Obama throws tantrum!* Proud Day for Washington

[kingofsp]

But whether you're driving or traveling in California, if you're going 75 in a 65mph area, you WILL get a ticket for breaking the LAW. I am failing to see how this can be argued at all.

And if you don't have a license when you get pulled over, you will receive further fines and citations (and probably get arrested for this specifically).

Those things might happen, sure. But if jurisdiction is challenged in court, the court can't proceed without establishing it. If there is no jurisdiction, then whatever you were cited/arrested for is irrelevant and there is no case. So, in the case of a code violation such as the ones you described, what facts are you relying on when you say the vehicle code applies to me? If the court can't prove (with facts, not opinions) that the code applies, then there is no jurisdiction.

 

[kingofsp]

 

[guerilla]

I guess you're familiar with the works of Locke, Bentham, Mill, Hobbes, Kant and the like, what's your view on their respective works? Who do you identify with, philosophically?

I am somewhat familiar with Mill, Locke and Kant. Only Kant is a little interesting to me.

I am not talking about philosophy or theory. I am talking about reality. Acknowledging things which are real and not believing in things which are not real.

And by real, I mean demonstrable through reason and with evidence. This post makes the point very clearly.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Those things might happen, sure. But if jurisdiction is challenged in court, the court can't proceed without establishing it. If there is no jurisdiction, then whatever you were cited/arrested for is irrelevant and there is no case. So, in the case of a code violation such as the ones you described, what facts are you relying on when you say the vehicle code applies to me? If the court can't prove (with facts, not opinions) that the code applies, then there is no jurisdiction.

Wait, are you trying to say if you challenge the jurisdiction in court that they'll have to throw the case out? You realize that's been tried countless times and doesn't work? Everything from traffic tickets to IRS cases (Wesley Snipes tried the same thing before they sent him to prison for 3 years). Maybe I'm misunderstanding the post though...

 

[SirKonstantine]

Look at how SAD HE IS! LOL!

 

[guerilla]

You realize that's been tried countless times and doesn't work?

Nothing *works* per se. These are violent people who will kill you for not complying with the most mundane of decrees.

There is no magic get out jail free card. What you can do is put the judge on the spot, and get him to admit the court is using violence, and not legitimacy to enforce its decisions.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Nothing *works* per se. These are violent people who will kill you for not complying with the most mundane of decrees.

There is no magic get out jail free card. What you can do is put the judge on the spot, and get him to admit the court is using violence, and not legitimacy to enforce its decisions.

I agree with you on them being violent people who will kill for non-compliance. But having gone in front of one or two judges in my day I can't ever recall them allowing themselves to be put on the spot.

Take something as mundane as a speeding ticket for instance. Just last year I was pulled over for going 35 in a 25 and given a ticket for "impeding traffic", rather than speeding. Since speeding tickets come with points and impeding traffic tickets don't, I basically got a little bit of a break.

Anyway, I decided to get cute in court when they asked me to admit guilt, I said "I don't know what impeding traffic means, or how I was impeding traffic". I did know what it meant because I read their legal definition of it and so I knew that going 10 mph over did not qualify. I figured I could get it thrown out - lulz were had at my expense.

Rather than backing themselves in a corner and admitting on the record that I was speeding and not impeding, the Judge just said "You can have the speeding ticket instead and the 2 points on your license - now how do you plead to that?" And since traffic laws in Michigan are civil not criminal, they don't have to really prove shit and you don't get to appeal it. It's a Kangaroo Court, but their laws are binding.

Asking them to prove they have jurisdiction will accomplish nothing good. They have jurisdiction because they say they have jurisdiction. It's fucked up, yes, but it's binding. I'm not aware of any court in the US that has ever backed down to the question of legitimate jurisdiction, but I'd love to see some examples.

 

[hellblazer]

I agree with you on them being violent people who will kill for non-compliance. But having gone in front of one or two judges in my day I can't ever recall them allowing themselves to be put on the spot.

Take something as mundane as a speeding ticket for instance. Just last year I was pulled over for going 35 in a 25 and given a ticket for "impeding traffic", rather than speeding. Since speeding tickets come with points and impeding traffic tickets don't, I basically got a little bit of a break.

Anyway, I decided to get cute in court when they asked me to admit guilt, I said "I don't know what impeding traffic means, or how I was impeding traffic". I did know what it meant because I read their legal definition of it and so I knew that going 10 mph over did not qualify. I figured I could get it thrown out - lulz were had at my expense.

Rather than backing themselves in a corner and admitting on the record that I was speeding and not impeding, the Judge just said "You can have the speeding ticket instead and the 2 points on your license - now how do you plead to that?" And since traffic laws in Michigan are civil not criminal, they don't have to really prove shit and you don't get to appeal it. It's a Kangaroo Court, but their laws are binding.

Asking them to prove they have jurisdiction will accomplish nothing good. They have jurisdiction because they say they have jurisdiction. It's fucked up, yes, but it's binding. I'm not aware of any court in the US that has ever backed down to the question of legitimate jurisdiction, but I'd love to see some examples.

