It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Irrelevant to this discussion as these are supposedly United States citizens charged with breaking laws of the state they reside in. They are claiming sovereignty, in essence declaring that they are indeed not citizens of the United States or citizens of the state they reside but in practice they are claiming that they are immune from prosecution because they claim no citizenship for the state or the country they reside.
Well they claim that they have the right to do so. Have you looked into the subject enough to be confident that you are qualified to make a determination. They make a compelling case regarding the use of contract law and jurisdiction.
So what court would they be tried in if they win their appeal for jurisdiction?
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action."
"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction."
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."
"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings."
Though not specifically alleged, defendant's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly raised claim that default judgment against him was void and relief should be granted under Rule 60(b)(4).
"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time."
"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal."
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."
"Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal."
Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."
Because a person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial. Therefore there must be a trial, and if there is no jurisdiction in any territory of the United States that is qualified to judge the person accused of the crime then obviously they are not a citizen of the United States now are they?
Thankfully we are on a discussion board, and not in a court, but the fact remains that if the current court does not have jurisdiction it doesn't mean the person is free to go from a crime they are accused of. Especially when there is sufficient evidence to merit a trial.
Still, if there is no jurisdiction, and the person is not a citizen subject to that jurisdiction, than they are on US soil illegally and then I would imagine you are right and they would have to then be picked up by INS and be detained until a country can be found to deport them to.
I guess you are right JPZ, you can be a freeman, it just might wind you up in a jail for an indefinite period of time instead of a fine.
a child who is not driving and does not have a drivers license is clearly not under the jurisdiction of the legislation that demands a license to drive.
it is only a matter of time before the freeman movement is declared an "enemy combatant".
Actually the child would be charged with driving without a license. It happens quite frequently, a kid steals their parents car and goes on a joy ride. They are citizens of this country and still subject to the laws of this country, often in a crime like the above, they would get a reduced sentence and a fine (well the parent's would get the fine) and maybe probation.
Well, I was going with the illegal immigrant angle. If they fired on a cop, then I guess they would be an illegal enemy combatant. But I was thinking of INS, not the CIA.
Are you at work and trying to check in guests while simultaneously writing replies here in this site?
Well in that instance, the child NOT driving, and NOT having a drivers license, has committed no crime. They are a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state they reside in and so, no crime, no punishment.
1640s, as a theological term, from L. foedus "covenant, league" (gen. foederis), related to fides "faith" (see faith). Meaning "pertaining to a treaty" (1650s) led to political sense of "state formed by agreement among independent states" (1707), from phrases like federal union "union based on a treaty," popularized by formation of U.S.A. 1776-1787.
But an adult who is behind the wheel (otherwise known as operating) of a motor vehicle that is in motion on a city, state, county, federal road is subject to that jurisdiction aren't they?
Which would be all well and good if they weren't "traveling" (operating a motor vehicle) on a taxpayerpaid for road (insert all the other terms for road). Once the person travels (operates a motor vehicle) onto that taxpayer paid for road, they are subject to the laws of the state they are in.
Notwithstanding section 7701 (a)(14), the term “taxpayer” means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.
(14) Taxpayer The term “taxpayer” means any person subject toany internal revenue tax.
They want to use this bull crap double talk to say "WAAAAHH, I don't wanna follow your RULES WAAAAHHH, YOUR NOT THE BOSS OF ME! WAAAAHHH" When they could avoid the confrontation altogether by getting a bicycle.
As to your assertion that confrontation could be avoided by riding a bicycle, this is yet another false assumption you make, and if a person is riding a bicycle and is pulled over by an LEO and that LEO asks for identification, and such identification is issued by the DMV, then they are indeed liable for any legislation imposed by the state, and subject to the jurisdiction of the DMV on this matter.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
You really should spend less time on message boards, while "multitasking" and spend a little more time doing your due diligence in understanding law. Of course, doing so just might disqualify you for Congress since clearly the modern day Congress seems to require a willful ignorance of the Constitution and law in general.
Or they could produce a passport, or birth certificate, both are acceptable forms of identification that are not issued by the DMV. If the officer has an issue with either form of identification, they can take it up with the state department or the clerk of courts respectively.
BTW, those people that aren't applicable for tax? They are called Native Americans.