9 votes

Root Cause is the Courts

Question: Is the discretion of public prosecutors undermining the judicial system?

My view is that the root cause of all the problems in society are summarized here:
www.wisegeek.org/what-does-it-mean-to-press-charges.htm

ONLY individuals claiming injury should have the power to press or drop charges. This is the most important principle worth defending.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Examples?

"ignore the ad hominem preachy nonsense"

What is a good example of ad hominem arrangements of symbols?

"...we delegated that to our states..."

As far as I know, my relationship with God is my own, and it is unique, and therefore my relationship with God is no part of "we" according to anyone else, including dictators who may form their own little mutual admiration societies.

I happen to now live in California. In this State there are these words from the following sources.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&gr...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&gr...

"The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the
agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do
not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for
the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people
insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the
instruments they have created."

Returning to words that appear to me to be words a Troll might say, as if I were asking, which I am not asking, but if I were to ask "Hey, anybody know what a Troll might say?"

"Well, God gives the people sovereignty, and we delegated that to our states, and then to our federal govt. So, that is where I get my authority to speak on government. I am part of the sovereign which jointly has the authority in this country."

To me that sounds like "collectivism" as if individual people can somehow become ONE entity, with a common brain, and a common hand, where the common brain thinks up some action that is then done by the collective hand. Everyone is responsible so as to leave no one accountable? Does that sound familiar to anyone other than a troll?

I don't think those thoughts, and I am responsible, and accountable, for the actions I perform myself.

"Aside from that, God gave me reasoning, and I obtained an education. So, I have personal knowledge which makes me an "authority" on the subject."

Obvious to me, perhaps not obvious to anyone else, the author of those words, having the authority to authorize those words, and having the power (so far) to publish those words, could be someone who gains the power to employ other people doing work, such as might be the case if that person who authored those words quoted above, managed to be chosen by lot (randomly or by the process known as sortition) to sit on a jury.

If that person were on a jury, and that person then had command of a sizable force of people who will follow the orders of that jury, whereby 12 individuals unanimously agree to order the punishment of someone who is presumed to be innocent at the start of the trial, but found guilty during the trial, by those 12 randomly picked individuals, then that person, that publisher of words on this forum, if that person was on a jury, could be an authority of government in that way.

If I were on the same jury, and my thinking was in opposition to that person, and my thinking was in opposition to 11 other people just like that person, then I could be in a lawful, authoritative position, to acquit, and set free, the presumed to be innocent person, who I find to be innocent in fact, during the trial.

No "collective punishment" by way of claiming that government is ONE mind, working as ONE, as if there was a collective UNION Of minds having ONE hand.

12 randomly picked individuals, from a pool of people, and each individual is no more, and no less, above, or below the law as such.

I can consent to such things, reasonably, logically, and I can add my viewpoint in support of such proceedings done that way. I can withdraw my support at any time to such things whenever such things morph into something false.

"Aside from that, what gives you the authority to say who can or can't comment on our government?"

What would a troll say?

I can authorize my own actions, and be (obviously) held accountable for my own actions.

Who is the observer?

You?

Who is making a claim that placed me into their so called government?

You?

You and your army of collectivists who share the same single (non-competitive) mind?

No thanks. I have no part in that play.

"Another con man who is not a libertarian, but rather a failed authoritarian, and who is just here to sell his snake oil. How do you finance it?"

It, if there was an example of it, was financed competitively when it, if it ever existed, rather than it being financed criminally.

Government can be understood as an insurance policy. When the suppliers of insurance being supplied to the consumers of insurance are of ONE mind, the quality of the insurance favors the ONE mind, the ONE mind being the ONE supplier of insurance. The consumers of the ONE minded insurance get the stinky end of the stick.

When insurance is provided by State 1, State 2, up to State 13, or up to State 50, then the insurance consumers FORCE the suppliers to compete with each other, and that FORCE in that free market of insurance providers FORCES the measures being made by the consumers of quality UP, while that FORCE FORCES the costs to the consumers DOWN.

That is how that is designed to work in a true Federation (or Confederation) of Insurance Providers or States or Constitutionally Limited Republics.

When the Voluntary Confederation is Usurped, on the other hand, the payments being made by the volunteers is no longer voluntary, rather, there is instead of a voluntary Union, there is a Dictatorial one.

Example:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/george-m...

