝𝓢𝓔𝓝𝓣 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰: 𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓮 𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓸𝓻 𝓪𝓵𝓵𝓸𝔀 𝓼𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓸 𝓰𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓶𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓼𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓸 𝓱𝓪𝓹𝓹𝓮𝓷 𝓸𝓻 𝓫𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓷𝓮"

You cannot use a dictionary definition from the 21st century to define a word in an 18th century document. Where does the phrase "consent of the governed" come from? Locke. What did Locke mean by consent of the governed? He meant a collective consent, that is that the people as a whole consent to being ruled over by allowing themselves to be ruled over and as a result accept the legitimacy of that rule, either explicitly or tacitly. This consent cannot be withdrawn individually, as this would undermine the entire reason Locke had for why government should exist, which is that individuals are prone to bad judgment, particularly when it comes to wronging others or being wronged, and need to be limited in their capacity to retaliate to perceived wrongs (including wrongs perceived to have come from the state itself) which leads to things like revenge spirals. Lockean consent of the people/governed is NOT a moral claim. Locke isn't saying "you have to consent or government is immoral." Locke is literally saying "if enough people don't accept the legitimacy of a government, it cannot govern and will fail." It is a descriptive claim, and has fuck all to do with whether you personally feel good about the present government. That's the difference between a general definition and a context specific definition.

Please present your evidence that I consented to be governed.

I don't need to, your consent doesn't matter, isn't important, has absolutely no legal significance in a traffic ticket, and is irrelevant. The authority of governance comes from might, in all circumstances, and absolutely all other claims are delusions, lies, or fantasies. The consent of the governed is nothing more than that the majority of the population accepts the legitimacy of the government to the minimum point that they are not attempting to overthrow you. It is just a western enlightenment version of the mandate of heaven. No one cares about whether some rando doesn't consent to being governed, and they never will, because governments do not govern with the consent of individuals, only of The People. You want to withdraw that consent? Feel free to try, but you're going to need an army. Literally.
Further, as I said before, the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document and does not have any legal standing, so appealing to it is extra meaningless in this context.

Second request:
Please present your evidence that slaves consented to be enslaved.

https://www.facebook.com/lazergreen09/posts/pfbid0PtxtGEFkrTgDymuyFNcm8zdddrnBXa6p9yu1rgREXDjXjVF7zo57rkPd1ntB2Y4Ul?comment_id=582526077048782&reply_comment_id=885570842628771

[Dale Eastman]

Third request:
Please present your evidence that slaves consented to be enslaved.

Fourth request:
Please present your evidence that slaves consented to be enslaved.