Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Wuk, if this statement were true legislation wouldn't be subject to judicial review.

That is the beauty of checks and balances. That way a law passed does not remain a law if after judicial review it is found to be unconstitutional.



One could use the freeman argument to say that street gangs like the Bloods or the Crips are a freeman movement as well, they have their own laws that they adhere to. They don't like the government getting involved with their affairs. They often drive without identification.

[edit on 7/3/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

That is the beauty of checks and balances. That way a law passed does not remain a law if after judicial review it is found to be unconstitutional.

If it is struck down as being unconstitutional then it wasn't law to begin with, and all too often the illegal legislation struck down as unconstitutional comes before the court because some person had the temerity to defy the legislative act. It is not as if judges go looking for unconstitutional laws, they merely rule on those laws that are challenged by we the people.



[edit on 3-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

If it is struck down as being unconstitutional then it wasn't law to begin with, and all to often the illegal legislation struck down as unconstitutional comes before the court because some person had the temerity to defy the legislative act. It is not as if judges go looking for unconstitutional laws, they merely rule on those laws that are challenged by we the people.

Welcome to a democratic republic.

reply to post by whatukno

Welcome to a democratic republic.

Are you deflecting? Let me repeat myself to make it perfectly clear. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law, and if it is not law, the people have the courts to rely upon to have this abhorrent legislation struck down. Simply legislating an act, and then having it signed by an executive does not make it law.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Actually it does make it law, once however that law is challenged in a court, it can be struck down as unconstitutional. Then that law disappears. Laws don't have to be permanent. Laws can actually be repealed by further legislation passed by congress and signed into law.

reply to post by whatukno

Actually it does make it law, once however that law is challenged in a court, it can be struck down as unconstitutional. Then that law disappears. Laws don't have to be permanent. Laws can actually be repealed by further legislation passed by congress and signed into law.

Legislation is repealed, and the Constitution, that Supreme Law of the Land cannot be repealed. Nor can the Bill of Rights. What is repealed are legislative acts that never truly functioned as law, i.e. the 18th Amendment. Law does not disappear, but legislation that does not function as law will at some point, in a lawful nation, disappear, as it should.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Constitutional law and laws passed by our legislative branch are two different things and actually you are incorrect about constitutional law.

AMENDMENT XVIII

Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

This is an amendment to the United States Constitution, this is a constitutional law that prohibited alcohol within the United States.

But what happened?

AMENDMENT XXI

Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

It was repealed. So it is possible to repeal a constitutional law.

reply to post by whatukno


I was not incorrect in what I said, and you are willfully twisting what I said, just as you always do. What I said was the Constitution cannot be repealed, nor can the Bill of Rights. I never once said that Subsequent Amendments cannot be repealed, and IN FACT, pointed to the 18th Amendment, as evidence of legislation that is not law.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Constitutional amendments are constitutional law, they are the law of the land. You are just twisting things to fit your agenda now and aren't looking at what is true.

And if you have ever actually read the constitution you would know that congress is able to pass legislation, and when that legislation is signed into law by the POTUS it is law and that is completely ok.

You just seem to not want any law whatsoever. You think that absolutely everything is ok. I can understand limited government, but what you want is complete anarchy.

reply to post by whatukno


It is you who is twisting things and the more you do you reveal your hypocrisy regarding law, and have all ready in this thread admitted to your own selective regard for legislation. As to your crack about me reading the Constitution, you cannot even hold a candle next to my understanding and study of the Constitution, and how ironic that this is what you say:

And if you have ever actually read the constitution you would know that congress is able to pass legislation, and when that legislation is signed into law by the POTUS it is law and that is completely ok.

"pass legislation"...of course it should be no surprise that a politician that aspires to be a member of Congress, such as yourself, would downplay the fact the SCOTUS can and does strike down legislation, while arguing ad nauseum that whatever Congress passes signed by the POTUS is law. The irony is that you desperately want to dismiss the freeman movement claiming they arbitrarily make their own laws, but then argue that Congress can.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes of course, I freely admit that the SCOTUS does knock down legislation that is unconstitutional.

Shesh oh Pete!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ba842c57409d.png[/atsimg]

I am done with this circular logic game of yours.

Originally posted by whatukno
they feel justified by blowing away any and all law enforcement officers that happen upon them while they are armed.

Look at this post...
What kind of hack job are you trying to pull here, that's just about the worst kind of sensationalism I think I've ever read on ATS.

reply to post by twitchy

What kind of hack job are you trying to pull here, that's just about the worst kind of sensationalism I think I've ever read on ATS.

Exactly the same as when someone labels all cops as murderous thugs because of the actions of a few.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Because of what I think I know, I am a freeman. I am too cowardly to practice this right, but still find the subject fascinating.

Thank you Jean Paul Zodeaux for your time and constructive energy.

I love the "circular logic" that was funny...

[edit on 3-7-2010 by MojosGhost]

reply to post by whatukno

Exactly the same as when someone labels all cops as murderous thugs because of the actions of a few.

Would I be wrong if I called someone ignorant for making such a statement?

You know, the subject of law reminds me of that famous NWO speech that George Herbert Walker Bush gave.

"We have befor us the opportunity to forge for our self and future generations, a new world order, a world with the rule of law, not the law of the jungle governs the conduct of nations."

Did we hear that right? A world where the laws of the jungle "nature" do not apply?

