It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

page: 15
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


No I rely on licensing schemes because people will lie about absolutely ANYTHING.

When people check into the hotel I work at, I take down the information on their ID, why? Because when they trash the room, I want to know who to send the cops after.

But in your freeman anarchy society, I would have a lot of John Doe, and Jane Doe registered to the rooms.

Someone steels your car, can't prosecute John Smith now can you? Oh that's right, no prosecution whatsoever, it would be up to you the individual to file a claim in a civil court. Course you would have to get hold of John Smith, but since he doesn't have to carry ID, well, good luck in a nation with 350 million people in it.

Course even if somehow you were to track down John Smith, and somehow convince him to go to court willingly, (he already stole your car, but he will show up to court) The civil judge could fine him for whatever, but how the hell will John Smith have to pay anything, you still don't know his real name and he is under zero obligation to tell you or the court in your society.

Then there are more serious crimes, murder for example, of course you can't prosecute for murder in the freeman society, oh no, because that would violate the murderers right to liberty.

Just have to find a living relative that will sue Murderer X for his crime, and of course, Murderer X will just keep on murdering because there is nothing the police can do.

A society built on what you want when you want and how you want with no repercussions to your actions, and it's not an anarchy society?

[edit on 6/27/2010 by whatukno]




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





No I rely on licensing schemes because people will lie about absolutely ANYTHING.


Thieves always lock their doors because they hold the same regard for other people as they do themselves. The same could be true for those who insist everybody lies, and your assertion only makes your words in these threads suspect.




When people check into the hotel I work at, I take down the information on their ID, why? Because when they trash the room, I want to know who to send the cops after.


Take note of your language here, as in "when" not "if", and this is your world view, everyone is criminal as far as your concerned. I have worked in the hotel business as well, and the hotel I worked in was a major franchise hotel, and very few people trashed the rooms. It did, on occasion happen, but most people left the rooms as they got them.

Further, the hotel I worked at, all rooms came equipped with an honor bar. The honor bar worked just fine and was a profitable part of that hotels business. Perhaps the hotel you work in is more like one of those seedy hotels that caters to criminals, and this might explain your clear disgust and disregard for humanity.




Someone steels your car, can't prosecute John Smith now can you? Oh that's right, no prosecution whatsoever, it would be up to you the individual to file a claim in a civil court. Course you would have to get hold of John Smith, but since he doesn't have to carry ID, well, good luck in a nation with 350 million people in it.


If someone steals my car, the first thing that must happen before prosecuting that person is they be caught. Driving licensing schemes do nothing to ensure their capture, and if that person is captured, no driver's license is required in order to prosecute that criminal. Of course, just as you have been doing all along in this thread, you continue to play the game of deceit you play, (wonder why you see all people as liars?), and claim that sovereign people are against prosecutions of a crime. It is a deceit, you have been called on that deceit several times in this thread, and yet, you continue to deceive. Just can't help yourself? Pathological in your deceptions are you?



[edit on 27-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


No one needs a "legal" definition for happiness in order to pursue it. If you are asking because "(We) people seem to be giving legal definitions" of terms such as driving and travel, you are missing the point. If there is a legal definition then that definition has to be considered when operating within the confines of the law. If there is a legal definition, it is not "(we) people" who imposed this definition, but rather a legislature that did.

In terms of the "legal" definition of the term happiness, the first thing that should be noted is that what is protected is the right to pursue it. Pursuit or pursing is no more defined by the California constitution then happiness is, and since it is not defined by constitution, then the legislature can not at a later date seek to define it, which is why you are having difficulty finding a "legal" definition of the term happiness.

When there is no "legal" definition supplied by constitution or statute, then we must turn to the ordinary usage of the word. Webster's online dictionary provides:


Main Entry: hap·pi·ness
Pronunciation: \ˈha-pē-nəs\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 obsolete : good fortune : prosperity

2 a : a state of well-being and contentment : joy
b : a pleasurable or satisfying experience
3 : felicity, aptness


Webster's defines pursue as:


1. Main Entry: pur·sue
Pronunciation: \pər-ˈsü, -ˈsyü\
Function: verb Inflected Form(s): pur·sued; pur·su·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French pursure, pursiure, from Latin prosequi, from pro- forward + sequi to follow — more at pro-, sue

Date: 14th century
transitive verb

1 : to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat
2 : to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : seek
3 : to proceed along
4 a : to engage in b : to follow up or proceed with
5 : to continue to afflict : haunt
6 : 2chase 1c


Given the context of the word, both the second, and third definitions would be most applicable.

