to be invaded and searched by the police? It sounds to me like they are trying to spin AK as the worst type of threat, a crazy man on hallucinogenic drugs with weapons threaten authorities.
"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.
all they had to do was claim he's a Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr supporter who is pro-life, pro-constitution, anti-big government, carries a Gadsden Flag and quotes the founding fathers. It would be much easier to prove he's some kind of a domestic terrorist.
Sorry, I didn't mean to give the government thugs any ideas.
Hey, hey Hey!
Free includes debt-free!
possess something from nature Adam Kokesh! oops sorry guys my sarcasm meter was turned up to max.
"a warrant has to be written to include what they are looking for"
I feel you, but though that is supposed to be how it works. Hasn't been for some time.
One thing people really need to grok. The law is just what they use against you. It has nothing to to with right or wrong.
When we had the Rule of Law, (if we ever did) the law makers, enforcers, and adjudicators were subject to the same law as everyone. That's what it means for Law to Rule. The Rule of Law isn't a high bar for justice, but it's a necessary one.
Prime example: In the US a law against drugs could be valid under the Rule of Law, if lawmakers and enforcer were equally subject to it and more importantly if it were passed lawfully under the law that binds the government. Specifically just as they had to amend the Constitution to prohibit booze they need to do so for pot or anything else.
They have not. They violated the law when asserting the drug war.
They are acting unlawfully. We do not have the Rule of Law.
Now we just have men making crap up and calling it laws. This is Rule of Men, Arbitrary Law, or 'High Law'.
Even if they had done it legitimately it would still be unjust, as a violation of natural rights.
But it would at least be in accordance with the Rule of Law. So we can tell when the Rule of Law ended in general, by when they stopped passing Amendments and just started passing laws ignoring the Constitution and appointing judges that would issue opinions that were unconstitutional.
The bad guys like to use the phrase "Rule of Law" in a way that implies whatever they order you to do is valid. You here Bush and Hillary and Obama toss this phrase around a lot.
But the idea that whatever a man (in that time Kings) tells you to do is something you are bound to do, is the very thing the Rule of Law is supposed to oppose.
And the mere mention of it has caused the police to immediatly drop charges wire-tapping charges. "Why are you prosecuting this person and not that person?" Of course having a powerful attorny ask that question never hurts.
"In the US a law against drugs could be valid under the Rule of Law, if lawmakers and enforcer were equally subject to it and more importantly if it were passed lawfully under the law that binds the government."
This is not correct. No man or group of men have the power to write a valid cause of action for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction. All elements of a valid cause of action must be present in an accusers accusation for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction. Our law explicitly states governments derive their just powers (powers of Justice) from consent of the governed. How is any man going to change this fact in law? Do you think that government has the power to write just laws to be whatever they want? Clearly our law has already addressed this issue and it is NOT lawful for them to assume ANY just powers without consent of the governed. Consent of the governed is the accuser who invokes agents of government to act in agency to the accuser for the purpose of securing life, liberty, and/or Happiness. The accuser must face the accused in court and state their accusations to a jury. The Government is only there to maintain the impartial forum for non-violent dispute resolution between members of the governed. The accuser must allege actual injury by the accused for their to be a valid cause of action for any court to have jurisdiction in the subject matter. The fact that the accused is equally innocent to the accuser before a jury has heard all relevant facts and rules on the facts and law means that both the accused and accuser stand liable for their own actions whatever they may be. The fact that an accuser initiated the just powers of government means they stand liable for any false accusations if present. This is the protections of law; the equal liability each holds for their own acts. This maintains deterence against false accusations and ensures the government only acts in agency to accusers who are the ones limiting the liability for the explicit acts of impartial justice.
You also said:
"Specifically just as they had to amend the Constitution to prohibit booze they need to do so for pot or anything else."
This is not correct either. The Constitution is the contractually binding law for the agents of government and has no application to We the People. The Constitutional contract has application to those who voluntarily sign up for the contract and who have maintained all elements of a valid contract. Setting the age of those who can have alcohol can only appply to the capcity of government agents because the Constitiion is the law for government. If they attempt to apply this law for government to We the People it would be a violation of the 9th amendment prohibitiions.
It is amazing to me how few people truly understand our laws. We the People have common law and we could point to strictly constructed code definitions of crimes in our accusations if we want or not. We the People are the sole source of government authority in all actions. If the government ever initiates the powers of justice without an accuser who will face the accused before a jury then the "government agents" are acting under color of law outside of the scope of just powers for any government. This law arises from the enlightened state of knowing that all men and women are created equal and government agents have prohibited their own acts while under capacity of their oath. It is all very simple but We the People need to realice that law and repugnancy of color of law has already been strictly defined in Organic Laws of US jurisdiction. If the understanding were to change to anything else then the Declaration of Independence and Constitution would have to be completely removed from all applicability and promotion and new Organic Laws would have to be accepted by the new governing body and governed. The only other way around this fact in our law is for criminal acts to be committed under color of law which then give the people valid cause to do anything necessary to bring remedy and justice to the colorable criminal acts.
The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...
you would see that we agree.
I said Rule of Law was necessary for justice but not sufficient.
I clarified the same thing below that where I said even if they had done it with the required Amendment for it to be legitimate under the Rule of Law it would still be an unjust violation of natural law.
I agree that contracts can only be binding on voluntary parties to it.
But there is also a concept of Rule of Law, and it applies to imposed law. I agree imposed law carries the presupposition of illegitimacy by it's nature. But within that framework of imposed law, law abiding the Rule of Law is preferable, agreed?
I'm not how to be more clear. Merely abiding the Rule of Law does not grant legitimacy to a legal coda.
Without Rule of Law there is certainly no hint of legitimacy.
If I say 2+2 does not equal 5, it doesn't imply 2+2=9. It just means 2+2=5 is wrong, it doesn't even mean there necessarily exists a right answer.
“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul
Mangez-moi, mangez-moi, mangez-moi! (Eat me, eat me, eat me!)
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.
"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius
There is no valid cause of action because the acts were colorable. In fact Adam now has a valid cause of action on all those who performed and conspired to perform the acts of agression against him. His options are many for seeking justice and remedy.
The acts by "law enforcement" and the courts were not sourced from consent of the governed and no harm is even alleged by any accuser he can face in court. A valid cause of action is not present hence the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
The very "charges" the criminals claiming to be "government" are attemping to levy are not even applicable or lawful in any way to him nor do these colorable claims have any applicability within real law. How can possessing a mushroom be a criminal act? That is impossible. The entire Scheduling of substances is born of tyrants and drug dealers who usurped our government and are activiely committing criminal fraud against him seeking his consent for subject matter jurisdiction. Yes I have seen judges explicitly state when probed who is the accuser. Their answer, "If you are a taxpayer then you are your own accuser". Yes this is answer is what it is because it reveals the first hint of their long chain of criminal fraud.
Americans need to wake up to the fact that code cannot have applicability without consent of the governed because the act will not be just. Americans also need to wake up to the fact that when our law states All men are created equal and governments instituted among men deriving just power from the consent of the governed means every man/woman is liable for their own acts and just government actions are derived from liable people consenting to government agents to act in their agency through an accusation that they are willing to face the accused with in court before a jury, thus maintaining a traceable chain of liability for the government agents' limited liability capacity within the scope of agency to the principle accuser. Unjust acts by agents of government (acts not derived from the consent of the governed) is outside the scope of their agency and hence makes the individuals claiming to be "government" liable for their own self-initiated actions. No principle accuser accepting liability for accusations of actual injury/harm (consent of the governed) thus no agent acts are justified. No justified acts means the men/women claiming to be "government" are the source of initiation of those acts and thus ultimately liable for those actions because the chain of liability ends with their decisions. This entire lack of consent of the governed means the entire claims of "law enforcement" are actually color of law in this case.
The fact that Adam has now been harmed with his liberty being seized emotional stress and slander by the criminal thugs who premeditatively conspired to injure him means that Adam indeed has all elements in a valid cause of action to peirce their corporate veils and seek justice and remedy for their premiditated criminal acts against him.
These types of situations reveal clearly who actually breached the peace and performed the criminal acts in and enable We the People to gather and consilidate huge amounts of intelligence on WHO the individual criminals in "governmment" are. We all should be documenting who the criminals are. These people are amongst the biggest criminals on the planet because they have usurped our laws and corrupted our courts and precedent, they are terrorizing the people on a daily basis, they are forcing us to pay them to attack us even more ALL without ANY consent of the governed. The intel on these individuals is what is needed for a truly successful revolution to realize victory. It is all individuals who act outside of agency born of consent of the governed that are the tyrants. They are the individual criminals who destroy our peace and our laws. Our law states that it is our duty to bring these criminals to justice.
This is how the founders were victorious against the largest military might on the planet; they had superior detailed intelligence on who was a threat to them and what they were doing. We the People need to begin to build our intelligence networks because otherwise any revolution will simply be a big mess with no clarity about who has breached our peace and exactly how they violate our laws.
Understanding the nature of true lawful agency is where consent of the governed actually is derived will also enable us to clearly define what is truly lawful acts by government and what is not.
Do you think that some group of corrupt men and women can write law to break the law? Do you think that a valid cause of action requires allegations of actual harm by an accuser who is willing to face you in court? In law these are well established facts of precedent that have been systemically usurped by criminals seeking control the "law" for their own wrongful pecuniary advantage and colorable "authority" over another with no liability for their own actions. Do you think that all men created equal means all men/women are equally liable for their own actions? Do you think just powers of government derived from the consent of the governed means some phantom overarching consent of politics or do you think it means an identifiable principle accuser who has inoked the agency of government to secure liberty?
These questions are the front lines of the battle for liberty and restoring our Constitution.
I am confident Adam Kokesh Will REMAIN SILENT until the proper time.
Ron Paul 2016
shitake , no doubt
Everyone that possesses mushrooms should immediately report to your local police station and give yourself up. You are a criminal and deserve prosecution. Bad, bad, bad boy & girls.
...by the Smurfs.
When it's due. These thugs are obviously stupid. If the prints don't fit you must acquit.
To my Liberal Trolls:
"Really Don't mind if you sit this one out. Your words but a whisper, your deafness a shout. I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."
Ian Anderson 1972
They knew they couldn't get him for the gun march thing he did so they came up w/ drugs as a reason to prosecute him. Gestapo tactics.
I think that either the gun offense or the shroom offense are bogus and should not be on the books as the offend the Constitution.
There, that said: They had a warrant, and the way a court will look at it is, anything illegal they discover, they can use as a basis for charges or further inquiries. And the fact that they took the gun from the video means they probably had a warrant for it, and are going to see if it is the same one. If it is, they may amend the charges. I'm not saying that is good, but it is what it is.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein
to include what they are looking for, nothing more,nothing less.things cannot be added at a later date to that warrant
and nothing found that is not on the warrant should be used as evidence
If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence
You apparently don't know how it works, now do you?
i know exactly how it works,and i know how it is supposed to work
but hey,you keep helping enslave the masses,its all good,and i will be here and there exposing the frauds,LIES AND THE DECEIT. (ITS WHAT I DO) :)
instead of the case law. The 4th amendment is very specific, but the court has been very successful in completely gutting it.
Leges sine moribus vanae
I've read the fourth amendment. I doubt he has (from his other posts, which include citing to David Icke and neo nazi websites). I'm not sure if you have.