I say again,
"natural law" whose content is set by nature, and refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Law cannot be known without some reference to natural law. Natural law, like common law can also function as a standard to criticize decisions about statutes and other such limitations to free men in nature.

"When the laws of men fail, the laws of nature must prevail"

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by whatukno
they feel justified by blowing away any and all law enforcement officers that happen upon them while they are armed.

Look at this post...

What kind of hack job are you trying to pull here, that's just about the worst kind of sensationalism I think I've ever read on ATS.

"Hack job"? No. A bit of an emotion driven generalization to be sure, but by no means a "hack job."

Deadly Arkansas Shooting By 'Sovereigns' Jerry and Joe Kane Who Shun U.S. Law

[...]In recent weeks, ABC News has called dozens of sovereign citizens to ask for interviews and repeatedly been told no. But Brent Johnson, a sovereign citizen who hosts a radio show on the subject, agreed to answer questions and explain the group's ideas.

"I call myself a modern day freedom fighter," said Johnson. "You're the ruler, the master in your life."

Johnson said that people don't need Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, hunting licenses or wedding licenses, but that doesn't make sovereigns dangerous.

"You can find any organization, any group, any movement and there are dangerous people in that movement," said Johnson. "But I'm not one of them. I'm not a danger to anyone, except those who don't wish to have the truth exposed."

Observers say that the group is now growing, fueled by the Internet, the recession and anger at the current administration. There is also growing fear that the potential for violence is on the rise. Already, some sovereigns are calling Jerry and Joe Kane "heroes."

Also *very* interesting reading, though it will cost ya $12 US, is:

When Law Risks Madness
Susan P. Koniak
Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol. 8, No. 1, A Commemorative Volume for Robert M. Cover (Spring - Summer, 1996), pp. 65-138
(article consists of 74 pages)
Published by: Cardozo School of Law
Stable URL: www.jstor.org...

Very *interesting* indeed, to say nothing of very *informative*. Also, thoughtfully written and extensively footnoted.

Or, this...

Collision Course: Ohio Police Officer Slain by Anti-Government Extremist

Traffic Stops Involving Extremists Are Particularly Dangerous to Officers

On August 9, 2002, Massillon, Ohio, police officer Eric Taylor, 31, was shot and killed following a lengthy car chase by Donald W. Matthews, leader of a Stark County anti-government sovereign citizen group. Another Massillon officer was wounded, while Matthews himself died in the shootout. This was the latest in a series of violent confrontations between extremists and law enforcement officers in Ohio over the past few years.

Continues at link

So, no, I do not think @whatukno quite rises to the level of "hack job."

Also, a special personal thanks to @defcon5 for his posting here www.abovetopsecret.com... which sent me on a fruitful and enlightening 'round the internet.

[edit on 3/7/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe


Isn that circular logic? We already discussed the difference between statues and laws.

Freemen dont break laws, criminals do. Freemen Follow common law.

I assume, due to its nature, criminals find this group easy to infiltrate and use as a scapegoat. But this does not make the nature criminal. I also find this idea more appealing then my rights being diminished by cooperate statutes masquerading as law.

some sovereigns are calling Jerry and Joe Kane "heroes."

Some are calling Bush, Obama, and David Rockefeller, heros...

Originally posted by MojosGhost
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

 

Isn that circular logic? We already discussed the difference between statues and laws.

Freemen dont break laws, criminals do. Freemen Follow common law.

some sovereigns are calling Jerry and Joe Kane "heroes."

Some are calling Bush, Obama, and David Rockefeller, heros...

Your point?

I was responding to the accusation that @whatukno was perpetrating a "hack job" upon the "Freemen" because he said they were willing to murder in defense of their perceived rights. I pulled references where the Freemen did *exactly* that. Murder.

"Laws vs statutes" is a silly little subterfuge. Indefensible. Illogical. Any further argument about that in this thread amounts to nothing more than mental masturbation and I refuse to be sucked into it. There are two opinions. There are two sides. There is no middle ground. There is, however, no moral equivalence on the two sides.

There is no moral ambiguity or ill logic in the documented cases of violence by Freemen. There are no "two opinions."

*IT* *HAPPENED*.

*IT* *CONTINUES* *TO* *HAPPEN*.

[edit on 3/7/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Just Wondering

 

Actually , it works more times than not .

Those who wind up in jail , held against their will , are those who have not educated themselves to the point of being able to present irrefutable knowledge of how this process works .

It is indeed possible to extricate yourself from the 'system' with no repercussions from the 'legalalities' of the 'system' .

There are entire communities in the Pacific Northwest where this way of life is commonplace .

If possible could you give more information on these communities because, this is the grass roots movement we really need. Imagine every community with a strong freeman presence and volunteer legal assistance to present cases, this would really wake people up to the way the world is.

I personally feel very strongly opposed to insurance incorporations, and while drunk driving is a problem, its something different solutions need to be found for because, I don't believe we're owned, slaves and can be controlled, and don't believe in money, ownership and denounce/renounce their system underscored to infinity and beyond, with no exceptions. Also, all their documents are coded to SATURN and their sungods which symbolize SATURN/SATAN, and the DRACOs, their personal love me friends I guess, but I denounce negatives. Their black ops work with them. Everything is coded to this BS as if to make people willing sacrifices to their negative sungod, reptilian crapola thingy they follow, who I denounce unequivically underscored again to inifinity and beyond.

I am a soverieng being and want a movement for the people like this. If there are whole communities dedicated to this, this would be a very good strong awareness campaign.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Unity_99]