For The Sovereignty Nerds
Submitted by 2bfree on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 23:36
Guys something is going on here. Why can't I find the definition of what is considered a crime under common law? I mean Im not having any luck finding ANY of this information. Maybe, I'm just paranoid or something, but It's like the internet is being scrubbed of these things? I'm begining to wonder what is going on here? I also found these articles while searching for information. I wonder if they revised the same code in the state of Missouri as well? Those in the know will understand and confirm if this is as horrible as I am thinking it is..
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=122_HB_547_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Common_law_adjudication
There are no victimless *crimes* people... I'm awake now.
»





















I'm not sure where the Common Law argument "helps"
I looked into it and have not met "anyone" who is "sovereign" have any of you?
Until these folks get a professional looking sight where "real" lawyers helping go from Corporate Entity to Sovereign (or whatever the language is) I think it's a "false-starter" movement.
Counter-Economics gives you "sovereignty" without ever "fighting specifically" for the designation -- it also does not draw attention to oneself, it's covert.
I'm not arguing that you or anyone else advocating the Common Law Argument are wrong -- it's the steps or approach to Sovereignty that seems obscure; it's like the folks who try to ONLY use gold as currency and pay staff in gold. It's ingenious and righteous, but un-like counter-economics it draws attention to oneself.
As Ron Paul says, (I paraphrase) "IRS might be un-constitutional but they are the ones with the guns and prisons"
Counter-Economics does not slap the dragon in the face, draws no attention to the individual, and if practiced by 10M or more would be un-stoppable.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Check out this website. This is the path to freedom
http://www.escapeartist.com/Sovereign_Society/Avoidance.html
Explore Orthodox Christianity
Mike Lawson: Did you get a lawyer and go "Sovereign"
Read my response just below -- Counter-Economics is more sure and more stealth (just how everyone operates in a free-market) -- without permission.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
That's because you haven't
That's because you haven't done your homework like all the fools who make ignorant remarks about stuff they know nothing about.
The concept of sovereignty stands on its own. The sources shown below may help you to see that it is a respected and valid concept.
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472
The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S.
Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
"D." = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)
So you see all the folks running around and doing everything the corporate government tells them to do for fear of reprisal are nothing but sheep who don't deserve freedom because they have sold thier sovereignty for what they thought was security and got enslavement instead.
Wake up before it's too late!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Hawkiye: Are you 'sovereign' are you no longer U.S Citizen?
Watch out for the biting commentary -- it's childish and un-needed.
I have studied all the sites people pointed me too.
I am "sovereign" by your own definition, I just didn't go through lawyers or legal procedings.
Counter-Economics is far more simple:
#1 Work Under the Table (delcare the amount of taxes you'd like to pay or declare none at all)
#2 Get rid of all assets -- rent or lease everything.
#3 Buy Local (Food - Products - Services)
#4 Tell no one near by of your life-style (educate others in different cities)
#5 Hire Under-the-Table workers
#6 Never Vote or Lobby Again
I mean there's more to it than that, but that sums it up.
And it's "free" and no one knows you are doing it.
Getting a lawyer -- getting rid of citizenship -- the sovereign way is to public; in a free-market no one knows your business. To go "sovereign" is to draw a big target on your back.
I prefer the covert.
Again go easy on the name calling - never know who your friends (yet to be revealed) might be.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Common law
Common law is the body of law created over many hundreds of years in the US and Great Britain through court precedent. It can be found in books called "reporters" that report court opinions. Those opinions can be cited as law (called case law) in court cases with similar facts.
Statutory law is law enacted by a legislative body or, in other times and in other countries, by monarchs.
Criminal law in the US today is almost entirely statutory (and often based largely on the Model Penal Code) with some common law tweaks and interpretations here and there.
Civil law (meaning law relating to property, contracts and torts primarily and NOT criminal law) as applied by courts today is partly statutory and partly common law. So a lawyer wanting to know what the civil law is will look first in the civil statutes to find any statutes on point. If he finds one, he will then look at the case law to see how courts have applied the statute he found because courts can change the clear meaning of a statute. If he doesn't find any statute related to his issue, he goes to digests of case law to try and find cases with similar facts to his issue which he can then cite to support his argument in court.
