Status #5451

I am posting this more for discussion purposes, as I [...]


Dallesport, Washington
via FCP - United States - Pacific NW
I am posting this more for discussion purposes, as I do not endorse the actions of this militia, I do however think we as people should begin to discuss non compliance in it's various forms. http://npr.org/sections/…
[deleted user]
I endorse ant effort that exposes the fascist regime in the US and would love to see some of the traitors in law enforcement die.
Monday 4 January 2016, 03:05:05
Wakinyan
I dont want to see them die, I want to see them stripped of authority and returned to the general populace. I support exposing government fascism as well, but fail to see how this particular event does that.
Monday 4 January 2016, 03:47:47
[deleted user]
That's a sure recipe for a visit from the "Justice" Department. Hope you don't live in the United States of Extraordinary Rendition. Once again, the blue flame is appropriate, but randomly killing police isn't the answer. I'd like to see the bad cops get sentenced to real jail time, not these suspensions, and treated like the criminals that they are. At best, they get fines, paid for by the people they steal taxes from. Good luck getting justice from this system. On the other hand, some of these guys are on our side. https://youtube.com/watch/…
Monday 4 January 2016, 04:21:35
Wakinyan
United States of Extraordinary Rendition...so accurate. I agree the law is engineered to deny the form of justice it proposes to protect. Luck, though helpful will not get the job done We need to rebuild justice back into the legal system. All allies, especially those with inside information are welcome!
Monday 4 January 2016, 07:02:23
Amanda
When folk talk about the Constitution I have to laugh, a document written by rich, slave owning white men who's primary goal was securing the wealth of this land for themselves. Violence begets violence and if anyone here has tried to get Justice from the courts they know it is near impossible. At best there is an impasse that can be had- denial, Just don't plea. When I explained to the Town Court Judge (elected with no legal background at all) that his court was run on Contract Law as all courts are Civil courts and deal only with our Corporate entities and for civil court you need consent from both participants, he sputtered, puffed and judged against me. I still have an open case against the STATE for contract fraud but cannot find a judge who will hold their oath of impartiality above their oath to uphold the "laws" of the STATE. What I learned was to be just within myself and not to sit in judgement of others.
Monday 4 January 2016, 11:15:38
[deleted user]
Oh, this is a nice turn of conversation. The Constitution really is just a God damned piece of paper (parchment). It's a contract we've been entered into by our forefathers, which can't be legally binding on their progeny, without our consent. If you read history closely, you'll understand that the Constitution for the United States was a coup d'etat by Mercantilists, and we can track their lineage back to, at least, the Phoenicians. This class of the emotional plague, regardless of the gender and race they belong to (and it has crossed lines through the millennia), we enshrine with the God-like status of "Founding Fathers" in the US. It’s disgusting. We had another contract before this, the Articles of Confederation, for which there was unanimous consent; 100% of the people agreed to its rules. Now, we can all probably agree that 100% is subjective, given who was, and who wasn't allowed to participate in that agreement, but the point is, that flawed as the thinking in some areas was in those days, it was a different system that these people tried to create. The Judicial Branch under this abomination of a Constitution has no check or balance against its tyranny, and you will be very lucky indeed to find a judge that abides by their oath of impartiality. Why should they? Can they be removed from the bench? What are the consequences if they fail to serve justice? I commend your efforts and the level to which you've educated yourself Amanda, you are obviously a lot smarter than the judge, and that probably scared shit out of him. Gavel down, guilty! If the judge in this court is truly elected, and not appointed, then I nominate YOU for judge. Voluntary non-compliance and non-participation in this charade is the first step, but I’d rather see you overthrow your court house by becoming the court house, and turn this stinking mess over from the inside.
Monday 4 January 2016, 13:53:38
Amanda
Never thought of that, you've brought a huge smile to my face. Thanks. One court house offering justice would indeed be a start.