But don't you understand that you're not really a man until you flip off the judge, scream "your laws mean nothing to me!!", and walk out of the courtroom?

 

[guerilla]

Asking them to prove they have jurisdiction will accomplish nothing good.

You don't ask them to prove jurisdiction. If you ask them to prove anything, they will make up some ad hoc reason why it is justified.

It's not binding in any contractual or moral sense, and they can't prove it's binding except under threat of violence.

And because they have to maintain an image of fairness, they are loathe to reveal that the entire process is backed by coercion.

When they intimidate you, they are seeing if you will back down. They want you to. That's what the threats, the black robes and the bailiffs are about.

 

[dchuk]

You don't ask them to prove jurisdiction. If you ask them to prove anything, they will make up some ad hoc reason why it is justified.

It's not binding in any contractual or moral sense, and they can't prove it's binding except under threat of violence.

And because they have to maintain an image of fairness, they are loathe to reveal that the entire process is backed by coercion.

When they intimidate you, they are seeing if you will back down. They want you to. That's what the threats, the black robes and the bailiffs are about.

<notroll>
Is this actually...feasible? Are there examples of this in real cases in history?

It seems to me that if this was anything more than idealism, there would be lawyers with a perfect case record right now...
</notroll>

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

You don't ask them to prove jurisdiction. If you ask them to prove anything, they will make up some ad hoc reason why it is justified.

It's not binding in any contractual or moral sense, and they can't prove it's binding except under threat of violence.

And because they have to maintain an image of fairness, they are loathe to reveal that the entire process is backed by coercion.

When they intimidate you, they are seeing if you will back down. They want you to. That's what the threats, the black robes and the bailiffs are about.

I'm not disagreeing with your premise I don't think, but whether or not it's binding in a moral sense is less relevant than it being binding in a legal sense. What I mean is, we can disagree with courts on moral grounds but it means nothing when they are hauling you off to prison.

I spent time in prison with anarchists and "sovereign individuals" who denied the authority of their captors, but it didn't make them any less bound to their laws and they were very much stuck in prison with everyone else. So although I might agree with their stance morally, from a practical standpoint their position was rendered irrelevant.

 

[guerilla]

I'm not disagreeing with your premise I don't think, but whether or not it's binding in a moral sense is less relevant than it being binding in a legal sense.

It's not even binding in a "legal" sense. I am not making a moral argument.

What I mean is, we can disagree with courts on moral grounds but it means nothing when they are hauling you off to prison.

Right, but they aren't hauling you off to prison because they have a strong legal case. They are doing it because they can be violent and they can intimidate us and others. They aren't doing it "procedurally correct" or within the "letter of the law".

"The law" is nonsense. Most people believe in "the law" (dchuk) but have never questioned its premises.

I agree with you, violence is compelling, and most everyone, including myself falls into line. If some religious nut had a knife to my throat unless I embraced his God, I probably would, although I would not actually believe God exists, I would be acting in what I consider to be a practical fashion.

That's the distinction we're trying to make here. Yes, "the law" effects us. No, it is not just, or rational, and if pushed, Judges have to yield to this, IN COURT. They can threaten to shoot you in the face, but they cannot make 2 + 2 = 3.

People who will be violent against us can compel us to follow their orders. Let's just see it for what it is. Let's not pretend there is a system behind it that rationalizes their behavior because there is not, and if you can expose it, they will sometimes leave you alone.

I spent time in prison with anarchists and "sovereign individuals" who denied the authority of their captors, but it didn't make them any less bound to their laws and they were very much stuck in prison with everyone else.

This is not about denying their authority.

I think you're assuming I am talking about this as a libertarian or something. I am not. This is not ideological. People beat the courts who go in with a game plan and know how to work the system. Sadly, those people are few and far between, most like you, when threatened with dire consequences, decide it's not worth their time to push on. I can accept that. I pay taxes rather than fight the tax man, and you know very well my feeling about taxes.

So although I might agree with their stance morally, from a practical standpoint their position was rendered irrelevant.

There are people who practically beat the IRS, and beat the state tax boards, and beat traffic tickets. People who are not ideological libertarians.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

It's not even binding in a "legal" sense.

What do you mean by that? If the courts decisions aren't legally binding, who's are? I guess I'm not understanding how you're defining "legal".

They aren't doing it "procedurally correct" or within the "letter of the law".

I'm interested to know what you mean by that. I've had quite a few conversations with "sovereign individuals" and read a fair amount on the subject, but I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to. I've not seen many examples of this approach working in a real court though.

No, it is not just, or rational, and if pushed, Judges have to yield to this, IN COURT.

I'm also interested to see examples where "Judges have to yield to this" in real courts. As mentioned before, if it were possible (or practical) there would be some lawyers with perfect records in court.

People beat the courts who go in with a game plan and know how to work the system. Sadly, those people are few and far between...

