reply to post by seeashrink
It is not a Utopia I seek. Utopia's are for idealists, even the ones who believe themselves to be "realists". It is not Utopian to expect the
rule of law to be the rule of law, not rule by law. The reality today in the United States is that much of what has been happening is the rule by
law, not the rule of law. This, however, does not in anyway diminish the rule of law, nor does it diminish the reasonable expectation that rights be
respected, particularly government officials.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that voting is not going to fix the corruption that has insinuated itself into American politics. I disagree that the
only way to affect change is through violence. Violence certainly is one strategy, but it is not the only strategy, nor is it necessarily the best
As to your assertions that people who refuse to comply with licensing schemes have no recourse in courts of law, this is just no true. Granted, there
are judges who will ignore the rule of law, and actually buy into the artful language of "full immunity" or "official immunity" as absolute
protection from their corruption. However, a judge is only immune when that judge is acting as a judge, which means that judge has a very narrow
scope of jurisdiction that comes with restraints and prohibitions, and if any judge acts beyond the scope of their jurisdiction they are no longer
acting as a judge, but are acting as private citizens on behalf of their own private beliefs and will not find immunity from such actions.
People cannot sue judges for acting in a judicial manner, but people can sue private citizens including judges who step outside of their jurisdiction
in order to act under color of law.
Not only do people enter into a traffic court and successfully challenge the jurisdiction of that court, this sort of action goes well beyond drivers
licensing schemes. A few years ago I was arrested for selling my DVD collection on a public sidewalk. There was an ordinance prohibiting such sales,
and I was unlawfully detained and ticketed for this. It took me less than twenty minutes to have the charges dropped. Of course, it took me several
hours to do the research and find appropriate case law to back up my Constitutional assertions. (I did not rely on the federal Constitution, which
pleased the judge greatly who at first assumed I was going to "bring the federal Constitution into his court", but when I assured him I had no
intention of doing so, he responded with "Good" and then did a sleight double take followed by a genuine grin when I informed him that I was going
to bring the State Constitution into "his" court.) The judge was more than respectful and seemed to be having a genuine good time with my challenge
of jurisdiction, even when I asked him to strike the ordinance down. He refused to do so, and when I pushed further, he finally said; "I will
dismiss the charges, but I am not going to strike the "law" down. Take it or leave it".
Not being an idiot, I accepted the minor victory and left the courthouse a free man unencumbered by any fines. The city I live in remains encumbered
with this odious ordinance, but as you say, these things take time. The point is, that free people do not have to acquiesce to bogus legislation, and
they do not risk - in some circumstances - jail time just for having the audacity of challenging the bogus legislation. Not all circumstances, and
while I find the drug prohibition laws to be bogus, I would not advise anyone at this point to enter into that black market, and if they do, I would
highly recommend not getting caught, particularly on a federal level. I too know my limitations, as temporary as they may be.
It is worth pointing out at this point that I am not in anyway offering anyone legal advise and am merely speaking to the law, and to rights, and to
freedom in the way they should be spoken to, with reverence and respect.
There have been some who have entered this thread who have seemed to want to construe my assertions as a call to violence against police officers, or
even a call to argue needlessly with them. You are not one of those members, and I have found your posts to be respectful and sincere. However,
because there have been those who seem to want to either imply or more subtly through innuendo make it appear as if I am advocating assault on a
police officers, I am most emphatically not! When I was unlawfully detained by the two police officers who ultimately ticketed me for selling my
DVD's, I did not argue with them, and I certainly did not rely on violence in order to deal with them. I did keep insisting I didn't understand,
and towards the end, after I had requested - several times - that they call the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff...someone with real jurisdiction - they
finally told me that there was no need to bring in the Sheriff's because they were not detaining me, and they took the handcuff's off at that point,
and attempted to explain that my three words - "I don't understand" - were legally construed as violence against them.
At this point I respectfully disagreed with them. I did not argue the point, but suggested that they were grossly misinterpreting and misapplying the
law in this circumstance. I also made clear that I had no intentions of suing them or jamming them up in anyway, but did request, since they did
detain me, to allow me to do the same and we have a discussion about the law for a moment. To their credit they did, and when all was said and done,
and after they convinced me to sign the ticket they gave me, doing so by arguing that they suspected I would beat the case, I asked them why they were
even bothering to write the ticket up? The looked at me, then at each other, and then around the neighborhood where other street vendors usually hang
out selling their wares but were not so visible while I stood there having this discussion. "Ah!" I said. "It's not for my sake, it's for the
sake of everyone else." They grinned at me, and we talked a few more minutes before they shook my hand and left.
This is what we face in this country today. We face a government that keeps bogus legislative acts on the book because they can get away with it, and
because few are willing to challenge it. Because few are willing to challenge it, sometimes when a cop is confronted with a challenger, that cop can
wind up being genuinely perplexed. This was the case with those two police officers, but I suspect the next time they run into someone who is
respectfully articulate about the challenges of jurisdiction, they will be more willing to see this for what it is, instead of construing words like
"I don't understand" as violence. How absurd is that? Three innocuous words manipulated to be construed "legally" as violence. This is not
"realism", this is horse puckey, plain and simple.
At any rate, I thank you much for your contribution in this thread, my friend, and I hope you are feeling better.