Re: lookingheart ........

On Jan 18, 3:36 am, hj st <hjayst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 16, 12:29 pm, Sanity <sanity-cla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jan 16, 1:06 pm, hj st <hjayst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:32 am, Sanity <sanity-cla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 15, 9:41 pm, Marty <mart...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

*major snippage*

On the off chance that hj WAS being sarcastic in asking, "how are you
the holder?" my reply still spoke to potential newbees who might not
be up to date on the issue and ramifacations of Permits from my POV.

Wage Peace not flame war.

Peace,  Sanity

i wanted to get back to this issue specifically, as i had missed
replying to it before in one of those 'paragraph by paragraph'
latenight replies, and didn't get around to it yesterday before the
thread fragmented.

now that we're back to here, "how are you the holder?", i'll try to
clear up why i asked.

for the sake of arguement, accepting your premise up until that point,
re: permit, group association, liability, etc., still, how does the
legal line come round back to you *personally* as an *individual* at
the gathering if this grand scenario were to transpire fully, (a
theoretical bill put to the RF from the FS, to which the magic hat
would be tapped.)

i just don't see how that would fly at all, as it begs the question,
how would *you* be tapped by the magic hat?  the nature of donations
are that they aren't manditory!

Since when are "may donate" and "shall be liable" synonymous?

The nature of liabilities is that they ARE mandatory! and enforceable
by seizures and auctions!  Are you "of the Creed" that negotiated for
permission to assemble peaceably?  See?  The FS doesn't need a
signature on a Permit in order to lump everyone that shows up under
the umbrella of group guilt.  Screw that.  I don't want anybody
representing my interests without my permission, PERIOD.  The High
Holies have no consensus urging them to do what they are doing.....
"Necessity is the plea of tyrants and the creed of slaves." - Pitt

yes, yes, i'm saying i'll agree to this hypothesis for the sake of
arguement, but, you still haven't addressed the point of your
*personal* liability, or risk.

The hard factoid that: "The High Holies have no consensus urging them
to do what they are doing....." is no mere hypothesis, sir. "The
nature of liabilities is that they ARE mandatory! and enforceable by
seizures and auctions!" is no mere hypothesis, sir.
Sir, you try my patience. I have addressed that point over and over
again in a wide variety of ways. The "holder" is any and everyone
that shows up, "Individuals Assembling etc."; so, if I show up, ipso
facto [by that fact] I become part of the group labled "holder" and it
can and will be seen as my having acquiesced to Garrick [for example]
having acted as my representative. Catch 22. I would, as quasi
"holder," be liable (subject to group guilt under administrative law).


to do so would need *you* (or anyone) to associate yourself to the
group, see? rather than the group association being a label put to you
by an outside force beyond your control once you enter the forest, i'm
still saying that would only be half the circle in connecting back to
*your* pockets.

That's not what the Permits say. I would become part of the "holder"
just by being one of the 'Individuals Assembling-'. Q.E.D.

Sanity RE
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: lookingheart ........
    ... *personal* liability, or risk. ... is no mere hypothesis, sir. ... The "holder" is any and everyone ... That's not what the Permits say. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: lookingheart ........
    ... by seizures and auctions! ... *personal* liability, or risk. ...  The "holder" is any and everyone ... That's not what the Permits say. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: lookingheart ........
    ... be up to date on the issue and ramifacations of Permits from my POV. ... representing my interests without my permission, ... *personal* liability, or risk. ...  The "holder" is any and everyone ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Annoyed
    ... and the thing that annoys me is, they keep referring to ... him as Jimmy Savile. ... It's still his, just as it is still Sir Walter Raleigh's, who was executed ... Knighthoods end at the death of the holder, unlike baronetcies, also known ...
    (uk.people.silversurfers)