Re: Annual Without Permit


"Sanity" <sanity-clause@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147969204.711391.264280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Traveler wrote:
"Thunder" <thunder5200nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:97Uag.73278$F_3.59075@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Traveler" <rascal_51@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:LtidnbKxQdyp_PbZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Thunder" <thunder5200nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fI***.88736$dW3.50746@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As long as they can find some assets you have, if they
want
to extract some of them from you, they threaten your
liberty
and hold it hostage to a demand for ransom.

Can you clarify this a little?

It's called bail. Or maybe a civil judgment


I don't follow your reasoning here or your point, Thunder. There's a lot
of
difference between bail and a civil judgement. There is no pauper's
prison
(as such) anymore.

Just because they don't call it that...... Failure/refusal to pay a
fine can be deemed civil contempt and they lock you up and throw the
key away until the fine is paid.

"There is no pauper's prison (as such) anymore." - Traveler

I can see that you also know the difference between a pauper's prison as
existed in the past and being jailed for contempt of court.

If you can't meet bail out of pocket
a bail bondsman often can for 10% but you never get that back and there
CAN BE collusion between the local sherriff and the bondsman, it ain't
legal but it does happen.

You must just be feeling onery today

Too, setting bail is a judicial function,
was yours set by the (executive office) officer that arrested you?
What happened to the "separation of powers" bulwark that safeguards the
public's Liberty? While we're at it did you know a bail bond bounty
hunter can bust down doors and kill innocent people without a warrant
and get away with it all because he says he heard a rumor that a
fugitive was somewhere?


"As long as they can find some assets you have, if they want to extract
some
of them from you, they threaten your liberty and hold it hostage to a
demand
for ransom."

If you owe money to anyone (me or the govt), refuse to pay when you could
pay, I or they can sue you to seize your assets. If you have no assets
or
income you can also try bankruptcy to negate the judgement.

Under the group guilt proviso of the Permit Regulation I could be
assigned the burden of paying for that which I do not owe. *** THAT!


Interesting argument in the Nichol's brief about that. Not likely to be
uphelp but an interesting argument. He/She posits that only the group can
be help in violation of a group regulation and that only the signer can
actually be considered a member of the group.

I, as you know, posit that despite the group guilt proviso, 'practically'
speaking. there is no actual manner in which my real assets are endangered
by my being burdened with paying for that which I do not owe as you describe
and that continuing to create such deceptions is nothing more then fear
mongoring and in fact constitutes deliberate misinformation and takes the
focus of the permit discussions away from the real issue of violation of
constitutionally guaranteed rights. I can not think of any situation in
which someone (other then the proverbial idiot with a farm and no coverage -
who I discount as not existing other than in the argumentative imagination)
would be so burdened. Of course since I have a few small assets I have
liability coverage as part of my standard insurance so that if I get mad and
punch somebody I don't lose a house.

As an acknowledgement that perhaps there exists some situation of potential
liability that escapes me (could I be wrong?????), I'll try to post out to
some insurance forums and ask how much they would charge me for liability
coverage for 2 weeks of camping in a national forest in case I'm found
liable for a forest fire (in other then criminal circumstances). This
reminds me of the old insurance machines they had in airports that would
sell you insurance in case the plane crashed - which I always thought of as
a scam and which are no longer to be found. Perhaps those who fear
gathering because of liability rather than for loss of liberty would find
comfort in such.

We just disagree on this - but Liberty is still not license - all else is
inconsequential fluff and obscures the meaningful issues, IMO.

I wonder if the prosecution will respond to the Nichol's brief. Ultimately,
I believe the court will either uphold the previous decision or dismiss the
case on the technicality that there is no ability for due process since the
record of the previous decision is inadequate.

re: some other permit legal thread on here - I am not Spartacus - perhaps
Aqualung, but not Spartacus

T

Sanity


My ex-wife refused to pay child support to me and my kids so her paycheck
was garnished.

All this is true but I don't know what you're point is.

The gov't wins a lawsuit aainst you, you don't pay, they
take your house. It's a generic thing. You've admitted as
much in your posts by implying the need for liability
insurance. Anyone without it can be held to pay for what
they have no insurance to protect against.

Sure but if you own a farm, have no liability insurance and your dog gets
loose and mauls my kid - I sue you and take your farm. If you have a dog
at
a gathering, whether permit or not, and you allow it to run loose and it
comes and mauls me causing permanent nerve damage to the one arm I have
that
barely works I'm gonna sue you and take your farm. If you have a car and
no
insurnace on your car and no liability insurance on your farm and your
car
rolls down a hill and crashes into the bookstore at the bottom of the
hill
they're gonna sue you and take your farm. That's just the way it is.

That's why it's hard to belief and not worth considering those few
individuals who might be smart/lucky enough to own some real property but
are so stupid that they don't take even the smallest steps to protect it.