Common Law is not from statute
Detective Krum Investigates:
http://victory1project.wordpress.com/
http://politicaltrackingnetwork.wordpress.com/
Detective Krum Investigates:
http://victory1project.wordpress.com/
Correct
That is what I said. Common law comes from court precedent. Statute comes from legislation.
"Common law" inferres a
"Common law" inferres a judgement on things taken for granted..
"Criminal law" inferres that a statute, (or state established law ), is broken against society in general.
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen
ONLY if someones rights are
ONLY if someones rights are affected, is there a crime under common law.
There is no "list' of "common laws"
a violation of a right means "injury", financial, physical, emotional, whetever the injury, there must be one alleged for there to be a crime.
THIS is what the court system was set up for. If someone claimed an "emotional" injury for example, because they saw someone making coffee naked through their window, the jury members (from the area) would determine if there actually was an injury, or if this person is trying to get some financial restitution for nothing.
or, if someone built a 30 story barn right on the property lot line and the neighbors garden died, the neighbor could allege injury. The jury would determine the results. Instead, today, we have blanket legislation to cover all possibilities. This ihas removed all of the personable responsibility...this is why officers no longer ask "DO YOU WANT TO PRESS CHARGES?"
the charges INSTEAD are pressed by the State, who is suppose to be there to maintain our rights.
yes
the Internet has been scrubbed clean of all common knowledge.
Now, if you were a National and not a US Citizen, I could give you access to the Sovereign Internet, where we have all the REAL definitions at the touch of a button, but I'm afraid you capitalized the wrong letters in your name and the application to renounce your citizenship was denied. Next time, make sure your first name is in all caps and your last name is spelled backwards and you separate them by an exclamation point, not a comma (the IRS wants you to think it's a comma, they planned it that way to throw you off, just like how they scrubbed the Internet)
What a sad pathetic little
What a sad pathetic little man you are... Living in your media induced little box... It is fools like you who will starve to death when certain events shortly come to pass.
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
right
notice how you attack me personally, but I just make fun of your ideas? It's the sign of a weak argument and even weaker person.
Because it is natural law
Because it is natural law and considered common knowledge. Why are you looking for a definition has something happened and you are unsure?
Anything that wilfully harms another except in self defense, or otherwise violates thier natural rights is a crime in common law.
Here is a site I just ran across that seems to have some good info so far but I have not read much of it yet so cannot fully vouch for it.
http://www.1215.org
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
As for a singular definition of crime under common law, I would
suggest Black's or some other law dictionary. Of course, statutory definitions will always supersede any dictionary.
Can you expound on why you included those two links?
The first looks like a bill to prevent someone who commits a crime from suing his victim for defending him/herself with force. On the face of it, that sounds about right.
The second one is simply the wiki entry for the common law. Can you cite something in particular you are upset about? I'm not going to read the whole thing just to hazard a guess. I am not a mind reader.
It doesn't
Matter what the heading of the first article says, it's what they *changed* in the *ucc law code*. They can and will pull from that for future refrence
The second one talks about bending common law definitions. Am I the only one that smells a huge rat here? Come on ppl!
Welcome to the real world.
I reserve the right to govern myself.
I reserve the right to govern myself.
Finally someone talks
Finally someone talks sense!
I do not consent! Legitimate government can only govern those who consent. Anything else is collectivist thuggery. This will prove out one day in the future. Sooner than later, I hope.
Are they doing what I think
They're doing? Wholey SHIOT.
Try finding the definition
Try finding the definition of CO2. Everything references Global Warming, which is a hoax. Book burning can't be to far off.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."- Thomas Jefferson
There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan
"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr
This is Unbelievable sh*T
They make you commerce from birth, via the all caps of your name. You represent this ficticous enity, unless you can distingush between the two.
Silence is consent. You must give prior notice via "Without Prejudice" which means: I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."
Read this.
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under the law. The Recourse provides that if you have been damaged under the law, you can recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find it. If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code they will show you a tremendous shelf completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in the U.C.C. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.
Remedy
"The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel." (UCC 1-207.7)
It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say. "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!", the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the French government and say "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: "THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A FRENCHMAN." You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.
UCC 1-207 goes on to say...