Since you wish to quibble over what legal definitions are, perhaps you would be interested to note what the legal definition of license is:

The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.



So you are basically saying it means nothing. Right?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





So you are basically saying it means nothing. Right?


Obviously this is what you are saying, but cowardly so.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





So you are basically saying it means nothing. Right?


Obviously this is what you are saying, but cowardly so.



The way you put effort into passively attacking everyone who questions your position shows that you are the weak coward here.

I'm just a generally curious poster.

From my position, it appears that you have no idea what you are talking about.

It's almost as if you are giving out some information and saying "believe it or you are wrong" and then just attacking anyone who is questioning you.

I say almost, but I mean exactly. It's exactly what you are doing.

I'm sure it's because your position automatically corners you anyway.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





The way you put effort into passively attacking everyone who questions your position shows that you are the weak coward here.


There is nothing passive in my attacks at all, I bring them head on without apology. When freedom is being attacked, I defend it. Clearly you have a problem with this, but this is your problem, as I care little what cowards think.




From my position, it appears that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Right, this is coming from one who claims to be "just a generally curious poster", but whatever it is you are curious about, the facts of law I have posted and linked, you fail to speak to intelligently and instead, "generally" dismiss my knowledge of law by claiming it "appears" I have no idea what I am talking about. It may "appear" this way to you, but then again, I have no interest in how things appear to a coward.




It's almost as if you are giving out some information and saying "believe it or you are wrong" and then just attacking anyone who is questioning you.


When I give out information, I take the time to post a link so people can read that information for themselves and make their own conclusions. Further, when I joined this thread, I did so responding to assertions Whatukno made, and I posted information, provided links to that information and asked him what he thought of this.

Wuk "reserved" the right to consider it and speak to that information at a "later date", but has not yet spoken to it and instead has attacked people for relying on the law in order to assert their inalienable rights.

Now you come in and obsequiously pretend to be "just a generally curious poster", but your agenda is clear and your cowardly attacks are evident.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





The way you put effort into passively attacking everyone who questions your position shows that you are the weak coward here.


There is nothing passive in my attacks at all, I bring them head on without apology. When freedom is being attacked, I defend it. Clearly you have a problem with this, but this is your problem, as I care little what cowards think.




From my position, it appears that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Right, this is coming from one who claims to be "just a generally curious poster", but whatever it is you are curious about, the facts of law I have posted and linked, you fail to speak to intelligently and instead, "generally" dismiss my knowledge of law by claiming it "appears" I have no idea what I am talking about. It may "appear" this way to you, but then again, I have no interest in how things appear to a coward.




It's almost as if you are giving out some information and saying "believe it or you are wrong" and then just attacking anyone who is questioning you.


When I give out information, I take the time to post a link so people can read that information for themselves and make their own conclusions. Further, when I joined this thread, I did so responding to assertions Whatukno made, and I posted information, provided links to that information and asked him what he thought of this.

Wuk "reserved" the right to consider it and speak to that information at a "later date", but has not yet spoken to it and instead has attacked people for relying on the law in order to assert their inalienable rights.

Now you come in and obsequiously pretend to be "just a generally curious poster", but your agenda is clear and your cowardly attacks are evident.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]


I'm sure my agenda is "clear" to you. After all, anyone who generally questions your position is a coward, a liar, and not fit to a freeman.

How is your family doing, by the way? Are they cowards too, or in the same boat as you?

Have you disowned anyone lately?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





I'm sure my agenda is "clear" to you. After all, anyone who generally questions your position is a coward, a liar, and not fit to a freeman.


I did not take the time to post and link several definitions to make the point that they mean nothing, and yet, you smugly responded to that effort by saying:




So you are basically saying it means nothing. Right?


Had you responded by saying you thought that those definitions meant nothing we could have had a conversation about that, but instead, you chose to take the cowards stance and claim that what you believe is what I was saying.

As to me calling Wuk on his deceptions, they are deceptions that Wuk is relying upon in order to make his argument, and if they are deceptions they should be called out, just as your cowardly deceptions should be called out.

For a "generally curious poster", you don't seem at all interested in discussing the law and much more interested in attacking those who you disagree with, just cowardly so.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I work in a hotel that both caters to travelers and criminals (we get a nice mix here. Drug addicts, Pilots, Hookers, travelers, Thieves, Business people, we don't discriminate.
) Incidentally that is what gives me the experience to go into politics because I am used to dealing with thieves and liars.

I have also worked in good hotels, the similarity is that we take id for everyone regardless. Your honor bar argument doesn't hold water because I know how that works. When you check in people, you have a credit card. The honor bar is inventoried by housekeeping, and anything missing from the bar is charged to the credit card.

