Limiting Freedom & It's Effects On Society

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Ah... Thanks 2T10! I see them now. It is going to take me a bit of time to validate that the documents are genuine and then, if genuine, to break down the legal jargon to see exactly what is implied in them. My experience tells me that with documents like these is that often they appear to be quite powerful but end up meaning a lot less than they seem to suggest.

It might take me a day or two before I can analyze them enough to base an opinion on.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Please do, I've had some lawyer friends of mine confirm they were legit and could be used in any further dispute with the government, provided you do your due diligence.

I look forward to your analysis.

~Tenth

reply to post by hawkiye


OK. Specifically - provide a single documented, plain to see case where this tactic has ever worked in a US courtroom on any case higher than a common misdemeanor or traffic issue.

That's a good starting point.

~Heff

ETA - for the benefit of lurkers and readers who might be interested...

The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of American litigants, commentators, and financial scheme promoters. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation classifies "sovereign citizens" among domestic terror threats as anti-government extremists.

Source

The more you know...

reply to post by Hefficide


Like I said, it's a dumb thing to do in America, the country was not set up to afford people sovereign rights.

I know folks who went are still in jail for trying to pull a fast one in court.

Real deep knowledge of law is required for any of this material.

~Tenth

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Then I'll simply address my thoughts on that one aspect - temporarily ignoring the others. My issue with the sovereign citizen thing is that in all of my research I've yet to find "proof" of it working that I haven't debunked. All videos online that purport to show a sovereign citizen victory are fallacious and can be proven false. Every one shows some guy making a loud noise in court. But if you do research you quickly find that all they accomplish is to clear courtrooms and to lose by summary judgment.

I've yet to see any proof of anybody at all winning a case - outside of maybe traffic court where a magistrate might simply drop charges to avoid the hassle of debate.

~Heff

For the most part you are right the vast majority of claims are unprovable and in many cases exaggerated or outright lies. I can only speak from experience as someone who spent many years in this movement. I have seen some wins here and there but they are few and far in between. They are not usually reproducible as they seal the cases since they don't want others seeing and trying those defenses and even so they adjust their tactics the next time some one tries it.

Also there are a lot of folks that try things they read without fully understanding what they are getting into so do things half cocked and end up just getting themselves in more trouble. Most people do not even know they are not in an article 3 court but an administrative corporate policy court based on a mishmash of maritime law and merchant law and that as soon as they sign anything they have agreed to let the judge decide the case anyway he pleases. That is why they do anything they want. The Judge is really king in his court room and there is no such things as rights you signed them away not even knowing it. That is how they see it anyway.

Having said all that it seems this is really just a side topic from the OP. The point is that common law based on no harm no crime with maximum freedom is always the answer and the oppression of freedom leads to fear and distrust hence more crime and oppression etc.

reply to post by hawkiye


I believe my point, in this regard, is to reference you, again, to the peasant uprisings that brought an end to the Feudal era... Under common law they'd been subjugated by those in power and they sought specific legal remedy - charter - to undo their condition of servitude.

~Heff

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Like I said, it's a dumb thing to do in America, the country was not set up to afford people sovereign rights.

That is not correct it was set up to do exactly that and functioned that way for over a century. It has been usurped by def facto corporate government posing as the original. The knowledge you now enjoy reading on this topic originated from American patriots researching history and what went wrong in America and has spread to other countries like England Canada and Australia. America was founded on common law! That is why it was the most free country on earth for over a century. That is why it never had a king because the people were their own sovereigns etc.

reply to post by hawkiye


Not quite..

The uptake in recent common law concepts/sovereign citizen was first popularized in the UK for commonwealth nations. Americans just put up more of a fight I suppose and got attention for it. At least that's my understanding of the history regarding it.

The reason this doesn't work well within the United States is because of the pre-existing laws already in place, passed by various governments over the last 100 years to make the Freeman Argument invalid.

Like I said, it takes a deep rooted understanding of law to accomplish, more so in America than in any common wealth nation.

~Tenth

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by hawkiye

 

OK. Specifically - provide a single documented, plain to see case where this tactic has ever worked in a US courtroom on any case higher than a common misdemeanor or traffic issue.

That's a good starting point.

~Heff

ETA - for the benefit of lurkers and readers who might be interested...

The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of American litigants, commentators, and financial scheme promoters. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation classifies "sovereign citizens" among domestic terror threats as anti-government extremists.

