View Full Version : "Sovereign Citizens" and the Freemen movement
Schone23666
11-07-2015, 06:28 PM
Has anyone read up on these two particular movements? Here's a wiki article for those that are interested with general information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
And if you want to watch some amusing (and at times violent) encounters between Sovereign Citizens/Freemen and law enforcement, here's this on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM
I believe Swaghauler mentioned he'd had more than a few run-ins with the Sovereign Citizen crowd. Sound like a really fun bunch, especially when they start breaking out the firearms and explosives....
My personal observation....yeah, I get people are frustrated with government, but JIMINY F**KING CHRIST ON A JIMMY STICK, these guys must idolize fellas like Timothy McVeigh. :O If you want to change the political system you have to actually get involved in the political process. These nutballs seem to take an entirely different route.
Yeah, I can definitely see some of these guys forming New America in T2k or some nutball militia in Merc2000....or just being part of any so-called "Sovereign Nation Militia" popping up in some part of America, Australia, the U.K. or elsewhere with their own bizarre interpretation of a republic.
Has anyone read up on these two particular movements? Here's a wiki article for those that are interested with general information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
And if you want to watch some amusing (and at times violent) encounters between Sovereign Citizens/Freemen and law enforcement, here's this on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM
I believe Swaghauler mentioned he'd had more than a few run-ins with the Sovereign Citizen crowd. Sound like a really fun bunch, especially when they start breaking out the firearms and explosives....
My personal observation....yeah, I get people are frustrated with government, but JIMINY F**KING CHRIST ON A JIMMY STICK, these guys must idolize fellas like Timothy McVeigh. :O If you want to change the political system you have to actually get involved in the political process. These nutballs seem to take an entirely different route.
Yeah, I can definitely see some of these guys forming New America in T2k or some nutball militia in Merc2000....or just being part of any so-called "Sovereign Nation Militia" popping up in some part of America, Australia, the U.K. or elsewhere with their own bizarre interpretation of a republic.
This actually is a very interesting topic and I can see this happening in T2K as the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land.
All of our major laws are part of the Common Law, practically every other legal entity has been introduced by governments for commercial and revenue generating reasons and are acts and technicalities of fairly dubious legal authority. The entire judicial system in the Western English speaking world is I believe commercial law which is not legally binding under Common Law.
Police officers are officers of the peace, and legally have no right to question or arrest you if you have not broken the peace or broken a law. If you have not broken a law they have no right to ask for your name and address, and traffic and tax violations are not laws so the police have no real right to bother you over them. You also have no obligation to sign anything in a police station including a release document if you have broken no law.
There are also a lot of technicalities that you can legally challenge if you receive a summons or a fine by mail. Summonses have to be legally delivered to you in person, and all government mail is actually phrased incorrectly (deliberately) as it addresses you in your commercial strawman name in CAPS which is not your real name on your birth certificate. As you have never signed any document agreeing to the legality of a commercial summons or fine do not legally have to pay it or even attend court as you have broken no Common Law. That also applies to the draft or conscription into the armed forces.
Also a judge has no other name than a judge. Using your honour etc is court is optional. Also a judge is supposed to carry their oath with them at all times in court. Very few do and if you are in court for breaking an actual law and happen to ask the judge to see his oath and he or she cant produce it then the court is invalid and you are entitled to walk free and the judge knows it
Loads of potential T2k material for the legally unhappy to challenge authority.
Legbreaker
11-08-2015, 04:37 AM
Actually trying any of that is likely to end rather badly for the average person though.
Schone23666
11-08-2015, 08:51 AM
Actually trying any of that is likely to end rather badly for the average person though.
Going by how many of these "Citizens" often purposefully will try to get into confrontations with law enforcement, some of the said "Citizens" armed and spoiling for a fight, it often does.
Actually trying any of that is likely to end rather badly for the average person though.
For the ill-informed yes, but if you have a hard neck like most of the Sovereign Citizen crowd you could push your way through the legal system and probably get away with challenging a lot of things unless you actually broke an actual law. Some of these people live for this and know the actual laws and they can be a nightmare for the police and the legal fraternity.
This actually is a very interesting topic and I can see this happening in T2K as the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land.
All of our major laws are part of the Common Law, practically every other legal entity has been introduced by governments for commercial and revenue generating reasons and are acts and technicalities of fairly dubious legal authority. The entire judicial system in the Western English speaking world is I believe commercial law which is not legally binding under Common Law.