But regardless, the fourth amendment doesn't "specifically" address the issue I mentioned. If a cop sees illegal drugs during a search, even if it is a search for something else, that is just the same as if he saw them in plain view on the dashboard of your car. According to fourth amendment jurisprudence, which fills in where the text is not specific, as in this instance. Again, not saying that is good, but it is reality.
To anyone downvoting, why would you downvote someone for giving you accurate information? Why does that happen at this site incessantly?
You cannot claim i have not
what you constantly argue here is the color of law
the reality of it all is this,there is no law in america
it is opinion,it is statutes,ordinances and codes
these are not laws as you state they are
it is so funny to see you can't chat with me directly,but do in fact
talk behind my back (what a man)
what i have always said was,the laws are turned on their heads
the judges,cops and attorneys use precedence in court,not actual law.
as there are no laws,everyone has an opinion,but if it is not based in fact
then it is fraud
but do go back to my last comment to you,and you will see why i gave you
2 bogus websites
i highly doubt you are in fact a lawyer,at least a lawyer can read and understand plain english,you not so much
all you do is troll,twist words and whole phrases,and when called out about it,just dismiss and or project your own inadequacies and short comings
onto others,but no,it does not work,not with me anyways
but do ask yourself this question,why do the judges say,one cannot use the const as a defense in court?
why do they also state that if the const is mentioned,the one who mentioned it will be held in contempt?
yeah it is what it is,and it is not supposed to be ran that way
you are the one who cites to David Icke, Stormfront, and other kook websites as authoritative sources, then tries to run away from it when called on it. Go buy a book and study something, instead of posting your gibberish and pretending to know things.
I posted those just for you,and i have told you that twice
all you have done since being here is twist truth,deny it,and when that doesn't work,as your last resort...call names,belittle and twist what others say...oh i forgot,the ad hom attacks
why, i even went so far as to say why i gave you 2 bogus sites...
forgot that did you? oh,thats right,you just dismissed it,and claimed i read
or claim that as truth lol
a lawyer,in your dreams,you can't even read nor comprehend english
i have pointed out way too many times you failed to comprehend ,and have gone so far as to rephrase the questions/answers(yet again you failed it
i have pointed out,as well as others here how full of it you are,and yet day by day,you seem to forget what was mentioned yesterday,why do i suppose this is?
I know,you were called out,made a fool of,so in your mind you think,i will take a day off and people will just forget the last time i was here. pfffft
a couple of other people here have stated what is in a search warrant,your response back is an ad hom attack.You have nothing to draw from
are afraid of others seeing it,so in your mind you think if i attack these here,others will see how big of a man i am,and how smart
you are so full of yourself,too self important,but in fact the opposite is true
you are a know nothing scaredy cat,and you don't want others to this fact about you,but i have,and i have consistently pointed this out to you
and yet,you see it not,but i could are what your feelings are,go back to your moms basement(as you put it)
have a nice posting day :)
I skip over your ad hominems, but I did get a kick out of "scaredy cat" at the end. It just caught my eye. Oh how will I go on knowing I am but a scaredy-cat. Meeee-oowww!
might be needed
you have your head so far up you rear,you can't see out
this operation will give you a glass eye in your belly button.
this will enable you to see out
I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt and not blocking you but I think you know how to do nothing other than link to kook websites, engage in ad hominems, and give quack legal theories more cyberspace than they deserve. Fortunately, this site allows me the very libertarian remedy of the ignore button. Good day sir!
the case law is nothing more than a sophistic load of cynical crap which seeks to turn the plain meaning of words on their head. The fourth amendment says "...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING the place to be searched, AND the persons or THINGS to be seized". That seems perfectly clear to me. If it ain't in the warrant, it can't be seized. I used to think 'Jurisprudence' held that if the warrant was for a shotgun, for example (unthinkable at the founding unless the gun was evidence in a robbery or murder) that the authorities can't look in your stamp drawer for something that couldn't possibly fit, but I guess our Supreme Sophists finessed that away, too.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: