Real laws

[Ripsaw]

I have been reading a lot of things on this forum and others, and wanted to post some facts for those of you that have trouble with the so called authorities about treasure hunting, now or in the future.

1. All courts in this land are adversarial.

This means that absent a complaining party, or one that has been injured or damaged, there can be no case heard. The state or city, or county, or federal government may not bring charges against anyone, absent the presence of an adversary. This means a real human being. The cop cannot be that human being, and be a part of the proceedings, and be the one bringing the charges at the same time. His buddy the DA cannot either. That is a violation of the separation of powers act. The cop is the executive branch, the DA is the judicial branch. How does the ticket or charge get to the DA if there is a separation of powers ? It can't legally. This proves collusion and is a violation of your due process. Particularly, the fairness of a hearing or trial. If we truly had separation, explain the Attorneys General position ? He is the top cop in the governments, local and state, yet he is both executive and judicial branch at the same time. Don't believe everything you read or hear, check it out. Do the research like I have. Technically speaking under their laws, we could bring a federal lawsuit against the AG's offices nationwide for violation of the RICO act. They fit all criteria for a criminal gang definition. Google is your friend.

2. Standing in court:
The courts cannot hear a case of controversy, unless it has standing, or an adversary that is injured with a real, not imagined injury, and unless they have redressability. This means the ability for the court to correct it, or make it right. These three essential elements must be present and proven with facts, before a case may be heard in any court. Injury, harm, redressability. Without these being proven first, the courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case.

So why do so many people just pay traffic tickets, that have no jurisdiction to be heard by a court in the first place, and no adversary ? Because the supreme court has ruled that if you do not know your rights and the rules of the court and laws, they have no obligation to tell you. Your lawyer will certainly not tell you or fight his buddy lawyers in court with these facts of black letter, real laws...they would have him disbarred, meaning kick him out of their little club, which is actually nothing but a labor organization in which the lawyers oath he takes to join states, that his first duty is to the court !.....not his client !....look it up. Google is your friend.

3. Statutes are not law.

This term comes from the ancient Greek meaning, a law given without reason. This is not Greece, it is America, and in this country, every single thing must have a reason given in court, and clearly defined and proven beyond any doubt. Statutes come under color of law which means hidden and deceitful. No statute in this country or any state, has any applicability to any person, and nobody can produce evidence they do. I know this because I have asked the Attorneys General of the U.S. for this proof, federal judges, state, local, and city councils.....none could give it to me and the standard answer was "because we say so"........ Sorry folks, but in court, that is not good enough. Without proving every element and moving on as they call it, is a violation of your due process and an automatic overturn on appeal. Google is your friend.

4. Fairness.
In a court proceeding, the judge is supposed to be a fair, impartial, and independent decision maker. Any time he varies from that, he has committed a crime. How convenient for them that they all got together with the legislators and had a statute made up that says they are immune from prosecution or lawsuits in performance of their duties.

If the judge sides with the prosecution on any point, it is a due process violation. He isn't suppose to have a side, he is the arbitrator. The only way to fight this set up in court against you is to attack the conflict of interest. All judges were previous prosecutors. All one need do is ask the judge who he represents here today ? If he says the state, ask him.... if there was a conflict of interest in the court, would he consider it to be a fair trial or hearing ?...then ask him who signs his paycheck ?

The state does, and the state is the one bringing charges against you. Collusion, clear and simple, and provable in court. There is a provable conflict of interest on the record with two questions. It is impossible to have a fair trial with this system. Even the cop is paid by the same state. Three against one is not fair in anybody's book, especially the appellate courts....why? They are all trying for a seat at the big show, the supreme court appointment and the big bucks and getting in the history books. So these people try to keep their records spotless and be benevolent guardians of justice. If they refuse to see justice done on some measly little appeal about a treasure hunter that proved there was no case of controversy, and was railroaded through the system anyway by a corrupt judge and prosecutor in collusion together, and he takes it to the supreme court, they will look like idiots, be sanctioned by the supreme court for their actions, kicked off the bench, and never realize their dream of being one themselves. In some cases, criminal charges have been filed against corrupt judges. Google is your friend.