You might have this pie eyed view of the world where everyone is honest and upstanding citizens, where everyone is all good, and everyone can be completely trusted. But I deal with reality, and reality dictates that if you think that way, you are going to be ripped off.

This freeman anarchy society doesn't work because people will lie to get out of trouble, if you say to people, oh no, no id required to drive a car, no worries, you also get this.

That is your freeman anarchy society at work.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





I'm sure my agenda is "clear" to you. After all, anyone who generally questions your position is a coward, a liar, and not fit to a freeman.


I did not take the time to post and link several definitions to make the point that they mean nothing, and yet, you smugly responded to that effort by saying:




So you are basically saying it means nothing. Right?


Had you responded by saying you thought that those definitions meant nothing we could have had a conversation about that, but instead, you chose to take the cowards stance and claim that what you believe is what I was saying.

As to me calling Wuk on his deceptions, they are deceptions that Wuk is relying upon in order to make his argument, and if they are deceptions they should be called out, just as your cowardly deceptions should be called out.

For a "generally curious poster", you don't seem at all interested in discussing the law and much more interested in attacking those who you disagree with, just cowardly so.


For being someone who wishes to spread the truth, you seem like a vile and abrasive person who would rather insult than give information.

Are you sure you aren't working for the "other side" and attempting to make the freeman movement look like a bunch of idiots?

... because that is what you are doing. Congratulations if you are doing it on purpose; if you are not doing it on purpose, I would seriously suggest that you change your approach.

I've been a freeman for 5 years.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





You might have this pie eyed view of the world where everyone is honest and upstanding citizens, where everyone is all good, and everyone can be completely trusted. But I deal with reality, and reality dictates that if you think that way, you are going to be ripped off.


You are not living in reality at all if you honestly think that no one can be trusted. What a horrid world that is you must live in. Further, you can dismiss my world view as "pie eyed" if you wish, but I never claimed that "everyone" is honest and upstanding citizens". Further, your proclivity to frame "everyone" as a citizen is telling. People need not be a citizen in order to honest and upstanding. Even further, people who think the way you do can just as easily be ripped off as people who give others the benefit of the doubt.

The point of giving people the benefit of the doubt is that when you do so you allow the other person to either earn this benefit or remove all doubt. Once doubt has been removed, then it is easier to act accordingly. Of course, you can take the cynical view and decide that "without a doubt" all people are criminals and not worthy of being trusted, but such a dim view of people in general will only alienate others from you.




This freeman anarchy society doesn't work because people will lie to get out of trouble, if you say to people, oh no, no id required to drive a car, no worries, you also get this.


Actually, the thread you linked illustrates how ineffective licensing schemes actually are. Conversely, you also get this

This is how your incremental tyranny works.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


For being a "generally curious poster" you strike me as a vile and abrasive person, who has offered up no information what-so-ever, and has spent all his time either attacking the video as something that shouldn't be trusted, or attacking other posters.




Are you sure you aren't working for the "other side" and attempting to make the freeman movement look like a bunch of idiots?


We can be relatively sure that you aren't working for the "other side", as that side comes with supervisors who would at some point release you from your posting responsibilities for making them look so stupid.




... because that is what you are doing. Congratulations if you are doing it on purpose; if you are not doing it on purpose, I would seriously suggest that you change your approach. I've been a freeman for 5 years.


Really? A freeman for 5 years? Hmmm, wonder what the point of this post was then:




Can you give me the legal definition of happiness? You people seem to be giving legal definitions of driving, traveling, etc... etc... How about the legal definition of happiness? Can't find it? Maybe it's just semantics, a "trap" to make you think a certain way, just like all the idiots who think driving a car and traveling in a car are the same thing. Both sides end the same.


First you use language that seems to want to separate yourself from "you people" who give definitions of what driving and traveling is, then you turn around and call people idiots who think they are the same thing. Disinfo much?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



The point of giving people the benefit of the doubt is that when you do so you allow the other person to either earn this benefit or remove all doubt. Once doubt has been removed, then it is easier to act accordingly. Of course, you can take the cynical view and decide that "without a doubt" all people are criminals and not worthy of being trusted, but such a dim view of people in general will only alienate others from you.


There are many here that have earned that trust, but they earned it, I did not just give it up to be burned. I don't work that way.

I assume that everyone is a con artist, and then they prove to me that they aren't. I am not a court of law, I do not have to hold to the standard of innocent till proven guilty.

This freeman anarchy society you are advocating is much like the honor bar system, except in your society there are no housekeepers to inventory the stock and no credit card to guarantee payment.

