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: 23
55
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
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.


They may make the case but they have NOT met the legal requirements to make it so.

You *must* physically remove yourself from the US and its territories to do so. You cannot remain IN the US and denounce your citizenship. A point, btw, I made in the earliest entries of this thread. You cannot denounce society, remove yourself from its strictures, and also remain within society.

[NOTE: Under a law first enacted in 1866, everyone born in the US and not subject to a foreign power "are declared to be citizens of the United States", RS sec. 1992, 8 USC sec. 1401. Someone having been born in the US is presumed to continue to be a US citizen in the absence of proper legal evidence to the contrary; Perkins v. Elg (1939) 307 US 325; Ex parte Lopez (S.D. Tex 1934) 6 F.Supp 342. Renunciation or revocation of US citizenship is regulated by 8 USC sec. 1481 et seq and is applicable only in a limited range of situations, such as expatriation and allegiance to another country and almost always combined with a voluntary and formal renunciation of US citizenship made to a US diplomatic office abroad, in fact 8 USC sec. 1483 makes clear that this is virtually impossible for someone who is still inside the US (among the very few exceptions, instances of having obtained US naturalization by fraud or subsequently committing treason or sabotage). For example, it was not possible for someone born with US citizenship, namely a Puerto Rican, to renounce his US citizenship while remaining in Puerto Rico as a "Puerto Rican national", since that was not a bona fide foreign nation. Lozado Colon v. US Dept of State (DDC 1998) 2 F.Supp.2d 43. When the proper formalities have been accomplished a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) is given to the ex-citizen; 8 USC sec. 1501. Heuer v. US Secretary of State (11th Cir 1994) 20 F3d 424 cert.den 513 US 1014. A person who is alleging that he has relinquished his US citizenship has, under 8 USC sec. 1481(b), the burden of proving that revocation of his citizenship, which would be unlikely without the CLN. Even for an American who has validly renounced his citizenship, the effective date of the termination of his citizenship (e.g. for tax purposes) would not be earlier than his formal renunciation before a US diplomatic officer. Dacey v. CIR (3/30/92) TC Memo 1992-187. Oddly enough, since the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986, it has been illegal for anyone "who, having been a citizen of the US, has renounced his citizenship" to purchase or possess a firearm; 18 USC sec. 922(g)(7) -- it is not clear if that renunciation must meet the formalities of 8 USC sec. 1481 for this law to apply; the Congressional reports accompanying this law do not mention any of the formalities of 8 USC sec. 1481 et seq nor give specific examples. ] [source]




posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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]


Just so there is no "misunderstanding" of the findings you quoted above:

Yes, jurisdiction matters. Yes, a court must have jurisdiction to try a case. Yes, if a court does not have jurisdiction it must dismiss the case. HOWEVER, charges are then immediately REFILED in the appropriate court. I cannot be tried in Municipal Court on a State charge or vise versa.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


Dear God, you are citing the ADL as a source to support your assertions? Christ All Mighty, you continue to show your profound disregard for freedom and individual rights, and let's be clear here, of the multitude of case law the ADL attempts to overwhelm with their "idiot legal arguments", you have not read a single one of those rulings. So go ahead and cite a suspect hate group like the ADL as your appeal to authority, it only makes you that much more suspect yourself.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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.


Wrong on several points.

Do you mean a "child" of, say, six, or do you mean a "child" of fifteen?

A child must attain a certain age, variable by state, to even commit a crime a all. They can commit a wrongful act, but unless they are of a certain age they cannot commit a crime.

The six year old would be dusted off and turned over to their parent[s] or legal guardian. The fifteen year old would be charged. Operating a motor vehicle without a license is a punishable offense. Punishable by means other than points against a driver's license. First offense is generally rather innocuous: a fine of between $100 and $1000 depending on jurisdiction and/or up to 30 days in jail, could vary by state. Further, the fifteen year old would have "points" issued against his/her *future* license for any traffic violations they were charged and found guilty for, such as reckless driving, or speeding, or failure to obey a traffic signal.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


Dear God, you are citing the ADL as a source to support your assertions? Christ All Mighty, you continue to show your profound disregard for freedom and individual rights, and let's be clear here, of the multitude of case law the ADL attempts to overwhelm with their "idiot legal arguments", you have not read a single one of those rulings. So go ahead and cite a suspect hate group like the ADL as your appeal to authority, it only makes you that much more suspect yourself.



