Your Laws Violated My Natural Rights

While googling for cases of unconstitutional laws, I came across a rather amusing youtube video. It made me wonder that if more laws were challenged in this way, might we be able to get our lawmakers to finally get that we DO KNOW OUR RIGHTS? And that it does not take a Constitutional Scholar to tell us whether or not a law is Constitutional.





I do admire this kid's gumption! I would NEVER represent myself in court, but I don't think he expects to win.

Anyone care to discuss?

Nice find, this guy gets my vote.
I hope he manages to get his stuff back. Anyone else get the feeling that it won't end well for him, there is nothing more annoying to a judge than a smart kid answering back and trying to stand up for his rights....

I'm interested to read how it pans out...

WOW that is an absolutely horrible legal argument. By the kid's logic everything that is based on property and leads to happiness should be completely legal. The Sovereign Citizen Movement is mistaken at best about their "rights" as they understand them and the United States Constitution.

This is idiotic and I see simply why courts consider the Sovereign argument to be automatically without merit in most cases.

Is it legal in the United States for judiciary to sentence people to classes regarding history and meaning of the constitution? If so I'd say this kid would be a prime candidate.

Balls........

This kid just ruined his life, stand up for your rights and prepare to get screwed so that others won't stand up..... even if he was standing up in a weird way....

He chose this path. He isn't just some kid who got caught with weed. He's a hemp activist.
www.cannabisculture.com...

The Law is such a joke the fine he was charged was even $420.

That judge had only contempt for this guy and barely even tolerated his representing himself... The judge appeared to be making eye contact with the officers involved and present in the courtroom as a source of amusement..
I have seen the same thing happen in courts before...
pretty sad . To beat the system requires a truckload of fertilizer, but there isn't any available anymore

This is the beauty of the truth shown here.

I have the utmost respect for that man advocating his freedom.
The pursuit of happiness is the ultimate form of argument. It is not the lowest or anything in between.

The argument is so grand and truthfull that the current infentile system of law can not cope with the argument and sweeps it under de rug.

At that moment when the judge stated that he did not make the laws and was not in a positon to pass judgement on the laws themselves. The defendand or the acused whatever attained a major victory.

The acused was their to take responsibility for his actions.
The judge negated his responsibility to be sovereign.
So at that moment in time the acused was energetically given freedom if he is able to experience it.

The man goes to jail and has to pay a fine, but is in some meaningfull respects a free man.

The judge passes judgement without being sovereign and without paying a fine, but is more so a slave then the man and already a captive. The judge in a jail by his own design.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by GamleGamle]

New Hampshire is the front line of the liberty movement.


Tom Woods, NYT best selling author and Economist lectures on:
Where Do Rights Come From?


[edit on 2-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

Drug laws are in fact unconstitutional on the federal level. States are free to do what they choose, but Constitutionally speaking, the federal government has no purpose, nor business being involved in criminalizing "drugs"

This kid is so right. My rights are violated by the law everyday, what if in order for me to persue happiness i have to walk around naked, i can't do it because of all these dumb laws. Just the other day my neighbor left for work and his house was there all empty. I wanted to pursue happiness by going into his house and using his television. Latter the cops came and told me that i was going to go to jail. I told them that my neighbors house was my church and i was going to claim sanctuary so they could not come in. They ended up breaking down the door and i ran into my house and informed them that my house is sovereign land and if they crossed my boarder i would consider it an act of war. They did not listen and almost started a war. I wrote the UN and informed them as a diplomat i was imune to their laws and i would agree not to declare war so long as i was released from jail.
People just do not know the law or their rights and that is why they are in so much trouble.

Originally posted by zaiger
This kid is so right. My rights are violated by the law everyday, what if in order for me to persue happiness i have to walk around naked, i can't do it because of all these dumb laws. Just the other day my neighbor left for work and his house was there all empty. I wanted to pursue happiness by going into his house and using his television.

Then you'd be violating your neighbor's rights. Laws should be in place to protect people from others infringing upon their rights and their safety... like you going onto someone else's property.

What an awful example.

Latter the cops came and told me that i was going to go to jail. I told them that my neighbors house was my church and i was going to claim sanctuary so they could not come in. They ended up breaking down the door and i ran into my house and informed them that my house is sovereign land and if they crossed my boarder i would consider it an act of war. They did not listen and almost started a war. I wrote the UN and informed them as a diplomat i was imune to their laws and i would agree not to declare war so long as i was released from jail.

Have you ever heard that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit? It's true. If you actually had a point, you could make it without attempting to put someone down. Yet you didn't. Too bad.

People just do not know the law or their rights and that is why they are in so much trouble.

This is true. Not knowing why a B&E violates someone's rights will get you in trouble.

Kudos to the kid for sticking up for what he believes and putting his money where his mouth is. I'd watch him mop the floor with a lot of users here, that's for sure.

Spread that truth.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by ImaNutter]

reply to post by ImaNutter


The point is this kid is putting forth a retarded legal argument. According to him i anyone can walk around anywhere (like an airport, bank or courtroom) with a fully loaded assualt rifle and an RPG. Because i have the right to own property and have a firearm because i have a right to these things and they are my property.
Then he goes on to say that punnishment should be perportional to the crime, pretty much admitting that he broke the law.
The thing is Alcohol is legal yet if he opened a bottle of whiskey and started drinking it in the open like that he could of also been arrested.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by zaiger]

Originally posted by zaiger
. . .

The point is this kid is putting forth a retarded legal argument . . .

No it is not. It is strict Constitutional.

Whose rights were violated by his "crime?"

The SCOTUS has ruled (Allen v Wright, I believe . . . could be wrong), that a crime has to have a victim . . . someone whose rights were infringed upon.

very uplifting video

any idea how to follow his appeal?

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by ImaNutter

 

According to him i anyone can walk around anywhere (like an airport, bank or courtroom) with a fully loaded assualt rifle and an RPG. Because i have the right to own property and have a firearm because i have a right to these things and they are my property.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by zaiger]

i watched the video and am wondering how you came up with that? nowhere does anyone mention guns at all

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Yes you ware wrong, Allen v Wright had to do with people suing government agencies. Where did you get the idea of there having to be a victim to be a crime? They are called public order crimes and there are lots of them.

reply to post by indigothefish



I did not say he mentioned guns, what i was saying according to his logic laws do not apply to people if it has to do with property and the persuit of one's happiness.

reply to post by zaiger


his argument, or logic as you have put it, was that the law was unjustly infringing apon his natural rights

due to that fact, according to his argument, the whole proceeding should never have happened, he should not have been tried, and should not have had his property, in this case less than 1/5 a gram of marijuana, taken away

thus the solution to the problem is for him to be retributed for his time wasted in jail, in court and have his property given back to him

his argument is not that anyone's property, wether in compliance with laws or not, should never be tampered with

his argument is more along the lines of himself personally, in his case he was wrongfully tried and should get his property back, i beleive that is a more accurate way of looking at it than what you are saying



[edit on 6/7/2010 by indigothefish]

I think the guy was on the right track, but made one serious mistake...He didn't remind the judge that he's under Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution & that those very laws being enforced were legislated against the Constitution.

For the judge to avoid Acting in Breech of Oath, he would have had to drop all charges. If the judge still persisted in pressing on even after having been reminded of his Oath, he could face removal from office.

The guy's mistake did not lie in the fact that he didn't know his own rights...His mistake was that he failed to establish on court record that the judge is required to uphold those rights & that he would appeal the judgment with a higher court if the judge failed in his lawful duty.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]