Thanks for the apology.
In studying various law systems (UCC, IRSC, etc.) in the 90s, I gained a feel for how they do things, as did all of the others who I worked with, spoke with who had done the same before me.
It's basically a matter of (them) getting something on paper in such a way that covers them in court (just in case it gets challenged and they don't own the particular judge) while making it look pleasing (as possible) to the public.
This is why there is this extremely broad conjecture that is presented to people that goes something like this:
"If it's law, it must be the will of the people because you have a vote."As well as this one:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."The law that is publicly available does not state that testing will be performed on all American citizens.
It doesn't have to. All that is legally required is that they are "allowed" to. There are (virtually) no limits in the law pertaining to the times, places or methods in which "testing" can take place, so it is their "privilege" to practice this activity so long as they don't extend the activity beyond the "scope" of the law.
So, I don't understand how the Government, even assuming that everyone is aware of this law, would consider this informed consent.
It's not about what the government assumes, it's about how the judicial system works. It's like (in most cases actually is) UCC law.
The UCC states that if you receive a "benefit or privilege" (UCC wordage) "provided" by an entity, you are automatically bound by all of the "terms and conditions" (that is UCC wordage, which is why you hear it so much) of the contract attached to practice of those benefits and privileges. This "binding" process is automatic. It is why we obey road laws, pay most types of taxes, register our cars, etc.
For example, this is why you can be ticketed for traffic "law" "violations". A "violation" is the "breaking" of a term of a contract.
When you sign your driver's license, you are agreeing to be "bound" to a UCC-enforced contract (because it involves the exchange of "currency") because you are exercising a "privilege" (driving) granted by an entity (i.e.: THE STATE OF NEW YORK). ("Driving is a privilege, not a right."). By proxy, you are now bound by all the statutes that are attached to this practice.
This is what the evil ones of this world do: They take God-given rights, convince the people that they (the evil ones) granted them (putting themselves in the "place" of God), and then they tax, register, regulate, control and otherwise abuse rights that are already ours to begin with. The critical part for this oppression to work for the evil ones is the "convince" part. If people actually believe they (the evil ones) have this power, then they actually do. It's enabled by ignorance and propelled by fear.
It says "only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject" which tells me that the subject at least would need to have some idea of what tests were going to be performed on him.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, therefore, you were forewarned. At least this is the position that the judiciary takes.
We have been "forewarned" because the law was published before the activity was practiced. You may have a viable lawsuit if you can prove that the activity was practiced before the law was published, Otherwise, all Americans are responsible to know and understand the "law" and therefore they acquiesce, even though this is physically impossible (to know all the laws that are passed).
While IANAL, i'm pretty sure acquiescence would only apply if the subject was given legal notice of the type of testing to be performed on him.
The subject was given notice, through the publishing of the law. Again, even if it is actually unfair or impossible for us to cope with this, they are protected because of the judicial position. If we are informed, we are in agreement if we don't formally object. In fact, we give them permission.
The law does not specify the type of testing, therefore acquiescence would not apply.
It doesn't really matter. It's still an agreement and if we don't object to the ambiguity of the statements in due time, the acquiescence still stands.
In my study, I learned that the UCC is written to favor the creditor. It makes it easy for you to enter contracts, just by exercising an activity.
An example of this is when the credit card companies call and say that they want to enroll you in a plan... "...OK"? All you have to do is say "OK" and you're in a contract and you are bound by all the terms and conditions thereof. It's a creditors world.
I would like everyone to be aware of how corrupt and downright evil the U.S. government is. And actually, a great number of people have become aware, but I fear this will have little impact.
I share your passion and agree that it will probably have little impact. It's a very sad state of affairs.
One the the first steps I believe people need to make internally is to realize that evil is very real and exists in the world today in a huge way. Evil does not have a forked tail and carry a pitchfork, evil kills (mercury, fluoride, MSG, aluminum, etc.), steals (immoral taxes, usury, UCC bindings without disclosure), and destroys (relationships, countries, and personal esteem).
It's just like the dissertation (Al Pacino) near the end of the movie "The Devil's Advocate". The son asks, "Why law, dad". Dad (satan) says, "Because the law, my boy, gets us into everything."