Yeah, I do not buy into all that Zionist conspiracy crap, or drink from the "Evil Jews" cup of Koolaid. Which, btw, I attest quite *openly* with my alias.

Actually, I did read a few of the cases cited on the webpage. Legal findings are, well, LEGAL FINDINGS no matter what website one finds them on. Your argument would suggest that if I read about the Constitution HERE the information would lack all credibility be the mere fact of it being HERE. When, in reality, fact is bias neutral, it is in the *interpretation* of fact that bias can, and usually does, enter in.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 





Wrong on several points.




Not only have you not even bothered to read the multitudes of case law cited by the ADL, you can't even bother to read the posts you then attempt to argue. Here is what I said:




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.


Get it? A child not driving, needs no drivers license, and is therefore not subject to the legislation imposing licensing schemes. There is no point even speaking to your absurd arguments that follow since they have nothing at all to do with what I argued. Instead I will go down to your next post where you make this absurd remark:




Yeah, I do not buy into all that Zionist conspiracy crap, or drink from the "Evil Jews" cup of Koolaid. Which, btw, I attest quite *openly* with my alias.


It is no wonder you came to Wukky's defense when he was accused of doing a hack job since you rely on the same dubious tactics, ironically the same sort of tactics the ADL relies upon. There is no where in my post that I made any reference at all to Zionism, or a Zionist conspiracy. This is your invention, and it is a hack job plain and simple.

Here is some information on the ADL:


On April 8, 1993, police seized Bullock's computer and raided the ADL offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California. A search of Bullock's computer revealed he had compiled files on 9,876 individuals and more than 950 groups across the political spectrum. Many of Bullock's files concerned groups that did not fit the mold of extremist groups, hate groups, and organizations hostile to Jews or Israel that the ADL would usually be interested in. Along with files on the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, Islamic Jihad and Jewish Defense League were data on the NAACP, the African National Congress (ANC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the United Auto Workers, the AIDS activist group ACT UP, Mother Jones magazine, the TASS Soviet/Russian news agency, Greenpeace, Jews for Jesus and the National Lawyers Guild; there were also files on politicians including Democratic U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, former Republican U.S. Representative Pete McCloskey, and activist Lyndon LaRouche.[51][52] Bullock told investigators that many of those were his own private files, not information he was passing on to the ADL. An attorney for the ADL stated that "We knew nothing about the vast extent of the files. Those are not ADL's files. … That is all [Bullock's] doing."[53] As for its own records, the ADL indicated that just because it had a file on a group did not indicate opposition to the group. The San Francisco district attorney at the time accused the ADL of conducting a national "spy network", but dropped all accusations a few months later.


This same Wikipedia article continues with this:


n the weeks following the raids, twelve civil rights groups led by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the National Lawyers Guild, filed a lawsuit demanding ADL release its survellance information and end its investigations, as well as be ordered to pay punitive damages.[55] The plaintiffs' attorney, former Representative McCloskey, claimed that information the ADL gathered constituted an invasion of privacy. The ADL, while distancing itself from Bullock, countered that it is entitled like any researcher or journalist to research organizations and individuals. Richard Cohen, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, stated that like journalists, the ADL's researchers "gather information however they can" and welcome disclosures from confidential sources, saying "they probably rely on their sources to draw the line" on how much can legally be divulged. Bullock admitted that he was overzealous, and that some of the ways he gathered information may have been illegal.


Oh, I guess Wikipedia is a right wing militia loving hate group that spouts off anti-Zionist conspiracies.

Consider what Noam Chomsky has to say about the ADL:


(The ADL is) "...one of the ugliest, most powerful pressure groups in the U.S...Its primary commitment is to use any technique, however dishonest and disgraceful, in order to defame and silence and destroy anybody who dares to criticize the Holy State ('Israel')."


Oh yeah, good ol' Noam, that infamous right winger whose right wing rhetoric is famously hateful and filled with anti-Zionism.

Here is what Norman Finklestein say's about the ADL:


Every time Israel comes under international pressure, as it did recently because of the war crimes committed in Lebanon, it steps up the claim of anti-Semitism, and all of Israel’s critics are anti-Semitic. 1974, the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, puts out a book called The New Anti-Semitism. 1981, the Anti-Defamation League puts out a book, The New Anti-Semitism. And then, again in 2000, Abraham Foxman and people like Phyllis Chesler, they put out these books called The New Anti-Semitism. So the use of the charge "anti-Semitism" is pretty conventional whenever Israel comes under attack, and frankly it has no content whatsoever nowadays.


