28 votes

Adam Kokesh To Be Released!: No Guns Allowed Until Trial - VIDEO

$5000 bond granted, probation period to last until October

Steve Watson | Infowars.com | July 15, 2013

Pro-Second Amendment activist Adam Kokesh has been released from jail following his arrest during a raid on his Virginia home last week.

Kokesh was granted bond Monday and is expected to be released this afternoon, according to a report by local ABC News affiliate WJLA.


Read more: http://www.infowars.com/k...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
meekandmild's picture

Why does this judge think he has the power to

denies 2nd amendment rights?

Adam Kokesh's interview from prison.

Pretty sure this hasn't been posted yet..


boycott the B.A.R.

... the British Accreditation Registry is a treasonous organization which promotes collusion between judges and lawyers. abolish the BAR and restore citizen's right to form grand juries for purposes of rooting out corruption.


ConstitutionHugger's picture

I thought the BAR was there to extort more money from lawyers

after the law schools got finished with them.

No Guns Allowed Until Trial?

What? They're going to let him have guns at the trial?

Was it a cash bond or a signature bond?

Did he pay $5000 which he risks forfeiting,

or did he sign a bond with conditions set and a $5000 forfeiture attached if he should violate?

Tweeting occasionally as himself @cudnoski on the twitter.

not sure but

shield mutual said they gave him $500 for it:

I just want to know if he entered a plea??

Does anyone know? This is crucial information here. It is my understanding that essentially the judge entered a plea of not guilty for him due to his "silence is consent" at arraignment.

Can anyone confirm whether a formal plea was entered by Adam or by any lawyer he may be working with or whether it was the "Judge" presiding over the case?

If Adam or an attorney has not formally entered a plea, the court still does not have consent of the Governed for any action, thereby lacking a valid cause of action and thus the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.

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...

Well actually

the more common scenario is that the judge enters a plea of not guilty on your behalf until you have had benefit of counsel which Adam probably refused to acknowledge as he is said to have to pretty much all procedures to date. Anything else would have gummed up procedure and kept him in jail.

Most of those who think so actually don't and most of those who think sew actually rip.

A Judge entering a plea

is practicing law from the bench. I know that Judges doing this is becoming the norm but a Judge doing this is another major usurpation away from Common Law. Common Law already had procedures for dealing with this scenario without the need for the Judge to practice law from the bench and give up impartiality thereby being in breach of Common Law procedures. I guess for this scenario the judge based the issue on Adam's silence which would be within Common Law. This is why I think it was a very bad move on Adam's part to consent through silence. Not challenging subject matter jurisdiction at arraignment, IMHO, muddies the waters but it really depends on what Adam is trying to do here.

Anytime I have to deal with the psychopaths I always challenge jurisdiction with the very first words I speak. I do not let the issue be about anything else because I know for a fact that they do not have subject matter jurisdiction and I know how they are committing criminal fraud. I then proceed to ask very strategic questions about the capacity of everyone involved. I then proceed to go down the line of informing the "court personnel" of the crimes committed against me and inform them of the crimes they are actively committing and then seek to be a counter plaintiff. They never want to deal with it because by the time they realize what is going on they have already admitted to exact code defined felonies and/or do not want to answer questions about their capacity on the record. By the time they realize what is going on they just end it because they know they are totally screwed.

If we allow them to control the process when they do not even have subject matter jurisdiction then We the People are failing to protect our laws which in turn protect us. A code/statute does not provide subject matter jurisdiction because ANY action still requires all elements in a valid cause of action born out of consent of the governed NOT government. Of course the psychopaths want unlawful power through color of law which is why it requires very strategic questioning to take place in such a way that one uses the psychopaths own arrogance to destroy themselves.

We will see if Adam knows what he is doing here. His silence can always be reversed and he can still challenge jurisdiction due to the fact that jurisdiction can be challenged at ANY TIME.

Another thing I have found is that many times the judges will commit perjury on the court records when recording the plea and even sign the document with their own perjury embedded therein which then gives me another well documented valid cause of action against the Judge. I have a process developed for myself that works VERY well and I know full well that We the People can totally remove their power by challenging subject matter jurisdiction and ensure that this most crucial line is held no matter what. Most people don't realize how and when they are consenting and consent is EVERYTHING. In fact the only thing I look for in cases is consent vs. no consent. I have found that it is literally 100% success for those who never have any form of consent and 100% loss for those who have some form of consent. Consent is very tricky and most have no idea they are consenting when they do. The only way I have found to really understand consent is to live unwavering within the protections of divine law.

