Its obvious that someone has to volunteer to become the legal guineaSomeone willing and able to fight that battle is probably going to have to take it to court in order to remove the threat that the US mint has left hanging over our heads ('our' being ALD users) although the mint might buckle under public pressure if the latest strategy from NORFED is picked up by enough people. That remains to be seen.
pig and stage an official drop with media present, challenging the
government to arrest and charge. When nobody shows up to arrest, the
media can call bullshit on the Mint's claims. If they do arrest, we'll
have a legal circus to promote the LD, with an eventual aquittal that
will be even more powerful.
But then he goes on to add this little proviso:
This is how all big legal cases are set up. Rosa Parks was not justThere is no need to besmirch good causes with epithets like 'socialist' (and when an individualist uses the term 'socialist' as an adjective, it is always an epithet, an insult. Be advised of that) If you go looking for info on Rosa Parks, or Roe vs. Wade, the purported linkage between these groups and the individuals who originally took the action are not immediately apparent.
some black lady on a bus, that event was entirely staged to trigger a
legal case by the socialist group she belonged to. Same with Roe v
What is apparent is the need for someone who disagrees with another person's percieved agenda, having to take shots at them by alluding to connections that may or may not exist. They attempt to cheapen the success of the previous litigation, by leveling accusations against the people who have tried this same route in the past.
So let me ask the question again, but ask the real question; Wasn't ending the Jim Crow laws a good cause? Wasn't establishing a right to privacy a good cause? Of what concern are the allegiances of the players in the here and now? Does that change the value of the outcome?
Some of the peanut gallery piped up with examples of other gov'ts giving tax dollars to non-entities...
[a Person Unborn has the right to have his or her interests represented in Her Majesty's Courts, as well as the Federal Court of Canada. Six other provincial statutes categorically mention the rights of Persons Unborn in British Columbia. One of the most telling being the Worker's Compensation Act RSBC whereby BC pays money to a child unborn, on equal terms with his born siblings.
Thus, the child 'en ventre sa mere' meets the test for Personhood, via his Estate, he can do and own / he or she ( or the twins etc. ) is liable for income tax !]
As some sort of proof that the unborn (getting off in an abortion argument. Been there, done that) are persons. that gov'ts recognize the unborn as a person is hardly ground-breaking. The US recognizes corporations as persons, and they have no physical body or brain function (one might even go so far as to say none of the members of the average corporate board display any brain function) It really proves nothing.
Autonomic reflexes are not consciousness (a la Terri Schiavo) and normal human brain patterns are quite distinct; the absence of them being the deciding factor in declaring someone 'dead'; can you be alive without them? Can you have consciousness and motive will without them?
The answer is 'no'.
Additionally, let's say that it can be successfully litigated that ALD as a competing currency is not illegal under US law (which, IMHO, is a correct decision) will our opponents label it as "Libertarian/extreme right wing/etc." and attempt to discredit and overturn it based on that observation?
If the We the People foundation are successful in making the gov't answer it's petition (the right to petition that is specifically mentioned in the First Amendment to the Constitution) through a litigative process, are tax cheats irresponsibly crippling the gov't?
Will these observations change what's good about the decisions?