Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

reply to post by whatukno

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.

reply to post by harvib

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.

Every person has the right to give up citizenship. I guess that is what these people are doing, giving up citizenship. So my earlier argument is valid, that since there is no US court that has jurisdiction over them, they must be deported to a country that does have such jurisdiction.

reply to post by whatukno

So what court would they be tried in if they win their appeal for jurisdiction?

Again you reveal your profound ignorance of law. A legal proceeding can not move forward once jurisdiction has been challenged until all facts pertaining to jurisdiction are shown on record.

"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."

~Melo v. U.S., 505 F.2d 1026~

"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction."

~Joyce v. U.S., 474 F.2d 215~

"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."

~Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F.2d 416~

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."

~Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, (1980) 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555~

"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings."

~Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974)~

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).

~Honneus v. Donovan, 93 F.R.D. 433, 436-37 (1982), affd, 691 F.2d 1 1 (1st Cir. 1982)~

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time."

~Basso v. Utah Power and Light Co., 495 F.2d 906 (10th Cir. 1974)~

"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal."

~Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Serv. Corp., 478 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)~

"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."

~Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F.2d 416~


~Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F. Supp. 150~

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."

~Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389~

"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."

~Williamson v. Berry, 49 U.S. 8 How. 495 495 (1850)~

Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."

~Latana v. Hopper, 102 F.2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F.Supp. 150~

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?

A trial comes after any pertinent evidentiary hearing which deals with fact finding. A trial does not question that which is being presented as fact, and such challenges of what is a fact and what is not must be made in an evidentiary hearing. Although, as has been demonstrated by certain case law above, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, but when it is being challenged from the get go a judge can't just dismiss this challenge and move forward anyway, and such action will most assuredly lead to an overturning of any findings in that trial by a higher court.

Further, your use of the word "citizen" is just more of your subterfuge and obfuscation. One does not have to be a "citizen" of the U.S. in order to be tried in a court of law within the U.S.

You know not of what you speak of and assume that your opinions hold more weight than fact. Perhaps to you in Wukky world they do, but in a court of law, your opinions are meaningless.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


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.

If they aren't citizens, then the only course of action is deportation.

Can't have illegal immigrants in the country now can we?

Just watched the video and read through some of the thread, and I must say I'm rather disturbed by this. Who is verifying if this guy even knows how to drive that car? A driver's liscense basically says that you have passed a test that confirms your ability to operate the vehicle you are driving safely. I do not want to be on the same road when someone like this guy is driving along side of me, just as much as I don't want to be driving along side a drunk driver. This is simply an exercise in revolting against the system, nothing more. He must be such a special person to have showed those cops who the boss is, i'm so impressed, lol.

reply to post by whatukno

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.

I bolded your opening remark to again show your contempt for facts and due process of law. Further, when you claim that "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" again demonstrates how ignorance in Wukky world is held up as the higher standard over real facts.

If there is no jurisdiction, then the "crime" that a person has been accused of doesn't exist. In order for a statute, code, or ordinance to have any weight, it has to have jurisdiction. Without that jurisdiction, there is no force of law behind it. But keep arguing and pretending that simply by denying the facts, they will go away.

Wukkky:

You're wrong.

JPZ

No I'm not.

Wukky

Yes you are.

JPZ

Am not.

Wukky

Are too.

JPZ

Nope.

Wukky

Yep.

JPZ

Un-uh.

Wukky

Uh-huh.

JPZ

But, I have just shown a multitude of case law that shows you are wrong.

Wukky

Shut up!

JPZ

No, you shut up!

Wukky

Why don't you make me shut-up? You can't and you want to know why? Because thankfully we are on a message board.

JPZ

I can prove you wrong, and I have.

Wukky

(Sticking his talons in his feathered birdbrain ears)

La-la-la I can't hear you, la-la-la....

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux




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.

reply to post by whatukno

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.

Being subject to jurisdiction is not contingent upon citizenship. Taking the issue of drivers licenses and removing it from the freeman movement long enough to hopefully get you to understand, 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. Do you understand? That child can still be a "citizen" of the U.S. and not subject to the legislation regarding drivers licenses. I do not use this analogy to equate it to the freeman movement, only to clarify the meaning of jurisdiction for you.

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.

Ignoring the twisting of words you have just used to yet once again lump me in with the freeman movement, I will accept for the sake of argument your premise only to acknowledge a certain tragic truth in it, for surely the Congress you aspire to join, and the Executive branch you so willingly act as sycophant for has deemed an "enemy combatant" not worthy of inalienable rights protected by the Bill of Rights, and if Congress gets their way, (and certainly if you are elected to this branch it is fairly assumed you would vote for such legislation), it is only a matter of time before the freeman movement is declared an "enemy combatant".

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

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.

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.

But that's the difference between a child citizen and a freeman non citizen.

it is only a matter of time before the freeman movement is declared an "enemy combatant".

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.







[edit on 7/4/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

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.