Police officers are officers of the peace, and legally have no right to question or arrest you if you have not broken the peace or broken a law. If you have not broken a law they have no right to ask for your name and address, and traffic and tax violations are not laws so the police have no real right to bother you over them. You also have no obligation to sign anything in a police station including a release document if you have broken no law.
There are also a lot of technicalities that you can legally challenge if you receive a summons or a fine by mail. Summonses have to be legally delivered to you in person, and all government mail is actually phrased incorrectly (deliberately) as it addresses you in your commercial strawman name in CAPS which is not your real name on your birth certificate. As you have never signed any document agreeing to the legality of a commercial summons or fine do not legally have to pay it or even attend court as you have broken no Common Law. That also applies to the draft or conscription into the armed forces.
Also a judge has no other name than a judge. Using your honour etc is court is optional. Also a judge is supposed to carry their oath with them at all times in court. Very few do and if you are in court for breaking an actual law and happen to ask the judge to see his oath and he or she cant produce it then the court is invalid and you are entitled to walk free and the judge knows it
Loads of potential T2k material for the legally unhappy to challenge authority.
I can also see this happening as they say they are following law, but they are not. They go with as you say that common law is the highest authority in the land, but that is not legally the case. It is the US Constitution, not English common law. Having said that it is a growing movement in the US as lots of people are some place between upset and very mad at the government that is not responsive to the people, the problem there is with our two party system being so polar opposite there is very little if any middle ground. If you do something to make one side happy it make the other mad.
In the TW2000 setting I am not sure how big they would be, as it really took off after 2000, in the TW2013 it would be big.
They go with as you say that common law is the highest authority in the land, but that is not legally the case. It is the US Constitution, not English common law.
The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist. All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.
.45cultist
11-08-2015, 02:26 PM
These two groups are as ignorant as those who are indifferent about their rights and how the government is supposed to work. No amount of reformation would suffice, they would find justification to do what they like. I think they would be quite an obstacle to rebuilding in a game.
pmulcahy11b
11-08-2015, 04:07 PM
These guys will probably turn into marauders and warlords in the T2K timeline.
pmulcahy11b
11-08-2015, 04:09 PM
The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist. All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.
If I remember, some of the ideas the framers used went all the way back to the Magna Carta.
LT. Ox
11-09-2015, 01:16 AM
This actually is a very interesting topic and I can see this happening in T2K as the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land.
All of our major laws are part of the Common Law, practically every other legal entity has been introduced by governments for commercial and revenue generating reasons and are acts and technicalities of fairly dubious legal authority. The entire judicial system in the Western English speaking world is I believe commercial law which is not legally binding under Common Law.
Police officers are officers of the peace, and legally have no right to question or arrest you if you have not broken the peace or broken a law. If you have not broken a law they have no right to ask for your name and address, and traffic and tax violations are not laws so the police have no real right to bother you over them. You also have no obligation to sign anything in a police station including a release document if you have broken no law.
There are also a lot of technicalities that you can legally challenge if you receive a summons or a fine by mail. Summonses have to be legally delivered to you in person, and all government mail is actually phrased incorrectly (deliberately) as it addresses you in your commercial strawman name in CAPS which is not your real name on your birth certificate. As you have never signed any document agreeing to the legality of a commercial summons or fine do not legally have to pay it or even attend court as you have broken no Common Law. That also applies to the draft or conscription into the armed forces.
Also a judge has no other name than a judge. Using your honour etc is court is optional. Also a judge is supposed to carry their oath with them at all times in court. Very few do and if you are in court for breaking an actual law and happen to ask the judge to see his oath and he or she cant produce it then the court is invalid and you are entitled to walk free and the judge knows it
Loads of potential T2k material for the legally unhappy to challenge authority.
Having been a Deputy Sheriff for a good part of my life and trained a number of Officers that still are active I have some knowledge of what you are discussing. Your use of definitive terms makes it appear that there is no room for discussion or debate.
However, English Common law is not the law of the United States, it is the base from which our law is derived much as the English language has evolved so has jurisprudence.
Our system of Law has a number of similarities and a large number of differences from Magna Carta influenced Common law, first among them is the Constitution of the United States wherein each state is given the right to make and amend laws as is deemed proper and with-in common sense to those persons elected to represent the people and to enact and enforce those laws.