And goes on to say:


Yeah, the ADL came out with a statement that Amnesty International is borderline anti-Semitic, and that’s pretty conventional from the ADL, that these organizations are anti-Semitic or then, you know, in other cases, they accuse individuals or organizations of being Holocaust deniers. None of this—first of all, as I said, it’s pretty commonplace in these organizations. The Simon Wiesenthal Center recently issued a statement condemning the United Church of Christ for being not borderline anti-Semitic, but functionally anti-Semitic, because they oppose the wall that Israel is building in the Occupied Territories.


www.democracynow.org...

Oh yeah, Amnesty International has got to be one of the most obsessively anti-Zionist groups in existence with their constant conspiracy theories about Zionism.

Now, let's compare that with an article written by the ADL titled Norman Finkelstein: An Obsessive Anti-Zionist Shows his Stripes Norman Finklestein: An Obsessive Anti-Zionist Shows his Stripes...Hey! Wait a minute! Isn't that the same tactic you just used?

(Sigh)

Of course you continue with your absurdities with this odd remark:




Actually, I did read a few of the cases cited on the webpage. Legal findings are, well, LEGAL FINDINGS no matter what website one finds them on.


What is this supposed to mean? If you "actually" read a few of the cases cited, how about speaking to them in your own voice instead of citing a dubious organization with a clear and recognizable agenda that has little to do with American jurisprudence. Perhaps your reticence to speak to those "few" cases you did read, because what you mean by; "legal findings are, well, LEGAL FINDINGS" is that you really have no clue what was being said, so instead you'll just rely on appeals to authority and your authority is of all organizations, the ADL. But, we should take your word for it that you did "actually" read a "few" of those cases.

If you cannot speak the case law being cited, then spare us your sophomoric attempts at dismissing a group you clearly know nothing about, and please spare us your ignorant attempts at citing case law. That is, unless of course, if you have the temerity to "actually" speak to the rulings in your own voice with your own interpretation of what was ruled.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Your professed omniscience still astounds me! You obviously not only *know* what I know and what I don't know, you *know* what I understand and what I don't understand, *and* you *know* what I have and what I have not done. Truly astounding!

Really, attacking the person does nothing to support the argument. I am, in fact, an "ADL Guardian," stating this in honor of Full Disclosure, and nothing else, cos I don't give a f' what you *presume* to *know* about me or what I do and don't know or what I do and don't understand.

I am also a member of the ACLU.

I am also an ex-cop.

Go figure [shrug]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grossac
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


First of all, you have to release yourself from govenment control.. As soon as you vote, you consent to be governed. You're basically giving consent to the governemt to make decisions for you.. You become part of "That society" the "law society". Therefore you have to follow their rules. You here him say the cop was reading his affidavit of truth, that's a piece of paper stating that he is not part of that society and he choses not to be governed. You do that with a notary public.



Then, by extension, you are releasing yourself from all government insurance programs, Health, EI and Canada Pension. I will email you my address to begin having your benefit cheques sent to me.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 





Your professed omniscience still astounds me! You obviously not only *know* what I know and what I don't know, you *know* what I understand and what I don't understand, *and* you *know* what I have and what I have not done. Truly astounding!


And yet, you still continue to avoid "actually" speaking to a single case cited by the ADL. If one wants to know the truth about a person it is prudent to pay less attention to what they are saying and more attention to what they are doing. What you are doing is avoiding "actually" speaking to case law. What you are saying is that you "actually" did read a "few" of those cases. It does not require omniscience to know that if you "actually" read some of the case law, that you could "actually" speak to it, and "actually" quote some of it that would be germane to the argument.




Really, attacking the person does nothing to support the argument.


Oh boo-hoo-hoo! The person who disingenuously attempted to frame me as an anti-Zionist conspiracy nut is now crying foul because I took her to task for her fallacious arguments.




I am, in fact, an "ADL Guardian," stating this in honor of Full Disclosure, and nothing else, cos I don't give a f' what you *presume* to *know* about me or what I do and don't know or what I do and don't understand.


Yeah, like we actually needed that explained to us. That was clear the moment you accused me of anti-Zionism. If it walks like a duck...

Let me clear here, I know very little about Zionism and could care less what it is about. I knew very little about the ADL except that it stood for Anti Defamation League, until the ADL decided to defame members in this website, and defame them they most certainly did, and relied upon the same hack job tactics that you have been relying upon. No ma'am, I did not need it explained to me that you were a member of the ADL, and it certainly wasn't because of any omniscience on my part. Simple reasoning and deduction was all it took.

If you want to be a member of the ADL this is your choice, and if you don't want to hold that organization accountable for their dubious tactics and instead embrace them and use them in this site yourself, then you that organization should have fully prepared you for the vigorous debate and unapologetic questioning you would face. If you are not aware of the ADL's position of persona non gratis in this site since they so willfully defamed this site and specific members in it, then that organization has failed you.

What ever nobility the ADL might of once had, they have most assuredly strayed from that and willingly gone into political advocacy that has nothing at all to do with American jurisprudence, and certainly not anything at all to do with The Constitution for the United States of America, and the sovereignty of this nation. While they, and you, most certainly have the inalienable right to speech and press, so do those who vehemently disagree with their agenda, and I ain't talking about Zionism lady, I am talking about their clear agenda to erode the principles of republicanism and hold up unbridled democracy as the government of choice. I am talking about their clear agenda to have inalienable rights dismissed while advocating "civil rights" which are legal rights granted, and that which is granted can be taken away. This is what I understand about the ADL, and I will not take your attempt to use them as authority as valid.

Either speak to the case law you cited in your own voice with sound legal reasoning or admit that you are ill equipped to do so. It is you who has attempted to defame the young man featured in the O.P.'s video posted, by linking him to other alleged members of the freeman movement who wound up in gun battles with police. It is you who willingly went straight to calling me an anti-Zionist simply because I challenged the validity of the ADL as a legal authority regarding American jurisprudence. This is your tactics, and if you insist on using them, don't expect the people you are using them against to be polite about it. There is nothing at all polite or civil about your insidious tactics, and in the universe, like attracts like, and for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 





They may make the case but they have NOT met the legal requirements to make it so.

You *must* physically remove yourself from the US and its territories to do so. You cannot remain IN the US and denounce your citizenship. A point, btw, I made in the earliest entries of this thread. You cannot denounce society, remove yourself from its strictures, and also remain within society.


I am by no means an expert on this subject. However it is interesting, to say the least, and have therefore read a little about what they claim. This is based on my understanding.

They are Citizens of the united states. They claim that the rest of us have identified ourselves as citizens of the District of Columbia where the constitution gives congress the ability "to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever". It is us who are alien to the land we live on as our "home" is in the "District". These "freemen" claim they are the remaining true citizens of the Republic and the rest of us have been mislead into stating that we are citizens of the "District". And therefore we are bound to follow all the laws, statutes, and regulations of the "District".

Through the use of contract and jurisdictional law I can see how such an allegation can have merit.

EDIT TO CLARIFY:



I answered another poster with a place where he could easily access case law that refutes claims made by the Freeman movement on denouncing citizenship.


So they aren't denouncing citizenship but are only challenging jurisdiction of the various "agencies" and "departments" and the various statutes and regulations that apply to those jurisdictions.


[edit on 4-7-2010 by harvib]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You point to the activities of one member of ADL and label the entirety of ADL a hate mongering organization.

Frankly, the activities you quoted are not illegal, or even unethical. Information in the "Information age" is just a fact of life. One can view it as alarming or no, but it is what it is.

I, on the other hand, look upon the incident more along the lines of Gladwell's "Maven" paradigm. Perhaps understandable that I would view it as such since I exhibit many of the same traits and idiosyncrasies [of "Mavens," that is].

Point of fact: anyone can look at any organization or affiliation, and the Freeman movement is a classic example, and find a "bad apple" or a "bad example," or the antithesis of the entity's core beliefs.

I am beyond "debating" *you* on points of law. I answered another poster with a place where he could easily access case law that refutes claims made by the Freeman movement on denouncing citizenship. I have no interest in debating the laws themselves as I've clearly stated previously in this thread. The poster I responded to read the bit of information I posted, and that was what I had hoped would occur. What that poster took away from that reading, how he interpreted the information, is of no interest to me. I was... well... "being a 'Maven,'" in the truest sense of the syndrome.