___________________________________________________
George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention

June 04, 1788

Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.
__________________________________________________________

Out with voluntary free market (insurance against crime by governments) and in with crime by governments.

Simple or too complicated for anyone to understand except trolls?

"Do you ask for memberships? Sell bogus education?"

There is no need to depend upon Trolls for the accurate answers. The accurate answers were offered, competitively, by our ancestors.

Example:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Trolls have to resort to deception, threat, and violence for their collective "membership."

Joe

I'm not going to pretend I read your manifesto

I you have a coherent, concise, responsive thought, and the ability to convey it without 10,000 words of gibberish, go ahead. Til then, thanks for playing.

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

Thanks

Having no current desire to spew forth more falsehoods, disguised as authority, the troll is thankfully less busy, and I am happy to see less work to do in my own defense.

Joe

I am glad

that you recognize and admit to spewing forth falsehoods disguised as authority.

So I guess you'll have to get back to work on that master's thesis.

ROFL.

Didn't the unabomber write stuff somewhat similar?

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

Seeking?

"Didn't the unabomber write stuff somewhat similar?"

The process here is obvious.

The person resorting to deception is constructing a false link between a crime that was perpetrated and a target to be injured by this false connection.

The troll creates the link by false association between a supposed criminal and the target of the trolls efforts to injure the target.

1.
Here is "unabomber"

2.
Here is the target of the troll

The troll intends to make a false connection between 1 and 2.

The troll claims authority over government knowledge while, in accurately measurable fact, the troll can't even abide by the rules that govern a web Forum?

Joe

unajosf

has a nice ring to it.

Hey, you type up a 10,000 word manifest of gibberish, be prepared for the unabomber jokes. Thems the rules.

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

Dictates

"Thems the rules."

That is the routine for dictators.

So, the question is, are the victims led into a false belief that the only way to respond is to become another dictator who makes up rules as they go along, ignoring customary polite conduct?

The concept of speaking of accurate information, also known as the truth, is competitive in a free market of information, which is the basis behind such things as the first amendment.

Those who understand it, seek competitive angles of view, many competitive accurate perceptions, so as to build up a higher quality and lower cost viewpoint that is steadily improving as accurate perception; while the opposite direction is a resort to falsehood.

It is customary, for example, to avoid yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, unless there is a fire, and even then a cooler head might find a more competitive way of helping people avoid injury, rather than causing a panic.

Then there are those who find cause to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, so as to cause panic, and so as to profit, by some obscure measure, from the panic, and the injury caused by the person yelling fire in the crowded theater when there is no fire.

Custom, on forums, is to spell out to those who volunteer to join the form, to please, please avoid resort to deception as a means of preying upon other forum members, it is not nice.

Some people don't read the forum rules because some people are polite without the need to read forum rules.

Some people don't read the forum rules because they seek to injure people, as one of their routine rules, and a forum is as good a place to enforce their rules as any other place.

Joe

lighten up Francis

I don't really think you are the unabomber. They already arrested him. Nor do I think I "make the rules" or whatever you're trying to say.

But if you post 10,000 rambling nonensical words full of fake legal theories, claims of superiority and ad hominem attacks (and no, I still didn't read it) you've got to expect someone is going to make a joke or two about it. From what little I scanned, the unabomber joke seems apropos.

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

OK

Thanks

Joe

Generally no

Rules and laws that criminalize victimless crimes, or intent less crimes (sometimes called "strict liability crimes" because the intent of the actor doesn't matter) are the problems. Move the bright line to a point where no one has discretion, that is the solution.

In my neck of the woods, prosecutorial discretion has been greatly curtailed, which has just meant that everyone gets overcharged and over harassed. Many prosecutors find this frustrating, just like many judges find mandatory minimums frustrating.

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

One other thing

you said:
"Move the bright line to a point where no one has discretion, that is the solution."

What do you mean by that?

My understanding is that the only lawful solution is that actions are only derived from consent of the governed with a valid cause of action and that liability be explicitly defined and held to account equally for the accuser and the accused. This is the only lawful path I can see possible within the logic of law. All other procedures I have examined violate a law in the process of "enforcing the law".

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 say that over and over

But where is your reasoning? Why do ,we need a criminal system where every time someone commits a crime, the policeman or prosecutor or judge or whoever it is you are talking about gets charged according to the bitches of the criminal defendant? That seems very inefficient. It also seems to fail to recognize that there are some people that need to be taken off the streets.