Monday 4 January 2016, 15:26:00
[deleted user]
Wouldn't that be nice? Now you're bringing a smile to my face, and a devious one, at that. Educate your jury of their right to nullification, dismiss frivolous cases, dispense real justice, ah, the possibilities...
Monday 4 January 2016, 16:09:02
Wakinyan
Both of you have brought a smile to my face. It's rare to see such in-depth and well informed opinions on law. So rare.
Tuesday 5 January 2016, 03:43:56
Amanda
That's what I so appreciate about this site, I have found so many wonderful beings with so much knowledge. What a blessing we can be for one another!
Tuesday 5 January 2016, 10:07:49
[deleted user]
People in my part of Tennessee don't say "thank you", they say "I appreciate you", and I do, appreciate you, both. It is rare to find people like those who have assembled here, but we're growing.
Tuesday 5 January 2016, 14:53:25
[deleted user]
This forum is far too liberal for my taste. You all sound like sheep.
Wednesday 6 January 2016, 04:11:31
Wakinyan
Being libreal or progressive does not make someone a sheep, anymore than being conservative does. If you cannot tolerate, nor engage in respectful dialogue with, those who have different ideologies than yourself then feel free to leave the circle. I wish you well should you choose to go.
Wednesday 6 January 2016, 04:21:56
[deleted user]
Follow your heart, Glenn. We don't really need agent provocateurs here.
Wednesday 6 January 2016, 04:31:16
eaf
Hi all. This thread grabbed my attention. Amanda. You are 100% right about consent. I think where you hit the wall, and I wasn't there and am hypothesizing, was in how you presented the information to the court. I'm not sure what type of case it was, but what I found is that presenting the truth through questions forces the judge to address the issue. To strengthen your position, dissent to any presumptions of law any time you have an interaction with the government, then challenge jurisdiction. For instance, if I were to get pulled over, I would, after respectfully greeting the officer (I often express my appreciation for their service), let them know that I dissent to any presumptions of of law, including but not limited tacit consent. Next, I would explain my status as a natural man (homo to be more clear). Then, I would request evidence of authorization, aka proof of authority/jurisdiction. Every interaction initiated by government requires they prove jurisdiction upon request. For example, RCW 46.61.020 is the refusal to give info statute, and the last sentence after a long list of what and how a "person" is supposed to respond to an officer's traffic investigation states "Any police officer shall on request produce evidence of his or her authorization as such." Whatever your statutory situation, nearly identical wording will be found, unless the interaction is via warrant, which still forces them to prove jurisdiction.

Thursday 7 January 2016, 13:30:32
eaf
In court, I would rely on this initial dissent to challenge jurisdiction. Remember, it requires a conclusion of law to prove all elements of jurisdiction, and only lawyers and judges are competent to make conclusions of law. All other agents of government (i.e. police, irs agents, etc.), are only competent to make a conclusion of facts. The way to force a judge to address the issue, is to demand a judicial determination for each and every tiny little element of the case (i.e. meaning of words, implications of punctuation, elements of jurisdictions, etc.). The reason you demand a "judicial determination" is because they will tell you to ask a lawyer if you have any of these questions, and will have legal standing to avoid answering. However, a lawyer can only give you their interpretation of law and can only make assumptions as to the courts determination on the issue. The judicial determination is what the court has determined a meaning, element, etc. to be for the purposes of this case. Then just start asking the right questions.
Thursday 7 January 2016, 13:43:24
eaf
Shamanic: The truth is, the constitution is not binding upon any "MAN". It is only binding upon the persons which are agencies of government. Remember "man" and "person" are not synonymous terms. "man" and "homo" are synonymous. "person" and "status" are synonymous. Person means status and not man. Every person is an artificial entity...a creature of law. Every man (of all genders), is a creature of nature. The rights "secured" by the first ten amendments of the constitution, were not created by it. Those rights are "creator endowed", and the constitution binds the government to not trespass upon them in the course of their business. See the trick is that the powers that be make us believe from childhood, that the constitution is where our rights come from. This causes us to think that the government determines rights, and that is not true...unless you are a person.