Own $300,000 of farm land (small farm) with no mortgage requiring
insurance
(have to have insurance to get an equity loan) and not spend $600 a year
for
a basic policy to protect it??????? I do not believe that is a situation
worth our concern. It is fear mongoring with little basis in fact meant
simply to scare the uninformed.

If you defy a
judge for too long, they lock you up.

If you are in contempt of court you certainly can be thrown in jail.

Sorry for the difficult feelings this has apparently caused. Not my
intention.

T



Is this part of the untested group liability
devolving to the individual or is this occuring now.

It happens every day in real time, with real people.


It's usually those with real property assets or liability
coverage that the
law/lawyers goes after from my experiences in other areas.
If ya have a
$400 car and someone else has a $1,000,000 cap on a
liability insurance
policy it's hard to understand why Dept of Ag would waste
time and money
going after a $400 car rather then a $1,000,000
settlement.

I've never claimed to understand them very much. How they
might proceed is anyone's guess.

Course this assumes they are looking to recover costs as
you say the Dept.
of Agriculture had in mind with the permits.

*They* said it, I merely repeated it. "They" had coached it
in terms of needing the permit in order to be able to deny
one in cases of unpaid liabilities for any particular
"group", or holder.

Everybody gets equal tickets
but spending $20,000 in lawyers time to go after a $400
car instead of after
the big money doesn't compute.

Sometimes, even
the ransom paid is not enough to insure your continued
liberty.

More with cites??

If a signer says, and the FS accepts the false
claim that someone is representing an entity known as
"Individuals Assembling", that seems to me to be all the
FS
needs to go after anyone attending, if a culprit for a
particular "accident" cannot be found.

I kinda see it that way too.

The points raised in Nichol's brief are very interesting
on that point with
good cites. Worth the time to read.

I'll accept that. Might read it, too.

And you can be held financially liable for damage from
your natural
behaviour in a forest - right now, no permit, no group.

That's true, I just don't want to be held liable for someone
else's, thank you.

Most are caused by other natural phenomena, called
lightning
strikes. Who's held liable then? It's the group, of
course,
as the tax coffers ante up the damages. Even
professional
Forest Service fire-starters are known to cause
out-of-control fires. Who pays then? It's the group, of
course. Whether the damages come out of the FS's funding
or
out of the general tax funds, it makes no difference.
You
and I still pay for it in the long run.


But this overall paying of it by everybody isn't the
issue - fear of
personal liability is - as an example from Colorado - some
teenagers were
playing around and started a fire in the Forest. Their
parents homeowners
insurance covered the 'costs' arising from the kids
actions. If you go in
the woods and accidentally start a fire you can be held
liable. Nothing new
in this or in a homeowners policy covering it.


Well, as I said, I'm unsure about it, and I damn well don't
want to be held liable, severally, with others, for the
negligence of persons other than myself, which is the
concern.

]
. But then we already know better
about any supposed serious liability and insurance
for
assets\and actions of
the policy holder - don't we?

I'll answer this question again; It seems you are making
a
veiled suggestion, but I still don't understand it.


No veiled suggestions just commenting that the same
discussion about
personal liability, insurance and the permit or no permit
has happened on > AGR before - just a few months ago.

A multitude of times.


I remember because it started after a
retired lawyer hippy friend of mine pointed out the
liability coverage in
homeowners policies to me - I looked it up in my old
homeowners policy -
confirmed the general info he pointed me to, and started a
thread about it
here to see if others had better info. To drop back to a
"You'll lose your
home, business, vehicles..." seems to ignore the
protection people do have
against a liability charge whether on you as an individual
or as part of a
"supposed" group. That's why I see that argument as a
canard choosing to
ignore the actual situation and focusing on fear-mongoring
and rabble
rousing.

Okay, I'm going to stop trying to present my side of this
issue. I'm evidently getting nowhere. That's okay though,
since it ain't no thing.

I am saying folk have been mislead about the 'legitimate'
liability
concerns. I am saying that the liability concerns and
worries of asset
losses as typically framed on AGR are not true and are
intended to create > worry where none need exist.

I see. Well thanks for the concise rundown.


Only half a picture is ever painted. "You might lose your
house" if ya go
to a permitted gathering. Not accurate. You lose your
constitutional
rights when a permit is foisted on a gathering. Very
accurate

How do you see liability concerns as being legitimate in
your particular
situation?

That's none of your business. What I consider to be assets
and what I do to safeguard them is a personal affair.
Neither is it incumbent upon me nor will I try to convince
you to see as I see. Not only that, I won't ridicule,
demean, or marginalize you in a vain attempt to make an end
run around the point. I also don't feel the need to always
justify my opinions, especially when my explanations go
unaddressed.

The existing potential of indivdual liability you incur
when you go into the
woods is not theoretical or untested. There are legitimate
liability
concerns everytime you go in the woods as an individual.
Homeowners
liability does provide coverage.

HELLO ! EVERYONE DOES NOT OWN A HOME !

BTW, I'm done debating this point with you as I don't like
wasting time repeating things. Thanks for your input though.


Thunder







.

Loading