We will see if Adam consents. So far his silence has been construed as consent and this will have to be reversed otherwise the fact will stand that he has consented and he will lose.

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...


Why doesn't that court have subject matter jurisdiction?

Also, what are the ways to avoid consenting?

In Common Law

and federal rules of investigative procedure a valid cause of action is required for a court of law to have subject matter jurisdiction in any action brought before the court. A valid cause of action consists of simultaneous elements required for a valid cause of action to be present which includes allegations of actual injury/harm by the accuser who will face the accused in a court of law before a jury with their accusations that demonstrates all elements of a valid cause of action. Without this fact presented before a court a Court of Law cannot hear the case. A valid cause of action spills over into rules of investigative procedure due to the fact that law enforcement cannot break the law to enforce the law. The 'source' of this requirement of allegations of actual injury/harm can be traced back to (and beyond) the maxim of law:

An action is not given to one who is not injured

The protections of Law is designed to always maintain a neutral balanced forum for settling disputes non-violently. Anything not balanced can be examined for precedent and one will always indeed find errors in any operation of a court that is not balanced. This is why maxims were discovered through common law. The maxims are just like axioms in geometry, the maxims provide a fundamental truth of how law and equity must be balanced which in turn requires the forum for remedy to be completely impartial. There is already two sides of a dispute seeking non-violent remedy with the plaintiff and the defendant (accuser vs accused).

Does this balance with impartiality trigger any logical connections? How about Lady Justice blindfolded holding the scales of justice? The blindfold is impartiality and the balanced scale is waiting for the facts to be laid upon the scales to find truth through weighing the facts presented by the two sides. Any process of Justice not balanced is not lawful and will ALWAYS violate common law. When I say common law I mean not only case law but I also mean common law within Real Law, as in a set of fundamental truths that are NON-CONFLICTING in their application, with Maxims being the foundations of logic that are logically inviolate within Real Law. Legal Law is no different than Mathematical, Logic or Scientific Law. Law is all the same concept no matter what field it is because it is about non-conflicting truth NOT what some group of power hungry psychopathic tyrannical control freaks write on a page somewhere. It is either Lawfully and logically congruent (never conflicting) or it is color of law, period.

It is clear that over time Human Beings cycle from tyranny to liberty and back again and it is now my understanding that this oscillation or pendulum swing is directly proportional to the peoples' clear understanding of what Real Law actually is. Sometimes times are good and the weight of knowing Law is relaxed and sometimes times are tyrannical and everybody needs protections of Real Law so the logical weight of Real Law increases. If you think all case law is common law then this logical conclusion means that every single court decision of every corrupt of criminal regime of tyrants throughout history would have to be considered "common law" and that is simply NOT compatible with Real Law. I digress....

The point here is that the Maxim above is a fundamental truth in Law because of a careful examination of maintaining true impartiality and the reality of actually having facts presented. No allegations of actual injury/harm means there is no dispute and no facts for the court to hear. It would be a waste of court's precious time to deal with such frivolous matters. Is this not the case with Adam in this scenario? Is this this action just? Is any of what the "courts" are doing with Adam worthy of the government (our) time and resources? Is it lawful? Lets look at another strict construction of Real Law to see if there is perhaps an answer that is not conflicting with the Maxim above that provides more insight into the valid execution of the powers of justice and the court. Let us turn to the Organic Laws of the United States, the first entry of US Code

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What is equal? Men. (Men always means men and women in Law because Law is written in the masculine form) Yes I agree that this equality is self-evident fact in Law. It is absolutely undeniably true from any process of Real Law and completely lawfully congruent within all common law and all maxims. One key phrase within common law that immediately comes to mind to reinforce this fact is "The Law is no respecter of persons". The history of this phrase used within Law is also undeniably true for any process of law that is Real Law (meaning NOT color of law due to its logical and lawful congruency within all Law) because it again maintains perfect balance with equality of the accused/accuser plaintiff/defendant seeking remedy for any dispute.

What does each man make claim to his right? "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness" are among those rights claimed. Making claim to the three enumerated items as equal to men means no other man can lawfully make claim to the claimed rights of another. This means that anyone ever unjustly violating any of these claims is recognized as actual injury or harm. So what is just vs unjust in reference to government actions? The very next phrase in the same expression of Law answers this:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

So Men and Women institute government to secure rights claimed by a man or woman. We can clearly see logical congruency from the most basic facts of common law such as stealing, killing or obstructing happiness (breaching peace or duty) in any way is inherently unlawful for any man to do to another man, morphing into strict construction of organic laws. Within this first strict construction of our law (US Organic Laws) equality was derived from The Law is no respecter of persons and those words proving to be in fact true within Real Law. Securing these rights through government is what man understood to be the necessity for securing these rights which now answers our question in Law about what is just vs unjust powers of government. Powers of governmental justice are only derived through consent of the governed.

This does not say consent of the government. If it were consent of the government then the balance of the Justice would be broken if the Court were a governmental operation because the court would no longer be an impartial forum if the government were the judge and accuser. If the powers of justice were derived from the government and the government was the forum for remedy then no expectation of impartiality can be maintained because the plaintiff (accuser) in any such case would be the government and the judge would be the government.

This scenario of government deriving just powers from government is also in direct contradiction to the strictly constructed law that recognizes Equality/No respecter of persons and the explicit acknowledgement that just powers are derived consent of the governed. Equality is broken under this scenario due to the fact that the situation is not equitable because the Government is a contractually created legal fiction (a legal person or legal capacity) with no liability for men who conduct themselves within the scope and duties of their agency within the legal fiction in this case called Government. Every man stands in court fully liable for the outcome. There is no equality in respecting persons in law. The Man is real and liable but the government is a contractually created fiction with men operating within limited liabilities of personhood veils; take note here because this veil is of limited capacity and the only way the capacity is accessed is through voluntary Lawful contract and the only way for the man inside the veil to maintain limited liability is to act within the contractual bounds and prohibitions of his contractually defined agency. This scenario is NOT equal with a full liability man vs a legal fiction and when examined in terms of securing Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness means that when the government of the people is the one taking your liberty without consent of the governed through an accuser who will face you in court and be liable for their accusations against you then those individual men claiming to be government acting on their own accord are acting outside the scope and duties of their agency and thus are no longer operating in a lawful capacity and hence are fully liable for their own actions. This agency of government persons with a very limited defined scope of duties and an everything else being prohibitions is derived from the Law of Agency another deeper concept in Real Law that must maintain its congruency in all Law for acts by any agent to be within any lawful capacity. Another violation of Real Law within government derived just powers is that liberty-property-labor is given to government by the governed for securing the rights and if the government(the legal fiction) is making the accusation against you and you are the only member of the governed present in a court action then that means that you are your own accuser because you are the only one who can consent to any powers of justice. If you as the accused are inherently liable for false accusations because no other from the governed consented and you sue the accuser (the government) then your property you gave to government for securing your rights got taken from you anyway even if you win the case because you will only be paying the bill back to yourself for your lost time born of false accusations. This is corrupted logic in that there exists a circular loop of liability back to yourself.

How can the government be securing liberty if they are taking liberty and then fraudulently say that you are your own accuser? If government is not acting in agency to the principal accuser who is the member of the governed liable for any potential false claims against you then how can anything happen but a loss of liberty in any action? This means there is no access to remedy from the men responsible for the crimes against you. This means corrupt men claiming to be " government" are unlawfully taking your liberty and are acting under color of law. One thing most Americans seem to want to forget is that equality means equal liability. It is like when Ron Paul stated in his Iowa speech "Freedom means you are responsible for yourself". Ron Paul is 100% correct. Responsibility is liability. We are equally liable for any action we do against another hence why consent of the governed is required for just powers of government.

Men governed by Law consenting to powers of justice does fit within lawful congruency of all other Law in all the ways because it maintains the impartiality of the court and maintains the requirement of the accuser facing the accused in court with their accusations, maintains the Law of Agency, maintains equality., and maintains balance within court processes and maintains the maxims. A court of law holds the impartial and non-violent forum for disputing members of the governed to seek remedy for breach of any their rightful claims. Members of the governed could strictly construct their valid cause of action in terms of strictly defined criminal code/statutes if they want to or not, but the member of the governed making the accusation is the Principal who initiates the agency of government to act on their behave. That's it!