[edit on 4/7/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   


Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


You *must* physically remove yourself from the US and its territories to do so. You cannot remain IN the US and denounce your citizenship. A point, btw, I made in the earliest entries of this thread. You cannot denounce society, remove yourself from its strictures, and also remain within society.


I am by no means an expert on this subject. However it is interesting, to say the least, and have therefore read a little about what they claim. This is based on my understanding.

They are Citizens of the united states. They claim that the rest of us have identified ourselves as citizens of the District of Columbia where the constitution gives congress the ability "to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever". It is us who are alien to the land we live on as our "home" is in the "District". These "freemen" claim they are the remaining true citizens of the Republic and the rest of us have been mislead into stating that we are citizens of the "District". And therefore we are bound to follow all the laws, statutes, and regulations of the "District".

Through the use of contract and jurisdictional law I can see how such an allegation can have merit.

EDIT TO CLARIFY:



I answered another poster with a place where he could easily access case law that refutes claims made by the Freeman movement on denouncing citizenship.


So they aren't denouncing citizenship but are only challenging jurisdiction of the various "agencies" and "departments" and the various statutes and regulations that apply to those jurisdictions.


From what I have read over the life of this thread, since I had no real information or understanding of the Freeman movement prior to this thread and another on ATS, there is some of *both* depending on the situation the Freeman are involved with or the point they are attempting to make.

Some seem to attempt to cloak themselves in the "Sovereign Citizen" of the US when saying they are not subject to state law. Others cloak themselves as "Sovereign Citizens of the Republic of [insert state here] and are therefore exempt from Federal law. Still others challenge on the jurisdiction issues which seem to have their locus in Blackstone's Commentaries on Common Law, or even the ambiguous "Roman Common Law."

But, hey, I'm no expert either. Just trying to learn, albeit with a very critical eye given my "previous life" experiences, i.e., previous LEO.

All that said, there also seems to be a Freeman Movement specific distinction, somewhat nebulous, between the common law of England and "Common Law" of Freeman. British common law theory is simply "the body of laws" which would encompass all laws and court decisions and the natural "evolution" of same. Freeman Common Law appears [to me] to be static and stuck in the 17tth or 18th centuries and draws a goodly bit of "authority" from the Christian bible.

[edit on 4/7/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

[edit on 4/7/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 




All that said, there also seems to be a Freeman Movement specific distinction, somewhat nebulous, between the common law of England and "Common Law" of Freeman. British common law theory is simply "the body of laws" which would encompass all laws and court decisions and the natural "evolution" of same. Freeman Common Law appears [to me] to be static and stuck in the 17tth or 18th centuries and draws a goodly bit of "authority" from the Christian bible.


I don't think the "freemen" have their own "common law". I believe they state quite admittedly that they fall under the jurisdiction of common law. They don't seem to challenge common law jurisdiction. Their main point of contention seems to be the application of admiralty maritime jurisdiction in attempting to charge them under violation of "District" statutes and regulations.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 




All that said, there also seems to be a Freeman Movement specific distinction, somewhat nebulous, between the common law of England and "Common Law" of Freeman. British common law theory is simply "the body of laws" which would encompass all laws and court decisions and the natural "evolution" of same. Freeman Common Law appears [to me] to be static and stuck in the 17tth or 18th centuries and draws a goodly bit of "authority" from the Christian bible.


I don't think the "freemen" have their own "common law". I believe they state quite admittedly that they fall under the jurisdiction of common law. They don't seem to challenge common law jurisdiction. Their main point of contention seems to be the application of admiralty maritime jurisdiction in attempting to charge them under violation of "District" statutes and regulations.


My understanding is that the Freeman use a "Common Law" that would not quite be on par with a common law court case as would be labeled such under "main stream" definition:




[...]Also known as citizen grand juries, common law courts are self-elected vigilante organizations that claim for themselves the authority of law. The Freemen, along with their fellow travelers in the Christian Patriot movement (see p. 29), use these courts to declare themselves outside the jurisdiction of federal and state laws, issue harassing liens against the property of political opponents, and proclaim their right to arrest, judge, and even kill their opponents.

Court activists patch the courts together from models provided by experts and by improvising. The United Sovereigns of America, a leading national advocate of such courts with links to efforts in at least 13 states, provides one model. In it, a committee formed at a court training session votes to establish Our One Supreme Court of Common Law and selects officers, typically court clerks, court justices (jurors), and a jury foreman.

[...]

The Freemen, led by Schweitzer, Petersen, and Rodney Skurdal, have played an important role in the development of this strategy, with an enormous impact on common law courts nationwide. According to the Justice Department, 800 people from 30 different states have attended Freemen training seminars conducted while the Freemen faced state and federal felony charges. In the seminars, far rightists received nuts-and-bolts training in how to set up common law courts. In the year that the Freemen remained fugitives, they became an inspiration to common law court groups nationwide. We recognize and appreciate the sacrifices and successes of those who have gone before, especially the work of those in Montana and Oklahoma, said one Oregon common law leader.

[...]

Similarly, in a rambling 20-page document written in November 1994, for the Freemen's common law court, Rodney Skurdal spells out his belief in Christian Identity and, echoing Posse founder Gale, concludes: God is not a God unto the other races, but only that of Israel, the white race ; Jews were fathered by Satan ; and people of color are the beasts of the field of Genesis. Skurdal then appropriates Leviticus 20:15-16 to argue for the execution of interracial couples:
If a woman approaches any beast [i.e., person of color] and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death.

He concludes with a genocidal fantasy frequently found in Christian Identity, nor are we to make any covenants with the other races when we move into a new land, we are to kill all of the inhabitants of the other races.


Source for above

Perhaps the graphic at the end might be of interest to you as well. I don't know how to insert a pic or I would have included it as well.

Anyway, I would disagree that the Freeman Common Law is one and the same as English common law.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


Hmmm. I haven't looked into any of the claims of the "group" you linked to. The information I read talks about courts operating under multiple jurisdictions. Therefore a person is often times being charged outside of common law jurisdiction. Most people have submitted themselves to separate jurisdictions and therefore are bound to that jurisdiction (outside of common law). However these "freemen" feel they have not done so or have properly voided any such contracts (a process I am still not yet clear on) and therefore attempt to argue jurisdiction.

In other words one would not need to create their own courts for such a challenge to be successful.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


In other words one would not need to create their own courts for such a challenge to be successful.


Dunno. But, what I am reading, from various sources as I can find them, is that it is the *court* that offers both the most consternation, the most threat, and paradoxically from the perspective of someone such as myself, the most "legitimacy" to the movement... such as it is.

Again, dunno. It's surreal. As someone who has hissy fits about our tax burdens, our over reaching Nanny State, and pretty extreme Libertarian leanings, to find a group that has me going WHOA!!! is... well.... *surreal*.

One of the problems of attempting to find out "the truth" of something is that people look to sources that support their own predispositions and biases. Our natural tendencies are not so much to seek knowledge, but rather, to seek confirmation of that which we already believe.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
As a follow on to my last paragraph above:

Wikipedia:

Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true.[Note 1][1] This results in people selectively collecting new evidence, interpreting evidence in a biased way, or selectively recalling information from memory.

The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, military and political contexts.

continues... en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 4/7/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 





You point to the activities of one member of ADL and label the entirety of ADL a hate mongering organization.


Oh Really? Is that what I have done? Let's examine it closer then:


ADL Officials Deny They Condoned Illegal Spying Inquiry: But the organization acknowledges having investigator on payroll. An internal probe is under way.


articles.latimes.com...


Infiltrated 30 Groups, ADL Figure Says Spying: Roy Bullock admits selling information to South Africa was wrong, but insists he never acted dishonestly.



s→Espionage California IN BRIEF San Francisco Officer in ADL Spy Case Charged



Ex-Spy Threatens CIA Scandal Intelligence: From Philippine island where he fled, Thomas J. Gerard says he will expose the agency's work with Latin American death squads if he is indicted for selling information to a Jewish group.


articles.latimes.com...


Figure in ADL Spy Case Arrested at S.F. Airport Espionage: Former police officer is taken into custody upon arriving from Philippines, where he had fled after FBI interrogation.



New Details of Extensive ADL Spy Operation Emerge Inquiry: Transcripts reveal nearly 40 years of espionage by a man who infiltrated political groups.


articles.latimes.com...


Evidence of ADL Spy Operation Seized by Police


articles.latimes.com...