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

I really don't know how you can't understand such a simple point

Hello! We don't 'need' any of it if it does not do its function. We can contract to institute our own forms of remedy for disputes we may have with other individuals we may wish to deal with it. We can even establish and pay for our own independent security forces that are contracted to implement and carry out such a function OR NOT. We can even contract those security forces to apprehend any man claiming to be government that is unlawfully harassing the people. We can do whatever we need to do and we can formulate law via contract with other men to enable strict construction of bounded law applying to the capacity in which they serve.

We are in no way bound to have a city or police or code enforcements or any other ruling bureaucracy in any way whatsoever. This is what consent of the governed means and it is lawful regardless of what any other man says or believes. We only need to pursue whatever will most secure our own blessings of liberty how ever we see fit regardless of what ANY OTHER MAN MAY CLAIM whether it be a constitution or otherwise.

We are the supreme authority over our own safety, security and well being. So we can find our own lawful path regardless of the criminal bs that may spill from another man. I cannot find any other way for the lawful application of justice to anyone without an accuser who is accepting liability for their OWN accusations against the accused, PERIOD. If you or the men in the "courts" or any other man do not understand that in law every man/woman is liable for their OWN actions to be true then we have no mutual understanding between us and therefore all elements required for a valid contract do not exist between us and any claims to a constitution or otherwise have no effect or binding duty between us whatsoever are null and void and never existed. REAL LAW!

Therefore, whatever game you are going to play I am only willing to compact with people who understand that every man and woman is fully liable for their own actions including their accusations against another for the purpose and REASON that false accusations against someone INJURES THEM and the chain of liability must be identified at all times in all proceedings to know who is liable for false or frivolous accusations IF the accusations are false or frivolous. This fact is recognized in law that all men are equal in the eyes of the law i.e. The law is no respecter of persons and applies to any claiming to be in a limited liability capacity through the law of agency.

Maxims in Law:

An action is not given to one who is not injured.
An act of the court shall prejudice no one
If one falsely accuses another of a crime, the punishment due to that crime should be inflicted upon the perjured informer

So regardless of what you or the rest of the system may believe this is the facts of law. If you don't want to obey the law then we are done here.

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...

blib-blabb ba blabb-blibber

I do beleive that you write in a very stilted and pompous manner, which is thick with terminology that only you understand, but which appears to use words that are commonplace. It is like you have your own "phreedom's law dictionary" where you have your own unique definitions for terms that already have their own plain English meanings, plus their legal term-of-art meanings. Why you do this, other than to confuse people and to try to sound vaguely legal, I don't know.

There is a book I am going to recommend to you: Plain English for Lawyers. It recommends that lawyers not do this. You profess to disdain lawyers but you have copied one of the worst, and most outdated qualities.

Now on to the "substance" if one can call it that. I get the anarchistic idea that you are the sole arbiter of laws in your ideal world. I don't personally agree with that, nor do I think it is any kind of "organic" or "natural" ideal. I think it is a little foolish and best left to people that are well fed by their mommy.

The rest of your analysis includes things that at one point or another have been tried and are just not practically workable. There ARE conditions under which one can be sued for bringing an improper case. Those conditions are limited because if they weren't it would make the justice system completely ineffective. Everyone would simply fire back with accusations, driving up the cost, reducing the effectiveness, and punishing the innocent.

You seem to forget that, in about 90+% of the cases, the defendant actually accused DID IT. The laws exist to protect the relatively rare, but still frequent, exceptions. I personally don't want a system where the defendant gets to make a bunch of frivolous accusations every time he gets caught robbing a liquor store or killing or raping. And I question the logical reasoning faculties of anyone who both thinks this is a good idea, and also thinks they are brilliant/unique/ cutting edge for thinking of it.

So, in other words, I disagree. I am for limited government and a return to constitutional principles, the elimination of the police state feel to this country, the de-militarization of police, the de-criminalization of strict liability crimes, and a whole lot of other things. But I'm not an anarchist. Sorry if that disappoints. Neither was Ron Paul, btw.

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

Notice what's always absent your goals

You never mention upholding the rule of law. You may think of upholding the law as inefficient but that's too bad, its called justice and the rule of law. Just like the courts have done away with the jury for minor "criminal" charges. Those juries were too inefficient, I guess in your world. Maybe a trial is too inefficient too from your warped logic. It doesn't really matter what you are or not because the law is the law. You say 90+% "DID IT". The problem is that about 60% of people are charged with something that is NOT A CRIME.

