Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
joe, what you are reading is the required statements of supporting ('authoritative' historical evidence [FACTS] ) that was compiled by and [thankfully for people like yourself] explained by the justices that was an element in making the decision for the case.
And your stringing together a pile of cases to make a justification to kill a police officer legally. I'm pointing out that misusing facts to push a political ideology that is against the rules of law, are not allowable.
guess what joe..... thats how you win a law suit. The cases are previous court decisions on the matter being discussed. What an attorney does is put these FACTS in brief, goes to court and uses them to win the case over the person who just stands upon the soapbox shouting rhetoric. 
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
So do you in the year 2015, feel you are in a better authoritative position than a supreme court justice back in 1795, which is incidentally the precise time period of the creation of the constitution, to tell us its meaning, or the status of the creators? really joe?
The status of the creators? Dead. That you can not seem to understand that fine point shows the limitations of reality you use.
If your going to be accused of being arrogant by someone misinterpreting the law, be arrogant! Yes. Last I checked the founding fathers didn't know many things back in the 18th century. Ask them what 'rifling' is? Or how many states would be in the nation in 2015? Or the numerous issues with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th amendments in 2015? What was their knowledge base on science and engineering? Did they have satillites taking photos of Pluto in the late 18th century?
You have to say 'yes', on all of them to counter me. Go ahead, I'd love to see the argument.....
How do you 'feel' the law is being misinterpreted, [since I dont expect any case law to be provided in a response]? All those courts are wrong I presume?
So the constitution no longer exists or has any effect because the creators are dead?
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I'm sure its a tough pill to swallow after years of condemning and ridiculing those who champion individual sovereignty. Hell even the terry case a few years back they mention it. I posted that too. Looks to me like you are cherry picking.
There is a BIG difference between individual freedoms as understood in the US Constitution, and individual sovereignty as under the Articles of Confederation. For starters, the US Constitution is the law of the land, not the other document. The Constitution explains that while people have freedoms, they do not have an....unlimited.....freedom. For example, you can not use the 1st amendment to defend yourself in court by saying your free to shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theater.
Individual sovereignty is what those sovereign citizens 'push'. Usually its "What right does one man have in pulling over another man?" Answer: The police officer has arresting powers by the state this moron is in, by the state and granted under the US Constitution and federal laws. That the Constitution explains it has power over all persons found under its domain. But also the limitations of that power. Your individual sovereignty ends were: 1 ) Mine begins, and 2 ) Where we decided as a nation. You dont like it, renounce your citizenship and get the fuck out of my nation!
Did it occur to you that they push it because the courts said it? 
Joe thats seriously misguided. The police can only pull someone over [according to due process of LAW] by probable cause, not because he thinks they are a moron.
Technically as can be seen acknowledged in the GPO sovereigns are not 'persons', in the legal sense you are using, they are 'man' and 'woman', meaning flesh and blood, not the creature but the creators of the creature without the state abstraction. Why hang the abstract construct onto them? Do you understand the meaning?
Joe the constitution is a contract [of sorts], the only 'persons' it has power over are contracting parties, or do you believe that you can simply write up a hunk of paper and claim you, Joe, have power over the whole world without agreement of the persons you claim to be contracting with?
Do you know what the 4 corners of a valid contract in law are joe?
So you believe that the constitution magically wiped out individual sovereignty? Where does it state that and why do you think the supreme court justices are wrong in claiming, well not claiming exactly, they simply take it for granted that the people retained their individual sovereignty. How can this be? How can so many justices be wrong and you be correct? this isnt adding up for us Joe?
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Joe the constitution was not created by legislation, didnt you read? Legislation is the derived creature of the creator. That means 'under' and the creator is the people in their unlimted individual sovereign capacity. I dont know how much more clear he can be.
Oh really? Your at odds with history. The Articles of Confederation severed to give the initial frame work for the nation. That allowed legislators into existence so that the US Constitution could be formed and put into law.
You do not have an unlimited sovereignty under the law. Because if you did, you could walk around killing people in bombings and shootings and no one in law enforcement could do anything about it. Try it sometime and see if your dead or jailed for it.....
In order for your 'twisted' logic to be true, you could do it. What's stopping you? Your argument is bullshit. You know it, I know it, and everyone else besides sovereign citizens knows it. Which is....WHY....they are often in trouble with the law.
The individual sovereignty is in fact unlimited but tempered by duty and obligations.
I dont understand where you are digging the theories you post up?
Is there some kind of anti-peoples movement or something?
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I dont know how many more ways I can explain this to you joe.
I'm not insane. My doctor even tells me that when asked. You really can't explain insanity to a sane person. Just as helping a insane person handle reality to make a full recovery.
I think its the other way around joe, where you cant explain insanity to an insane person. I am happy for you that the doctor gave you a clean bill of health. For me, the subject never came up.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/7/2015 7:19:32 AM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread