How the Patriot Act stripped me of my free-speech rights


Suverans2's picture

I don't believe that it was the Patriot Acts that stripped "citizens" of their "free-speech rights".

    "Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. ~ Herriot v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 5000 P.2d 101, 109 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244
    Dominion. Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Eastex Aviation, Inc. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., C.A.Tex., 522 F.2d 1299, 1307 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 486

Conclusion, if you are a member of a political community, you have, most times ignorantly, submitted yourself to the dominion of a government. If you happen to be one of those who claim that this "social contract" doesn't meet all the criteria of a contract, you very well may be right.


    Contract. ...Express or implied. ...An implied contract is one not created or evidenced by the explicit agreement of the parties, but inferred by the law [government], as a matter of reason and justice from their [your] acts or conduct, the circumstances indicating that he expects [you expect] to be paid therefor, and defendant, knowing such circumstances, avails himself of benefits of those services. Chem-Tronix Laboratories, Inc. v. Solocast Co., A.D., 5 Conn.Cir. 533 , 258 A.2d 110, 113. It is an agreement which legitimately can be inferred from intention of parties as evidenced by circumstances and ordinary course of dealing and common understanding of men. Martin v. Little, Brown & Co., 304 Pa.Super. 424, 450 A2d. 984, 987 Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 323

...if one fails to manifestly rebut that "rebuttable presumption[1]", once he discovers the "mistake" he has made, he will remain under this "implied contract", regardless of how much he may moan and groan about it.

    Mistake. Some unintentional act, omission, or error arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition, or misplaced confidence. A state of mind not in accord with reality. A mistake exists when a person, under some erroneous conviction of law or fact, does, or omits to do, some act which, but for the erroneous conviction, he would not have done or omitted. It may arise either from unconsciousness, ignorance, forgetfulness, imposition, or misplaced confidence. Salazar v. Steelman, 22 cal.App.2d 402, 71 P.2d 79, 82 See also Error; Ignorance. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1001

And, instead of crying that there is no such thing as an "implied contract", why not simply rebut the presumption and be done with it.

But, I suspect that many of us here already know most of this.


[1] Rebuttable presumption. In the law of evidence, a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence. Otherwise called a "disputable" presumption. A species of legal presumption which holds good until evidence contrary to it is introduced. Beck v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.App., 48 S.W.2d 213, 215. It shifts burden of proof. Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 52 S.Ct. 358, 362, 76 L.Ed. 772. It gives particular effect to certain group of facts in absence of further evidence, and presumption provides prima facie case which shifts to defendant the burden to go forward with evidence to contradict or rebut fact presumed. Gulle v. Boggs, Fla., 174 So.2d 26, 28. And which standing alone will support a finding against contradictory evidence. Lieber v. Rigby, 34 Cal.App.2d 582, 94 P.2d 49, 50. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1267