Why is it effectively impossible to contest a traffic ticket without a lawyer?
Emphasis on effectively.
Yes, it’s possible to learn the legalisms and procedures; the dance steps that are required in order to perform before a judge. But – like trying to learn how to tango – it is a dance few non-lawyers ever master. Which is, I think, precisely the point.
The legal profession is a kind of high-brow cartel that – like any other cartel – manufactures work for itself. Work that is not actually needed but merely required. Like tax preparation assistance, for example. No one genuinely needs this “service” – taxes being illegitimate takings-by-force of other people’s money. But most of us have no choice but to hire (and pay) a tax preparer, else we’re forced to pay even more in taxes.
So it is also with lawyers.
Especially traffic lawyers.
Why, pray, should anyone charged with “speeding” require the “services” of a lawyer to present the relevant facts to a judge? It is not – as they say – rocket science. The cop – acting in his absurd capacity as the aggrieved party – presents his evidence that you were “speeding:”
The posted/legal limit on Electric Avenue is 35 MPH. He witnessed a blue 2009 Chevy apparently exceeding this speed, which he confirmed by use of radar or laser. He states that he pulled the vehicle over and identified the defendant (that’s you) as the driver and issued you a ticket for driving 44 MPH in a 35 zone, contrary to the law.
You produce evidence in your defense, in simple conversational English: A search of county records shows that the 35 MPH speed limit was posted without a traffic survey having been done, as required by law (the relevant papers are passed to the judge). Therefore, the posted limit is legally non-binding. Or, you have obtained records that show the cop’s radar equipment was not tested and calibrated – as required by law – prior to the date it was used in this case. Therefore, the accuracy of the cop’s radar reading is questionable – therefore, there is reasonable doubt you (the defendant) were in fact speeding.
And so on.
But, of course, this is not how it goes. If a Mere Mundane (as Well Grigg so accurately styles it) attempts to present relevant facts – even if “open and shut” exculpatory – without the flim-flam of proper procedure, the judge will summarily dismiss said facts as “irrelevant” or “out of order” or some such thing. Your defense hinges less on the facts than it does on how they are presented.
Or rather, by whom.
This is deliberate – and deliberately vicious.
On the one hand, the system discourages people – Mere Mundanes – from contesting charges because the cost to hire a shyster to contest the charge is often twice or more the cost of simply paying the ransom (i.e., the “fine”). On the other hand, lawyers know that – without their “services” – it is extremely likely that most Mere Mundanes will find themselves adjudicated guilty of whatever offense they’ve been charged with committing. Hence, the choice facing the Mere Mundane is to pay the ransom – or pay a shyster.
They’ve got us coming – and going.
It was not always this way. In fact, it was once a basic right – dating back to 1215, King John I and Magna Carta – which gave us the antecedents of constitutional law and, in particular, the right to plead one’s case. As opposed to having to pay a secular priest (that would be a lawyer) to plead one’s case for one.
For a fee.
There is an old joke that goes: You know why it’s called the justice system, right? Because it’s just for us. Exactly. The system is rigged. For the benefit of lawyers. Keep in mind that even “your” lawyer is an officer of the court. He is on the same side of the line as the prosecutor and the judge. Which is not your side of the line.
This grotesque conflict of interest is rarely noticed, much less discussed.
It ought to be.
Fundamentally, the evil source of all of this nonsense is law based – not on harm caused – but on violations of statute. The former is easily proved – or disproved – by presentation of a damaged party. Of a victim. If a victim cannot be produced, then the charge is specious on the face of it. Simple. And no lawyers needed. In the case of the latter, minutia regarding “the law” determines guilt or innocence. I’s dotted and T’s crossed. The proper forms filled out properly; the right phrases and words – incantations, really – spoken at the right time and in the the required order. Whether you – the defendant – actually did anyone a wrong is not only lost in the shuffle, you’re not even allowed to bring it up.
Because doing so would be contrary to “the law.”
If you value independent media, please support independent media. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer to avoid PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 monthly recurring donation to support EPautos, or for a one-time donation of $10 or more. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address for us to mail the thing to!)
From Martin Armstrong –
The legal system in the United States has collapsed into a horrible pretense of justice. On top of that, every law that is passed they include the standard language of fine and imprisonment. This turned into a huge fight with Obamacare. In the first draft buried within the 33,000 pages was the standard clause that the could throw you in prison for not having health insurance even if you could not afford it. Well it certainly would have gotten all the homeless off the streets for they would be in prison getting free healthcare then – all be a sad excuse for a real doctor.
I have written about the lone crusader in the Southern District of New York that the government does everything in their power steer their cases away from Judge Rokoff. Why? He has not been playing their game. He first came to everyone’s attention when he rejected the settlement between the SEC and Citigroup. He slammed it hard as a joke.
Now he has written Why Innocent People Plead Guilty – sharp rebuke of just how bad the American legal system has become. Conrad Black, the Canadian media mogul who was also imprisoned wrongly by the US justice system has added to what Judge Rakoff has written – A Plea against Pleading
Prosecutors abuse the system to win unjust convictions.
More: http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicks29/aif-in-doubtatake-ita-behind-closed-doors-4y3w
Land of the Free.
No victim = No crime http://www.fija.org
“The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think,
to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various
laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from the tyrannical abuses
of power by government.”
The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means
that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if
government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.”
Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.”
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/
“DUTY OF THE “COMMON LAW” GRAND JURY – If anyone’s unalienable rights have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of their peers, from their lands, home, liberties or lawful right, we [the twenty-five] shall straightway restore them. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the twenty-five Grand Jurors, the sureties of the peace. MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15, A.D. 1215, 52.”
So true, Eric.
The analogy I like to use for a judge’s blindness to factual exculpatory evidence (because his “thinking” cannot or will not permit anything empirical) is that of an airplane pilot who, despite perfect conditions and visibility, opts instead to navigate using nothing but instruments, either distrustful or unaware of what he’s seeing out the cockpit window.
Hi David,
Yup!
“The law” is to a great extent an exercise in pedantic – Talmudic – parsing. Facts, as such, are secondary. Forms and processes – those are everything.
In the US, the most important aspect of statutory and common law is economic.
The labels Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, United States, NAFTA, NATO, and so on are fictional. But real Cartel entities have loaned money and provided goods on spec to these fictional entities.
The better credit these fictional government entities have, the more they can borrow and the more we will be enslaved.
Proles receive beatdowns and are threatened with confiscations if they violate statutes & prohibitions, because the various Crony Cartel Corporations are in a vulnerable position, if the PTB should stop paying them back.
The spirit of America, is a debt-slavery tyranny. We are forbidden to enjoy our possessions and free time, because they need us focused on our real purpose. Repaying all the public debts.
So when you advocate “all cop wearing cameras.” You are advocating the use of violent force and advocating the signing of yet another slave contract. Understand the true nature of things, don’t be a clover.
The various police forces will buy these cameras at say 10X the normal market price. And they will need upgrading, replacements, and maintenance.
Things were different when government was stealing from the indigenous inhabitants to fund itself. Now we’re the indigenous inhabitants it uses for funding purposes.
Illinois Muni Bonds
http://illinois.municipalbonds.com/bonds/recent/
This is just the “A’s.” for Illinois. Consider that when someone from say Chicago brags about their culture and sophistication, for example. They are really bragging about their vastly more debt enslaved status than some bumpkin living in a sparse rural area with no such debt funded trappings.
Adams And Hancock Cntys Illinois
Adams County Illinois Alt Revenue Source
Adams County Illinois School District Number 172 Refunding Series
Addison Illinois
Addison Illinois Single Family Mortgage
Addison Park District Illinois
Algonquin Illinois Area Public Library Refunding
Algonquin Illinois Refunding Series B
Algonquin-lake In The Hills Notes
Alsip Illinois
Alsip Illinois Park District
Alton Illinois Hospital Facility Revenue And Refunding St Anthonys Health Center
Alton Illinois Refunding
Alton Illinois Residential Mortgage Revenue
Antioch Illinois Alt Revenue Series A
Antioch Village Illinois Special Service Area Clublands Project
Arcola Illinois Alt Revenue Source Series B
Arcola Illinois Industrial Development Revenue Adjusted Herff Jones Incorporate Project
Arlington Heights Illinois
Arlington Heights Illinois Park District
Arlington Heights Illinois Various Refunding Dunton Tower Apts Project Aurora Illinois
Aurora Illinois Econ Development Revenue Adjusted
Aurora Illinois Industrial Development Revenue Various
Aurora Illinois Single Family Mortgage Collateral Series
Aurora Illinois Waterworks And Sewer Revenue
I didn’t bother to read through the previous 111 comments (as of this posting) so I don’t know if it has been stated already, but check out marcstevens.net that it’s really pretty simple to beat a traffic ticket by challenging juristiction. Without a lawyer. Not 100% of the time, of course, because the psychopaths in the black dresses usually don’t like to be challenged but if you do it right the appeals court will up your odds of success.
Jurisdiction should have been spelled like this.
Duh!
Sure you didn’t mean ‘juris-dick-tion’?
Hi Jose,
Yes, perhaps. But most of us do not have the luxury of time (and money) to pursue a case to the appellate level. How much time spent researching/presenting a case? How many documents to dig up/copy? How many days taken away from productive work?
My article did not argue that it could not be done. Just that it is very difficult to do.
Great write up Eric.
I’ve taken a few traffic tickets to court. They ended up being a big waste of time.
In one case, I actually had pictures of the supposed infraction area and copies of the law showing that the state had marked the area improperly….the judge slammed the gavel in the middle of my law citation and declared that I could have simply done a u-turn in the middle of the street to exonerate the state from having to have made clear it was a temporary one way street. (I actually turned into a parking lot within 25 feet after seeing what had been done, but a cop coming the other way wrote me up anyway)
Anyway, I suppose if you have enough time to research the law, file appeals(because the kangaroo courts will always disregard the law and rule against you), etc. you can win now and then. I see a few people on the internets have made livings out of explaining this to people…but seriously…who has the time? (not accounting for the opportunity cost)
It’s a just a fucked up system, designed to railroad you from the start.
So the man in the Robe says you should have pulled a U-ey? With a LEO already headed in your direction? Smells like a ticket to me.