5. Lawyers.

Never hire a lawyer, ever. There is no license required to practice law in this country according to the supreme court of the u.s....and if your state you live in wants to remain a member of the united states, they must abide by these supremacy clause rulings. I have already informed you they do not work for you. Do not trust anyone with your affairs, is my free advice to all. If you want it done right, do it yourself, it's easy. The courts have ruled and recognized the right for people to represent themselves and others in court. This is known as pro per, pro se, and first friend. The supreme court mackenzie ruling takes it one step further. Google is your friend.

6. Cart before the horse.

Before you can prove somebody violated a law or statute, it must first be proven it applies to them.
All courts are supposed to presume you innocent until found guilty....and they do not, none of them, and this is provable immediately. When you walk in, ask the judge if you are presumed innocent of all charges, he will say yes.
Then ask him if you are presumed innocent of every essential element of the charges, he should say yes if being truthful, if he lies and says no, then he violated your due process, case dismissed. If he says yes, then ask him if he can confirm that the prosecution has given him sufficient evidence to prove the applicability of the law, code, statute, or even the constitution to you, and that this court has jurisdiction over you, or to even hear this case ? He will give you the bum's rush and automatically violate your due process by yelling, 'This court has jurisdiction over you'...never mind there is no proof, he will do it anyway. Automatic overturn on appeal.

He cannot take jurisdiction because he is not suppose to be on anyone's side, once again. The prosecutions job is to prove the court has jurisdiction over you by supplying the adversary that was injured to point the finger at you. So you object and ask the judge....Please, I have a point of clarification, could you please explain to me how you can say I am presumed innocent of all elements, until proven in this court, yet presume the law applies to me without proof being laid on the evidence table by the prosecution ?...Once again, if he proceeds without asking the prosecutor for the proof of applicability of the laws or statute to you, he has colluded with them. Automatic overturn on appeal.

If this judge is fair, he should turn to the prosecutor and ask him if he has the evidence. The prosecutor if telling the truth, will say, I have nothing your honor....case dismissed.

You see folks, they know all this, and they lie, and cheat, and steal every day from everyone. They know they have no right to hear a case without injury or an adversary, both of them ! Yet they do it everyday because as stated before, sadly, most people do not know the law or their rights. If they continue against you anyway, you should file a misconduct complaint against the judge with the judicial revue board, and malicious prosecution charges against the prosecutor. You cannot sue the judge, but you can get hold of the risk management for the state and attack his bond through his insurance company and hold him responsible for causing an actual injury to you. A financial settlement against these criminal bureaucrats in government will hit them where they really care about it, in the pocketbook.....then maybe they will start to abide by their oaths and the real laws. They are nothing more than revenue agents collecting taxes for the state.

There is much more, but this is getting long. I hope this spurs some of you on to do your own research about what real laws are and to protect yourself against unwarranted attacks. If you don't believe it, go park at a meter downtown and get a parking ticket, then fight it in court this way and watch what happens. It is relatively safe and you have little chance of being jailed that way, but it will prove that what I tell you is fact. Watch how they squirm when you start asking these questions searching for facts. Watch the prosecutor start shuffling papers on his desk, watch a grown man in a black dress start screaming like a five year old having a tantrum.....when he is supposed to be there for one reason and one reason only, to make sure it is fair to you.

comments and questions welcomed........rip

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[deodra]

Interesting and informative post.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

ripsaw, I'm trying to understand what any of this has to do with metal detecting. And as well-written as it is, it has conspiracy -type tones. And rejection of authority like.... you can't really get traffic tickets (or akin to people saying you "don't really" have to pay income taxes, blah blah).

