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.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It appears to be that it is uncommon valor for police officers to break ranks and challenge unlawful legislation or orders and flat out refuse to deny or disparage a persons right/s, but they exist, and tragically many of them wind up leaving the force because of this.
Originally posted by kozmo
Originally posted by surfnow2
I have read these posts here back and forth for weeks regarding police officers quoting information from law, and other people quoting information from law. I think people are disillusioned into thinking that we are a free country, we are in a sense. However there are laws that are put into place including amendments because some laws are not only outdated but are useless. Our constitution is flexable and think of it as the framework for all laws in the USA.
Whoa! You're a cop??? And you think the Constitution is flexible? Folks, I think we have just identified one of the major flaws of our system... Cops think our founding document is flexible!
Surfnow2, if the Constitution was so "Flexible" why does it require a full 2/3 majority of both houses to Ammend it??? The Constitution is NOT the "Framework for all laws" it IS the ultimate law. There is none higher and NO LAW can violate ANY part of the Constitution.
Thanks for your input. I thas certainly clarified a great deal for me on why this country is falling apart - ou law enforcement have no idea what the Constitution is or how it works!
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America -
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by Golf66
It is obvious from your post that you are unfamiliar with the movement. One must FIRST gain administrative rights over their strawman and then extricate themselves lawfully from the contracts by which they are bound. Once done, the defense is perfected. The reasons most lawyers do not do this is that they make money by having people trapped in the system. They are masters of Uniform Commercial Code manipulation and recognize that Common Law does not require the services of an attorney.
BTW, there is a major difference between a Lawyer and an Attorney. Interestingly enough, Attroneys accept the title of Esquire in violation of the law. This mere fact is not lost on those of us familiar with freeman movement. Accepting a title of nobility and membership in the BAR (British Accredidation Agency) should be enough to tell you who attorneys swear allegience to! Hint: It ISN'T the Constitution!
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Originally posted by kozmo
Originally posted by surfnow2
I have read these posts here back and forth for weeks regarding police officers quoting information from law, and other people quoting information from law. I think people are disillusioned into thinking that we are a free country, we are in a sense. However there are laws that are put into place including amendments because some laws are not only outdated but are useless. Our constitution is flexable and think of it as the framework for all laws in the USA.
Whoa! You're a cop??? And you think the Constitution is flexible? Folks, I think we have just identified one of the major flaws of our system... Cops think our founding document is flexible!
Surfnow2, if the Constitution was so "Flexible" why does it require a full 2/3 majority of both houses to Ammend it??? The Constitution is NOT the "Framework for all laws" it IS the ultimate law. There is none higher and NO LAW can violate ANY part of the Constitution.
Thanks for your input. I thas certainly clarified a great deal for me on why this country is falling apart - ou law enforcement have no idea what the Constitution is or how it works!
The Legal Latin Definition of Constitution is "Agreement to pay back another's debt" the Constitution is in fact article number 1 regarding evidence of a fraud and crime that predates the document by a good 150 years.
Written at the insistence of the Holy Roman Empires Prince, Prince Elector, and Arch-Treasurer, who retained the right to be the United States Prince Elector and Arch-Treasurer also known as King George it exists to gaurantee payement in perituity of the stock and bond investements of Europeans in the original corporation before the management change that introduced to us our founding fathers and all the legends and myths that surround and obscure their crimes.
The Constitution is in fact what insures, ensures, and protects the Shadow Government.
Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by boroboy
Thank you! It most certainly does! This rabbit hole is so very, very deep my friend. I have been traveling down this hole for well over a decade and am nowhere near the bottom. An earlier poster shook me up with just a simple legal latin deifinition of "Constitution" meaning "paying off the debt of another".
Makes me want to go back to the "All roads lead to Rome" thread and start over.
Originally posted by Golf66
Originally posted by kozmo[It is obvious from your post that you are unfamiliar with the movement. One must FIRST gain administrative rights over their strawman and then extricate themselves lawfully from the contracts by which they are bound. Once done, the defense is perfected.
Actually, I was initially intrigued by this freeman thing ( I do so live to rebel and stick it to the man, especially sweet is using his rules against him) - so I have done quite a bit of research on the issue; however, in my research I have found the evidence that this works to be full of holes the size of dump trucks and about as consistent as the electricity at my compound in Afghanistan.
I actually think it fitting to use the AMWAY example when I talk to people I have met around my house because that is the most apt one word analogy I can think of when it comes to the freeman movement. Seems like a big smoke a mirror thing to me.
Try to look some concrete information up on what how to write the declaration of your freeman status and you'll get a bunch of crap - in short no real answers.
"It's different for everyone" you see "You have to do the research yourself for it to work but it works see" (points out crappy video of dude pissing off a judge so bad he leaves the room) are the most likely answer and common information you will find in most cases.