Eric you do everyone a disservice telling people that the cost of the lawyer will exceed the fine. In most cities, including in San Diego where I live, there are traffic court lawyers that will take your case for $50-$75. Where I live, “simple” traffic citations start at the high $200s and go into the mid $400s. Add in the cost and inconvenience of traffic school, and it’s a no brainer. Some of these traffic court lawyers will even refund the fee if they don’t win. I hear people all the time immediately assume they won’t win, so they don’t fight. Or they assume that a lawyer is too expensive. It’s just not true.
Hi JS,
If you can find a lawyer to represent you for $50-$75, it’s news to me!
Here in San Diego/Temecula/Carlsbad, there are a handful of lawyers listed in the Reader (a free magazine) that will do it. Here’s one I’ve used on many occasions… beat a couple tickets for me and some people I work with.
http://www.earonsonlaw.com
I’ve successfully contested several tickets, going all the way back to the 70s.
In the 80s and 90s, I took on the Ohio State Patrol, not once, but TWICE, over radar speeding tickets, and won both times. Of course, I spent 18 out 20 years in the U. S. Air Force as a radar and electronics technician, with 6 1/2 of those years as a Master Instructor, and several as a Strategic Air Command Master Technician. Along the way, I picked up 2 related degrees.
Sure, the “system” is rigged and stacked against us. But with a bit of knowledge of both the topic at hand, and courtroom procedure, you CAN win, if you want to take the time.
Pay fine? Pay shyster? I’d like to take curtain number 3 if I could, Monty.
http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/search/cto?sort=priceasc&query=trade&hasPic=1
Buying or Selling Your Vehicle in Pennsylvania – Fact Sheet
http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/fact_sheets/fs-buysell.pdf
In most cases, you will need the service of an authorized PennDOT agent or the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to assist you in transferring the title.
The dealer, authorized PennDOT agent, or online title/registration processor
is required to send the title application directly to PennDOT. The agent must handle the paperwork and may not give it to the customer.
If the seller’s certificate of title is held electronically by a lienholder, a paper title must be obtained before the seller can transfer ownership of the vehicle and the purchaser can make application for a Pennsylvania
Certificate of Title.
Upon receiving the purchaser’s application, PennDOT will create a new title in the purchaser’s name and mail it to them. If they borrowed money to purchase the vehicle, the title or an electronic file will be sent directly to the bank or finance company. After the loan is paid in full, the lender will satisfy the lien and send you the title to the purchaser.
SALVAGE VEHICLES
If you sell your vehicle for salvage, sign the title over to the buyer and remove your registration
FORM MV-3, “Motor Vehicle Verification of Fair Market Value by the Issuing Agent.” Must be completed if the vehicle is sold for 80% less than the fair market value.
BUYER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the time of sale, the seller should get a receipt from the buyer that acknowledges the receipt of the transferred title and delivery of the vehicle. For your convenience, an example of a typical receipt is illustrated below
Pretty soon OC won’t even need the cop.
Orange County law enforcement moving closer to robotickets
Alyssa Duranty – Orange County Register
The radar gun beeped as La Habra police Officer Jason Coleman scanned the road for speeding cars near Macy Elementary School. The gun beeped again, this time at a black Impala going faster than 35 mph. Coleman said it’s common for parents to break the 25 mph speed limit, and he’ll give a little leeway, but with school ending and kids heading home, 35 mph is too fast. Moments later, as he issued the ticket, Coleman broke out a small, black machine that looks like an elongated BlackBerry. The device spit out a receipt for the driver and recorded data about the incident. Coleman’s handheld e-ticket machine is a replacement part for a traffic cop’s old-school standby, the ticket pad. And it’s rapidly becoming standard equipment in Orange County, where police say it reduces costs, saves time and boosts efficiency.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ticket-640884-police-tickets.html
RE: “”Pretty soon OC won’t even need the cop.”
I forget, did I mention how I was flipping through a recent National Geographic Magazine and I came across this caption which read, “Obey The Robot”.? [Yeah, I thought that, too]
It showed this photo of about a 14′ tall robot along the lines of an old time, ‘Lost In Space’ robot situated at an intersection in a busy African city.
The article said there were two of them already in operation.
It also said the robot played music while you waited. As if that satisfied those who demanded a public service? Psft.
….Ok, so maybe some might find that to be a Plus. …But the bastard still gave out tickets.
The authors of the article mentioned it couldn’t make arrests (as if that was a bad thing),… or take bribes. … As if bribes were a bad thing… and as if It not making arrests was a bad thing.
RoboCop, coming to an intersection near to you soon.
And, it won’t be argued with.
Fucking bastards.
In a free market in roads I could understand, but as it stands, this is over the top and coming to an neighborhood near you. …On the Plus side, Police Unions are doomed. Couldn’t happen to…
As I re-read my comment, maybe it wasn’t clear, the robot took the place of a stop light. …And the stop light cop.
The empire “gets” the idea of two birds with one stone, too.
Gawd, they suck.
“On the Plus side, Police Unions are doomed.”
We could only wish Helot. Public sector unions never die. They are like stage 5 cancer……you aren’t getting rid of ’em.
“On the Plus side, Police Unions are doomed. ”
Only if you assume the fact that police won’t be needed means police won’t be paid. That idea doesn’t seem consistent with, well, any of observed reality.
Oh I don’t know, the idea of a robot cop isn’t too bad:
-If you have a corrupt cop, you can’t do jack shit about him, but a robot you can always reprogram. Good luck reprogramming racism out of a cop!
-No excuses for camera wearing…built into the machine.
-Intelligence is NOT a requirement for cops nowadays (and in fact is frowned upon, really!) so even the dumbest AI would be smarter and more rational than a cop.
-Cops are fearful, paranoid assholes. Robots are pure black and white. A human scared will shoot a person, but the robot will have no reason to unless 100% evaluated conditions match in it’s programming…conditions that can be reviewed after the fact line by line. We can literally see what the “cop” was thinking at the time as the logic gates mesh.
No more BS about swat teams for minor stuff because of “officer safety”. It will have no meaning anymore because officers won’t even BE there!
Really, this is semi-satire, but I’m not too sure…if the cops are going to ACT like brutal unfeeling assholes until they’re scared and then start killing everyone, then why NOT go the extra step? eliminates some problems, and not exactly a step backwards…cops HAVE no humanity left, so nothing lost there!
@mamba – Reread 1984, what happens in the perfect police no crime surveillance state.
Amazon now wants you to pay for your own 24 x7 “echo” monitoring by the machine that tattles and never forgets. watch, people will walk over each other to get one too. The machine remembers & interrelates everything forever.
Thousands of cars date/ time/ location/ and driver image tracked by the 360 degree police patrol car computer camera (said to be only checking for wanted and stolen) systems are downloaded to the mother ship mainframe at the end of every shift. Why? The same for “gunshot” cameras on street corners, freeways and everywhere else.
You have to think of a 360 degree 24 x 7 interconnected computer monitored controlled grid, not just one or two devices for your convenience and sfety.
The databases now accessible through a single sign-on include the Homeland Security Information Network, a key exchange between state-run intelligence fusion centers and the federal government, as well as the Justice Department’s Regional Information Sharing Systems, which tracks local crime and gang activity.
Also available are the intelligence community’s internal networks, collectively described as “Intelink,” and the FBI’s Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal, the gateway to background check data, facial recognition tools and other criminal records. The four networks are each labeled sensitive but unclassified.
Many of the systems are not searchable through a single query – yet. But that’s the next step.
Right now, querying Intelink will retrieve some results from the law enforcement portal, but it’s not possible, for instance, to bring up hits across all four networks with one search entry.
The new arrangement is expected to save taxpayer money….
http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2014/11/rap-sheets-watchlists-and-spy-networks-now-available-one-click/98423/?oref=ng-HPriver
Esmeralda County NV Total Votes Cast in 2014 = 135.
Second least populated area in the lower 48 states after Loving County TX. 0.2 people per square mile.
There’s no govt money here. They’re all busted. No building codes. No zonings. No inspections.
Less than an hour to brothels. 24 hour saloons and gambling. You care not because you attend them, but because that’s where all the heat is focused. This means the small stuff they worry about where you live is ignored. You’re off the radar.
Code of the West is added to the county documents and is still alive here. City folks must submit to rural ways in all cases, no exceptions. One sheriff and a dispatcher lady that answers his calls. 18 total prison cells and the lawyers and admin are all in the same building with them.
School has 87 students 1st thru 8th grade. High School means getting your kids to Tonopah. Your road gets damaged, you pay to fix it.
ATV run between Dyer and SilverPeak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK32mqVTgzY
For sale in Dyer, NV. Probably still available 3 years later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e78CeycrCHk
Goldfield, most buildings are unoccupied.
Few People In Esmeralda County
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/esmeralda-county-has-few-people-fewer-jobs-dont-talk-about-consolidation
They only maintain a few routes that they drive their bus on. And of course the few larger roads that continue beyond the county are maintained by the state.
Esmeralda County NV is 43% larger than Delaware. There were only 135 votes in this election. Not a lot of people to buy out, so we could take over the area fairly easily. Total population is declining every month. Keep it on the down low we know each other, before long, we’ll be a majority.
Water is scarce throughout. There’s only 5 inhabited areas.
783 total people in an area 43% larger than Delaware.
Where as Floyd County VA has 36 people per square mile; Esmeralda County NV has 0.2 people per square mile
zip 89010 Dyer 400 people 25 miles to East is
zip 89047 Silver Peak 100 people 22 miles to East is
zip 89013 Goldfield 276 people 175 miles to SouthEast is Las Vegas
There’s a restored Ghost Town with 7 people called Gold Point, NV.
There’s a few families in Lida NV, less than a dozen I’d say.
And that’s it. The nations only Lithium mine is there. The government is mainly confined to Goldfield, not widely dispersed.
An 8000 sq ft castle is for sale there, makes a good Redoubt I’d say.
Plenty of open mines to obtain your own minerals, and safely store items to last decades. Could also build underground dwellings and go off the grid entirely I’d think.
Also there’s no cell phone service there until you drive out of town towards Tonopah in adjacent Nye County.
– – –
Origin and Agenda of Grey Aliens.
We could say we believe only in Alien and not Human Authority, as a kind of cover story.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvxdN4zl6lA There's still enjoyable remnants of moments common in the 70's. But they're fleeting now.
You have to enjoy them on the run, with the Valentine One up and running interference on the Leftist Killer Clowns and Rightwing Jailing Jokers.
Besides the Valentine, this looks worth buying:
If someone knows how to get a hold of this Two Way Radio encrypted network Statist Comms Detector, let me know. I want one.
Tor these were merely mobile scanner/detectors that were available in truckstops in the late 90s when I did my second 5 year stint in the business. The cop was detectable by these devices and when he keyed his mic one could also listen in. The only drawback is the devices were so effective a driver might relax thinking false hit and run into the ‘bear’ a few miles down the road. The gadget was pocket size so was easily hidden away at the checkpoints!
“Justice as a Service” — there’s an app for that.
“Everyone knows the “system” is broken. So why not give your smartphone a chance to fix it?”
https://medium.com/backchannel/fix-a-parking-ticket-theres-an-app-for-that-26efeedfd1fc
Years ago I asked an old family friend and lawyer that I knew would tell me the truth “Are you an officer of the court?” Of course he replied “yes”. The interchange continued along these lines: “So your first responsibility is to the the court?” To which he also replied “yes”. Then I asked “And your second repsonsibility it to yourself and your practice, correct?” He asked me “Where are we going with this?” I asked him to just humour me and repeated the question, to which he said “I guess so.” I then asked “So as a paying client the best I can hope for is to come in third?” He said “That’s about right.” Annecdotal evidence based on an interview with only one lawyer, I realize. But it’s enough for me to view the whole profession with a jaundiced eye (especially after my experiences in court over the years). Just like Will Grigg points out about cops, there is no situation so bad or human condition so tragic that the courts can’t make it worse. My policy these days is to diligently avoid interaction with either of those groups.
There is alternative to statutory court process by invoking common-law process separately, in suit as an aggrieved man or woman against a trespasser man or woman outside his or her office (‘person’, or mask they wear). The beauty of taking this course is that the paperwork (absolutely every point has to be reduced to writing) is vastly simpler and isn’t restricted to statutory formats as long as no statute, code, rule or regulation is used in any sense to ‘authorize’ the Action or procedure in one’s Cause, solely Principles of right or wrong and Enrolled Law.
In fact, because lawyers can’t testify to first-hand knowledge of facts at issue, they’re precluded from interjecting themselves into the case.
“An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness”. –Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647
It all renders down to exactly what a ‘court’ is defined as …
“The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.” –Black’s L.D., 6th Ed. Ab, pg. 247
Bearing on the fact that …
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.“ -–Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)
Meaning ultimately that …
“In the presence of the superior power, the minor power ceases.” Jenk. Cent. 214
PatFields – Can you cite any recent examples of this being successfully done here in the unitedstate (a.k.a. USSA)?
Yes, when imposed upon, I regularly get tossed from courthouses to go my way, by invoking common-law process. Also, there’s a fellow I happened across, Karl Lentz, who’s produced more than a hundred audio sessions explaining the particulars. Students’ of his unique method (ultra-simplistic) in a number of countries, have been having more success than not. Just index an internet search on his name.
Video of Josie the Outlaw being kidnapped by highway checkpoint thugs
Cretins.
That dick wearing the ridiculous hat with the chin strap, especially. His type is known to the ages. The same here as in 1936 Germany… or 1926 Russia… and many other such places.
The same arrogant expectation of cringing deference. The same bristling at any challenge to his “authority.” I have no doubt – none – that that guy would, if so ordered (or thought he could get away with it) simply have shot Josie.
It makes me furious.
Oh now my head hurts.
Full 1/4 page ad with picture on the Newsweek.com home page:
Girardi | Keese, Personal Injury Attorneys – In the Little Guy’s Corner
People have two types of reaction to others who are in trouble. One is to walk on by, the other is to offer aid, comfort and support. This company believes in the second way.
I like the lawyer ads that urge people to call them if they took Super Wonderful Pills. Those ads usually appear about a year after the ones telling you to ask your doctor if Super Wonderful Pills are right for you.
@Mike – I hope you didn’t try and fix your problems with (1) anxiety (2) erections (3) stiff joints (4) balding (5) prostrate failing you 3 times a night (6) inability to concentrate (7,8,9)…..
But if you did we have a lawyer who feels your pain (for 33 – 55% of the take).
In NC, it’s called the ticket scam.
If you’re stopped for speeding, there’s probably a 95% chance you’ll get a ticket. That leftover 5% is all dependent on who pulls you over – Local: ticket. Trooper: ticket. Sheriff: subtle chance of no ticket. For some reason, the majority of deputies I’ve come across are not complete assmonkeys. But that’s another story.
So, the Priest of the Sainted Pork will issue you your fine/summons. Within about 3 days, you’ll receive a plethora of advertisements in the mail for the services of an ambulance chaser. Unless the actual offense is reckless driving (supposed to be +15mph or over 80mph, but it’s amazing how close they write the actual ticket), the ambulance chaser will offer to argue the ticket for you. Between their services and the fine they’ll argue it down to (it’ll be a non-moving violation, so no points added) it’ll be the EXACT amount of the initial fine issued by the Priest of the Sainted Pork. Funny how that works?
Now, you get to do this about once a year. Two violations in a year or a reckless driving and there’s a better than average chance you’ll be in court. However, said ambulance chaser will offer to argue for you and while the fee will be a little higher, again, they’ll come up with a non-moving violation (so no points) and you’ll probably have to do ‘driving school’, which is an online thing now so you could sit your dog in front of the computer and pass it. All with a wink and nod from The State.
Don’cha just love government?
It’s not government (de-jure or “true”) Gabe, but a de-facto one operating precisely as a company. “Police” are policy enforcers of a company you don’t work for. Statute law (law of the sea) is commercial law. Every interaction you have with your “government” is based in commerce and contract.
If an employee of Wal Mart stopped you in the street and demanded ID, what would you say? This is precisely what’s been going on for generations.
It’s important to read legal dictionaries, because words spoken in court are words from these very dictionaries – NOT the Oxford.
“Traffic”, “driver”, “passenger”, “vehicle” and “person” for example are ALL commercial terms in every law dictionary. “Person” in statute law is also known as a company, corporation and commercial enterprise. Statute law is full to the brim with the word “person”. Are YOU – a flesh and blood man/woman – a person?
NO!!
These words and many others have benign meanings in the Oxford and other “civilian” dictionaries. This is intentional, so that if they ask if you were the “driver”, you don’t know the depth of the meaning and that’s how they rope you into admitting to acting commercially, it’s the only way they can get you.
If a cop or judge asks if you “understand”, he’s trying to get you to submit to his authority and is an offer of contract. If you placate him with a “yes” then he’s got you.
“With all due respect, no, I don’t understand and I most certainly don’t stand under you.”
Best to use terms that they don’t define legally, such as “man/woman (person)”, “private conveyance (vehicle)”, “guest (passenger)”, “road users (traffic)” etc.
If you’re paid to be behind the wheel and using a (company or your own) car, van or truck then you need a licence, registration and insurance. Otherwise common law applies and they can be sued for stopping/arresting you without having observed you “breach the peace”.
But you’re right in the fact that if they can’t get a fine out of you, at least you added to their “system” (cyst-em) by paying a lawyer that is an officer of the court, whose allegiance is first to the law (theirs – statute), then the court and then you.
Because common law (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a few other countries) supersedes statute law in all cases, you must consent to be governed by statute law as it’s inferior.
Everything Eric posted is correct. However, little known is that since statute law is inferior, a court attendance notice or summons is merely an invitation to attend court. Many have crushed this by simply writing “return to sender – no contract” on the envelope.
Of course, the powers that be will push you hard on these matters but if you stand your ground and unless they can prove you have a contract with them that you violated and, that their contract had full disclosure ab-initio then they’re bound to lose, but don’t always expect that result.
Best not to go to court unless you really know your rights and all the traps. They do this 40 hours a week and are experts at thumbing their nose at evidence procedure, their own laws and your rights. They’ll ignore anything that proves them wrong if your ignorance lets them get away with it. Been there, done that.
You, as a man/woman have infinite right and ability to contract or not. Nobody can be coerced into contract, irrespective of what cops or the system says. They can only try and trick you with benign demands such as “Please step out of your vehicle”.
Why the hell should you do that? It’s your private property (if it’s unregistered – more in links below) and nobody has the right to order you out of it. If a cop knocks on your door at home there’s no lawful requirement for you to answer it. If he says he has a summons, tell him to shove it under the door.
“Hi Driver, can I see your licence?”
“What ‘driver’?”
“You.”
“Who is ‘you’ in legal terms?”
“You’re the driver.” (fail)
“Can you prove I’m acting commercially?”
“You’re driving a vehicle.”
“What ‘vehicle’?
“Your car.”
“It’s my private conveyance and I’m lawfully using it to travel under common law.”
“What’s your name?”
“Are you enticing me to commit fraud?” – (much knowledge of term “strawman” required)
“No.”
“Is that a lie?”
“No.”
“Is that another one?”
“I need to see your licence.”
“Am I under arrest?”
“No.”
“Then I must be free to go. Adios.”
http://knowyourrightsgroup.com.au/files/d_police_powers.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBdQxw15BxE
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
I get all that. And for the sake of argument I’ll accept that the word games are true even though I’ve never been able to find anything that can back it up outside word of mouth of someone else. So we have these word games the state plays, and we decide we know better and refuse to fall into the trap. What happens then?
What I’ve found (in big metro USofA) is that all the lower level government employees have no understanding of the law as it is written using the plain ‘oxford’ definitions of words. To go a step further with the legal dictionary is not going to happen. The low level government employees and this includes traffic court judges, cops, admin court “judges”, clerks, bailiffs and a bunch of other people who can ruin our lives use word-of-mouth law.
That’s the law to them. The word of mouth law and it is to be enforced with violence. If this trick of word definitions is real, it’s way up the pyramid now. To me all the tricks are in the word-of-mouth law. What people believe is law vs. what is written and I haven’t been able to get cops or judges to accept written law over word-of-mouth law. A couple cops decided to leave me alone because I was a hard target by knowing written law, so that intimidated them on a social level, but that’s the best I’ve had trying to simply use the law with plain definitions of words and the definitions in the law itself.
Your senario in the USA ends up with someone like me cuffed in the back of cruiser best case. The cops don’t know this stuff.
The way one lands in cuffs in the back of a police car is by ‘confession’ to acting as a ‘person’ under municipal authority, or just plain failure to rebut such assertion immediately and courteously.
You may know statutes, codes, rules and regulations, but they’re all merely prima facia implications of (Enrolled and Common) Law. To ‘stand on their authority’ is your doom, because ‘judges’ can ‘interpret’ those things with broad discretion. Rather, by standing on the core Law in your own court as Aggrieved prosecutor, the ‘Magistrate’ has no more authority but to witness the propriety of your procedure and that of an accused Wrongdoer in response … otherwise it’s for a Jury of your Peers to decide by final Verdict.
The cop doesn’t even know these word games exist. He’s never even read the written law. I’ve had these encounters with cops, they don’t know the laws. They only know what they have been told is the law. They don’t know that in some court case in some other state a 100 years ago the meanings of these words was decided to be something else. They don’t.
That’s right BrentP, most cops have no idea of the underlying mess they’re a part of. Which is why, rather than make statements to them which you may be required to prove further down the track, hit them with questions, the answers to which you know the truth and catch them lying every time.
If they can’t prove the simplest things, such as having witnessed you breach the peace, an arrest or even simple detainment is unlawful. Most cops are aware of this simple rule, but prefer to ignore it and attempt to intimidate to gain your submission.
The deeper levels of this cyst-em they have little clue, such as your name being securitised to extort the federal reserve.
In most areas of the USSA, the practical necessity – if you wish to avoid being arrested, beaten, caged – is to submit and obey. To whatever they demand.
The least recalcitrance invites a violent response.
We are far, far past the point of engaging them in a legal dialectic.
I already have methods when pulled over that don’t rely on things the cop has never heard of. I’ve described them in the past. It’s maybe not the best thing and I don’t like doing it because a certain amount of submission is involved but the outcome is the best possible for me.
I don’t see how going to a level way above the cops’ and judges’ ability to comprehend is going to either do better for me or society as a whole. The outcome for me can only worsen while nothing changes for society. If I could see they comprehended the greater scam and understood it I’d play that game, but they don’t. At best it’s like playing a game of chess with a dog. At some point the dog is just going to knock all the pieces over.
Hi Pat,
I sympathize with your view, but agree with Brent cops will simply ignore such protestations – as will the courts. The law is what they think – and say – it is. Not what it actually says.
What you don’t yet understand is that there is ‘statutory court’ of limited jurisdiction ‘internal law’ and ‘Judicial Court’ of general jurisdiction Common Law
You can imagine it as ‘The ‘Court of Ford Motor Company’ being synonymous with that of ‘the Court of Anytown’. Distinctly, there is The Court of Everyman’ having original jurisdiction over all others.
The goal of a Free Man is to learn how to invoke and hold the latter, while choosing to keep out of the other.
You see, in the ‘Civil Court’ (aka: Administrative, or Commercial), the ‘law’ is that of statutory ‘interpretation’ by those ‘licensed’ to do so, imposed on those who (knowingly or not) ‘confess’ to being a ‘member’ of that court’s ‘company, organization, club, fraternity, et cetera, by some sort of contractual agreement or performance on some contract asserted as having been offered.
However, in a common-law Judicial Court, the Law is that of the Aggrieved prosecutor (acting as a living man) in accord with common principles of ‘right and wrong’ where a harm, injury or loss results from acts of a Wrongdoer, proven on the Court’s Record or to a Jury as the Aggrieved chooses.
Hi Pat,
I understand the thing you’re trying to get across very well. But the fact is a cop is not going to back off and fail to issue you a ticket if you assert that you are “traveling” as opposed to “driving” – and so on. The courts will back him, too.
Don’t misunderstand me. I agree with you in principle.
But the system just doesn’t work that way.
It’s impossible for you to ‘agree in principal’ because you continue to maintain your pre-disposition on sheer rote repetition.
No man is harmed, injured or visited loss in these incidents. Thus no man can verify any such allegation under sworn testimony in open court. Thus there is no controversy extant … nothing for any court to assume jurisdiction over. >>> It is powerless. <<<
Now, if you find it a matter of trepidation to raise and defend that obvious truth, you are doomed a priori.
@Pat – You are really arguing “jurisdiction” of the “court” you may be drug into to answer for something real, made up or imagined. Good luck getting the black robed ones to listen to you. Unless they want to.
Your straw man, physical man and all the other “men” and “humans” that define you will still be at their corporate mercy (which rendered common law mute long ago by stealthy statute) in the usa, or USA or ….
Edward Gibbon (1737 – 1794), in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire noted how the Rule of Law collapsed. Once the law only protects government, the end is near for not merely do your human and civil rights vanish, you cannot protect your property of anything else for that matter.
Gibbon noted that appointing judges who were dependent upon the state was the end of times for the rule of law. We simply cannot have judges appointed by government for then they are dependent upon the favor of those in power to rule against the people.
The defense lawyer James Otis in Boston during February, 1761, pronounced that the writs of assistance of the king were “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book.” These writs of assistance allowed government employees to do whatever they wanted as we have going on right now. It is our burden to prove we have any rights – not their’s to restrain themselves. This has placed “the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” Future President John Adams was there listening to Otis arguing in court, which of course he lost with the judge only ruling for the king. “Then and there,” said John Adams, “then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there, the child Independence was born.”
After 230 some year we arrive at the beginning.
You said: “You are really arguing “jurisdiction” of the “court” you may be drug into to answer for something”
Please recognize that your miscomprehension is in perceiving that ‘court’ is >>> singularly <<< a function of government, because it is not. Government has its Administrative court sessions, but any man or woman has original, sovereign power to invoke their own court session according to common-law process.
And, yes, it is ultimately a matter jurisdiction (authority to act) which is the central question.
No harm … nothing to prosecute … no controversy to decide … no jurisdiction.
Nothing complex about it, really … just the manly will to write it out and demand its acknowledgment … first … foremost … before any other extraneous triviality be even mentioned.
"To a judge who exceeds his office or jurisdiction no obedience is due." Jenk. Cent. 139.
"The order of things is confounded if every one preserves not his jurisdiction." 4 Co. Inst. Proem.
Hi Pat,
You keep asserting that all it requires is the “manly will” to assert sovereign jurisdiction. I’d like to see proof of this assertion.
That is, a specific (verifiable) example of someone using these stratagems to successfully avoid being cuffed and stuffed, fined, imprisoned, etc.
Can you provide such?
Where’s the beef?
Seriously.
Eric, I have a question for you.
What would the legal ramification be, if you secured a ‘Certificate of Junk’ from the State on a functional auto, then traded that auto intact to someone for, say, an ounce of gold?
What would the legal ramification be, if you made a brisk business of providing that ‘service’ to a number of folks?
Hi Pat,
I’d need to check into that!
I am pretty sure it’s legal to buy a “junked” (that is, totaled) vehicle – and to re-sell it (assuming disclosure or no attempt to hide the title status). And I am pretty sure it’s legal to barter (although I would bet that, at least as a legal technicality, one would be required to report the “income” and pay the taxes allegedly “owed.”)
I get it. I understand how we are scammed. But how do you not get beaten upside the head and thrown in jail arguing this to the cop? Thrown in contempt for arguing it to a judge?
These people I’ve found to be entirely ignorant of even what the law says. They often get angry IME when trying to put the law in front of them. Going a step further with definitions and court cases from decades and decades ago aren’t going to be some form of argument or self defense that works because they don’t know these things. They laugh at it in the best case.
Your entire premise is that these lower level actors in the greater scam are in on how it works. They aren’t. There are too many of them. If they knew then these sovereign citizen techniques would have filtered into general use by now.
To accept that this works in a practical sense means I have to accept that the low level actors, government employees know the scam’s workings, will respond correctly to knowledge and game play for it, and keep it secret amongst themselves and the higher ups. Mind you I am not challenging you on it being correct (or not), I don’t see it working in a practical sense.
The cops, low level judges, etc, the people who are capable of ruining and ending our lives are just not aware of their role in this game you want to play.
Yes, I know you claim to be successful with it, and others do too. But they all seem to be living in areas with low populations and rarely go too far away from there. And maybe that’s it, get a small police force in some low population county to understand that ‘Jim’ is kooky and they eventually just let Jim go about his bushiness with a home made license plate and no DL. Let ‘Jim’ live where I do. Nine police departments just to get to work where none of these bloated departments have anyone on staff who’s even aware of anything beyond Jesse White’s rules of the road booklet. They have the functional knowledge of our resident troll more times than not. How do I become known as ‘BrentP the kook’ so they leave me alone? I don’t. They just throw me in jail or worse.
I used my regular procedure recently, no ticket and I drove home. But I know, I’m a wimp for not going your way and spending a weekend in a jail cell until a judge could be seen and then getting slapped with massive fines and court costs.
BrentP, “sovereign citizen” is an oxymoron. It’s one or the other.
I don’t control the language Rev, it is what it is, I do my best to use words as they should be but I don’t know another term to use there. Perhaps you can suggest one, one that the rest of the world understands? Like when I use ‘government school’. It’s correct and people know what it is.
No disrespect intended BrentP. Probably the most succinct description would be “private person” – one acting in private, not commerce in public, or “propria persona” – the proper person.
Otherwise “free man of common law jurisdiction” comes to mind.
At some stage during a stop, one cop noted the terms I was using and asked if I were a “freeman”.
I asked him to define what that was. He said that it was someone who is a “scofflaw”.
Then I asked him if what he just did was profiling and discrimination, which is a crime under their own statutes. He quickly changed the subject.
A Canadian site I visited some time ago where the author has spent some 20+ years in courts using “private person” tactics successfully, noted that the prosecution during one case accused him of admitting to being a “sovereign citizen”.
He told the magistrate that such term was an oxymoron and that he’d never use it. Knowing what it was convinced the court that the accusation was likely a lie, attempting to give the prosecution an “in” where use of “private person” would nullify such an attack of belittlement.
You said: “Yes, I know you claim to be successful … living in areas with low populations.
Note: Philadelphia is not a ‘low population’ area. Works well for me.
Facts are facts. They either face them in their court, or in mine subsequently; but facts are nevertheless incontrovertible.
Hi Pat,
I wish it were so. If you’ve read any of my stuff, you will (hopefully) know that I am on your side, ethically and philosophically.
Where we part ways is practically.
I’d like to see real evidence – a video of someone successfully using these strategies in court, for instance. A motorist successfully getting a cop to leave him alone. Someone driving a car without a government-issued license plate/inspection (and so on) and “getting away” with it.
But all I have ever heard is hearsay. Someone claiming it “works for me.” Well, that’s fine – as far as it goes. But it does not go very far.
I have also heard claims made about the existence of the trinity and the 150 MPG carburetor. Well, neat. But can you prove it? Show me the evidence. Something more than it “works for me.”
I’ve been involved with the National Motorists Association – a kind of anti-AAA – for decades. These guys stridently defend the right to travel, are against random stops and interrogations… all of that. If your approach is viable, how come they don’t recommend it? At the tops of their proverbial lungs? Wouldn’t the “secret” have gotten out by now? Surely, with the Internet and the relatively wide dissemination of these stratagems, tens of thousands – if not millions – of people would be using them successfully right now to defend themselves against government authority. We’d hear about it on the news – or at least, alternative media would be publicizing it.
And yet, they do not.
Why not?
You’ve made a number of interesting assertions. Can you back them up with evidence?
Eric:
http://larryhannigan.com/noosa_court.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBdQxw15BxE
Of course these things don’t always work, because the statute law system would be in tatters if it were too easy. It takes a lot of study and most people either can’t comprehend it or could be stuffed to put in any effort in the first place.
I comprehend and commend your stance on this issue, which is where I was until several years ago and, because it’s your choice and won’t be swayed without hard evidence.
I’ll never try and change your convictions, but it must happen eventually around our countries.
I enjoyed the vid, Rev – but (I assure you) if a person tried that in an Ahmerrikun court, he’d almost certainly be ruled “out of order” and (next, if he continued to speak) held in “contempt” and found guilty of all charges, if not saddled with additional charges and then hauled off to the clink.
Rev, I can believe it still works in places like Australia, Canada, and England. These countries still have some civilized behavior left to them. The USA is operated by ignorant, violent thugs.
Ditto.
One of the many indices of decay is the dominance (in the US) of lowbrow everything; the outright veneration of ignorance (and its usual corollary, jeering hatred of intelligence and learning) and a literal ghetto culture as the mass culture. Crap “music” is the herald of the apocalypse.
So this makes you the first who I’ve heard claim it that doesn’t live outside Mayberry where he only has to convince two guys he isn’t worth being hassled.
Now tell me, how do Philadelphia cops, know this word game? Is it in their training? Every cop I’ve encountered when it comes to finer points of the law with regards to travel like those you are relying on doesn’t have a clue. Their knowledge distribution is about the same as the general population.
When I look up legal definitions of motor vehicle I find stuff like this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/85.1703
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.01
What’s really odd is that PA law reads as follows:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=75&div=0&chpt=1&sctn=2&subsctn=0
“”Motor vehicle.” A vehicle which is self-propelled except an electric personal assistive mobility device or a vehicle which is propelled solely by human power.”
That’s the legal definition where you are.
Illinois law curiously does not define these terms explicitly in the vehicle code so I tended to entertain the idea that it was done by case law and obscure, but other places do define it explicitly where it is easily found, one is the state you’re in. How do you work around this when every cop you encounter is working from that definition (quoted above)?
I contend this method may work when someone is simply known as a harmless kook by the local cops and has nothing of value so they just leave him alone. Beyond that, forget about it.
You are right of course, BrentP. I had an acquaintance in Virginia years ago who “traveled by right.” He had homemade “plates” for his car with the court case number that he’d won on them. He carried a card explaining his sovereign status and a copy of the transcript of the settled court case with him. The local cops new who he was and that he’d won in court. So they’d periodically send “the new guy” after him (who didn’t care what his paperwork said) and lock him up periodically for no registration, no DL, no plates, no insurance, etc. They tried to do it on Friday night so he’d have to sit in jail all weekend waiting for the magistrate to show up on Monday. Of course the magistrate would review his paperwork, tell the cop he’d made a mistake, apologize to this hapless fellow and turn him loose.
Of course if he “traveled” anywhere else they nailed him pretty much the same was, so he was restricted to his locality and wasn’t even safe there. Oh he was “right” and was certainly “exercising his rights.” But to what purpose and to what end? He spent most his time either studying “the law” and fighting the system so he could live in a crappy little trailer, drive around in a beat up old car and not keep a regular job. But by gosh he was an expert on “common law” and “sovereignty.” Wow! I’m impressed. That’s how I want to live.
You can win every battle and still lose the war. When you deal with a cop or a court, you are dealing with a violent fanatical cult and you are disparaging their lord and master. Unless you wish to be a martyr, pretend you also venerate their false god. I hate it too but the only game in town is crooked and you do have to play.
I agree, Ernie –
Pat’s heart (and mind) is in the right place. I am in absolute agreement with the arguments made. But they’re ultimately irrelevant when the other side chooses to ignore them and can do so with impunity.
Pat, it appears you’re well versed in many legal subjects we’ve discussed here at length.
You are well grounded in understanding the nature and operation of the rigged debt instruments we’re coerced into using as monetary tokens.
It does seem our so-called money perpetually pays down but never fully extinguish debt. (i.e. there is no mechanism for individuals to actually pay for anything in full, and thus acquire final quiet title.) The American empire has stopped offering anything of value but mere pieces of paper for at least a whole years gross national product. Probably more than that.
My question is metaphysical. Why should we continue to wander around trying to be the Alpha Ghosts in their haunted Scooby Doo Graveyards of Lies and Injustice in the first place?
It’s all so rotten and beyond remodeling, isn’t it? What everyone’s asserting here, is you’ll get nowhere arguing the fine points of law.
There is no firmament or substance to work with. We’re not England and France with ancient gentleman’s agreements and intermarriage and joint property. We’re only Fiat currency and Ponzi Schemes to rob you. And military industrial forced economies of Rube Goldberg Mazes to enslave you.
Why not start fresh. Start something small and clean and not controlled by them. A new way to adjudicate among ourselves. To trade value among ourselves.
Their wealth and trappings have all been carefully placed in the middle of large Steel Traps to tempt us. Why not just abandon whatever they’ve managed to steal and place there as bait. What good is comfort and ease when at any moment the jaws will snap shut on you?
We can do better on our own. With what little we still have free and clear of their legal and administrative snares. And what little we can create and generate with each other away from their control.
Pat Fields’s Discussions (181) at Constitution Club.
New Reserve Currency – Pat Fields
http://www.scribd.com/doc/186898429/A-New-Reserve-Currency-What-Does-That-Mean
Silver – fulcrum of value – Pat Fields
http://www.scribd.com/doc/186924502/Silver-the-Fulcrum-of-Value
You had asked … “What good is comfort and ease when at any moment the jaws will snap shut on you?”
Whose ‘law’ are you speaking of? The ‘rules, regulations, codes and statutes’, I presume you’re referencing, are authorized to ‘govern’ some group’s ‘private jurisdiction’.
That being the case, I would demand proof that I’m a bone fide ‘member’ of such group.
“The only reason, I believe, that a free man is bound by human law, is, that he binds himself.” –Chisholm v, Georgia, 2, Dall 440, 455. (1794)
Hi Pat,
There is a bunch of anecdotal stuff about people successfully flummoxing the system via the steps you’ve outlined. But I’d like to see real evidence of it. As in – people being left alone by cops (not issued tickets, the tickets dismissed, etc.), “getting away” with not registering their vehicles and operating them on the government’s roads, without the requisite permissions (driver’s license, insurance, etc.).
Certainly, one who has no assets that can be seized – and who has the time to spend days in jail/court – might be able to “get away” with such. And I admire anyone who tries.
But as a practical matter, if I get pulled over for some trumped-up “offense,” I will not be left in peace to go on my way by asserting my common law rights. If don’t have the valid license, etc., I will likely be caged and kidnapped – and the courts will uphold this as “legal” notwithstanding assertions of common law, the plain language of the Constitution, or any other such that falls outside what they decree to be the law. Which amounts to what they’ve said it was in the past (case law).
You said: “assertions of common law, the plain language of the Constitution, or any other such that falls outside what they decree to be the law.”
Maybe you missed it, but I explained that this is ‘law’ in their jurisdictions, under their rules, involving their ‘membership and unless one rebuts presumption that it applies to one … the presumption stands.
You tacitly warn folks against making such rebuttal because you haven’t the capacity and conviction to define truth (that no man is trespassed upon who will verify such allegation in open Court of Record) for yourself … which is why you need the crutch of someone else’s detailed example broadly published in the newspapers.
Such proofs are made parts of judges’ private libraries ‘in chambers’ and never see the light of day to serve as ‘patterns’ for the ignorant, which is ultimately inconsequential anyway, because the objective is for a man … in his suit, uniquely … to prove he’s done no harm to another.
“Those are vain fears which do not affect a man of a firm mind.” 7 Co. 27.
Hi Pat,
Believe me, I did not miss it.
I have been at this a long time. I have entertained this discussion numerous weary times. I think it’s wonderful to reject – in principle – their jurisdiction over us. But (and I mean no offense, truly) they do not accept our rejection of their jurisdiction over us.
And they have the guns, the courts, the enforcers.
I don’t “tacitly” warn people not try such foolishness as you advocate. I openly and urgently warn them not to – unless they wish to be arrested and caged. Which is courageous, I, concede. Standing on principle is admirable. But who’s going to go first?
You?
Look: I also reject – in principle – having to pay taxes. That is, the reality that I must pay them – or else. It does not matter – as a practical matter – that the income tax is immoral as well as legally illegitimate vis-a-vis the Constitution. What matters is that if I do not file a 1099 and do not pay what they claim I “owe,” they will – eventually – take it by force. And if I resist this, I will likely find myself either dead or in prison.
Just as I will find myself in the back of a squad car if I ride my motorcycle without a helmet, a cop sees me – and pulls me over and discovers I have no state permission to operate my bike and it is not properly registered, etc. It’s ludicrous to assert that by asserting I am not under the cop’s jurisdiction, not a corporate “person,” am not “driving” but rather traveling and all the rest of that hooey that I will not find myself in short order cuffed and stuffed. And, subsequently, convicted of various offenses, etc.
Brent earlier made the excellent point that your argument presupposes the entire apparatus of government, from the beat cop up, is well aware of the true nature of “jurisdiction” and all the rest of that stuff – and will defer to it when one says the magic words.
Malarky.
I don’t accept the legitimacy of their “laws,” either. In principle, as a moral-ethical issue. But my acceptance is irrelevant. They will enforce the law, whether you consider it legitimate or not. Whether it is legitimate or not. And the law is what they say it is. Not what we believe it is.
A quip from Lenin comes to mind: You may not be interested in government, but government is interested in you.
You said: “such foolishness as you advocate”
Well, there you confessed ‘extreme prejudice’, meaning you’re obligated to recuse yourself as an unbiased party seeking to discern the truth of these matters.
I rest my case. You’ve forfeited the debate.
7 Cor 27 is mere vain words that do nothing, don’t you see? Just more word salad, is it not?
Unless one has a fetish for old men in black dresses, why should any of us concern ourselves with their vast Kabuki justice library of scripts and plays.
In the judges starchambers, why not tell plaintiffs and defendents fortunes with decks of official tarot cards. Divine the stars based on the accuser and accused with the latest astrological algorithms and let that determine who might be victorious, and who might be vanquished.
How is that not just as valid regurgitating the constitution and the 1000 megatons of talmuds about the constitution.
Eric might talk about working on bikes or cars. But beyond the jabbering, something concrete is accomplished.
Something is built, or repaired.
What you’re talking about is mere bird chirping. The official birds choose their nest. The rest of us are assigned to our cage.
Such talk is cheep cheep cheep.
The crips and bloods might have their constitutions as well. It would be no difference than the gang on the Potomac and its word salad bar.
I thought you were gonna be different.
Not the billionth cutter-outer of paper doll statist douchebaggery of yesteryear.
ANSWER the question please. What proof if any do you have that any of what you say has any merit.
What RESULTS can you point to, so that we might give your words any value.
So far, your value added to this blog is $0.00 if my accounting is correct.
Don’t be too surprised if you get tasered after “Who is ‘you’ in legal terms?” for contempt of cop.
Exactly, Fred.
The ugly reality is that standing on principle is apt to get you beaten/Tazered and possibly killed. Today’s “hero” cops tolerate no “threat” to their “safety”… which amounts to any failure to immediately obey any barked order.
@Revolution
Good points. I would emphasize the absolute importance of the NAME in dealing with these people. Because the courts, municipalities, government, the whole lot of them are fictions, they can not deal with flesh and blood men and women because it is we who created them. The created can not be superior to the created. So, if they can not deal with us because of our superior position they must find a way to get our consent. Consent=contract.
But that’s not what is really happening. These fictions can not contract with us as men and women-because they are a fiction and we are not-they must create a fiction with a NAME that looks like ours and trick us into pledging ourselves as surety for the name. This gets into the birth certificate and the creation of a “legal” fiction. Hence, when, for example opening a bank account you are asked to supply your “legal name.” Your legal name is not you. It is a fiction owned by the UNITED STATES. As owner of the NAME it is the UNITED STATES that ultimately responsible for any claims against that NAME.
So, when asked “are you xxx xxxxxx?” you reply with something like “by what authority are you using that name as identification?” Because using a fiction to identify a man or woman is fraud. That is why these clowns in the suites are always asking for “Identification.” They are trying to get you to pledge yourself as surety for the NAME.
Playing their game is futile. They will trick, cajole, and lie to you in order to get you into their jurisdiction by pledging yourself as surety for the NAME. Just remember, you are not the NAME and their use of it in every case to identify you is fraud.
We use the name in order to navigate in commerce but it is not ours. Never identify with it! There is much more to this and I suggest you look into it.
Also, the word “individual” as used in statutes functions as a sort of adjective, that is, it describes what sort of “person” you are dealing with. “Individual person” describes the NAME on your driver’s license as opposed to “Person” which generally describes something like a corporation.
Here’s a story about a woman who spent over a month in jail because she couldn’t afford a lawyer or bond. This happened in Hall County, Ga., where I live. The charge? Having a spoon in her purse, suspected to have drug residue. A lab test found nothing but Spaghetti-O’s. The victim here almost plead guilty to a felony, just to get out of jail. The system of “justice” here is a dangerous joke. See if I ever sit on one of their damn juries again!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/ashley-huff-spaghettios-meth_n_5909616.html
As a member of the Florida Bar (practicing non-criminal matters), I’m not terribly proud of being a member of a state-protected guild. However, I do disagree with your implication in all cases that:
“He [your lawyer] is on the same side of the line as the prosecutor and the judge. Which is not your side of the line.”
I’m certainly not on the same side of judges or my opposition. I remain squarely on the side of my client, even if that position would appear to be potential detrimental to my career. I NEVER go along to get along. While I’d never agree to take an unethical position, I always advocate taking a position that I believe will yield the most beneficial outcome for my client.
While many clients tell me that I am a different kind of lawyer than they’re used to, the fact remains that some of us (perhaps even a small minority) remain true advocates for their clients. I’ve found that this is not only the right thing to do, but it also makes good business sense because word gets out that I’m not a shyster (or perhaps the least worst shyster).
Yes, I well believe you honestly try to represent your clients position — but you do so within the narrow confines of a corrupt legal system which you de facto endorse & support on a daily basis.
Our Civil Law system is just as corrupt as Criminal Law, though the consequences to citizens are usually less severe.
You learned the practice of “law” in a government controlled law school; you learned (and practice) only the government view of legal principles and only the government methods of administrative law practice/procedure. If you markedly strayed from the status quo government rules in the true and just interest of your client — you would be thrown out of court and ultimately lose your law license.
Don’t know which aspect of civil law you specialize in, but you likely have firm opinions about “traffic laws” under discussion here.
Is there anything in the American legal system of traffic law/enforcement that you see as fundamentally unjust ?
‘Traffic’ is defined as ‘conduct of commerce on the public’s ways’. A ‘Driver’s License’ used to be a ‘Chauffeur’s License’, issued to ‘transport persons or goods in hire’.
So, if one is rather proceeding by private right to move from one place to another as a man or woman (distinguished from a statutory ‘person’) … no ‘Traffic Court’ has jurisdiction (authority) to limit that inherent, reserved right.
People Are Not Persons.
Thanks PatFields. I suspect you fully understand my reply to Gabe above.
Exactly. We’re ‘on the same page’ … although many folks are foregoing more than cursory ‘roadside court sessions’ by simply making Notice (preferably written) that ‘Orders’ will be ‘filled’ for a stated fee and then asking upon each directive … ‘Is that an Order’? Then, within 24 hours of the incident, returning itemized ‘Invoice’ for total fee balance due on ‘completion of Orders given’. Turn the presumed ‘contract’ around, in other words.
PatFields, I presume you mean a “schedule of fees”, whereby amounts chargeable are stated for every purpose, such as false arrest – $5000 per hour and/or part thereof etc.
The important thing to do with these from the outset is that the other party has been immediately noticed and understands that a binding agreement and contract will also take place if the notice is ignored:
“Officer, as you have invoked this interaction and my time being extremely valuable, here is my schedule of fees, which will apply if this interaction continues beyond the time required to read it and, will also apply if ignored”.
Such NOTICE must also be written at top of the schedule.
It’s the same as going to a shyster. Walk into his office and ask him for advice and he has every right to charge you. Anybody can do this and it requires no licence. Donald Trump can do this at the drop of a hat, but such contracts are only valid if due notice and full disclosure is given at the outset. The appellant must have full knowledge and consideration before entering the contract as per any lawful agreement.
Courts also make such “contracts” but they’re more of an oral one, becoming an adhesion contract. Magistrates will ask your plea, if not guilty they”ll usually say that pleading guilty early will reduce the costs by 25% or so. Contracts are the only thing statute law understands, because it’s commerce.
Hi Rev,
I love the idea of this – and agree with the principle behind it. But try that in the USSA and you will be ignored, then arrested. Then convicted.
The cop will simply look befuddled and ignore you – or get angry. He will issue you a ticket. And if you refuse to sign (or do not have the mandated state permissions in possession such as driver’s license, etc.) he will arrest you.
Try to defend yourself in court along the lines suggested and the judge will shut you down – and then convict you.
Perhaps things are different in Australia.
But, I assure you, the stratagems laid out by yourself and Pat will not work in the USSA.
I don’t doubt that for a second Eric, although there are many examples that do work in the USSA. There must be a solution, for the status quo cannot be allowed to continue.
Most of us are familiar with the purchase of Manhattan for a few beads and trinkets. This was just the beginning though. Now every city and nation has been purchased by Central Bank beads and trinkets.
All the wealth is concentrated somewhere outside the system. It is not in England, the US, Switzerland, nor China. It is nowhere and everywhere at the same time.
It matters not how wise and moral we all become. So long as we are effectively standing here in animal feathers and animal skins. With no real property and control of our economic value that doesn’t involved their rigged monetary system.
Even if you had a ton of gold, it would be useless to you, because to get anything you wanted for it, you would have to start trading grams and ounces of this gold for dollars.
Or for some other currency system that is also derived from the dollar. In other words, you’ll have to convert your real valuable assets for Central Bank trinkets. There’s no way around it. You’re as powerless as the Manhattan Indians once were, not that long ago. And so is every other productive person anywhere in the world.
What will be required, is for each of us property-less Native Earthlings to find a new way to fairly deal and transact with each other. The world at large will likely continue as it has been, but we must succeed in finding a way that avoids dealing with them entirely.
Though doing this will be incredibly difficult and time consuming. It is likely the only moral way out of our present predicament. If we had a time machine, we could set the dial back to 1912, and return to a world with a partially honest and rational monetary system.
Here in 2014, there is no place that executes transactions with instruments which aren’t ultimately supported by the US Federal Reserve system. If we can somehow create that place, then we can begin to move forward.
Otherwise, nothing of lasting significance will be accomplished. We will lurch from one unfair unworkable mitigation to another. And nothing will improve.
It is insufficient that we acquire and hoard non-dollar denominated commodities and assets. The important matter, is that we also transact with each other using these assets.
It is mind-boggling to even contemplate what this would entail. How can this domain be maintained, unless payments are made to the various technological companies. Unless salaries are paid to authors. Unless electricity is paid for to power servers and transmission lines.
Perhaps the basic unit would be a proprietary battery we would produce. With this battery, we would power walkie talkies and CB and HAM radios. As a back up to this system, individual sites would be maintained where physical writings could be read. Or over air transmissions could be received.
The solution seems to not be found by building within their system. The solution also doesn’t require the destruction of any of the present system, so long as we are able to remain independent and unhindered by their system. The solution is to devise a separate moral and honest system, where full value is returned for full value.
And then regular internet connected devices that somehow remained outside of their command and control.
All it would take, is for a communication system to exist outside of the control of dollar denominated currencies. And for this system to remain open, available, and unbought. Even should they come around offering Billions and Trillions for it, so as to remove their threat and competition.
The Mirage of Exports
Dear all,
There was a recent thread about cost-e ffective advertising. I have taken the advice from that thread and purchased an ad in my church bulletin. It
was reasonably priced and think it will be a great investment in my community. It will begin showing up in two weeks. I live in a rural area with lots of little speed traps and lots of weekenders driving down from Dallas to a nice recreational lake in my area (we are about 1 hour outside of Dallas). There are several empty billboards in the area, no lawyers on any of them for miles, the total cost to
advertise just for summer would be approximately $2000.00. Has anyone had
luck with billboard advertising? I do n’t think I would need to do anything splashy, just my name, number and types of law. I am considering traffic law as one of my main practice areas. I don’t have a large budget and this would be a large chunk of my budget for outlay, but I believe if I get some clients in I can make a real go of it in less time. What does everyone think. Is billboard advertising worth it?
Thank you all for your time and effort making this list fantastic.
I just drove to Las Vegas and saw two billboards one did dui for $1200 and
the other for $750.00 the cheaper guy had more billboards, i don’t know how
they work but I doubt the $1200 guy gets any business.
Martha Jo Patterson, California
For those interested here’s a review of the discount lawyer ad market in Vegas.
The race for the bottom is getting crowded (and I’m not even talking about Nevada politics).
Brian Elliott, Nevada
Wow! I would imagine you need a volume of cases and plenty of staff to make this model work.
LaTonia Denise Wright, Ohio
You’re absolutely right, LaTonia. From what I know of these firms, they’re volume businesses with lots of staff and no client service to speak of. “Mills” doesn’t even begin to describe them. But even worse, I’m convinced it’s a bait and switch, much like H&R Block does tax returns. We’ll do your tax return for $50 but oh, wait, YOU have a SPECIAL situation that requires us to do a LOT more work and it’s going to
cost a LOT more than the $50 we advertised. Maybe I’m just bitter because I know
the guy who owns the joint is making a hell of a lot more money than I am for far less work. He’s off in the freaking Caribbean while his staff does all the work.
Read the rest of it at:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/solosez/AdviceOnAdvertising.authcheckdam.pdf
The unitedstate, is The Big Shitty.
There might be gaps, where honest people dwell, but that’s the log.
The Big Shitty.
Gotdamn maggots and tapeworms everywhere!
It’s the same the world over, only here, there’s more pretenders.
The only difference between the time of the Nazi and Communist rule of old, is now, there are more pretenders and believers in pixie dust, both inside and outside the empire?
No?
Ayn Rand said not to think of going to Galt’s Gulch until the First Amendment was lost.
With all the censored (mostly by omission, yellow journalism and propaganda) news, and only left/right political entertainment allowed to be discussed in the media, I give it a 50/50 chance.
Part of the problem is the near-absolute control of media by corporations, which assures a non-stop barrage of “news” about the gaaaaaaaaaame, the latest royal/celebrity marriage/divorce and “news” that predictably does the right-left/Democrat-Republican two-step.
But the deeper problem is that the above appears to be what most people want. Especially “news” about the gaaaaaaaaaaame and so on.
I’m in my mid-40s and I expect most here my age will agree when I state that it is startling how the level of discourse has deteriorated. Watch, for example, an evening news broadcast from say 1970 and compare it with one today.
It’s not a generation of swine (per Hunter Thompson). It’s a generation of galloping imbecility.
People often reference 1984. But Orwell’s Stalinist dystopia is not what’s coming our way. It is Huxley’s Brave New World. A world far subtler, though no less totalitarian. But without the need for overt control, because the masses have been conditioned to love their servitude. Vacuousness, nihilism, materialism … why so serious?
The gaaaaame is on…!
Call it “The Circle of Life” but scarey to see history repeat over and over for the mundanes.
Étienne de La Boétie told us in the 1500’s,
Bastiat told us in the 1800’s,
Huxley/ Orwell et al told us in the 1900’s.
In 1976 Howard Beale said it in Network:
“I don’t have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It’s a depression. Everybody’s out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel’s worth. Banks are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there’s nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there’s no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that’s the way it’s supposed to be.
We know things are bad — worse than bad. They’re crazy. It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don’t go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: ‘Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.’
As ridiculous as I find it when the lead headline in ‘the news’ is the game, it is even worse when “American Idol” is in season. Who gives a rodent’s rectum?
There is a persuasive case to be made that urbanity and density correlate inevitably (because necessarily) with collectivism. Remember the line from that ’80s Phil Collins song? “There’s too many men, too many people making too many problems…”
It has to do with arithmetic.
You or I move to an area devoid of other people. By definition, there are no Clovers. Yet. Time passes, more people move to the area; some marry and have kids. Some of these will inevitably be instinctive Clovers – busybodies and “there ought to be law” types. But, for the present, they are held in check. There is still so much free/open space relative to the number of people that those who disagree with or simply dislike one another can avoid one another. Minimal social friction.
But, inevitably, more and more people. A growing percentage are Clovers. It becomes harder to avoid them. Social friction increases.
And before you know it, we’re forced to wear helmets, pay obnoxious taxes and do as ordered.
When I was selling real estate I saw this dynamic in action. My selling area included an area slowly changing from rural to suburban. The long time residents and farmers hate the changes that will for them, unfortunately, change their lives in a negative way that they are largely powerless to prevent.
Most people moving from the city are pretty clueless when it comes to the realities of a rural area. Most see farms and natural area as “vacant” land or “public property”, that in reality is someones private property and very often their businesses. So the new residents are angry that farming produces odors (pigs), creates ugly vistas (machine shop boneyards), and that the farmer is running heavy machinery like combines very early in the morning.
Farmers are annoyed by constant trespassing by ATV’s and snowmobiles that damage land and crops, as few ask for permission to cross let alone know how to cross (or use the trails that are often in place) without creating damage. People harass their livestock as some think every farm is a petting zoo. They also install too much lighting for a rural area, change drainage patterns and close off trails or hunting land that have been in place for decades.
They also try to create new laws regulating farming, never minding that many farms have been in place for centuries. They forget that they are the new guy, forgetting that the country doesn’t have Starbucks (or whatever chain place) and the long time residents would rather not have them come.
So instead of fitting in with their new place, they recreate the area they left.
eric, there’s a big shitty going on in Tx. now in an attempt to clean up some of the most egregious problems such as thousands of cases of either no testing of a substance or false testing or bad testing. Thousands of convicted people have eventually been proved to not have possessed the offending substance or have been convicted via plea bargaining.
Dozens if not hundreds of these people will never get justice since they have been executed or died in the system from any of the countless things the system can kill you with and one of the biggest is heat. Go to any company and mention this and employees know inmates or employees who have been permanently hurt by the excessive heat. I know a former employee collecting our money because of this.
Harris and Tarrant counties lead the state in these types of injustice but it’s found in every other county on a lesser scale.
Many DA’s have been proven to have done things such as not informing the court of evidence that would show the accused to be innocent and many other similar things that simply put an innocent person in jail. These DA’s should be criminally liable yet seem to be untouchable. They are dragging their feet on countless cases where DNA tests have shown conclusively that the convicted was innocent but they still can’t get out of jail. This is changing some now and I hope it builds support faster than it has.
Of course, this is only one of fifty states where this is going on……but I don’t live in those other states and haven’t been convicted in them.
BTW, Rick Perry is at the forefront of keeping dismal and dangerous conditions in our prisons by denying federal laws forcing states to clean up their act.
I’m amazed how ‘Roman times’ are so similar to our own, especially after having watched the TV series, ‘I,Claudius’ while thinking the whole while of the similarities to the cable TV show, ‘Game of Thrones’.
We’re “supposed to be” beyond all that. And, yet.
The DA’s, Rick Perry, or any Governor, they’re all the same. They belly crawl and prostrate themselves before the empire – and at the same time demand well all do – and at the same time pretend they are something else.
BizarreO World.
Prostrate Yourselves! The Crypto Wars Are Back, and This Time Big Brother Aims to Win
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/paul-rosenberg/prostrate-yourself-citizen/
History does repeat, because human nature does not change. What one generation learned, the next one forgets. And so so the cycle repeats. One can observe this pattern throughout history.
We differ from late-stage Rome only in terms of the technology available.
Preaching to the choir helot, preaching to the choir. And to think R is only a few days difference in age than I. Pisces have evidently gone to shit.
Yup.
The fish rots from the head down.
The Chimp is a war criminal. Not an opinion. He is guilty of – minimally:
Authorizing the torture (as defined under international law, the same law used to convict and hang the Nazi leadership) of prisoners.
Launching a war of aggression against a sovereign country (Iraq) … legally (per above) no different than the Nazi-Soviet dismembering of Poland which became the pretext for WWII.
And yet, The Chimp paints….
Did you all see this? “this is probably the most important political speech since Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech of March 5, 1946.
In this speech, Putin abruptly changed the rules of the game. […]
today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it.” …
http://www.targetliberty.com/2014/11/putin-warns-us-empire-builders-stop.html#more
It seems like they don’t want to Pay The Fine – Or Pay The Shyster.
If they had a WWIII, do you supposed TPTB in the unitedstate would round up dissidents and such and put them into camps like they did with the Japanese in California during WWII?
Rounding up of dissidents? You can count on it. At the very least they would be tossed into prison as was done by Lincoln and Wilson to those who criticized their wars.
Excellent piece Eric.
Regarding the comment above:
If you all want to burn in the camps , that’s your choice.
If you consent (whether by pulling the lever on the official IQ tester aka a voting machine) then you deserve the full measure of what you consented.
Refuse. Resist.
Always say NO.
Thanks, Roy!
Of course, I wish it were not necessary to have to write such articles. But I will continue to do so, for as long as it is necessary to do so.
eric, I guess this is a backhanded comment but I hope you have a LOOONG time to do so. Of course that stems from my seeing the cup as almost empty…..or almost full…..whatever you think it contains.
The best thing any teacher did for me was tell my class when I was 14 that all us boys would soon be living Vietnam first hand and asked us if we had a clue as to what it was all about. Not a single male in my class went into the military and needless to say, it wasn’t a class of wealthy people. Sometimes, given enough time to study, a bunch of hicks can reach a reasonable conclusion. All it took was one teacher, an assistant coach at that. Nobody got the guts to even say it now.
To paraphrase a song by JC(Cash), I hang my head, I hang my head.
Voting isn’t consent, it is a weapon. Often used for evil, but able to be used for good as well.
Had Ron Paul become President, we would either be far freer than we are now, or the congress and President would be outright at odds with each other. Either way is good for liberty.
A subset of the anarcho-capitalist movement is so idealistic that that isn’t worth doing because its not perfect.
I don’t have animosity towards such people, after all, they merely want to leave others alone and be left alone, but they aren’t exactly helpful.
I have a strong idealist streak, always have, always will. I know what the end goal is.
But I will not reject movement in the right direction just because its not an immediate leap to the end of the road.
Voting, as a weapon AGAINST the State, is perfectly legitimate and does not entail consent.
Mind you, I didn’t vote today. I didn’t care to, and there was nobody worth voting. But if a Ron Paul quality candidate was on the ballot and had a chance to win, I would ABSOLUTELY have voted. And I’m willing to ignore the few anarchists who now say I “consented” just like I’ll ignore the masses of statists who will say I consent by breathing.
Whatever. In practical terms, it doesn’t matter.
If Ron Paul were elected president…. hmm. JFK started acting like he really was president and ran things and look where that got him. Ronald Reagan wasn’t a team player with the right people until he got some encouragement. That’s how the establishment rolls.
Voting is about ritual, perception, and yes consent. Consent to be ruled by the results of a ritual. That’s why we are told this is a “democracy” over and over again. It’s a lie, but it is to get us on board with the idea that the majority picks a ‘representative’ who then does whatever the hell he feels like doing in the people’s name.
Re: Reagan – When it became obvious that he was going to get the nomination in 1980, the Rockefeller Republicans went to him and told him that he needed to pick Bush as his VP or he would not win. They preferred another 4 years of Jimmeh to an independent thinking Republican.
“Voting is about ritual, perception, and yes consent. Consent to be ruled by the results of a ritual.”
So Very true.
People can ignore that reality all they want, but in the end, it is, what it is.
It runs hand in hand with the dupes who think if you don’t vote, you have no right to bitch about the outcome, when in fact, it’s just the opposite. IF you Do vote, you have no right to bitch about the outcome, you’ve consented by voting. For those who didn’t vote, who suddenly became their boss and signed them up? Those who voted? Along with those who want to rule?
Voting isn’t “perfectly legitimate” when that “weapon” bites those who didn’t sign up.
It may only matter in principle.
Unless, you’re on the receiving end of empire.
Rothbard wrote some pretty good stuff about, “not an immediate leap to the end of the road” but I haven’t got a link at hand.
Halfway measures,… is that like half-assed measures? RE: the results, anyway.
In the background, I’m sure that many people have some examples about that.
I have a few minutes to decide and wander over to the ‘poling place’ seems there is some direct democracy stuff on the ballot. And it’s a ‘judge election’ where I can just vote ‘no’ for all of them. A number of libertarians running. I suppose I could do my non-vote voting.
That said I don’t want to consent to being bound by the result either, but the system is the system and I’ll be bound by it either way.
@Helot- Rothbard was actually more pragmatic than me on the voting issue. Rothbard even endorsed George Bush over Bill Clinton. The only way I’d support voting is if the candidate was a significant improvement over the status quo, not just because the other guy is really bad.
But, when I said “voting is a weapon” I don’t mean that its always legitimate. Its not legitimate to point guns at other people. It is legitimate to vote if your goal is to prevent said guns from being pointed.
“Rothbard endorsed George Bush over Bill Clinton with the back of his hand, so to speak”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/walter-e-block/ron-paul-for-president-2016/
“Maintaining two parties means […] that the public, growing weary of the evils of Democrat rule, can turn to out-of-power Republicans. And then, when they weary of the Republican alternative, they can turn once again to the eager Democrats waiting in the wings. And so, the ruling elites maintain a shell game, while the American public constitute the suckers, or the “marks” for the ruling con-artists.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/before-the-last-republican-revolution/
Also, under the section, ‘Has the Revolution Already Been Betrayed?’ he touches on the idea and gives an example of how going half-assed, is detrimental, while, to be fair, he gives examples of “”not an immediate leap to the end of the road” yet at the same time, it is.
Our overlords declare: “What about limited government, liberty, property, and the like? Those are fine ideas to feed the conservative masses, but they have no relevance to “governing.”
Here’s a better link, dirct to the speech
Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2014/10/putin-to-western-elites-play-time-is.html
Eric, do you have some kind of vendetta against chimps or something? lol! JK.
Seriously though, Bush makes Ted Bundy look like an upstanding human being. That’s the true gravity of what we are dealing with. Obama to.
Hi David,
The Chimp is, indeed, worse than Bundy – who at least knew he was a sicko.
Obama is of a piece, but perhaps even worse than The Chimp because he’s such a casual murderer. The Chimp at least seemed to get pleasure out of what he did.
I’m not sure who’s worse between Bush and Obama. Bush frustrates me more because I don’t really have many evangelical friends and family members who try to tell me I should have supported or liked Obama. Bush? Plenty of them.
I understand from an agnostic POV this isn’t going to make any sense, but I dislike Bush more precisely BECAUSE so many see him as the candidate of the Christian right.
In objective terms Obama is probably worse. But at least nobody tries to pretend that he’s the small government or “Christian” candidate. In fact, in some conversations I almost seem like I’m defending Obama even though I dislike him even more than the other person does, because I dislike him for sensible, rational reasons rather than “He was born in Kenya”, or “he’s the antichrist” or “oh no he’s going to legalize gay marriage”.
How about the murders you so casually support in the name of “America” oh hypocritical GOP?
Heck, how, even, about all the money Bush gave Planned Murderhood?
Psycopaths….bofem. Shrub claimed to speak with God daily. BO gleefully reported he found something he was good at, as if it was a revelation he was good at something(other than lying…..like all good sociopaths), and that was killing. I know many people who are good at killing including myself but I don’t know anyone who takes pleasure in it. I only say I’m good at it because of proficiency but take no pleasure in it. Then again, it’s not humans I am speaking of like BO. But they don’t get a “by” either.
Yup.
I try to imagine what goes on in their minds – and cannot.
Perhaps they consider themselves “beyond good and evil.” Ubermenschen.
I recoil from the idea of toying with the lives of others; let alone consigning people – thousands at a time – to death and misery. I think most reasonably sane people do.
Which leaves out the “leaders” who do not.
Rick (the P-) Perry is a politician. State gunvermins are often less oppressive than the Feds simply because they are smaller, but it’s not because they don’t want to be.
True dat, especially the last part of the last sentence. This is why I call bullshit on “state sovereignty” or “states rights” advocacy. Each state capital is just a miniature Rome-on-the-Potomac in waiting. A tyrant who lives in your own back yard is still a tyrant.
It’s Black Magic…
http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?27842-Black-Magic
“The legal profession is a kind of high-brow cartel that – like any other cartel – manufactures work for itself.”
This is true. The biggest thing that cartels use are licensing and then unions to force their “legitimacy” on to those of us who aren’t a member of their club. What is a state bar, other than a cartel? If you aren’t a licensed member of the state bar(union), good luck practicing “law” in a state.
When people find ways around cartels, the political class look for every possible way to stop it. Like Uber. The political class and their cartels in many places won’t stop until they figure out how to kill the free market idea of affordable taxi’s.
Licensing is pure evil. It is the lifeblood of cartels.
I guess I should clarify: State mandated licensing is evil. If people license,”qualify”, or register with certain groups or entities voluntarily, that’s another matter.
Ancap51 wrote:
“I guess I should clarify: State mandated licensing is evil. If people license,”qualify”, or register with certain groups or entities voluntarily, that’s another matter.”
If it’s not some level of state, it’s not licensing. For example, many states require massage therapists to be licensed. Like any other area of expertise, the act of obtaining a license to practice from the state does nothing to insure competence, in fact often the opposite is true due to the state’s tendency to oppose competence based practices. For example, look at what licensed dieticians are pushing…. In any case, I think what you are describing is certification. And even in the best of cases, a certified practitioner is not necessarily competent because of the inherent human tendency to engage in political power plays within certification organizations. In a truly free culture, one’s rewards and success would be totally based on competence. That’s why U.S. businesses are such failures these days…..it’s a rigged game.
Giu,
That is what I meant when I said “qualify”. I understand that competence is the most important. But the only way to show competence is to have a track record of competence. There would likely exist in a free society, organizations whereby people could certify that they have shown at least a certain level of competence for their trade. This would be especially beneficial for someone who moves to a new area and hasn’t yet demonstrated competence to those surrounding him..
I agree that competence can only be shown, not certified. People In society today put way to much stock in licensed and insured. The phrase “licensed and insured” works better than viagra for a clover. Doc’s love it too. Clover must run to see him since its way longer than 3 hours.