But one thing that struck me as true, at the start, was about how there needs to be an affected party, or a complaint, for there to be a violation or issue. An example of this would be noise-curfew laws: There is a certain decibal limit in any given city, where ..... after 10pm for instance, you can not exceed said-noise curfews at night. NOW THOUGH: if there is NO COMPLAINT (ie.: no one is hurt, woken up, etc..) and hence no cop ever went out in the middle of the night to respond to a call, and brings his decibal measuring devices, then ........ ok, was the noise curfew violated? I have a street sweeper company, and we have back-pack blowers that technically exceed the noise decibal limits. But .... we can routinely go into the industrial and commercial side of town, even after 10pm and crank them all the way up. There's no one there to wake up to begin with, so .... there's never an issue. However technically, I suppose I'm still "breaking the law", because, afterall, I'm still inside the city limits.

But such "laws" are contingent upon someone making the complaint, to begin with! (which brings out the measuring devices). If no one's been affected, then .... ok, there's no violations or incident, now is there? I wonder if what you're saying touches on that? Because I've expanded that logic to metal detecting: You might find some law to morph to fit to yourself. Ie.: collecting and harvesting, or defacing and altering, or cultural heritage, and so forth. Right? But in the same way as the noise curfews, if no one ever cares, and it's never an issue, and there's no one harmed, and no one ever thinks to morph such things to apply .... then .... ?

 

[Ripsaw]

You've got it Tom. That's right for the most part.

What it has to do with metal detecting or treasure hunting is, I read all these horror stories about people getting in trouble by doing it. They need to know how to defend themselves, that's all. There is nothing conspiratorial about it, except those that are committing the conspiracy, called government officials. If they break the law by charging someone with no injured party to be called, there is no crime period. You cannot get a traffic ticket because they don't exist, they are just opinions scribbled on paper. Opinions are not admissible in court as evidence.... neither is a ticket for metal detecting anywhere, including a national or state park. They do not have the power or authority to take anything you find from you either. It is your property. You worked for it and it belongs to you, and they must show or demonstrate a legal claim before they may seize it from you. That is the definition of a right.

Example:
I am detecting in Yellowstone Park, I find a cache of gold from the 1800's or so, I start loading it in my truck and a park ranger drives by and ask what I am doing. I tell him and he says he is taking the gold and I can't do that there. I refuse and tell him it is my property. He pulls his gun and arrest me and takes my property. I am thrown i n jail awaiting a hearing by his buddy the guy in the black dress that sits on a wooden throne about three feet higher than anybody else in the room. When I walk in, I call the guy in the dress by his first name...Hi Bob.

Trust me, he goes beserk. Now in what other profession does calling someone by their first name, send a supposedly full grown, intelligent, human male into fits ? He screams, You will address me as your honor, or judge. Never mind there will be no titles of nobility allowed in this country through the so called documents of long ago, he insist on being labeled as your honor.

Back to the ranger....He had no valid cause of action to arrest me, or take my private property. Remember, it must be proven first ! This proof must come from factual evidence and witnesses with personal firsthand knowledge of those facts, to corroborate them in court. Until then, it is mine, and he stole it from with no proof, illegally arrested and caged me like an animal, and according to their laws, kidnapped me. Now suffice it to say, he is in big trouble when I get done. His kids, grandchildren, nor great grandchildren will ever go to college, because he will be working for the rest of his life to pay me off first. When this type thing happens, I do warn them first before they act, of what will happen in court, and ask them if they are sure they wish to go down this road. The supreme court of the u.s. has ruled they you have the right to resist an illegal arrest, up to and including the use of deadly force.

HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)
Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states:
"The "individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

Hale v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the United States of America until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. No other Supreme Court case has ever overturned Hale v. Henkel
None of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel has ever been overruled
Since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems over 1,600 times! In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on precedent authority of the cited case.
Compared with other previously decided Supreme Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts.

A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.
Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:

"Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. if the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1."