Thursday 7 January 2016, 13:55:06
eaf
As for the judges, I found that when confronted properly, they will not deny the truth on the record, but that they viciously
avoid answering to any issue they don't want on the record.
Thursday 7 January 2016, 14:02:32
[deleted user]
I get it, eaf. I've understood for a long, long time that my rights don't originate from their God damned piece of paper my friend. Few things will make me cringe harder, than to hear somebody attempting to defend their "constitutional rights". At this stage in the game, my rights aren't even "secured" under the abomination, because it's a fatally flawed contract. The anti-federalists tried to warn folks, but they were either ignored by the masses, or defeated by manipulation of the votes during ratification. I find it very interesting that the article linked in Wakinyan's original post is referring to this group in Oregon as "anti-federalists". You're right about the judges not denying the truth, on the record, which is a key point. You can't get these weasels to admit ANYTHING of substance on the record. Want to know the quickest way to make a bureaucrat disappear into a puff of smoke? Tell them the conversation is being recorded. *poof*
Thursday 7 January 2016, 17:10:01
Wakinyan
Welcome to the conversation eaf, your like a knowledge dropping whirlwind. I really like what you said about jurisdiction, if I understood correctly it's kind of like jurisdiction is the commonly accepted legal mechanism to make a consent challenge. In other words by using questions to challenge all elements of jurisdiction, it will be much harder for the judge to dismiss you, because your acting within their statutory framework, to prove your non participation in said framework. Diabolical...and, I love it.
Friday 8 January 2016, 07:04:54
[deleted user]
So, is there any way that we (and really, I mean folks like you, who have a far better understanding of this) can help educate people about how to conduct themselves in front of a judge? They really have us over a barrel when it comes to defending ourselves in court. There are so many things to know, so many technical points and procedures, so much jargon, rules of evidence, etc., that it’s difficult for the average person to consume. Add to that the sheer terror of going into court and coming up against lawyers and judges in cases where your freedom or livelihood is at stake, it’s really a rigged game. Too few lawyers understand this stuff, from these perspectives, and those who do are expensive. We need to be able to act as Pro Se legal representatives in these cases. It would be nice to have a curriculum that can be provided to the average person, or information to which people can be pointed for self education. Something I’ve been involved in, and gotten immense amounts of education and courage from, is simple role playing, where people in a group will act the parts of judge, plaintiff, defendant, and do some real world simulation and training in how to handle themselves in court. This is something that people here, who are focused on real interaction, could do to hone their skills. I think this would help to give people the courage to take the next step, which is to challenge the system in meaningful ways that would otherwise just get them into trouble.
Friday 8 January 2016, 07:37:59
eaf
Actually, the reason I joined this site is because I would like to help and collaborate with people, so that everyone can better defend themselves. I'm more than happy to help anybody, by sharing what I know. I spent years studying to understand how law works, instead of trying to stay on top of the ever changing statutory rules. It's the difference between beating a game by beating all of the levels, vs. learning the source code so that you don't have to play the game. A great starting point is James DeWitt Andrews. His work is one of the biggest secrets in law. American Law is his version of Blackstone's Commentaries for the U.S. He does an unbelievable job breaking down the mechanics, principals, and history upon which our law is founded. The first book is all about "Persons", and is the only one I read. He also wrote Statutes, which breaks down how statutory law works. Statutes has a lot of great ammo to challenge the court and how they apply the law. Both are free on Google Books! Also, check out Randy E Barnett, and Robert A Williams Jr. Both are great, current law professors, who's work is of great value to anyone who wants to learn the nuts and bolts of law.
Friday 8 January 2016, 19:56:11
[deleted user]
Thank you for the references! I'll look into them.
Friday 8 January 2016, 22:27:56
Please login to make a comment

© 2014 - 2020 The Full Circle Project
The Full Circle Project is powered by Coeō © 2014 - 2020 Coeō (Matthew Dowle) | Designed and developed by Matthew Dowle | Coeō Terms and Conditions / Legal | Sitemap