Source

The more you know...

edit on 8/25/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)

Ok lets take the right to travel:

The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

You missed the point entirely. I am not arguing whether or not it works in the current de facto climate. I am saying the principle is sound and would work if implemented and has worked in the past when it was adhered to Look up any US supreme court case before 1933 and you will find it worked beautiful as I illustrate above. I also thought that was the main point of the OP too. Not to argue back an forth on what is going on in today's climate but to discuss the results of the lack of freedom and departure from common law principles.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Not quite..

The uptake in recent common law concepts/sovereign citizen was first popularized in the UK for commonwealth nations. Americans just put up more of a fight I suppose and got attention for it. At least that's my understanding of the history regarding it.

The reason this doesn't work well within the United States is because of the pre-existing laws already in place, passed by various governments over the last 100 years to make the Freeman Argument invalid.

Like I said, it takes a deep rooted understanding of law to accomplish, more so in America than in any common wealth nation.

~Tenth

Key words "Last 100 Years" Which invalidates your argument that America was set up that way. it has taken a hundred years to dismantle the common law foundations of America to bring us to what we have today. it started in earnest in 1913 with the Federal reserve act and really got into full swing in 1933 and was dealt a severe blow in 1940 with the Buck act.

As for who started researching first I have to disagree with you but it's not really important who started first so I won't argue over that we can agree to disagree on that.

Yes it takes a very deep understanding and the ability to keep your cool and speak well when in front of these de facto judges in their fake courts. The majority of people accept things the way they are so there is really no power to enforce the law on these criminals posers. The majority rules one way or another either by apathy and ignorance or by action. Unfortunately they rule today by apathy and ignorance.

I apologize for not being here sooner... this is a topic of special importance to me. But you have already establish a number of different analytical angles, and I'm afraid I disagree with the precept upon which you have constructed the arguments.

It appears that you are all in agreement about what common law is. Wikipedia notwithstanding, my inclination is to view "common law" from a somewhat different perspective, technically speaking. I must begin from my beginning, and hope you forgive my going over aspects of this that you may feel are not pertinent to where you are in the dialog. Ignore me if I'm too tangential.

Common Law is relative. In fact, I must say that common law is only possible to define in terms of a comparison to another existing legal structure whether it be in coexistence or apparent disharmony.

Jurisprudence systems, as they mature and become more complex, give rise to "common law" (It's almost as if it is a function of 1) the complexity of a civil law system. along with 2) the cultural diversity of a population.) The need for specificity drives civil law to evolve into ever more convoluted and derivative constructs as it is required for increasingly distinct applications. Eventually, as laws are crafted to cover different peoples, entities, circumstances, and social change; it reaches a point where laws are applicable only in certain places, times, etc.

You can only find codified common law in terms of it's historical context. And well, in keeping with my notoriously verbose ways; I offer this for you to consider:

Roman law is the predominantly influential law in western society (the why and where of this is too tangential even for me to delve into here.) In the second century, a Roman Jurist is said to have cited Justinian's Digest regarding this matter: "All nations governed by laws and customs use partly law which is peculiar to themselves and and partly law common to mankind." (ius commune omnium hominum)

"Ius Commune" = Common Law.

The "law peculiar to themselves" is what he explains is "civil law"

Eventually, as laws became more applicable in terms of territoriality, "common law" was usurped in weight by the force of kings and principalities. Governing became confused with control, and valiant efforts have been made to keep the law from being inhuman. Some really have succeeded... others not so much.

When we common folks discuss the law we must never forget that much of it is tradition. The inertia that makes institutions stop obeying and start issuing commands.

I see that I have blathered enough. But it will be from this vantage that I will pursue this topic, if you don't mind.

Also, there is a hell of a lot of money to be made through the prison-industrial complex.

reply to post by Corporate Providence


I like that you are the follow up to a well thought out rebuttal. While I agree with you, it was hilarious to see this, and I commend you for making me laugh pretty hard.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Common law. I think the Ten Commandments are a pretty good start. Those three don't quite cover it. Now we see the problem. It get's complex. What does "harm a person" mean? And contracts, what's those? Sure we can agree on a few things right off the bat. And then more people come along, and then more and more and more and pretty soon, nobody knows nobody, and suddenly it ain't so common. However I do agree, those three seem to be pretty good principals to live by.

Now I don't know if you could actually try a case on these laws, I'm not an attorney, but I bet a good one could stretch this out twelve days to Sunday.