These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

If your rights are violated, they do so at their own peril - Title 18 USC section 241,242,
Upon conviction you are subject to a ten thousand dollar fine, ten years in jail or both,
and if death results, life in prison.
Title 42 USC sections 1983,1985,and 1986 clearly establishes my right to sue anybody that does this.
There is no immunity for violating someones constitutional rights, the two cases above remove all doubt.

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone ((including the ranger)), affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)



As for taxes, remember, you brought it up, not me. Here is some light reading to prove they don't have the right to tax wages..... INCLUDING TAXING ANY FINDS OF TREASURE YOU MAKE FROM THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW OR LABOR !

Stantin v. Baltic Mining

Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR

US v. Minker

Eisener v. Montgomery.........taxes are for GAINS !

Doyle v. Mitchell..............gains from corporate activity

“Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.” US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956)

“The entire taxing and monetary system are hereby, placed under the UCC.” [The Federal Tax
Lien Act of 1966]

“A state may provide for the collection of taxes in gold and silver only.” [State treasurer v.
Wright, 28 Ill. 5091: [Whitaker v. Haley. 2 Ore. 128]


“Taxes, lawfully assessed are collectible by agents in money and notes cannot be accepted in
payment.” Town of Frankfort v. Waldo, 128 ME. 1]

HAGAR v. RECLAMATION DIST. NO. 108, 111 U.S. 701 1884).
"Acts of Congress making the notes (paper) of the United States a legal tender do not apply to EXACTIONs (taxes) made under state law”

“At common law there was no tax lien.” [Cassidy v. Aroostock, 134 ME. 34]

U.S. Supreme Court, Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner, 459 U.S. 392 (1983) “The Tennessee bank tax violates the immunity of obligations (federal reserve notes 31USC3124 & 18USC8) of the United States from state and local taxation.”

“Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars.” Russell L. Munk, Assistant General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, February 18, 1977. “The term 'dollars' likewise is incorrect, which, according to constitutional definition, are monetary units, used in exchange, backed by gold and silver. Our present day fiat issues are supported by more printed paper of the same; therefore, they are correctly termed Federal Reserve Notes (FRN), not dollars. Robert P. Vichas, Handbook of Financial Mathematics, Formulas, and Tables (1979), p. 420.

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Redfield v Fisher, 292 P 813, at 819 [1930]
"

Gregory v. Helverging, 293 U.S. 465, 1935
"The legal Right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."

1895: In Pollock vs Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co, the Supreme Court rules that general income taxes are unconstitutional because they are unapportioned direct taxes. To this day, the ruling has not been over-turned.

 

[ole miss rebel]

Good info. Ripsaw! But, but your guilty because Judge Roy Bean says so.

Your spot on, the courts nearly always collude.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Speaking of "Real Law" I suggest you check your sources more closely.

Hale v Henkle was about the right to ignore a grand jury's questioning. The grand jury was investigating a possible violation of the Anti-Trust Act of 1890 (commerce). Transferring the rights of the individual to resist a grand jury's inquisition to the principles of law as related to guilt, innocence or culpability (NOT a subject of the grand jury) will leave you with two cents worth of opinion against the power of the State. Apples and Oranges.

There is much that is true and worthy of consideration in what you present here but quoting Supreme Court opinions out of context is doing a disservice to your readers. Why not share the whole case and let your readers enlighten themselves?

Here it is:
Hale v Henkel

 

[Ripsaw]

That's why I said google is your friend Clay.

It doesn't matter what it is about, it is an inclusive opinion, and decision, and affects all the rights of the individual in any case and may be cited.

The state has no power, and does not even exist. It is an idea in the minds of men,....imagined, not real.

The state is comprised of members of the body politic, called citizens, owing a duty of allegiance to the state, in return for a reciprocal obligation of protection by the state. Being a citizen is defined as a contractual agreement by the courts.

So why does it no longer exist or have any power over anyone ? Because the u.s. supreme court, and every single state supreme court has ruled that there is "no duty to protect." .....google is your friend

It's a reciprocal deal, a contract, and the state and feds dropped the ball and basically said, we don't owe anybody anything, no duty to protect you. Then what is that written on all police cars ? ....To Serve and "Protect".....It's all a lie folks, get use to it. They are tax collectors plain and simple.

