The burden of proof is upon the one making the claim. There simply cannot be proof of human ownership, and it is in violation of many laws as well. So, if in practice they act as though they own you, they are caught in a situation where they are also violating their own laws as well as logic. When it comes down to it, they have to drop it at the point you get them to admit that they claim such ownership. Up to that point, it is not challenged.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
They have tons of "proof" in the legal sense, which is what was discussed here. The simple fact is that they are perfectly within their laws, as they were written specifically to accomplish these ends, and unless humans stop playing the game that has been set up, their going to continue to be treated, traded, and leveraged against by the state.
How does a judge rule in a situation where one law mandates what in another law is defined as a crime? The only answer can be 'Depends on who pays them'.