Legitimacy of the lawmakers? Don’t make me laught!

Tam mentions a police raid against a guitar maker in my own town conducted over a pretext so flimsy….just read the details.

The Bible had a very appropriate line about this: “First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” It makes little sense to discuss how the freelance looters int he UK should have been driven away when we haven’t stopped the government looters at home.

I think Americans are slowly learning what people from the USSR eventually figured out: the state is the enemy. The details differ minutely, the degree of severity of attacks on the productive differs (for now), but the attitude of the American government is starting to resemble the old Soviet approach.

This entry was posted in civil rights and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Legitimacy of the lawmakers? Don’t make me laught!

  1. anonymous says:

    “the state is the enemy”

    Earlier this week, I sued the law firm that acts as the collections agency for my H.O.A.

    From March 05 2010 to August 06 2010, they sent several letters to me, demanding payment of amounts ranging from $480.00 to $2,076.73 that I did not owe my H.O.A., and threatening to sue me if I did not owe. They later admitted that I did not owe them any money, but only after I filed a lawsuit against the H.O.A.’s law firm.

    Of the money they were demanding from me, $1,3745.84 was for attorney fees charged by the law firm to my H.O.A. account, in direct violation of a judge’s court order a few months earlier. The remaining amount was for other fees, including late fees, also charged to my account in direct violation of the court order.

    I contacted my H.O.A. board several times via certified mail, return receipt, but they did nothing. They refused to offer any explanation why they were demanding $2,000 from me.

    At the trial this week, the H.O.A. president angrily testified that after receiving my first letter asking for an explanation, the board felt “abused,” “harassed,” and “hounded” by me, and they had no obligation to investigate my dispute of the debt. His argument was that I should have contacted the collections attorneys directly as I was instructed to do in the letters demanding payment.

    At the trial, two of the collections attorneys testified that

    (1) if I had simply paid the amount they were demanding that I did not owe, “the case would have been closed” (translation: it would have been cheaper for me to pay them than to fight them)

    (2) they had no knowledge that the attorney fees that their law firm had charged to my H.O.A. account were unlawful and in direct violation of a judge’s court order

    (3) that all they were required to do to validate the alleged debt was to obtain a ledger from the H.O.A. The H.O.A.’s ledger, of course, showed that I owed the attorney fees their law firm had charged. It is a very circular argument.

    (4) that it was my duty to call the collections attorneys and inform them that their attorney fees and other fees they were demanding from me were unlawful, and that they were in violation of a judge’s court order. They had no obligation to know this.

    There are three lessons:

    1) not all threats to liberty and property come from the government (just ask Michael Clauer)
    2) the state is not the only enemy. I’ve been threatened more by private corporations — my H.O.A., their property management company, and their law firm — than I ever have been by The State
    3) a judge will believe anything except the obvious truth, ruling that they had simply made honest mistakes, and it was my duty to call the collections attorneys directly, not just write letters to my H.O.A.

    Based on my experience, is the legitimacy of the lawmakers the only thing that we should question?

    Is it wrong for me to question the legitimacy of what we call “corporations,” “privatization,” and “contracts”?

    Because everything the H.O.A. corporation, the H.O.A.’s property management company, and the H.O.A.’s law firm did was within the bounds of some document called a contract — which has a clause saying the Board of Directors can change or waive the rules at anytime. I seriously believe that most readers of this blog will support the actions of the H.O.A. and its collections attorneys.

    According to some document called a contract, they were in the right, and I was in the wrong.

    • Tam says:

      I’ve signed contracts.

      My signature is nowhere to be found on this “Constitution” thing, yet just because I happened to be whelped here, everybody tells me that it applies to me and if I don’t like it, I can leave.

      Well screw them. I was born here without so much as a by-your-leave, so howzabout they split?

    • PeaceableGuy says:

      There’s an enormous difference between a government and a contract. The contract is voluntary – if you don’t like the terms, don’t sign! Contracts are negotiable as well, so if something is objectionable, edit it out and send it back to the other party for their consideration.

      Governments are not voluntary; if you object, punishment ranges from fines to murder. In extremely rare examples where government handles only such things as crimes against persons and property, government could serve a noble purpose.

    • LaudanumMilkshake says:

      I would say that the corporation itself owes you a debt comparable to that of not abiding by the terms of a changeable contract. On the basis of the economic privilege bestowed on them by limited liability laws, economic regulations, and taxes, your actions could be seen as a legitimate attempt to reclaim value due you.

  2. camtec says:

    Oleg quoting the Bible? Hmmm!

  3. Slobyskya Rotchikokov says:

    @@ Tam – I am confused, but then, I am just a simple old man and easily confused.
    Is there some part of the US Constitution, the Bill of rights or the Declaration, that you would prefer not to apply to you? My grandparents came here and lovingly dedicated themselves to the principles of the document and to this nation, but I cannot see what provisions you might not want to apply to you? The right to keep and bear arms? to vote? To worship or not worship, as you please? Grandfather knew what it was like to live in the land where these things were not available, it is one reason that he left, at great personal cost. Thank you.

  4. Weston says:

    Oleg, as a person that has done the research and watched the news, I have to agree with you. Seems every week I read about how some LEO has killed an innocent person in cold blood, with little to no consequence. The state has too much power, the citizen too little. And its not sliding back the other way, if anything, it seems to be getting worse – for instance the Indiana ruling that a homeowner cannot legally prevent an illegal entry from a LEO.

Comments are closed.