So now we have a brief on the foundation of the powers of justice and why it must come from consent of the governed we now can understand (stand under) the fact that indeed the only lawful action that can be brought to the court must be from the governed and that individual must have a valid cause of action that alleges some form of breach with injury. This strictly constructed organic law was born out of conquering tyranny with much blood spilled and divine providence (divine law) over this fact to be enumerated explicitly. This IS the protection of law from tyrannical government. Consent is not some overarching concept it is explicitly required to the roots in the Law of Agency where an agent is working under the liability of the principal. Liability is the hot potato and it must accounted for explicitly whether through contract or expressed acknowledgement in order for man to maintain limited liability capacity claiming to be in agency

Of course do not forget that the world always has criminal usurpers and the corrupted working to swing the pendulum towards tyranny so with that swing we see legal inventions like strict liability and the criminal fraud and extortion of the 14th amendment "citizen of the United States" with undefined privileges and immunities being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States i.e subject to whims of control freak who wish to regulate you into subjugation and despotism. This is how the courts are now operating. They are presuming a fraudulently created "citizen of the United States" is the defendant and using violent force to force everyone into this colorable capacity. Notice how carefully the US Constitution uses the word US Citizen, citizen of the United States, Person, person and People/people. These words were used with laser like precision and it is very important to comprehend the exact definitions and context they used these words in. Person did not have the same meaning as it does today. I recommend looking up all dictionary versions you can find throughout history and compare definitions over time. I think you will be easily be able to undue the programming and criminal fraud the usurpers are very strategically using against you.

A Person is a contractually created legal capacity or veil a Man works within while acting in agency. This means under the agency of citizen of the United States one is a person subject to regulations of codes and statutes that have no applicability or access to claims over People (Men) nor do these codes even claim to be applicable to people. Codes do not claim applicability over the People (Men/Women) because they are regulations of a legal personhood capacity. If we are born free of all obligations into this world how can any legal entity be applied to anyone who is governed by Real Law? There is only one way in Law for a man/woman to enter into a corporate veil/personhood status and that is through CONSENT. Without consent this scenario of making a Man entered into a veil of personhood as a registered identifiable person called a "citizen of the United States" does not meet the elements of a valid contract and the further we look into every detail of the formation and interpretation of the corporate personhood of the "citizen of the United States" we can clearly find the complete and total criminal fraud that is going within Banks, and "government" and now causing "courts" to make the presumption that the defendant being the legal person subject to the jurisdiction of code/statutes without consent of the governed ALL for the purpose of enslaving people to a debt based currency that they use violent force and extortion to make have value and pay themselves in this unlawful tender. This presumption means impartiality is out the window because the "court" is presuming that the defendant is a contractually created entity born of extortion and fraud demonstrates the scales of justice are imbalanced because now a limited liability entity is now "charging" the person with a regulatory violation that only claims applicability to the person capacity and is not born of an accuser who is the principal member of the governed .

There is only one way for a full liability man to enter any into any legal capacity and that is through a valid contract (consent of the governed). If we examine the "ratification" of the 14th amendment we will see that it was not done lawfully and was act of extortion and all out treason (literal warfare against We the People) by the Government. Some would argue that it is still consent of the governed so therefore it is lawful but this is not the case because criminal fraud can NOT be converted into lawful consent once one understands the nature of the fraud being committed against them and points out the "courts" errors and the dire consequences of such a subjugation upon the people that is literally is the same Object evinces a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism.

This despotism is manifesting in a form where every "person" is required to have papers to move around and are under constant surveillance of their private affairs, private corporations control the creation of currency thereby claiming ownership over all credit all capital flows and industry being systematically consolidated for the purpose of control, and mass genocide war machine that is utilized . All of this activity is born out of the 14th amendment citizen of the United States and the colorable men claiming to be "government" who will not humble themselves before Law and understand EXACTLY WHY consent of the governed is REQUIRED for just/lawful powers. Because of Maxims, Law of Agency, Organic Laws, and their voluntarily obliged Constitutional Contractual bounds and prohibitions.