Bowers Vs. Devito and the County of Winnebago Wi Vs. Deshaney

In Deshaney, sadly a child was killed, the child had been under an order of protection from the county, but the child died and the family later sued the county for failure to protect under the order. One of the saddest cases in human history and no lawyer can get through law school without it being studied. The courts had to rule that way because if not, every time someone stole your car or shoplifted something, the government officials could be sued for failure to protect you, and would lose,. The whole crooked system would fall apart.....they can't have that,... it would be anarchy, and no more tax money to buy new cars and machine guns and bullet proof vest,...so they can tax you more, and bigger,...... and donuts.

Anarchy- from the ancient -"an"- meaning - without............archy - from the ancient meaning - rulers... "Without Rulers"....isn't that why we fought England and the King in the revolutionary war ? ....for freedom, from being ruled over ?

Here's the bottom line guys, and ladies, do yourself a favor, the next time someone in a costume with a badge and gun approaches you while treasure hunting, or doing anything, and starts demanding you follow their orders or else....ask them why, and what makes them think you are obliged to do what they say. Ask them where they think they got their jurisdiction, meaning authority to act against you, and if they really think they have it over you ? If they say the state, the city, the county, or whatever they say, you know it's a lie, because it doesn't exist. They are just men and women doing business at the barrel of a gun, taxing you. In other words, highway robbery, with no proof of anything.

If you wish to follow the orders of liars, and hand over your hard earned money to criminals, that's your business. As for me, I will fight them and beat them with their own rules, and real laws.

One last thing about cops. You can google I.Q. and they actually made a rule that they couldn't hire cops with too high of an IQ, because they wanted storm troopers that blindly follow orders, and don't ask questions about whether what they are doing, is right or wrong. Plus they didn't want them moving on to better jobs after paying for all that training at the gun range....bullets are expensive...how do I know it wasn't law classes they were being trained at.....because if it was, they would know all this and know their only job is to uphold the peace, "peace officers",... not drug raid storm troopers throwing innocent people that harmed nobody in jail for 20 years, or ticket writers collecting taxes to feed the giant machine of tyranny... FACT !

 

[Ripsaw]

duplicate

 

[Jason in Enid]

Nothing but jail-house lawyer speak! Get the truth, because that ain't it!

 

[gusser]

Happy slaves never revolt. Stupid uniformed ones don't either.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Now this is REALLY starting to sound like the conspiratorial "sovereign nations" type stuff , haha. But I still agree that in the cases of lack-of-victim (no complaints saying to stop), that ... yes: Presto , there is no crime

 

[Hillbilly Joe]

First, many of us have only ourselves to blame. We elect people, they pass laws, and we are expected to follow them.

One thing I am sure of, thinking for yourself is a good thing, but fighting a guy, who I am almost positive will call his pals on a radio, will end up with you paying some medical bills, and a lot of lawyers fees. Change what they have to back them, the politicians and the laws they pass.

Look at how the law was written, can they use discretion and their own judgement? Many times yes, sometimes no. One example would be KS. You are not allowed to have a person without a valid license drive a vehicle, or without insurance. Otherwise, the courts have come to the conclusion, that the officer, city, and who ever else could be liable for a failure to take action. You dont have to write them a ticket, or even take them to jail, it is up to the officer. But, unless your rich, dont let them drive!

Again, I refer to my signature, what is right, and what is law, is not always the same thing.

 

[Clay Diggins]

That's why I said google is your friend Clay.

It doesn't matter what it is about, it is an inclusive opinion, and decision, and affects all the rights of the individual in any case and may be cited.

Google is not my friend. The facts are my friend. The facts support some, but not all, of your suppositions.