You are assuming that there aren't a lot of people that would just go around committing crimes because there would be zero way they could get caught, and no responsibility if they happen to get caught.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


As has been mentioned - fuel taxes are what pay for our highway infrastructure. At least that which isn't siphoned off for other uses by parasites.

Once that fact destroys your argument, you speculate that he might be making his own fuel - thus bypassing fuel taxes.

So, he paid for his share to use the highway. If you're still jealous, find a better argument.



If one is paying fuel taxes then they are voluntarily particpating in the goverment's taxation scheme and thus they are not a freeman by any definition that I have seen. True freemen make their own fuel, build their own roads, sewer systems, etc. They also operate by barter only as the use of the governments money is also considered being part of the system. I think the cop probably just didn't feel like wasting his time and effort dealing with a percieved screwball.

I say to any of you who wish to be free of society. Get the hell out already. Plenty of locations to go in the survival threads.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





There are many here that have earned that trust, but they earned it, I did not just give it up to be burned. I don't work that way.


All trust has to be earned, but this is not the point of giving people the benefit of the doubt. The point of giving people the benefit of the doubt, is that failing any evidence that would remove all doubt, you or I can not know the character of another person until that doubt is removed.




I assume that everyone is a con artist, and then they prove to me that they aren't. I am not a court of law, I do not have to hold to the standard of innocent till proven guilty.


Thank you for your honesty in this admission Wuk, it is refreshing to read such honesty after reading so much deception from your posts. However, your contention that you are a not a court of law would be fine if it weren't for the fact that you are running for a Congressional seat. If elected, you will be legislating statutes, and codes based upon your perception of reality. Even that is fine as long as you do this legislating within the confines of the law. As a member of the legislature you can not just whimsically legislate statutes and codes based upon your opinions. You will be forced to contend with the Constitutional restraints placed upon you.




This freeman anarchy society you are advocating is much like the honor bar system, except in your society there are no housekeepers to inventory the stock and no credit card to guarantee payment.


For the record, I am neither a "freeman" as defined by that movement, nor am I an anarchist. I am a strict Constitutionalist, and I am a free market advocate. There are those who would insist that makes me an anarchist, but I respectfully disagree. I am all for the rule of law, but in American Jurisprudence the rule of law begins with constitutions. Defending a persons, including my own, right to travel no more makes me an anarchist than it does a "homegrown terrorist", and these terms tend to be used by people as ad hominem attacks. Certainly when the main stream media uses the term anarchist, they are not referring to Lysander Spooner's understanding of the word, and they mean no respect by it.




You are assuming that there aren't a lot of people that would just go around committing crimes because there would be zero way they could get caught, and no responsibility if they happen to get caught.


No, I am not making this assumption, and your assumption that there would be zero way to capture and apprehend a criminal is a false assumption. Criminals were caught in The United States of America long before drivers licenses became a reality, and crime was successfully prosecuted long before the licensing schemes in general began. The U.S. was not a lawless nation prior to the 1940's, but one could make an argument that it has become increasingly closer to a lawless nation post 1940's.

Which brings up another point, when you assume that I assume that were would be no crime without licensing schemes, you ignore the fact that there are crimes with licensing schemes. The rule of law has been greatly undermined in this country, and the primary reason for this is the whimsical nature of legislatures who believe they can invent laws and then pass legislation criminalizing acts that fail to present a victim. If there is no victim, there is no crime, and when legislatures insist that anything they decide is a crime, is a crime, the rule of law becomes a joke, and respect for the law wanes. This is what we have today in society, and yet you advocate it as if we don't.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



However, your contention that you are a not a court of law would be fine if it weren't for the fact that you are running for a Congressional seat. If elected, you will be legislating statutes, and codes based upon your perception of reality.


Except you are blurring the line between the Judicial branch, and the Legislative branch of government, if elected, I won't be a judge now will I? I will be a congressman. There is a HUGE difference, a congressman cannot judge you guilty.

Now, before the evil devil that is a drivers license, you contend that the united states was more successful in prosecution of crimes.

Well, I have to agree with you, because before the time of licenses, there were less people in the United States, they lived in smaller communities, and people knew one another, so statistically you are correct, less crimes committed, more percentage of arrests, equates to you being correct.

Listen, don't get me wrong, go ahead, drive without a license, hell you can go murder someone. Just don't come crying to me when you get put in jail for it.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





Except you are blurring the line between the Judicial branch, and the Legislative branch of government, if elected, I won't be a judge now will I? I will be a congressman. There is a HUGE difference, a congressman cannot judge you guilty.