Class-Action Suit Accuses ADL Spy Ring


articles.latimes.com...


Charges Against Ex-Policeman in Spy Case Dropped

April 30, 1994|Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO —

A judge dismissed criminal charges Friday against a former San Francisco policeman accused of conspiring to gather secret files on thousands of political activists. Municipal Court Judge J. Dominique Olcomendy cited the refusal of the FBI, which initially investigated the case, to turn over all its records on former Detective Thomas Gerard. The withheld records may include material essential to Gerard's defense, the judge said.


articles.latimes.com...


Arab-Americans File Claims Against Police

June 25, 1993|KENNETH REICH, TIMES STAFF WRITER

Several Arab-American groups filed damage claims Thursday against police and sheriff's agencies in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego in connection with allegations that confidential police information was provided to the Anti-Defamation League. The claims are legally required before the groups--including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the National Assn. of Arab Americans--can file suit against the public agencies for their alleged relations with the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.


articles.latimes.com...


Ex-Officer Sentenced in Spying Case

May 28, 1994|RICHARD C. PADDOCK, TIMES STAFF WRITER SAN FRANCISCO —

Former police officer Tom Gerard, who fled to the Philippines after he was accused of spying for the Anti-Defamation League, pleaded no contest Friday to one charge of illegally accessing police computer records. Gerard's plea brings to a close the spying scandal that rocked the prominent Jewish civil rights group last year and outraged thousands of people and activist groups targeted by the league's private intelligence operation.


articles.latimes.com...


ADL to Avoid Prosecution in Spying Case November 16, 1993|RICHARD C. PADDOCK, TIMES STAFF WRITER SAN FRANCISCO — After a yearlong investigation into charges that the Anti-Defamation League built a national intelligence network through illegal spying, Dist. Atty. Arlo Smith agreed Monday not to prosecute the organization in exchange for its payment of up to $75,000 to fight hate crimes.


Outside of this spy scandal where the ADL payed $75,000 to keep from being prosecuted, (more than one person I should think), the ADL is constantly in the news for its shenanigans. Consider this article featured in the New York Times Magazine


The Anti-Defamation League, which has an annual budget of more than $50 million, offers “anti-bias education and diversity training” through its World of Difference Institute; plays a major advocacy role in keeping church and state separate; monitors a vast array of extremist activity; publishes curricula on the Holocaust and on tolerance; and so on. But the league is, in the end, mostly Abe. Foxman is a domineering character who over the years, according to critics, has driven out potential rivals and successors. When I asked him whom else in the organization I should talk to, he couldn’t think of anyone, not even Kenneth Jacobson, the A.D.L.’s deputy national director and, others had told me, Foxman’s alter-ego. The A.D.L., for all its myriad activities, is a one-man Sanhedrin doling out opprobrium or absolution for those who speak ill of Israel or the Jews.


Indeed, one doesn't have to speak ill of Israel at all in order to by labeled anti-Zionist by one of the ADL guardians as evidenced by your own actions. All one has to do is point the the dubious plastering of case law citations without any explanation for what was actually ruled in this case law on a site that proudly declares itself "The Militia Watchdog", and this is enough to be labeled "Anti-Zionist" by one of its guardians. Yet, what is this group the Anti Defamation League, and how does functioning as a "militia watchdog group", (a Constitutionally protected activity), help the ADL fight defamation?

The ADL's charter states:


"The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."


But what does all their "idiot legal argument" propaganda have to do with fighting the defamation of the Jewish people? The ADL holds that:


"Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Certainly the sovereign State of Israel can be legitimately criticized just like any other country in the world. However, it is undeniable that there are those whose criticism of Israel or of "Zionism" is used to mask anti-Semitism."


But I neither criticized the policies of Israel, nor did I mention one word of Zionism, but simply challenged the academic and legal validity of using a site put out by the ADL smearing people who themselves have little or nothing at all to do with criticizing the policies of Israel or Zionism, and the minute I challenge this, one of the guardian's of the ADL goes straight to "Anti-Zionism" as a defense of something that has nothing at all to do with Zionism.

Consider what the Jewish News Weekly reports in 2000:


DENVER -- A civil lawsuit that began with a neighbors' dispute over garden plants and fighting dogs has ended in a judgment against the Denver-based chapter of the Anti-Defamation League -- and what is believed to be the largest defamation judgment ever awarded in a Colorado trial.

On April 28, a 12-member jury in U.S. District Court here sided with the plaintiffs, William and Dorothy Quigley of Evergreen. The Quigleys had sued the Mountain States chapter of the ADL and that chapter's director, Saul Rosenthal.

The jury awarded the Quigleys damages, mostly punitive, of $10.5 million -- a figure that astonished defendants and plaintiffs alike in the drawn-out and complex case.

The jury found that several public statements made in 1994 by Rosenthal on behalf of the ADL defamed the Quigleys and resulted in actual and punitive damages.


Imagine that! An anti defamation league being found guilty of defamation! Yet you go on to state:




Frankly, the activities you quoted are not illegal, or even unethical. Information in the "Information age" is just a fact of life. One can view it as alarming or no, but it is what it is.


Uh-huh. Nothing at all illegal about paying a $75,000 fine in order to avoid prosecution of a crime. Nothing unethical about defaming others in the name of anti defamation.





Point of fact: anyone can look at any organization or affiliation, and the Freeman movement is a classic example, and find a "bad apple" or a "bad example," or the antithesis of the entity's core beliefs.


Point of fact: anyone can look at any organization or affiliation, and the ADL serves as a far better "classic example" than the freeman movement does, because using the ADL we can find more than just one bad apple, and your own willingness to jump straight to insinuations of anti-Zionism" supports your dubious tactics, not to mention Foxman, Paddock, and Rosenthal.




I am beyond "debating" *you* on points of law.


Beyond it are you? You have never even attempted to confront any points of law other than your imaginary "facts", and cannot move beyond that of which you have not even moved towards.




I have no interest in debating the laws themselves as I've clearly stated previously in this thread.


Of course you don't. You have illustrated handily that you are ill equipped to debate laws, yet you attempt to use law to defame freemen.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
What is interesting to me JPZ is that for someone that isn't in the Freemen movement you sure seem to be taking this issue quite personal.

Also what is interesting is that you would use case law to defend people who attest that no court has jurisdiction over them, in fact, they hold their own courts, (about what I have no idea) so the "evil empire devil" court cases make absolutely zero sense in this matter when you are using them to defend the Freemen.

If it is fact that these freemen are under no jurisdiction, they cannot possibly be accountable for any criminal activity they should happen to commit. So who holds the Freemen accountable? Obviously a court and jury made up of Freemen would be biased towards leniency, and frankly have no real authority to enforce punishment of any kind in the case that a Freemen member is convicted in a Freemen court of a crime.

So please, can anyone tell me how this isn't an anarchist group? After all, they don't follow Federal laws (unless of course there is a happy coincidence that their Freeman law coincides with the Federal law). They don't follow State laws (unless of course there is a happy coincidence that their Freeman law coincides with the State law). Even if they happen to break a law that both the Freemen group considers a crime and the Federal or State authorities consider a crime, they believe they aren't under Federal or State jurisdiction and believe that their own court is the only one they are answerable to, even though that court has actually zero judicial power to enforce even the Freemen laws. So again, how aren't they an anarchist group again?



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





What is interesting to me JPZ is that for someone that isn't in the Freemen movement you sure seem to be taking this issue quite personal.


What is interesting to me is how much you despise freedom, and feign surprise that people who fight for freedom would take your affront towards it personally.

Your fictions regarding the freeman movement are your fictions. I know little about this movement, other than they seem to understand the law far better than you do. Their obsession with certain details, such as all caps and other semantics is confounding to me, but they seem to represent a far better version of America than the oppressive one you advocate.

Your proclivity towards twisting words and pretending to think that freeman are "under no jurisdiction" is only one characteristic of your insidious politics and your willingness to lie in order to advocate your tyranny.

You pretend that a freeman argues that no one can hold them accountable for their actions, but this is a canard put out by you, all the while you advocate avoiding accountability by skirting legislation you don't agree with. You clearly believe that you personally should not be held accountable for your actions, but typical of all petty tyrants you preen, puff and pout asking who holds accountable those that you oppose. As if your opposition of others is enough to declare them criminal.

As long as you insist on lying about the freeman movement know one can honestly tell you anything. You may believe your dishonesty makes you qualified to be a member of Congress, but all it does is reveal your character, and there is little to admire about it.



new topics




 
55
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join