Bald-Faced Lie

Implied Consent

This is the claim of the corporate system agents, specifically the cops, but also the courts although they are somewhat more circumspect.

Cops, the incorrigible dullards, are quick to jump to this particular excuse, to this retort, in answer to anyone stating they ‘do not consent.’

The oxymoronity of this retort (implied consent) demonstrates clearly they do not comprehend the words they use.

So, for clarity’s sake;

Consent means to agree to some action or idea that one knows of, that one comprehends, that has been made clear.

It is not possible to consent to something if one is unaware of the something requiring said consent.

If you haven’t been asked to consent to something, then you have not consented to it, despite the deceitful assertions by the dullardian porkies.

If the dimwitted dullards are believing that consent has been given then it follows that full disclosure and comprehension has already occurred.

However, to state clearly that one is not consenting, this then makes the nefarious dullardian’s belief now moot, null and void, disintegrated, via a simple challenge to their infantile claim.

The copsicle’s dullardian website even has the phrase “we police by consent” prominently displayed (on a back page).

Obviously these imbeciles must have evidence for their claim of consent, don’t they?

If so, I do wonder who is giving them this consent?

Implied means an idea or belief or presumption that is without evidence.

Ergo, it is not possible to imply consent as the two terms are at odds with each other, they are contradictory terms, it is, in fact, an oxymoron.

Of course this is just the usual dishonest and fraudulent method of operation by agents of the corporate system, generally followed by excessive force, even though one of their very own maxims is – “force is inimical to law.”

There are another couple of terms misused, likely deliberately so;

Presumed and Assumed

We usually see these words used interchangeably as though their meanings were identical.

This is, of course, not the case:

Presume means to guess, to believe without evidence, eg. “I presume this is your liability.”

Assume means to accept, to take on, eg. “I assume this liability.”

To mix these up can result in debt being laden upon your Trust.

If this does happen, said debt can be discharged through the simple expedient of the Beneficiary of your Trust (you) appointing the Trustee (your ‘full’ name) as the Executor (your ‘full’ name) of your Trust, known as (your all-caps name).

(Cf. Co. Litt. 264B, note 1; Williams Ex’rs, 1216; Chit. Cont. 714.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st edition, 1891.)

This discharges any debt through operation of law.

Anyway, the commercial system is overburdened with traps for the unwary. Best option is to remove yourself from the company’s claws.