Tweet
Originally posted by rickoff
View Post
This video offers many good examples of what I pointed out in a post I made on October 13th: According to the SCOTUS, in the case Self v. Rhay, "The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land. The code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law." Government agencies and authorities would like us to believe that all of this garbage is law that we must abide by, but it really is just an illusion - a grand illusion, to be certain. (emphasis added by rickoff)
In actuality, and as the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in Rodrigues v. Ray Donovan, "All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only.."
So, in reality, these codes, rules, regulations, policies, and statutes, have no enforceable effect upon us unless we consent to be constrained by them, but they are applicable to the agencies and authorities that would like for us to be constrained. No matter how knowledgeable we may be in all other subjects, if we are not well versed in the Common Law then the pursuits we follow during our lifetimes are but fool's errands, for we can easily lose all that we have gained just for not understanding the law. For example, a police officer may ask you if you understand, after reading you the Miranda rights, or a judge may explain something and ask if you understand. This seems like a straightforward and simple question, but in reality what they are really asking is whether or not you agree to stand under their authority - in other words, do you consent to allow them to have authority over you. You give that consent by answering "yes." A better answer, and one that protects your rights under Common Law, would be to say, "If you are asking whether or not I consent to being arrested, charged, or judged under any codes, rules, regulations, policies, or statutes, or whether or not I consent and agree to grant you authority over me in matters related to said codes, rules, regulations, policies, or statutes, then my answer is an emphatic no!" You would then cite the above court rulings, and if the officer or judge fails to release you then you have a solid case for appeal, as any court of appeal must accept a higher case law ruling. Of course you could be legally arrested, charged, and judged in a "court of record," if you have done something that is a violation of the Common Law, and for that to be applicable there must be an "injured" party. What "injured" means is that whatever you did would have had to cause someone else a degree of actual suffering, damage, or loss. And under Common Law, a court does not have the authority to claim the state is the injured party because the state cannot be judge and prosecutor. In addition, under Common Law an officer cannot be a witness.
Let's consider an example, and suppose that you are fishing without a fishing license. According to the game warden who comes along and writes you a citation, you have violated the fishing rules and regulations that were adopted by your state legislature. He says you have broken those "laws" and your options are to pay the mandated fine amount by sending payment to the address noted on the citation, or to appear in District Court, on the date specified in the citation, if you want to contest the citation. He asks you if you "understand," and you then recite the answer noted above. The warden will probably look at you in bemusement, because he has been trained to believe that the fishing rules and regulations are laws, and that he has the authority to enforce those laws, but neither of those beliefs are true. They are, in actual law, what is referred to as a fiction, and only have the "color of law," meaning that while they may have the appearance of being laws, they actually are not. So you go to court on the date stipulated, and the judge first tells you what you have been charged with and then asks if you "understand." You answer the same way as you answered the warden, you cite case law (Self v. Rhay) as the reason why you have answered thusly, and demand that the charges be immediately dismissed "without prejudice." If the judge has at least half a brain then the judge will do so. The judge may attempt to persuade you by saying that fishing, in your state, is a privilege, not a right, and available only to those individuals who have purchased a valid fishing license. You have already made your case sufficiently, but could also cite other case law which rebukes the judges argument. Specifically, you could cite Sherar v. Cullen, which says that, "For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed because of this exercise of Constitutional rights." As noted earlier, the state cannot claim to be the injured party, and no one else has been injured by your activity, unless you snagged someone in the neck while casting your line. In addition, you could also cite Bennet v. Boggs, which says that, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Finally, you could say that there was a time, in your state, when one was not required to have a fishing license in order to fish, and ask the judge if this is not so, and the judge would have to agree that this was true. At this point you would say that, indeed fishing was once considered a liberty that could freely be exercised by anyone without penalty, and you would then cite Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, which says, "If a state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity." You then again demand that the judge dismiss the case against you without prejudice, and if the judge attempts to fault your reasoning, tries to intimidate you, orders you to pay a fine, charges you with contempt of court, and/or has you arrested or otherwise detained, you then have a rock solid case for appeal.
Note: In the case Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, the word "citizen" is defined as meaning a citizen of a state, not a US citizen. The People are citizens of their respective states, not of the Corporation United States as claimed in the unconstitutional 14th Amendment.
In actuality, and as the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in Rodrigues v. Ray Donovan, "All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only.."