So whatever they "did" was what ever they wanted to do and had no injury upon another and thus no accuser invoking the lawful powers of government through their own consent. The courts would have plenty of time and resources to actually carry out a proper forum of justice. Right now the courts are jammed up with inefficiencies because of tyranny NOT because of any growth in crime.

You can attempt to warp the law into something it is not and eventually BOOM revolution takes thing back into a lawful state one way or another. It happens over and over in history.

If people want to have psychedelic parks with vending machines of LSD, mushrooms, or any other psychedelic substance that they can use freely in a safe environment then we can do that lawfully but it is tyrants who break the law to prevent such a lawful freedom of choice through INJURY they commit upon the people with their false claims all while they claim no liability for their OWN actions making such claims and injury. Some may balk at such a concept but the bottom line is that if we actually have the rule of law such scenarios like this are totally lawful and it would be the duty of lawful government to protect people exercises their free choice of mind expansion. The tyrannical control freaks think they can decide that such realities are "illegal" because of false claims that society will not allow such a scene to exist but the tyrannical control freaks have no lawful standing to prevent such a scenario of freedom.

So in the end none of your bs or the "courts" bs is going to matter when you have an ARMY of law abiding people challenging you on EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME. You want to see inefficiencies you wait till the people wake all the way up and you are going to see that the current system is not efficient or lawful in anyway whatsoever. Once the awareness grows to encompass the understanding of everyone surrounding these "judges" and "court personnel" to see that even people in their own social circles are turning on them and letting them know they are going to go prison for their unending crime and injustices against the people then it will finally sink in just how bad they have destroyed everything around them with their desire to "protect" and be the deciders of everyone's "lawful" activities.

Regardless of what you think about me I am only stating what is the only lawfully congruent path through the application of justice under our laws. You and your criminal buddies can attempt to violate the real law but you will eventually see just how outnumbered you are on ALL fronts regardless of the current state of brainwashing.

I don't want real criminals on the streets either but I also know that the same army of law abiding people that will turn the system inside out and bring justice to the real criminals claiming to be government is the same army that are the eyes and ears for keeping our communities safe and would invoke the lawful powers of justice if actually or imminent injury was about to take place. Right now because of all the crime most people I know would never call the cops even if they witnessed a crime because most I know assume that the cop and the courts will probably destroy their life for simply coming into contact with them. I don't think you comprehend the value and efficiency and dispersed intelligence/investigation that happens when you have a cooperative and lawfully voluntary system. You may 1000 cops in a city of 100,000 people but out of those 100,000 people you have at least 90% of the people who never intentionally injure anyone and can be effective at keeping our communities safe IF they are not deathly afraid of insane psychotic terrorists calling themselves "law enforcement" and "courts".

It is insane and criminal to attack and penalize people who have never harmed anyone and would never have any intention to do so. People who never harm anyone are the people we want to be for the rule of law even if they trip out on psychedelics in their own psychedelic park. Hell even someone smoke's crack and does not injure another but are willing to be witnesses to those who have intentional injured should be considered law abiding people and an ally of the rule of law. Your not getting the reasons for innocent until proven guilty and just powers being derived from the consent of the governed. Their is REAL maximum efficiency and efficacy to this lawful application of justice.

Our goal should be inclusion of all people who do not injure others regardless of their activities, thoughts positions or otherwise. This is what gives us the maximum amount of protection in a society through the maximum number of eyes and ears on the look out disturbances of the peace.

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...

bublib blabb blibber

Ok. Again, you are using your own definition of terms such as "law" "rule of law" "lawful" "crimes" etc. and that is the only way that any small aspect of any of what you say makes any sense.

You should supply a phreedom to English translator with your posts so that when you say "rule of law" matters, people will know you aren't really talking about the rule of law, you are saying "I want my own idea of utopia to exist and anything else violates the rule of law."

It's really mental masturbation.

I am talking about the world as it exists, and how that can be improved upon, and you keep responding with nonsequiturs about your version of a utopian society.

but nowhere do I advocate eliminating juries for crimes. I can't think of any reason why you would claim I have such a belief, except that it is a form of an ad hominem attack. Sort of like, if chicken doesn't agree with me, he must love Hitler and hate cute puppies and women with long legs. For the record, so you don't try to twist that, long legs = good, puppes= awesome, Hitler = bad.

Not aware that there is a move to eliminate juries for crimes. (I've actually not heard of this happening, and if it is happening, that is unconstitutional). I've heard of eliminating juries for infractions. Infractions are not crimes.

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

In Cali

"infractions" are criminal actions and the STATE claims jury trials are not accessible for these criminal actions.

Also haven't you heard of rendition? The NDAA, military commissions act, patriot act and others? No trial, no jury, no justice just swooped up and thrown into secret torture camps or just killed. Damn you seem to be really unaware for an attorney.

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...

multiple unrelated concepts, plus some bad analysis

an infraction is not a crime.

California has not passed any law that makes an infraction a crime, nor do infractions have the same consequences. They aren't listed or considered as crimes. No you don't get a twelve person jury for your jaywalking ticket, but that is because it is not a crime.

Why is it that you believe California has made infractions crimes? I'll need something other than your belief, which I consider highly unreliable, to go on.

I have of course heard of rendition. I have heard of NDAA. I have heard of the Patriot Act. I have heard of the military commissions act. What is your point in these regards? Why would you think I haven't heard of them?

IF you are trying to tie the existence of those acts into the concept of criminal trials without juries, yes the NDAA does that and I am hugely opposed to that. The Patriot Act and the others arguably results in that happeining to non-citizens in some circumstances.

IF that is not what you meant, then I have to say, I fail to recall any case where a person charged with a California infraction is whisked away under rendition then held under the NDAA or put in a torture camp, as you call it. That to me sounds like an Alex Jones wet dream but also something that hasn't happened...yet.

And I'll say this again - you have to make your points clearer and more concise. It is a pain the butt to try to figure out what you are trying to say. If I submitted a brief that read like one of your posts it wouldn't get read. Just like I don't read your more rambling posts. There is a tendency, good or bad, in the legal profession to ignore concepts that aren't presented clearly.

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

I have court recordings where cali "commissioners"

state explicitly that a seat belt "violation" is a criminal action.

The welfare and institution code in cali also claims that on the decision of a mental health facility director, drugs can be forced someone can be held against their will and even "psycho surgeries" can be conducted including forced lobotomies ALL without a trial.

http://www.davidmixner.com/2010/07/lgbt-history-the-decade-o...

So for your information, all of this has been happening for a very long time. You are not paying attention to the details.

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...

Slip of tongue or intellectual laziness

No one I know me except sov cit wannabes ( I know a couple and have plumbed the depths of this form of idiocy with them) think that infractions are crimes. Perhaps a commissioner misspoke. But it really doesn't matter. If infractions are crimes they are crimes that have none of the defining characteristics of crimes and no one considers them as such. There are bigger and more important risks to the freedom of Californians than not getting a twelve person jury for their seatbelt tickets.

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

infractions are simply usurpacious inventions by criminal men

Its more lies on top of the never ending waterfall of lies that come from these confused and criminal men claiming to be courts.

Confusion = Intellectual Bankruptcy
Control Freak = Criminal with mens rea

There are more important things than wasting money on committing crime to uphold the law.

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...

A couple,of,closing points

Before I stop arguing with this particular idiot:

Lets assume that you are right, that infractions are thee worst thing to happen to humanity (oh the drama) and their creators are lower than hitler or Stalin ( oh the hyperbole)... They still exist.

Second, do you recognize that, even in your ideal world, there will be criminals, violent thugs, thieves and others. It sounds like in your world we would just ignore them and assist you in acting out your authority problems. Doesn't sound to me like it would be utopia for long.

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

Yes Tyranny exists

and yes some try to cover up their criminal activity by calling it something else like "infractions" or "law enforcement".

I keep saying over and over that we need to bring the criminals to justice but for some reason you keep defending criminals who are injury innocent people daily as a full time "job". Haven't I made myself perfectly clear that I will no longer stand for criminals to get away with their crimes with impunity??

I really don't care who the criminal is or what they claim if they have injured someone unjustly I want them brought to justice. Can't you understand this fact?

You just got confused on what a crime actually is. I hate to be the one tell you this but it is likely that your entire understanding of law has been written into your mind by very sophisticated criminals who understand multigenerational usurpations. I don't think you realize that the street thug is not the only form of criminals that exist. Some are very sophisticated and they have essentially overthrown the United States government and defrauded everyone into using their private debt note as tender and use that tender to pay an army of control freaks to run most government departments or at least make sure they are the trainers.

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...

Babble babble

You fail to understand basic concepts of jurisprudence and are making up your own definitions for common terms. If anyone calls you on your bullcrap you say they defend tyranny. Yioure just an imbecile and I'm done with talking to you.

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

You will claim "jurisprudence"

All while the psychopathic "courts" operate with unlawful tender claiming to be under the very contract that defines the lawful tender of their bounded duty.

This debt note is mathematically guaranteed to fail and in the process of failing will (and has) cause more injury to more people than ANY street thug or even gang of street thugs could ever cause. Proper jurisprudence and the law enables and requires me to go after the psychopaths claiming to be courts with criminal charges. I know the pain that this unlawful tender is causing and I know the depths of which the injury will likely go. When I try to seek justice against them for their Breach of Duty the sophisticated gang of criminals protect themselves by saying "we are not going to anything and you will not have access to the jury unless we deem it appropriate". This position flies in the face of proper jurisprudence. Here I am with the facts in hand and their own admission to breach of duty but no remedy and justice can be obtained because they unlawfully claim a monopoly on justice.

If we are all equals in the eyes of the law why can't I have access to justice when I already know its within Jurisprudence and is my duty to uphold the law?

You seem to want to turn some knobs and flip switches to reconfigure the machine of tyranny to be a kindler gentler machine of tyranny. I want to dismantle the machine smelt all of its components and plant a tree of liberty in its place. I would prefer that insiders like yourself wake up and help take out the trash. But the imminent and actual danger of this nightmare seems to be outside of your understanding. The law is about protections, the "law" should never be used a weapon against anyone.

Also, remember I said:
Right now because of all the crime most people I know would never call the cops even if they witnessed a crime because most I know assume that the cop and the courts will probably destroy their life for simply coming into contact with them.

This scenario is happening because of a failure of jurisprudence. If law abiding people feel that the process of "justice" is a weapon that will be used to destroy their life how can you ever interpret this as a correct form of Jurisprudence. You have lost the army of law abiding people on the look out for crime and especially those who could provide insider details of MAJOR criminal activity because of being free thinking and able to penetrate most circles but would never help the justice system because of the probability that their life will be destroyed.

If we were to talk I could give you detailed examples of my and others experience that could show definitively that this is indeed the case. The "courts" lose law abiding allies when they enable code to define perfectly lawful activity as "crimes".

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...

Poppycock!

When I see your posts I imagine your head wobbling back and forth and spittle flying, only to be interrupted by your mom, who yells down into the basement to see if you've had breakfast yet.

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

You claim you know Ron Paul but you really don't

He's a voluntaryist, about as anarchist as you can get nowadays! (Libertarianism is VERY anarchistic) He did at one time say he doesn't believe anarchy is the answer now, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it in the future.

You're coming up weak in the know-it-all department, didn't eat your Wheaties today?

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

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

oh wowsy

"libertarianism is very anarchistic"

Yes, small govt is very close to no government. I git it.

No, Ron Paul is not a "voluntaryist" or an anarchist. If he were he wouldn't have been in Congress for umpteen terms.

He has, as you point out, said he isn't. I'm as knowledgeable as any about his positions, but don't consider myself a know it all. How is it that you are not a "know it all" by coming here and purporting to "inform" me that there is a difference (gasp!) between anarchism and minarchism, but that the difference is small? Ya don't say?

Libertarianism 101.

The stuff you guys propose that you think is so brilliant is old hat and unworkable. The problem is that I'm trying to teach the unteachable with posting about some of these things here.

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

Wrong again

Ron Paul is a voluntarist.

If you are going to troll here you really ought to get up to speed first.

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

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

give me a quote

from a reputable source.

Because, last I checked, Dr. Paul spent his career in representative government, in our Congress, e.g., the lawmaking wing our govt.

Here is Ron Paul speaking on the subject:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/ron-paul—voluntaryist/

He doesn't say anything about believing that there should be NO government. After all he ran as a libertarian for a public office, and then as a Republican for many years over and over. I'm very familiar with his views and have personal views that are very close to his. Still waiting for that quote that doesn't exist where he says that we should be anarchists.

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