Since you prefer Google as a friend please google the terms dicta and venue. Mixing venue and presuming that they are all equal will get you a giggle in some of the more liberal courtrooms - otherwise not. Presuming dicta amounts to a cite regarding your rights will only get you disappointment.

Please keep studying, you are on the right track but your suppositions need to be tested. Never assume.

 

[Ripsaw]

Nothing but jail-house lawyer speak! Get the truth, because that ain't it!

Really ? The truth speaks for itself. You can't say what it is or isn't,....... it just is.

None of this came from a jail-house, and I am not a lawyer either. People that think and have the same opinion as you, may actually need to hire a lawyer. Lawyers are for those that don't understand the truth. They are there to make certain you never figure it out.

Now this is REALLY starting to sound like the conspiratorial "sovereign nations" type stuff , haha. But I still agree that in the cases of lack-of-victim (no complaints saying to stop), that ... yes: Presto , there is no crime

There are no sovereign nations, only the people that comprise them. England is ran by a sovereign, the king.....that's working out real well for them too...haa....you guessed it, I could cite hundreds of cases about who actually is sovereign in this country...., it's you, and me. But there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. If you are a citizen, you cannot be sovereign, and if you are sovereign, you can't be a citizen.

First, many of us have only ourselves to blame. We elect people, they pass laws, and we are expected to follow them.

One thing I am sure of, thinking for yourself is a good thing, but fighting a guy, who I am almost positive will call his pals on a radio, will end up with you paying some medical bills, and a lot of lawyers fees. Change what they have to back them, the politicians and the laws they pass.

Look at how the law was written, can they use discretion and their own judgement? Many times yes, sometimes no. One example would be KS. You are not allowed to have a person without a valid license drive a vehicle, or without insurance. Otherwise, the courts have come to the conclusion, that the officer, city, and who ever else could be liable for a failure to take action. You dont have to write them a ticket, or even take them to jail, it is up to the officer. But, unless your rich, dont let them drive!

Again, I refer to my signature, what is right, and what is law, is not always the same thing.

Nobody said fight him, I said ask him a question. I guess it's gotten to that point in this country that you will get your ass beat for asking a simple question. I had a judge throw me in jail for contempt for asking a question of evidence. Truly sad times here.

This shows the true nature of the criminal activity in the courts today. I asked for evidence from the prosecution in discovery, and the guy that is suppose to ask him to turn it over to me and the court, the judge, sides with the state and refuses, and throws me in a cage when I asked again. Now their laws clearly state I have the notice and opportunity to defend, along with access to all evidence they intend to use against me....but there was no evidence. So he typically starts screaming like a five year old having a fit. I asked him if he was supposed to be on anybody's side here....cause it sure looks like you are on the prosecutors side and bailing him out of a tight spot here. I filed against them and their bonds for 1.6 million dollars and it is pending. I suppose it could be construed as treasure hunting in a certain sense.

About driving, there are no laws requiring anyone to have a drivers license unless they are commercial drivers. Look up.... "right to travel".....also, no stickers, insurance, or none of that garbage they say you must have to move about this land. It's all a lie folks, to steal more money. Every single so called state, and the u.s courts have ruled on this subject. Don't get me started on toll roads. Totally illegal ! The epitomy of highway robbery.

Google is not my friend. The facts are my friend. The facts support some, but not all, of your suppositions.

Since you prefer Google as a friend please google the terms dicta and venue. Mixing venue and presuming that they are all equal will get you a giggle in some of the more liberal courtrooms - otherwise not. Presuming dicta amounts to a cite regarding your rights will only get you disappointment.

Please keep studying, you are on the right track but your suppositions need to be tested. Never assume.

Those are not facts, only opinions.
There is no such thing as rights. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. I think we can prove you have life because you are breathing and typing, and I believe you may think you have liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it's just I have never seen anyone that can prove it, let alone prove it is a "right."

