Right of Revolution

The state of New Hampshire in the USA has an interesting right protected by its constitution called the right of revolution.

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Source: www.nh.gov...

Yesterday, a man filed a paper claiming that he is in formal revolt against New Hampshire and not be paying any of the driving fine he was demanded to pay. He was scheduled early for court. The judge put him first in line apparently because the fine was the lowest at roughly $150 and perhaps expected a quick resolution as frequently in court they put quicker cases first as to not keep everyone waiting around. However, the first thing out of his mouth was "government is by consent of the governed and I do not consent". He then went on to express that he is no longer subject to New Hampshire law because of his article 10 right to withdraw. He then stated he would go to jail before paying the fine. This seemed to surprise the judge. His response was to say nothing except that a lawyer will be assigned to him and he then sent him off on his way. I have not mentioned his name because I don't know if he wants to make a big deal of it but obviously this took place in New Hampshire.

I think my plan for the future involves making a public declaration of independence, but I'd like to do this with at least a handful of other people that I can count on to act with good judgement and be good examples.

a reply to: fractal5

Sounds like more Sovereign Citizen or Freeman on the Land bunk and if he does go to jail, as he requested, he is certainly a subject of New Hampshire.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: fractal5

Sounds like more Sovereign Citizen or Freeman on the Land bunk and if he does go to jail, as he requested, he is certainly a subject of New Hampshire.

So do you also dismiss the NH constitution as bunk? Explain your self, all you did was take a dump on the guys head without explanation. Is government by consent of the governed or not?

originally posted by: fractal5
So do you also dismiss the NH constitution as bunk?

No, not at all, I dismiss his interpretation and use of it as bunk.

a reply to: fractal5

Well, that guy is going to jail.

No where in that clause does it say anything about the consent of being governed. It also doesn't give the individual the right to claim he is not a subject of New Hampshire law.

It amazes me when people can read something that clearly states it's purpose, and they make up a different meaning for it.

This is all Article 10 of the NH Constitution provides for:

the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.

So this man is free to attempt to establish a new government if he feels the current government of NH are:

perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual

But it does not give him the right to not pay his parking tickets...that is just ridiculous.

a reply to: fractal5

I'm a NH Resident, but haven't followed the local news. Is there a link about this case you're speaking of?

It says "the people" not any random dumbass can revolt just for the hell of it.

Secondly, I found this interesting:

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community

I wish our US constitution said that explicitly so it would be more obvious that things like Citizens United are wrong and unconstitutional.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: fractal5

I'm a NH Resident, but haven't followed the local news. Is there a link about this case you're speaking of?

It wouldn't make the news. Most people in jail are there because they are too poor to pay the state to get more billions of dollars. So, that is normal, not news.

I strongly suggest going to court on one day and report back. What its really like in court is: hey, how much money you got? Okay, you get off. Oh the next guy does not have $2,000. Okay, he is going to jail. The modern system of justice has the main purpose of crushing the poor and letting the rich get away with anything by official bribes under the system of law. If this money was NOT paid to the same organization judge is employed by, it would not be bribery. But the state of New Hampshire both renders verdicts and also collects the revenues from those verdicts, making their system highly profitable.

I went to court for a day and that was the experience. All but one of the "justice" department cases were about the state collecting money from the victims that are laughingly labeled criminals. People complain about the rich-poor gap but the poor don't complain about the richest people, those with billions of dollars, collecting hundreds from people with hundreds in the bank. An organization with billions forcing someone with hundreds in the bank to pay hundreds in fines. Wow, how sick is that. But apparently this organization is somehow considered valid while people who are honest are considered crazies for rejecting it.

a reply to: fractal5

Your post has nothing to do with Toolio Toolbreeze from your Original Post who thinks he does not have to pay a parking violation because he used his super constitution-reading powers to find a loophole on how to avoid payment.

a reply to: fractal5

Have you got the link to the dude successfully pulling a "freeman of the land"?

I've asked on loads of threads about it, yet not a shred of proof, only testimonials.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: fractal5

Well, that guy is going to jail.

No where in that clause does it say anything about the consent of being governed. It also doesn't give the individual the right to claim he is not a subject of New Hampshire law.

Do believe government does not require the consent of the governed? I'd like you to answer that question.

Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

Source: www.nh.gov...

The man in question proposes to be part of another government that has no association with New Hampshire. Now what? What is it that makes his government invalid but the New Hampshire government valid?

originally posted by: fractal5

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: fractal5

Well, that guy is going to jail.

No where in that clause does it say anything about the consent of being governed. It also doesn't give the individual the right to claim he is not a subject of New Hampshire law.

Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

Source: www.nh.gov...

The man in question proposes to be part of another government that has no association with New Hampshire. Now what? What is it that makes his government invalid but the New Hampshire government valid?

Which means he's going to try and declare a new country?

Guy (if he exists) is a moron.

originally posted by: fractal5
What is it that makes his government invalid but the New Hampshire government valid?

Because the People (you know, the ones in the New Hampshire constitution) do not recognize it.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: fractal5

Have you got the link to the dude successfully pulling a "freeman of the land"?

I've asked on loads of threads about it, yet not a shred of proof, only testimonials.

The standard as set by Abraham Lincoln is to murder those who attempt to be independent. After stating he didn't care whether slavery ended and only wanted subjects to be under his control, he imprisoned journalists and proceeded to get hundreds of thousands killed. He got more Americans killed than any other US president, making him the worst ever. All other nations ended slavery without a major civil war.

Merely allowing "freemen of the land" to remain alive is a great mercy by our God, the One Government. Submit or be crushed. Simple. This is what Abe Lincoln calls "civilization". To crush those who don't consent until they submit to their "representatives" who share none of their values or opinions but "represent you". There is nothing more heart warming than having someone dumber than you say they represent you and will be telling you what you want, which is to consent to your overlords government. We volunteered by our neighbors and apparently that is a way of getting volunteered by others.

I guess volunteer work means two neighbors vote to have third pay their favored organizations money, lots of money.

a reply to: fractal5

Nice rant!

Are you going to show some proof that the "freeman of the land" thing has ever worked or are you going to have another rant?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: fractal5
What is it that makes his government invalid but the New Hampshire government valid?

Because the People (you know, the ones in the New Hampshire constitution) do not recognize it.

Which people have to recognize it? All of them? Or some of them? Which ones? This is an important question and I look forward to your response.

a reply to: fractal5

The majority.

a reply to: fractal5

It may be that the judge sent him on his way because he/she needed to consult with colleagues and legal text and did not want to inadvertently break any constitutional nor human rights. Usually, the court always wins in cases such as these...just a head's up.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: fractal5

The majority.

The majority of what population? His city of residence?

a reply to: fractal5

The state. Do you even understand the specific constitutional article you quoted?

That was rhetorical.