When we further examine the facts of our current state of tyrannical "government" operating outside its contractually defined bounds we can enumerate many contractual breaches that are occurring beyond the fraud of just powers derived from the consent of the government. Article 1 section 10 contractually binds all States to use Gold and Silver Coin as tender in the payment of debts for the very specific intent and reason of having a universal tender in the United States. Our agents in the Federal Government (US Citizens) are contractually bound to enforce this and coin this tender. Now what are the men colorably claiming to be "US Citizens" colorably claiming as required tender by law? A private banks debt note that is mathematically guaranteed to fail. This is in direct breach of the Constitutional contract these men claim to be in capacity of when they are committing tyranny (unjust powers because the action is not derived from the consent of the governed) against you. This means that their violent criminal acts of fraud, extortion, slavery, murder, kidnapping, breaking and entering, assault and other violent and non-violent criminal activity is born out of the criminal breach of getting paid in the very unlawful tender they are using violent criminal activity to force value upon the world. This means that in a court since the Judge is actively in the act of breaching his/her duty to the people then they lose the ability claim that capacity once the facts are disclosed that they breach is unlawful, ongoing and removes the veil of authority for any further acts without identifiable proof of maintaining within the bounds proper operational capacity.

Essentially the "court" is not a Court of Law because no one in the court is operating within the bound capacity of the very contract that they claim gives them authority over another all without liability for their own actions and no evidence of a principal accuser alleging actual harm initiated by the accused who they identify as the one who holds liability. When one knows that there is multiple different entities called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF (ANY STATE) and one sees all the breaches of duty they are committing then there is valid cause to simply ask them what capacity are they under. They might be claim to be a court or they might not. I find when probed to its end they say "I don't know"! Imagine that. When asked in open court what capacity they are operating under they say "I don't know". What happens when you point out the "courts" Dun and Bradstreet Numbers with their Traded as entity and incorporated status. When examining the whole situation in detail the crime appears to be so bad that it appears as if the Government has been officially overthrown by a Corporation of the same name. This is basically the conclusion I have come to until they prove beyond all reasonable doubt that this is not the case. The only way to know for a fact if the "court" is the same Constitutional entity is to KNOW that every single man/woman claiming to be under capacity is indeed operating within the bounds of that capacity because it is that individual man or woman who voluntarily contracted for the prohibitions and is claiming the capacity.

They wish to magically somehow claim through case law of criminal usurpations that the government and men claiming the capacity have no liability for accusation in criminal cases when actually that is when the bar for the accuser and actual harm alleged is higher than civil cases but the criminals committing the never ending stream of crime and tyranny have mens rea to exert authority and control over you instead of finding the truth.

Another thing here for my own strategy when dealing with criminals is that the Law is a very beautiful logical mechanism for protecting oneself with non-violence and complete calmness. Real Law is congruent and non-conflicting which means if you find a conflict deeper in towards the logical roots then you can already know that you have 100% probability of finding a conflict in the logic for any other level of Law. Knowing a 100% probability means that one can hone their study to the crimes and breaches they are committing and then begin to carefully examine and formulate every single statement you perturb with and they respond to. You can essentially examines highest probability responses to your perturbations and lead them into a multidimensional conflicting logic web that they will get caught up and trip themselves up with. It is essentially the Socratic Method or as I like to call Columboing. If you have seen the old series Columbo about the detective who would use the rules of investigation with the Socratic Method of logic to get murderers into a logical trap that would result in them confessing to murder. This is how Real Law is practiced and it is a logic war played as series of patterned waveform emission absorption interpretation and response much like a multidimensional game of logical chess. The pattern of stimuli emission and its logical interpretative outcomes ultimately control the biochemical transporter generation in the human body which is the chemical information network that governs motor function. Using well focused logic stimuli and ordered in such a way as to have them conflict themselves repeatedly over and over on the rec or even get them to unwittingly admit to exact code defined felonies on the record can demonstrate whether or not the man is true seeker of Real Law OR totally confused OR a psychopathic tyrannical control freak barbarian with mens rea to injure you ("make an example out of you" demonstrates intent to injure if the cause is unjust). You can use these techniques to actually build evidence against the criminals and a valid cause of action for seeking remedy from the rogue colorable agent by taking using their own admissions as evidence.

This is entire logic puzzle is actually pretty simple once realizes that Common Law, just scientific law is rooted in Common Sense not millions of pages of codes built upon corruption and power hungry lunatics who think that they can make whatever Law the want as code to apply to everyone that is them pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.

They are done. They're crime is not tolerable anymore. We can simply know the Law and take it to them and bring them to Justice with our juries and we can do it every time they harm us and give us a valid cause of action. When they try to obstruct our access to our juries we can bring those people to justice for felony obstruction of justice. You know all those concentration camps and prisons they built for us. It is just about the prison space we need for them. We need to give them exactly what they have given so many innocent people through their colorable usurpations of throwing people into prison who have no accusers and no valid cause of action and thus no subject matter jurisdiction.

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...

sov cit blather

One does not need to have a specific victim to have a crime. I know that your youtube fake legal education by poorly dressed uneducated dipwads with whiteboards doesn't tell you that, but a crime is charged as an offense against the people. That is why the caption of a criminal complaint with read the name of the state, or say "people of the state" or something along those lines. So, no, they don't have to "include allegations of actual injury/harm by the accuser who will face the accused" in order for there to be a criminal case.

For most people, common sense and personal experience bear this out.

But even if that were an element of the proof that were needed (which it isn;t) it would be just that, and not something which would negate "subject matter jurisdiction."

You're so far off that it isn't even funny, and yet you come to the net daily to lecture people about your delusions. Get a job. Seriously.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

If it is from the People then prove it!

We are suppose to have a representative republic based on bounded contractually defined government capacities of operational capability. The republic is supposed to have representatives that re-present the information instructed to them by their local constituency delegation. They do not do this. The so called "representatives" "pass bills" they have never read but some how gets interpreted as being applicable to everyone. So claiming the legislature is acting on behalf of the "people" is a lie. There is no delegations instructing them on what to represent, they just do what ever lobbyist pay them to do. This activity can in no way derive any provable form of consent of the governed because making such false claims is either ignorance of the facts or an outright lie.

If they are acting on behalf of "the people" as they may claim then prove it to me. No one in the court can prove that their claims are true because they are not. The most obvious, easiest and only lawful way for the Plaintiff of the State to prove to actually be in agency to the People is to have the member of the governed state the elements in their cause of action against the accused while facing them in a Court of Law. This is the Lawful path. You may say what about the case of murder? How can the victim face the accused? That has already been solved as well in common law. If a lawful investigation of a death is concluded to be at the hands of another man/woman then when the accusations are filed the agent is presuming the accused is speaking due to the lawful requirement to secure the right of life. When the court is notified of the claims of the deceased as being filed in agency the silence of the victim is consent to the action because in the case of unnatural death it is beyond the courts lawful power to compel the accuser to face the accused. Even this scenario maintains lawful congruency within all Law.

Their claims are not only colorable but the whole series of others crimes being carried out by them indeed demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that they are acting in a criminal nature. If they were not acting criminally then they would enable the facts to be presented, ensure that the protections of Law are maintained and operate within Lawfully defined bounds of their contractual capacity. They won't because they are criminals who conspire and commit fraud, extortion, theft, assault and more everyday all the time. The only thing they seem to be doing at all is crime because they almost never have victims for "criminal actions" and those who are victims injured by real criminals seeking remedy from their "agents" never have relief. They will commit crime all day long everyday but they won't serve their function in enabling victims to seek remedy. Isn't this obvious??

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...

deacon's picture

and here you are

everyday,spewing out your own blabber crap,like nonstop
if there is no victim,then no crime has taken place
the state cannot be a victim,as they were not there
nor can mr or mrs,STATE show up in the court room to bear false witness
For most... you mean all who bought into the the lie?? RIGHT????

Let it ever not be said,that I never did not do nothing for you.

the difference

Is I am dealing with reality and not fantasy.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein


You're dealing with YOUR reality. The one where you get to be the controller!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

REally, I get to be the controller?

You mean I get to make the laws, draft the caselaw, hire the judge, and can perfectly control the outcome of every case! Why, if this is true, you should all hire me to represent you because it would be impossible for me to lose!

I did not realize I had dominion and control over all judicial systems on Earth.

How did this escape me?!!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

No goofus

You just get to be the controller here while you hide behind your keyboard. It's not real, dontchaknow? It's YOUR REALITY!

