Comment: I demand proof of claim

(See in situ)


I demand proof of claim

"The founders intended that the people held the sovereignty jointly, not individually."

1. A precise list of members who constitute the group "founders."
2. All members of the group "founders" intended what you assert.
3. All members of the group "founders" possessed inherent authority to bind any non-constituent to any agreement.
4. Constituents possessed inherent authority to bind any unknown, unborn entities to any agreement without their consent.

I know you won't meet that burden of proof so I will talk about a case before a state supreme court recently as an analogy. Apparently the defendant signed a waiver for a speedy trial. It seems later the defendant revoked consent for the speedy trial waiver. It seems the case was appealed on grounds the trial court was in error allowing the speedy trial to continue when the defendents counsel disagreed because it prejudiced the defendant receiving effective assistance of counsel.

Guess what ... it appears the principle is consent can be revoked at any time so tough shit defendant, live with it because you demanded a speedy trial in open court. Then we have clowns like the OP who want to lead people to believe they can not revoke consent even if they were never a competent consenting actor who received a full and honest disclosure in the first place.