Again, I'd like to see examples of this in action. Every time I've chased these stories down, something that starts off sounding really promising turns out to not be how it was portrayed. For instance, there was a video of a guy posted on here a couple years ago explaining how to beat traffic courts based on jurisdictional arguments but after researching it more it turned out he wasn't telling the whole story. Like other sovereigns, he made a bigger deal out of the specific wording on some legal documents than the application and precedence of the laws used to interpret them.

 

[guerilla]

I'm interested to know what you mean by that. I've had quite a few conversations with "sovereign individuals" and read a fair amount on the subject, but I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to.

I am not talking about libertarianism, anarchism, morality, sovereign individuals, freemen on the land, or any such stuff.

There is absolutely no evidence any of these people have jurisdiction except that they assert it with violence. I won't deny that asserting it with violence works very well, and they get away with it 99.9% of the time because people don't want to get hurt and others are ignorant of what is happening around them. They take signals from the herd and the herd is constantly signalling that this behavior by the courts and cops is legitimate.

See the earlier discussion about licenses to drive. How many people in this thread have read their state's motor vehicle act? How many of them went and got licenses anyway?

I am not talking about a way to do anything, anytime. When one of these violent psychopaths decides to fuck with your life, you have an ethical and economic decision to make. Do I fight or do I pay? Many times, it is faster, cheaper and easier to pay. But that does not mean you cannot fight, and you cannot win.

Yes, in our world, it is very hard to fight the government, when basically everyone believes the government to be legitimate. It would be like arguing against the church during the Spanish Inquisition. Good luck bro.

And yet, the courts rely on something which is its achilles heel. The perception that it is an institution based on justice. When they have to resort to violence and threats, they undermine that perception. It is the proverbial rock and a hard place.

It's hard for me to talk about this stuff, not with you, but in public because most people believe a lot of nonsense without ever questioning why they believe it, and that's a huge identity crisis for them if you challenge what they have always believed, what their parents, lovers, children, teachers and coworkers believe.

Generally speaking humans are much happier believing something not true than being told they are wrong.

 

[dchuk]

Isn't being a citizen of the US (and subsequently, a resident of a specific state too) enough to assert jurisdiction? Because then the argument can proceed that if you don't like your government and it's laws you can either try to change them or move somewhere else.

 

[guerilla]

Isn't being a citizen of the US

What is a citizen?

Please don't copy paste from a dictionary.

 

[kingofsp]

I'm also interested to see examples where "Judges have to yield to this" in real courts. As mentioned before, if it were possible (or practical) there would be some lawyers with perfect records in court.

<notroll>
Is this actually...feasible? Are there examples of this in real cases in history?

It seems to me that if this was anything more than idealism, there would be lawyers with a perfect case record right now...
</notroll>

I wouldn't bother with any "sovereign individual" arguments. The mistake a lot of people seem to make when dealing with the courts is that they try to form an argument in the first place. As soon as you take a position, then you have to defend it. THEY are the ones making a claim against YOU, let them prove that the claim is valid. Keep the burden of proof on them (i.e. asking for evidence that they have jurisdiction).

Why would a lawyer want to take this approach? Their livelihood depends on the legitimacy of the court system.

As far as some success stories, http://marcstevens.net/successes

I don't suppose anyone will ever hear a judge say "Okay, you figured us out. Excellent work. Case dismissed!" In most successful cases it seems the courts will dismiss the claim without stating a reason or maybe stating a vague reason (or on some other kind of technicality). Just like disingenuous people in every day life who won't ever directly own up to being in the wrong.

Obviously there is a risk involved, which is to be expected whenever dealing with delusional people in robes who have people with guns that do what they say.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

As far as some success stories, http://marcstevens.net/successes

Marc Stevens was the one I was referring to having been posted here before. It's been a year or two but I remember the deeper I dug for solid evidence on his successes the more I realized there just wasn't much there.

Most of what he posts are traffic cases, not much in the way of criminal cases. The problem with that (or reason for that) of course, is they are unverifiable because the court proceedings are not a matter of record like most criminal cases are. I'm not saying him or the people that submit their claims to his site to be posted in the success area are liars, but...aliens? Then again, it's been a while since I did heavy research on him so maybe there's better evidence now? Something other than a blog post on his website...

I don't suppose anyone will ever hear a judge say "Okay, you figured us out. Excellent work. Case dismissed!"

No, but anything from a court of record would help make him look more legit. Seems like the same jurisdictional arguments should work in criminal cases if they work in traffic, and the stakes are much higher so I would definitely expect it to be tried more often. Who the fuck wants to go to prison for 20 years when they can argue the court has no jurisdiction? Any court cases or docket numbers from a public court of record where these arguments have been successfully made?

 

[guerilla]

Marc Stevens was the one I was referring to having been posted here before. It's been a year or two but I remember the deeper I dug for solid evidence on his successes the more I realized there just wasn't much there.

I won't name names, but Marc Stevens helped out a guy from WF. He may not want to say anything in this thread, but I know he is here, reading.

Seems like the same jurisdictional arguments should work in criminal cases if they work in traffic, and the stakes are much higher so I would definitely expect it to be tried more often.

He's not making an argument.

I'm not sure how much research you did...

 

[Lucidity]