If it was a locked tight defense - it would give the equally locked tight example of how to write ones declaration; the steps to take in which order to defeat any prosecution attempt etc... Also, the results would be predictable, constant and consistent not a crap shoot.
Instead you hear about how cool it is to be free; "you are a slave if you don't see it" and "you need to wake-up and see the truth", "this works" etc...but again no how to book...
Again never any real concrete effective wording or steps to declare such a status and how to use it with consistent and effective results throughout the US various territories.
So like I said AMWAY sounds great everyone talks about how financial freedom is within your grasp but they "the successful" will not just come out as tell you how to do it. Which is the tell tale sign of a scam in their case and a sign of a BS argument in the case of the freeman issue.
Originally posted by kozmo[The reasons most lawyers do not do this is that they make money by having people trapped in the system. They are masters of Uniform Commercial Code manipulation and recognize that Common Law does not require the services of an attorney.
Again evidently common law does require the services of a lawyer or attorney because no one gets it therefore they could make a killing practicing the same. If it were so easy the methods or defense would be well known and the outcomes of cases would be predictable, constant and consistent not a crap shoot.
I recognize the validity; however, that at some point the well would dry up and agree that in a sense this would be sort of like putting themselves out of work but here's where I draw a question.
Lawyers and Attorneys are a slippery lot and usually bottom feeding liars of the first order and moreover usually passive aggressive type people. Most judges were once lawyers as well and the media so loves to create a villain especially say a conservatively elected one. They love a good corruption scandal too - the live for them in fact.
Why is it then that the same slippery lying conniving individuals don’t regularly use this defense in their own legal issues? Certainly, any lawyer worth his salt would avoid the licensing fees and costs associated with the system of revenue generation however small they may be in comparison to his income just for the pleasure of being right and beating the system - lawyers live for that crap!
Half of them would sell their mothers for a dollar - yet we are supposed to believe they know a way to have no license plates or a driver’s license and consent to it anyway knowing that they give up their rights in so doing?
I for one do not buy that for one instant.
Also, they would argue any license to practice law or marry or whatever suspicious nefarious revenue generators were unconstitutional the minute one had to face divorce or a malpractice suit.
They would argue they didn't consent and defeat their straw man to get out of any obligations in a heartbeat as would most people. Why don’t we hear about them doing it?
If they are doing it, where are the undercover reporters with video of corrupt lawyers and judges using a dual system of law all their own - you honestly believe this is a secret they could keep in this society?
This would be too juicy of a scandal for any reporter to pass up.
To disrupt the and expose the fallacy of the entire legal system of the dreaded USA would be the Pulitzer of the millennium for not only our American reporters but foreign agents and governments of all types who wish us ill.
Yet what do we hear? Crickets that's what.
If there were a remedy or get out of jail free card to the imposition of illegal and unconstitutional fees and revenue the lid on the way to do it would have been blown long ago....
Upon first read of the OP, I am inclined to cheer and walk away agreeing. But, isn't it true that all of us pay for those roads, bridges and highways through an agreed upon tax system?
elements of the contract and on their part delivered, but the other party, or parties did not deliver what was agreed upon.
Now, I say "agreed upon" because we have elected officials through the years to enact and uphold tax laws on our behalf, and we retain the right and ability to vote in or out politicians who will serve the will of the (most) people.
Now, I say "agreed upon" because we have elected officials through the years to enact and uphold tax laws on our behalf, and we retain the right and ability to vote in or out politicians who will serve the will of the (most) people.
As long as we continue to support the politicians who support/make these laws, then we are obliged to follow them.
I understand the notion that natural human rights come before privilege under law, but by refusing to obey the laws that we as a people have voted into existence (by way of voting politicians into office), then we are stepping on the rights of other people who may actually want these laws in place and enforced for their own protection. If the majority of people uphold and see fit to abide by these laws, then isn't it our duty to do the same? We shouldn't break the laws to argue against them, we should just argue against them. When the majority agree that certain laws are not required, then it can vote them away.
Until then, we can buy up acres of land, build our own private roads and bridges and drive all day without a license.
Please go easy on me. I'm open to changing my mind
There are aspects to this issue that go beyond the generalities discussed here. For example... My wanting to fly a 767 and being forced to be "licensed" would fall under the same argument. Why can't I fly a jumbo jet without a license? Obviously, because I lack the requisite skills to do so and would surely kill myself, and probably others, if I tried to do so.
Licensing, in many cases, is less about restriction of "freedom" and more about ensuring proper training to operate the machinery in question.
Originally posted by quantum_flux
Rights are specific depending on your circumstances. You, dude, are creating the illusion that rights are absolute and universal, but they are not. You are using non-universal state constitutions to back up that illusion too.