So, in reality, these codes, rules, regulations, policies, and statutes, have no enforceable effect upon us unless we consent to be constrained by them, but they are applicable to the agencies and authorities that would like for us to be constrained. No matter how knowledgeable we may be in all other subjects, if we are not well versed in the Common Law then the pursuits we follow during our lifetimes are but fool's errands, for we can easily lose all that we have gained just for not understanding the law. For example, a police officer may ask you if you understand, after reading you the Miranda rights, or a judge may explain something and ask if you understand. This seems like a straightforward and simple question, but in reality what they are really asking is whether or not you agree to stand under their authority - in other words, do you consent to allow them to have authority over you. You give that consent by answering "yes." A better answer, and one that protects your rights under Common Law, would be to say, "If you are asking whether or not I consent to being arrested, charged, or judged under any codes, rules, regulations, policies, or statutes, or whether or not I consent and agree to grant you authority over me in matters related to said codes, rules, regulations, policies, or statutes, then my answer is an emphatic no!" You would then cite the above court rulings, and if the officer or judge fails to release you then you have a solid case for appeal, as any court of appeal must accept a higher case law ruling. Of course you could be legally arrested, charged, and judged in a "court of record," if you have done something that is a violation of the Common Law, and for that to be applicable there must be an "injured" party. What "injured" means is that whatever you did would have had to cause someone else a degree of actual suffering, damage, or loss. And under Common Law, a court does not have the authority to claim the state is the injured party because the state cannot be judge and prosecutor. In addition, under Common Law an officer cannot be a witness.
Let's consider an example, and suppose that you are fishing without a fishing license. According to the game warden who comes along and writes you a citation, you have violated the fishing rules and regulations that were adopted by your state legislature. He says you have broken those "laws" and your options are to pay the mandated fine amount by sending payment to the address noted on the citation, or to appear in District Court, on the date specified in the citation, if you want to contest the citation. He asks you if you "understand," and you then recite the answer noted above. The warden will probably look at you in bemusement, because he has been trained to believe that the fishing rules and regulations are laws, and that he has the authority to enforce those laws, but neither of those beliefs are true. They are, in actual law, what is referred to as a fiction, and only have the "color of law," meaning that while they may have the appearance of being laws, they actually are not. So you go to court on the date stipulated, and the judge first tells you what you have been charged with and then asks if you "understand." You answer the same way as you answered the warden, you cite case law (Self v. Rhay) as the reason why you have answered thusly, and demand that the charges be immediately dismissed "without prejudice." If the judge has at least half a brain then the judge will do so. The judge may attempt to persuade you by saying that fishing, in your state, is a privilege, not a right, and available only to those individuals who have purchased a valid fishing license. You have already made your case sufficiently, but could also cite other case law which rebukes the judges argument. Specifically, you could cite Sherar v. Cullen, which says that, "For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed because of this exercise of Constitutional rights." As noted earlier, the state cannot claim to be the injured party, and no one else has been injured by your activity, unless you snagged someone in the neck while casting your line. In addition, you could also cite Bennet v. Boggs, which says that, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Finally, you could say that there was a time, in your state, when one was not required to have a fishing license in order to fish, and ask the judge if this is not so, and the judge would have to agree that this was true. At this point you would say that, indeed fishing was once considered a liberty that could freely be exercised by anyone without penalty, and you would then cite Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, which says, "If a state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity." You then again demand that the judge dismiss the case against you without prejudice, and if the judge attempts to fault your reasoning, tries to intimidate you, orders you to pay a fine, charges you with contempt of court, and/or has you arrested or otherwise detained, you then have a rock solid case for appeal.
Note: In the case Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, the word "citizen" is defined as meaning a citizen of a state, not a US citizen. The People are citizens of their respective states, not of the Corporation United States as claimed in the unconstitutional 14th Amendment.
My extensive firsthand experience with the legal system and the 5.0 is that they will laugh at you for trying this, and they will send you through so many circles that you will screw yourself into the ground.
Sure you "might" win at appeal but that might be 2 years after the fact and a lot of money spent on legal fees, lost wages, etc.
I think its just time to shot the bastards before they arrest you. Ok thats a joke but its basically a lost cause trying to fight them with their own systems but I greatly appreciate your posts and learn a lot from them.
Comment