"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.9)
You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:
"The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights is sufficient, such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4)
Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes, write under your signature: "Without Prejudice (UCC 1-207.4)." This reserves your rights. You can show, at UCC 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.
It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court? He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge he was not prejudice against anyone... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means!
Without Prejudice UCC 1.207
When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with your signature, you are saying, "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."
What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money or alternative, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes; you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obliged to obey every statute, ordinance, and regulation of the government, at all levels of government; federal, state and local.
If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103, the argument and recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson, 3rd edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.
Recourse
The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:
"The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." (UCC 1-103.6)
This is the argument we use in court. The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.
If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seat belt, you may ask the court: "Who was injured as a result of your failure to 'buckle up'?" However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of 103.6, which states: (2) Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the document. Anderson Uniform Commercial Code Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing Co. The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law section. Tell the judge, "Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party."
If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question: "Let me see if I understand, Your Honor, has this court made a legal determination that sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?"
Now the judge is in a jam! How can the court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, "yes", then you say: "I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination." Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him in.
Explain U.C.C. 1-207
If you are confronted with explaining what the "UCC 1-207" does here is
your answer.
When you are going to sign a contract ( drivers license, lease, buying a
automobile, snowmobile, a building permit, marriage license, devoice decree,
or any other document).
BEFORE you sign!!! you have the right to draw a fine line through any
thing that is not to your liking. It can be a number, a letter, a word or a
group of words. At this time you can add any thing you want in the contract.
Any changes you have made sign your name close to it and date it. A contract
is to have all of the contract in full disclosure at the time of signing. If
not the UCC 1-207 will stop you from giving up your rights on the contract
you are about to sign and void out any part of the contract that you have
not had the opportunity to view.
Now how the UCC 1-207 works.
After you put UCC 1-207 where your signature is going to be. " your
signature" is the last you thing you put on the document. When you pick up
your pen from the signed contract it is consummated, you have given up your
right to change the contract. Here is some more UCC information. You can go
to a public law library for more information.
Now do a search for the meaning of common law crimes, ect and see these two documents linked on this post to figure out what they are doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111676
Stop telling and start doing
Ok, stop offering legal advice, you're sounding like a crackpot. Show me a case where this has worked, show me a case where any of this has worked. Stop telling people how they can do it and go do it yourself and publish the results here. You are full of crap and I will bet every dollar on it. It will not work.
Stop telling and start doing
It drives me crazy when you
It drives me crazy when you say things like "Show me a case where this has worked"...the WHOLE point is, there is no case, because it 'works'.
If your traveling down the road on your unlicensed scooter, with no drivers license, no social security number, no registration, what happens to you?
If for some reason a over zealous cop, with your mentality that the traffic laws apply to everyone no matter what, decides to give you a citation, what would you care?
If you dont pay it, it will affect your non-existent credit report, if you still dont pay they will suspend your non-existent drivers license...
these "things" we hold so valuable, like the DL and Credit report, are the tools that make their legislation work. Without them, there is NO concern, there is nothing they can do.
its like U.S. money...why is it valuable? Because people agree it is...
if you and your entire neighborhood agreed that pumpkin seeds would be the new currency in your town, with no ramifications if you dont accept them, the 'currency' would not work, BUT, if failing to accept pumpkin seeds as payment meant you would lose your drivers license or have your credit score affected, everyone would consent to their use.
NOW, there are people who want to be half in and half out, which I hope are the people you are referring to, who have a DL, social Security number, etc....yet wish to avoid taxes, license fees, insurance etc., for those, I agree, "show me a case where this has worked"
Think Eskimo, think Amish, not in the system because they never were.
D@mn that's good.
You nailed it.
Wow, if ppl don't know what CO2 is...
They better ban dihydrogen monoxide, just to be save. Seems everyone that comes in contact with that stuff dies.
LibertyDefined.org | If | Not Perfect
Yes, stupidity can work both ways.
I think we'll see a bunch of new nominees for the Darwin awards soon.
Might as well ban breathing
Might as well ban breathing altogether since we respire c02.
Just a thought- if you had previously found info on the net that is now scrubbed, can you find it on the internet archive?
check out google cache
found here.
And when I first heard the words "carbon tax" I too thought "Gee, that's an awfully slippery slope to a breathing tax."
LibertyDefined.org | If | Not Perfect