I am not at all blurring the lines. The process of judicial review is that authority that gives the court the right to strike down legislation as unconstitutional. However, this notion of judicial review is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, and while I tend to agree it is implicitly so, judicial review is only required when legislatures move beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, or at the very least, seemingly so. If legislatures would simply act within the scope of their jurisdiction, it is arguable there would be no need for judicial review.

You are judging people now, and harshly so, and as a legislator it appears as if you will continue to judge people with the same dim view you of them you have demonstrate here. You have argued as to why you believe drivers licenses are necessary, and that belief is predicated on the assumption that all people must be treated as unworthy and criminal until they have proven their worth and innocence. Further, Congress has a proclivity for holding Congressional hearings and will compel ordinary people to appear at these hearings and answer to them. So, your contention that you won't be judging people may be based on your own ignorance of the job you are applying for, but it is a false assumption.




Listen, don't get me wrong, go ahead, drive without a license, hell you can go murder someone. Just don't come crying to me when you get put in jail for it.


I have a hard time imagining myself actually murdering someone, and even have a hard time imagining that I would be arrested and charged with the crime of murder while being innocent of the crime charged, but it is far easier to imagine being falsely arrested for a crime I did not commit than actually committing that crime. If I ever was falsely arrested for a crime I did not commit, you are the last person I would come "crying to", as I would want to be able to rely on competent assistance of counsel, which means someone who understands the law. Tragically that is not you.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




I have a hard time imagining myself actually murdering someone, and even have a hard time imagining that I would be arrested and charged with the crime of murder while being innocent of the crime charged, but it is far easier to imagine being falsely arrested for a crime I did not commit than actually committing that crime. If I ever was falsely arrested for a crime I did not commit, you are the last person I would come "crying to", as I would want to be able to rely on competent assistance of counsel, which means someone who understands the law. Tragically that is not you.


however, someone in your Freeman anarchy society could easily give your name as his, escape from the non custody in your society, and the lack of authorities would go after you. You might be held liable for the crime, and be judged by a jury of your piers guilty.

Also onto the basic point of this thread, without licensing, how would one be determined competent to drive? What about DUIs? Obviously because you are in transit and not actually driving, you couldn't possibly get a DUI, you therefore under this Freeman anarchy society would open up the flood gates for every would be drunk in the world to get tanked in a bar and go out mowing down people and smashing into other cars with zero liability at all.

So it boils down to that your freeman anarchy society is a freeman anarchy zero liability society . (FAZLS) Where everyone can do as they please, with no repercussions, zero liability, no identification, and nothing anyone can do about anything.

So, in the FAZLS fantasy no one could possibly be arrested, (no cops cause they are just evil) no one can be prosecuted unless they agree to be prosecuted, and no one can be held liable for anything, unless they willfully agree to be held liable.

It's a bunch of hooey!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I read this the other day. This guy is just plain stupid. I'm sure the police made a mention of him and his plate in the shift change meeting. They will find some safety violation on the car,and tow it. what do you need to pick up your car form the impound lot? a drivers license and insurance. Police impound lots are bonded, violate the rules of the bond company, you loose your bond. So the freeman papers he has don't mean anything to the bond company. If you have neither a drivers license or insurance when you pick up you car, you don't get your car. it's off to to the local police auction. you could bid for your car at the auction, but all city police auctions require insurance of some type at the time of the auction sale.

So he is not a feeman, only on paper.

This reminds me of some show a few years ago, where this guy was a millionaire, but only on paper.

now this will be used by illegal immigrants, because now they can carry freeman papers. forget the INS.






[edit on 28-6-2010 by SJE98]

[edit on 28-6-2010 by SJE98]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
You are assuming that there aren't a lot of people that would just go around committing crimes because there would be zero way they could get caught, and no responsibility if they happen to get caught.


Seems you are confusing the idea of a crime vs. the idea of violating codes and statutes. A real crime is something by which some demonstrable harm has been done to another, for example if someone steals something from you, they have commited a crime because you have been harmed by being taken from. If you get caught speeding that is a violation of a statute which governs the actions of your corporate identity which agreed to a contact that stated you would not drive over a certain speed.

These guys aren't advocating criminality nor are they prviding any means to get away with murder for crying outloud, they just aren't bound to the corporate system's legalese myriad codes and statues which criminalize victimless 'crimes', that was originally supposed to be the job of the Civil Courts. They've shed their corporate legal fictions, and having done so, are no longer bound to those agreements which go beyond the basic constitutional rights we all bear from birth. It doesn't make them any better or different from anyone else, it just means they figured out what the hell the founding fathers were talking about when they said freedom.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by twitchy]




top topics



 
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join