Make a Comment

Comments in Response

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

"It may seem reasonable that a private business not subsidized by the state (taxpayers) and indeed set upon by my collegial armed robbers should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses in the land of the free," the Dred Pirate Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service by someone who does not want to provide them good service in exchange for FRNs.  So serve them, bitches!  And no spitting in the food." 

We are denied important consumer information to make our own decisions as to whether or not we wish to do business with this proprietor or other businesses by government fiat.  Fascist markets.  And risk taking businesses are under threat of losing a slip of paper acknowledging their servitude to the state (i.e, their business permit).  Feudalism at its finest.

Comment by Michael Wade
Entered on:

Comment by Ed Vallejo
Entered on:

 "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Did this age-old American Tradition of OWNING PROPERTY get Legislated away and the Populous was not informed?  I know that the "no firearms" signs on 'supposed Private Property' are being enforced by Uniformed Officers - did this place of business not have one of these disclosures posted and that's why they get ordered by a Judge; or would it have made a difference? 

If not, can and armed person sue say, Costco for the hurt to himself, Society, and the individuals who are denied service via a policy of disarmament? 

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Everything done between people is done by trust. Even the contracts that people make between themselves are at least partially done under trust. Why? Because nobody knows what someone else will do... FOR A FACT!

If the trust is not spelled out properly, judges have the duty of overseeing the trust, whatever the trust may be. It's under the phrase "constructive trust" in the legal dictionaries and encyclopedias. The judges have had this power for a long time. It's just that they have limited their exercising of this kind of power, limiting it to take into account the various kinds of laws of the land.

We need to learn how to use contractual trusts to overcome everything that the judges might throw at us. Marc Stevens has been suggesting for a long time that we write right into our contracts, wording that says that this contract exists without (outside of) the laws of any State, or The United States of America, or any and every government of the world.

In the previous paragraph, notice the word "or." In law, the word "and" often means "or" as we normally understand it. And the word "or" means "and." The word "may" means "shall," and the word "shall" means "may." There is good reason for this. But one needs to study a bit of law, and also have a bit of a feel for what is being expressed in general, and how to express it. In general, such switching of meanings does not make sense. But, really it can and does make sense if used properly.

If we want to get out from under judges decisions, we need to operate on contractual trust basis that throws our operations completely outside the authority of the judges' use of constructive trusts. This doesn't mean that the judges won't try to take control. but it DOES mean that we will be showing them from the get-go that we know what we are talking about.

Make a Comment