And why would anyone here hire you, you're just an internet attorney! (And not a very good one either)

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

deacon's picture

right..sort of

but that reality should not ours,it was never meant to be,nor should it be now
just because it is this way now,does not make it right(it makes it wrong)
the reality is our courts are for profit and not about justice
it is though,all about power,but who should have that power?
the people are the ones who are supposed to have that power,but we do not,do we?
the people are the ones who are supposed to be running our own gov's...but is this the case?
in all jury cases,the people are the ones who are supposed to decide if a law is just or not,but is this the case now?
now we have judges dictating punishments and telling the juries,what will or will not be admitted into evidence
we have juries who are not told they can nullify and all laws they feel is standing on the constitutional standards
In all trials the alleged guilty have the right to meet their accuser face to face
in each and every court case where the state is involved,there is no accuser
present,none to be cross examined there is no MR and or MRS state showing up in court

Let it ever not be said,that I never did not do nothing for you.

just more diversion

You say that it IS reality, but that it shouldn't be.

Okay, fine. You think it shouldn't be. Then, go online and argue that things should be different and try to change the laws.

That is not what the post I responded to said. The post by phreedom purported to explain what subject matter jurisdiction is and to give certain elemental requirements for a criminal case (which he addresses by calling it a cause of action, which is only used in civil actions). He's just wrong about his understanding of what the law is.

I did not say "there should be lots of laws where there is no individual victim."

I did not say "victimless crimes are wonderful and we should have more of htem on the books"

Nothing of the sort.

But that is what your post, and presumably, his reply (when he gets out of the basement) will twist my words to say. This is your typical diversion.

Step 1: claim to know the law and then say something that is erroneous three different ways

Step 2. Wait for someone to say"yourre wrong"

Step 3. Then change your argument to be addressing "the way it should be"

He wasn't talking about the "way it should be". He was holding himself out as having "knowledge" which he clearly doesn't, as evidenced by his blabberings.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture


i have never twisted one thing you ever said
you even told me you don't even read my comments
what i have consistently stated here,for you to read
was what i have commented above,and if i keep this going long enough
others here,will read my comments and see the same thing
As far as going online to change the laws... this is telling for me
it tells me,this is all you think anyone here does,especially me
but here is a bit for you..our state has no laws on the books to register
pistols,now when i confronted the state,city,sheriffs,and the AG here
i get the same answer from all of them "" this is how we have always done it ""
now just because it is how they have always done it,does not make it right or legal,it is still against their own laws.But what they did to go around the law was this,call it a safety inspection,but it is still the same registration form,and they do keep a copy of it
the NRA stepped foot in our state,got a bill voted on about turning over that database to the feds,claiming it would be cheaper in the long run (this database they have,is against the laws of our state,and they should not have a database at all
I could say more,but at this point,I don't think it is wise

Let it ever not be said,that I never did not do nothing for you.

do you have ADD?

why can't you stick with a single issue.

now you're off on some tangent about how a cop (not a good source of legal knowledge) views gun laws in your particular little corner of whatever state you're in. Since you haven't provided any specificity about what you're talking about, how is anyone else supposed to know? I guess they aren't. That way, you can be right, and can say anything you want,. nevermind that it is entirely off topic.

The fact that I criticize phreedom's fakery and bullshiite fake legal crap doesn't mean I agree with every law, or support every legal position, or think police know the law, or think the police know anything. It also doesn't mean the opposite of any of these things. Anyone with a remotely logical mind would know that. But not you!

Perhaps you've been spending too much time on the Icke forum.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

and i suppose

our AG wouldn't know the law either?
AG= attorney general,guess you missed that fact
But then again,you missed many of facts,and twisted the words
to mean what you thought they should mean
I welcome each and every one reading this to go into my account
and see who has twisted what,and who has been outright lying
let me try this again...just for you.... i printed out the laws here
handed them to all the cops here,so now they would be a good judge of what a law is and what isn't (they were educated,just as our AG was concerning
the gun permits...do you get it now? they are all breaking the laws,but who would have guessed that?? You know,the ones who are hired to uphold,breaking them
Now,why would i tell someone like you,where i live? who i talked to,and who
i sent anything to,I already told,you are not to be trusted,and you have proved me right,more often than not
so sit there and act all high and mighty,you have yet to type anything that i could use anywhere.
I will be here to counter your lies,conjectures,and innuendos
hey, i thought you were blocking me??

Let it ever not be said,that I never did not do nothing for you.

you've been reading stormfront again right

no wonder youve developed a persecution complex. those sheets can chafe after awhile.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein


blib blab blubber blab blib-blab.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein


blubbb blubbb blubbb


"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown


blabber blabber

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

your posts are improving

keep up the good work! This one got right to the point!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein


Hur hur hur hur hur

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown