"Civil" coercion, and protection.

And once again the idiot wakes, to spew upon the internet his idiotic thoughts. While an idiot, sometimes an idiot can see more clearly employing the tools which wise men often fail to use. Today, we're going to attempt something called 'reason'. Yes, I know, it's a forgotten art, lost in the mists of time, but I would like to try my hand at it, as I have perhaps heretofore been unreasonable.

What is a civil punishment? It is a punishment based in civil law, in the law of writ, the Roman Law which was used in Europe for centuries. Civil matters under the United States, however, fall under an entirely different classification. In the United States, Civil Law deals in the operation of parties between parties. It is private law, law of contracts, of tort, of escrow, and of estate and property. At the time of the Constitution, there was no law of writ per se at the federal level. All crimes that were tried in the county courtrooms, and the courtrooms of the states were based on the old Common Law.

Civil law, at the time, was incapable of rendering punishment. It could not reach beyond the terms of the contract, and therefore was cut and dried in its application. Lesser protections were applied to the use of civil law, including the removal of the right to protection against self-incrimination. Civil law, further, could not provide a single day in jail, though contempt of the court was a matter of criminal law, and for it as well, according to the law, there must be a trial.

Where are we today? Let an idiot take you down the path of his mind.
We claim that civil law allows us today to pass restrictions on people, on classes, on behaviors and beliefs. We attempt to use it against religions, regulate weddings, give people benefits and others detriments under its umbrella, but was this really what was intended? Or did it spring full-blown out of the mind of the legislators? Perhaps the best way to examine this is to determine when the laws changed in the United states, and why. But before I get to that, let me meander back to civil law.

Civil law is law of consent. It is law that can only occur with the consent of two parties. Law that is enforced upon another party, without the agreement of that party, cannot be civil. Any contract placed in coercion cannot be a valid contract. Any contract placed against the will of the person contracted with cannot be valid, it is null and void due to fraud. If there is fraud in the representation of the contract, the contract is void. (Fraud vitiates everything it touches).

How then is civil law civil? They claim that because they were elected as representatives, as senators, that the representation of the people gives implied and direct consent for them to emplace those laws on your behalf. However, if your representation was not paying attention, not present, or not consulted, is it still law? If that representation was applied without your consent, or even against your will (as in the case of the bailouts) is it still consent?

Can you withdraw your consent to the contract? Is there any means by which to fight the contract, or is there a bottleneck in the system, and economic and other obstacles designed to prevent the hearing of the complaint?

The Supreme Court hears only a few cases a year. Those cases (about 100 in a typical year) are far outstripped by new 'civil' and criminal laws. A number of those civil laws bear criminal punishments, so let's look at how that happened.

The Louisiana Purchase of April 30, 1808, added a substantial amount of new territory to the growing United States. This also had other effects, however. It introduced a new system of law to the United States, that enterprising politicians found very attractive... the Roman Law, the pre-napoleonic code. This law could introduce adversarial trials, changed the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the defendant, and did a number of other things, including the allowal of intent to override the actual punitive nature of the law. (if the law had a rational connection to the stated purpose, it was allowed). This ended up with the first civil laws being emplaced in the 1830s.

But what is coercion? Coercion is the emplacement of a threat to attempt to force an action that would not otherwise be taken by an individual, corporation, or entity. I.E. signing a contract with a gun to your head would be extortion and coercion. Threats to life, liberty, and property were all means of coercion.

Today, however, it's become commonplace We hold people in a jail cell for six months to a year, while their monies outside the system dwindle, to break their hope, and promise them huge punishments if they go to trial. Then we offer them a switch, waive your right to trial, and we'll reduce the penalties and charges. It seems like quite a deal... but is it? Is it even legal? You are already in jail, or simply wanting it to be over with, and the offered sentence seems vaastly less than the punishment that is otherwise offered, but do you have the right to waive your trial?

There is no option for such waiviers in the Constitution, all trials and all restrictions must be accomplished by a jury of your peers with full defense.

And look at these registries; suddenly we have a 'civil' system which has criminal penalties and felony actions for failure to comply with an imposed civil code.

Is this, by reason, civil, or is it coercive, and thus a criminal law attribute?

Does it provide punishment, or merely regulation? What is the purpose of regulation? This will be discussed in the next article.

But what is civil about forcing a person to do as you wish under the threat of punishment? Where is the consentual agreement?

For instance, we choose to prevent felons from bearing firearms (and attempts at expansion of this to misdomeanor offenses have occurred, as well as outright attempts to remove the second amendment from the Constitution). The recent court cases (DC v Heller) stated that it was an individual right to keep and bear for self protection. However, does this go as far as the founders intended?

No civil matter can be coercive, but what is more coercive than giving up the power to self-protect?

What is more coercive than forcing a person to rely upon the protection of another, and then prohibiting any right to that protection, and any civil consequences for failing to protect?
(Legal Snares for the unwary law-abiding citizen).

There can be no real protection, as the police cannot be everywhere at once. They cannot prevent crime, only answer it after it occurs. So how can defending yourself from crime be a crime?

Is this rational, or logical? Perhaps my poor idiot brain cannot comprehend the logic behind it. But we push felons to the side, to the fringes of society that are most dangerous, declare them unable to protect themselves, then deny them the services they need to get back on their feet in a legal manner, and further deny them any protection, restrict where they can work, what they can do, and how they must live.

And still, no person is protected.

Perhaps I'm just an idiot, but I fail to see how logical, consentual law can be allowed to be coercive, and further disable rights by failure to follow that law which could not be agreed to, and further transfer the control of those rights to the Federal Government (alienation in property law), when those very rights were designed and purposed to prevent the action of the government. If there is a right to self-protection, there is a right to self-protection. If this is a human right, and there is no right to be protected, then the laws that prevent the best means of that self-protection must logically fall, as the human right supercedes them.

If coercion in civil contracts voids them, then coercion by the government to establish a civil contract also voids the contract.

If they can do this kind of coercion against felons, and against misdomeanors now, for fear that they may someday commit a crime, how much longer will they be until they try to protect others from the crime that law abiding citizens may someday commit? After all, the statistics show most new crime comes from those not yet in the criminal system.

Basically, if the government can restrict the very rights that were designed to restrain it, by a status created by the government, how then is that good, right, or just? How does it restrict them from taking other rights, by statuses created by the government? Can they not restrict the right, then, to live on certain properties due to a status? They are already engaged in such. Can they restrict the right to protest? Already done, they license it and require you protest when and where they say, which makes quite an ineffective protest. If they can restrict when, where, and how you may protect yourself, and further IF you can effectively protect yourself, how are you protected?

Have you ever wondered why there has been such a rise of police brutality? Could it be that they know 99% of people are unarmed, and too afraid to fight them?

Who would think that? Only a total idiot.