Wukky, you really do need glasses. Go back and read what I wrote again. I made clear in my analogy that it was a child NOT driving, and without a drivers license. No wonder you keep twisting words, you are having difficulty reading them. Are you at work and trying to check in guests while simultaneously writing replies here in this site? Come on brother, pay attention.

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.

You keep trying to frame rights as only existing for citizens, but this is not true, and rights belong to all people regardless of citizenship

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

What's really sad about this whole arguement is that the people who are speaking against it here, are as potentially free as the man in the video, and they don't even know it or want to try to understand it.
It's like cutting a slave's chains off and yelling "You're free! By God and Constitution!" then watching them shrug their shoulders and putting their chains back on. It reminds me of that scene in "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" when McMurphy finds out the other patients were voluntary.

It's new information to alot of people, so maybe it's best to start with the basics...
Why is Washington DC called the District of Columbia, who is Columbia, and what is the etymology or legal meaning of the word Federal?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Are you at work and trying to check in guests while simultaneously writing replies here in this site?

Pretty much, plus playing video games, watching TV, and watching the security cameras, I am multitasking.

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.

reply to post by whatukno

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.

Now you are beginning to understand the meaning of jurisdiction.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


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, highway, thoroughfare, boulevard, street, avenue, etc is subject to that jurisdiction aren't they?

[edit on 7/4/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by twitchy


The etymology of federal:

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.

As to the District of Columbia, it is named such after the "territory of Columbia" which was named after Christopher Columbus. As to the precise history of that "territory", I am ignorant of it, and know very little as to why the federal government chose to place the Capitol in a territory as opposed to a given state, other than the presumption that keeping the federal capitol separate from the states, assured that this capitol would not be bound by the jurisdiction of the state in which they reside, but this is more of an educated guess than knowledge. I would be interested in learning more.

reply to post by whatukno

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?

This is the big question, and one of the many legislative acts the freeman movement is challenging. If a person is subject to the jurisdiction then why is a signature required on a license by that person? That signature and application for a license is a part of contract law. An agreement has been made between both parties, i.e., the state and the person who has applied and been granted a license, and under this agreement, the person who holds the license is subject to the jurisdiction of the administrative agency that granted the license.

Without this license, the question of jurisdiction becomes a matter for the courts to decide. However, as evidenced in the video, legal documentation and assertion of ones rights can and will, (at times depending upon the LEO), be more than enough to challenge any jurisdiction asserted by that LEO. A licensed driver has no legal standing to challenge jurisdiction, but one who has not been licensed by the state, and asserts their inalienable right to travel is arguably not subject to the jurisdiction of the licensing scheme imposed by the state.

It is not a person ignoring law, but rather understanding law, and who is and who is not subject to certain jurisdictions of administrative agencies not even mandated by state constitution.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Which would be all well and good if they weren't "traveling" (operating a motor vehicle) on a taxpayer paid 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.

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.

Just because the guy in the OP video snowed the cops with an avalanche of bull [snip] doesn't mean it's going to work with every cop.

[edit on 7/4/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

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.

The term "taxpayer" is specifically defined by The United States Code in Title 26 U.S.C. Section 1313 as:

Notwithstanding section 7701 (a)(14), the term “taxpayer” means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.

As well as Section 7701 as:

(14) Taxpayer The term “taxpayer” means any person subject toany internal revenue tax.

Take note how in both definitions that the term subject to is used, and understand that the rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance.

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.

It is not the freeman movement that is using doublespeak it is Congress who relies on this as evidenced above with the very specific term "taxpayer". If a "taxpayer" is one who is "subject to" any "applicable" revenue laws, it follows that not all people are subject to revenue laws. Thus, the jurisdiction regarding "applicable" revenue laws is over the "taxpayer" only. Further, it should be noted that public roads are not called "taxpayer" roads, they are public roads which comes with a different meaning than does "taxpayer".

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. 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.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

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.

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.

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.

You have been spending too much time talking to endisnighe, you seem to be unable to debate the issue without resorting to childish attacks against the person you are debating.

reply to post by whatukno

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.

Or, they could simply ride their bicycles with no identification whatsoever, as most people riding bicycles know who the hell they are, and there is no law requiring them to carry identification.

BTW, those people that aren't applicable for tax? They are called Native Americans.

The "three-fifths Clause you have quoted from Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3 has not made any person liable for any tax, and specifically speaks to direct taxes, and makes no mention of indirect taxes in that particular section. Indirect taxation is spoken to in Article I, Section 8 Clause 1. The so called "Personal Income Tax" is not a direct tax, but is an indirect tax and has nothing at all to do with the apportionment spoken to in Article I, Section 2.

Further, Native American's who purchase cigarettes outside of Reservation wind up becoming subject to the taxation on those cigarettes, not to mention any other sales tax, including that on booze. Technically speaking, a sales tax is usually imposed upon the activity of selling a particular good or service, but that tax is usually passed on to the purchaser, who accepts the liability in order to obtain the goods or services. Purchasing goods or services does not make one a "taxpayer" as specifically defined by 26 U.S.C. Sections 1313 and 7701. Those definitions are in regard to the so called "Personal Income Tax" only.