All determinations are dictum. Opinions of the insane. Been there done that. As for venue, there is none, because there is no state. The state is not a geographical location ! I get this in court all the time from these psychopaths in government. The prosecutor walks in and the judge ask are we ready to proceed, the prosecutor stands up and says "Ah, Gary Poindexter here for the state your honor and we are ready to proceed"....I say "Objection", and point to the prosecutor and ask the judge, " Is anything, anyone says in this court admissible as evidence on the record ?"...He says "Of course not, on what grounds are you objecting ?"......"Assuming facts not in evidence judge....I want him to prove with facts, that he represents the state."

We have already proven the state does not exist, so how can someone claim they represent something that doesn't exist in a court of law ?

The state is comprised of citizens that are members of the body politic owing an allegiance of duty to the state in return for a duty of protection by the state. Without a duty to protect, there are no citizens, therefor, no body politic to comprise the state, and no state. With no states there is no united states. So every single thing out of their mouths is a lie, plain and simple. Don't let them get away with it. The prosecutor, nor the judge, has any power because they derive all their authority to act from the state, ..... which doesn't exist.

 

[Clay Diggins]

All determinations are dictum. Opinions of the insane. Been there done that. As for venue, there is none, because there is no state. The state is not a geographical location !

Lawyers make their living arguing. You do it for free!

If you don't believe in opinions or dicta or a state why are you arguing those points to begin with?

You brought up Hale v Henkle to provide evidence of "proof" of the validity of your thesis. Now you deny the authority of the same dicta you quoted as proof.

You have now progressed from a proposed thesis to an argument against your own proof of that thesis all on the same thread?

I agree you don't need a lawyer. You might want to consider a course in logic?

 

[JunkShopFiddler]

So, can I dig a hole or not?

 

[Ripsaw]

duplicate ?

 

[Ripsaw]

Lawyers make their living arguing. You do it for free!

If you don't believe in opinions or dicta or a state why are you arguing those points to begin with?

You brought up Hale v Henkle to provide evidence of "proof" of the validity of your thesis. Now you deny the authority of the same dicta you quoted as proof.

You have now progressed from a proposed thesis to an argument against your own proof of that thesis all on the same thread?

I agree you don't need a lawyer. You might want to consider a course in logic?

I'm not arguing. An arguement is a collective series of statements leading to a definate conclusion. (monty python skit)...heh heh...

An arguement is where one person takes up a position and is trying to convince another that he is right, or to come around to his way of thinking.

I am merely posting the opinions of others, for review by others, for educational purposes. I have written nothing saying I agree or believe in any of it. I'm not using it to prove anything. I'm not denying or recognizing the authority of anyone or anything, it is just the only avenue available to pursue, to defend oneself when attacked by these psychopathic bureaucrats. It's the only thing "they" recognize and believe in, their own rulings, so it kinda ties your hands doesn't it ?

Nice ad hominem attack to insenuate I use no logic in my thinking. Where would one find a course to take in logic you think ? Philosophy maybe ?

But this is typical and I am use to it. When you take away most peoples map of the world that they have been taught all their lives,... that, "that is the way it is", ....then tell them the truth about the real world around them and how it works, and don't replace it with something for them to believe in, they usually lose all cognitive reasoning, reading comprehension skills, and basically turn off their critical thinking centers and logic in their brains, and resort to this cognitive dissonance type behavior.

This has been proven with test of human subjects. You may recall the movie about it too where they locked up a group of people in prison and made some of them guards. This really happened and does everyday. It's about peer pressure and rules. People will actually be capable of torturing and killing each other for no other reason than they were "told" it is a rule. Never mind the logic required to stop and ask themselves, "Is this right or wrong ?...to follow orders blindly and kill another person. Three test in three different locations with three different groups of people fro mall walks of life proved the same thing.....so I understand why you made that remark about my logic, or lack thereof.....according to you.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I have written nothing saying I agree or believe in any of it. I'm not using it to prove anything.

Well I guess that clears a lot of things up. Thanks for your honesty.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Thread is borderline politics, don't be surprised if it disapoears...






American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......