There seems to be a condition where. the fewer laws there are the more inviolate they become. So you need sure swift enforcement. And then what? There are those who think they are not quite guilty and demand redress. and so begins the negotiation. And of course you have to wright these down. and they get voluminous, and "Harm" becomes a product of the system

Then right thinking individuals, such as yourself, start asking, "Why can't we live with just Common Law?".

I could on with, but I think I made my point: It's really all about the number of people committing to the laws.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Interesting, I think you are definitely on to something. I live in America and I find it extremely difficult to have close friends. I think a lot of this has to do with the internet drawing people into a cyber world where they have the illusion of friendship... but online friendship is not nearly as stable as real-life friendship. The internet and texting also seems to have distanced people from each other.

When it comes to dating, that is nearly impossible - I could say one simple thing wrong and the girl comes to the conclusion that I am a horrible person and ignores me for eternity.

Finally, there are so many laws that make no sense... in New York City, for example, you are only allowed to buy small sodas. This is the result of someone who likes a particular lifestyle forcing their views on everyone else. The problem with this is, if even five different people forced their lifestyles on the rest of the country, it would become very confusing to figure out what was right and wrong and stay out of prison.

I never violate any of the common law, but I'm not the best socially, and I might inadvertently violate mystery rules or laws even though I have good intentions, so...

Common law is based on precedents that were set in previous common law cases (to ensure everyone is treated equally) so eventually the system will be as backed up with precedent and the current US system has case law.

Also in common law because of the precedent system judges can make new laws simply by ruling on a current case (and setting precedent).

Originally posted by Elton
Common law is based on precedents that were set in previous common law cases (to ensure everyone is treated equally) so eventually the system will be as backed up with precedent and the current US system has case law.

Also in common law because of the precedent system judges can make new laws simply by ruling on a current case (and setting precedent).

Absolutely untrue. Case law is a bastardization of common law it allows judges to legislate from the bench which is not their place. Common law is basic law common to all people "No harm no crime" you don't lie steal cheat murder etc. These things are inherent in all men and women. The worse criminal knows its wrong to do these things he just doesn't care. It is a standard that should not be changed by case law or statute but has been now leading us into corporate statute hell.

Statutes and case law are not law they were supposed to be illustrations of inherent law but now they are arbitrary rules or policy that violate rights/law for the most part. In the US the Bill of rights is an illustration of inherent law. Most statutes and case law these days violate those rights and others unwritten. Again " no harm no crime" is the maxim of all real true law!

Originally posted by hawkiye
Absolutely untrue. Case law is a bastardization of common law

Not sure what is 'absolutely untrue' about my statement, you should elucidate... I completely agree that case law is based on common law (hence why precedents are important in both systems).

Originally posted by hawkiye
it allows judges to legislate from the bench which is not their place. Common law is basic law common to all people "No harm no crime" you don't lie steal cheat murder etc. These things are inherent in all men and women. The worse criminal knows its wrong to do these things he just doesn't care. It is a standard that should not be changed by case law or statute but has been now leading us into corporate statute hell.

Statutes and case law are not law they were supposed to be illustrations of inherent law but now they are arbitrary rules or policy that violate rights/law for the most part. In the US the Bill of rights is an illustration of inherent law. Most statutes and case law these days violate those rights and others unwritten. Again " no harm no crime" is the maxim of all real true law!

I thought you were discussing Common law as understood from a western legal perspective....


Quote and Link on common law

Common-law courts base their decisions on prior judicial pronouncements rather than on legislative enactments. Where a statute governs the dispute, judicial interpretation of that statute determines how the law applies. Common-law judges rely on their predecessors' decisions of actual controversies, rather than on abstract codes or texts, to guide them in applying the law. Common-law judges find the grounds for their decisions in law reports, which contain decisions of past controversies. Under the doctrine of Stare Decisis, common-law judges are obliged to adhere to previously decided cases, or precedents, where the facts are substantially the same. A court's decision is binding authority for similar cases decided by the same court or by lower courts within the same jurisdiction. The decision is not binding on courts of higher rank within that jurisdiction or in other jurisdictions, but it may be considered as persuasive authority.

Under common law the judges have the same imperative to follow previous judgements and orders of higher courts. Which can logically lead to judges (in effect) creating law by ruling on a case.

Soooo what 'absolutely untrue' thing did I say???