a monthly basis. Thank you for your time
and efforts in publishing an informative source of information for concerned
Americans who are frustrated and tired of current policies in our country.
Sincerely,
an inmate
The
next letter is in reply to my article "Where
No Child Has Gone Before", last month.
editor
Dear Sam:
I
agree with you that getting a Social Security number for a child might
be considered a form of child abuse, because of all the negatives that
such a relationship entails. However, I am confused about the first
part of your argument. If a child is an adjunct of a parent, and
the parent has legal responsibility for the child, it seems to me that
the parent would have the right to make a binding contract for the child.
The issue is not the child's presumed incompetence, but rather the parent's
presumed competence to make judgments for the child. I don't see
why the parent would NOT have such a right.
Sir Donald the Elusive
My
stated position wasn't perfectly correct. Hopefully, the excerpt
from Bouvier's Law dictionary, below, will clarify it.
editor
"In general, all persons may be parties to contracts
.... And no want, immaturity, or incapacity of mind, in the consideration
of the law, disables a person from becoming a party. Such disability
may be entire or partial, and must be proved .... Infants are generally
incapable of contracting before the age of twenty-one years. This
provision is intended for their benefit; and therefore most of their contracts
are voidable, and not void. It is the infant's privilege at maturity
to elect whether to avoid or ratify the contract he has made during minority.
Though the infant is not bound, the adult with whom he may contract is.
The infant may always sue, but cannot be sued;.... The infant cannot
avoid his contract for necessaries ...."
|
The
next letter refers to "Conversation
with a Gestapo Thug", September 2004, page 1.
editor
Dear Frontiersman
In
a recent article, you described a violent incident which took place on
a neighbor's property. Your reporting was provocative, but somewhat
incomplete. For example, you described an invasion by armed men,
but you never said if they were dressed in civilian clothes, or government
uniforms. Furthermore, you reported overhearing a fragment of conversation,
which implied that the men were taking your neighbor's horses. Is
it possible that they were there to reclaim stolen property? You
also mentioned a personal conversation with one of the men, who asked if
you were a vet. I could not tell from what was written if he was
asking you if you were a veteran or a veterinarian. Also, were the
horses actually removed from the property? Was anyone, to your knowledge,
arrested in connection with this incident?
I
hope I don't sound too critical. However, as you can see, I'm both
tantalized and puzzled.
The
only thing that I can recall about their clothing is that they were wearing
flack jackets. My impression is that they were in "civilian" clothes.
I don't remember noticing any uniforms. What difference does it make
if they were wearing uniforms or not?
The
horses had been there since before I moved into this neighborhood.
It was commonly accepted in the neighborhood that the lady owned the horses.
I
don't know if the gestapo thug was asking me if I was a veteran or a veterinarian.
He didn't elaborate and I didn't pursue the issue.
The
horses were actually removed from the property, as I stated at the end
of the article. I don't know if anybody was arrested.
Finally,
it wasn't my objective to report the incident but to report the conversation.
I provided some information about the incident as context for the conversation.
The reason that the conversation is important is that they tried to intimidate
me for merely watching what they were doing, from my own home. Incidentally,
another bunch of them was at the same house late in October, chasing a
dog. I was in my back yard at the time, harvesting mint, and one
of the thugs ordered me indoors. The details that concern you are
not very important. What's important is the fact that gestapo thugs
don't like witnesses. In Amerika today, you can be arrested merely
for declining to "move along, now, Buddy!". That's why I reported
the conversation.
editor
Please use the enclosed envelope to send a contribution.
I prefer cash. For checks or money orders, please inquire.
For PayPal payments, use Pharos_Website@frontiernet.net.
December 2004 |
Frontiersman,
1510 North 22nd Drive, Show Low, Arizona 85901
Pharos_Website@frontiernet.net
Also see Pharos at http://www.frontiernet.net/Pharos_Website/ |
Page 3 |
|