The so called system as is put forth by those attempting to circumvent those laws is a non-workable and undefined or a best poorly defined set of guidelines with which to enact law.
Over two hundred years of change and challenge has brought us to the place we are now, do I agree with all the laws of this land? No, But I will follow the tenants set forth and will seek to change those I disagree with, in a lawful manner. I will not, upon being contacted by an Officer, demand that Officer follow my personal definition of what is right.
As a tool for gaming I do however see several venues or plot lines that might be followed to generate sufficient conflict as to be playable. I saw enough of that conflict when I charged and arrested then prosecuted those that held some of those ideas.
Oh by the way I do not think it wise to give out such leagal advice as you have put forth in your post, you could be in error and just might lead someone into serious trouble.
Harry O
Having been a Deputy Sheriff for a good part of my life and trained a number of Officers that still are active I have some knowledge of what you are discussing. Your use of definitive terms makes it appear that there is no room for discussion or debate.
No LT. Ox I am not making it appear that there is no room for debate. On the contrary I would be happy to debate this or see others debate this.
However, English Common law is not the law of the United States, it is the base from which our law is derived much as the English language has evolved so has jurisprudence.
And did I not state that " The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist."
Our system of Law has a number of similarities and a large number of differences from Magna Carta influenced Common law, first among them is the Constitution of the United States wherein each state is given the right to make and amend laws as is deemed proper and with-in common sense to those persons elected to represent the people and to enact and enforce those laws. The so called system as is put forth by those attempting to circumvent those laws is a non-workable and undefined or a best poorly defined set of guidelines with which to enact law.
Over two hundred years of change and challenge has brought us to the place we are now........
And did I not state again " The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist."......
And... "All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions" ?
do I agree with all the laws of this land? No, But I will follow the tenants set forth and will seek to change those I disagree with, in a lawful manner. I will not, upon being contacted by an Officer, demand that Officer follow my personal definition of what is right.
And if you were contacted by a police officer for whatever reason I think it would be advisable to act in a lawful manner.
As a tool for gaming I do however see several venues or plot lines that might be followed to generate sufficient conflict as to be playable. I saw enough of that conflict when I charged and arrested then prosecuted those that held some of those ideas.
Which I think is the reason that Schone23666 started the thread.
Oh by the way I do not think it wise to give out such leagal advice as you have put forth in your post, you could be in error and just might lead someone into serious trouble.
And do you really think that the members of this board seek legal advice for me? If you do I'm very flattered but really I'm actually just stating facts which are freely available online, and I stated these facts to support Schone23666's statement about the current Sovereign Citizen movement and how it could relate to a T2K scenario. However if you feel that some members of this site might be a bit feeble minded and be influenced by my rantings I'll tell them not go out and harass the nearest police officer.
PLEASE DONT DO IT !!!!
rcaf_777
11-09-2015, 10:18 AM
Perhaps Lt OX can answer this? which US Agencies can swear in Deputies?
I seem to recall John Wayne doing a lot of that in his movies, I dont know if the US Marhalls Service still have that power.
.45cultist
11-09-2015, 11:08 AM
They do. When my BIL was on the KCMO meth task force, they would go to the Marshals and be sworn in when the dealers crossed state lines into Kansas.
LT. Ox
11-09-2015, 01:01 PM
They do. When my BIL was on the KCMO meth task force, they would go to the Marshals and be sworn in when the dealers crossed state lines into Kansas.
Yep and yes again smile. have been a "Deputy US Marshall" for short periods on a number of Occasions either to assist in a Federal arrest or search or to assist in Transport.
LT. Ox
11-09-2015, 01:24 PM
"And do you really think that the members of this board seek legal advice for me? If you do I'm very flattered but really I'm actually just stating facts which are freely available online, and I stated these facts to support Schone23666's statement about the current Sovereign Citizen movement and how it could relate to a T2K scenario. However if you feel that some members of this site might be a bit feeble minded and be influenced by my rantings I'll tell them not go out and harass the nearest police officer. "
"PLEASE DONT DO IT !!!!"
Sir I did not, nor do I now think your information was solicited by Members of this board, what I think is dictated by the language of your posts and reoffered by this last is you are posting what you call , and I think strongly believe, are FACTS while in my belief they are disputed as such.
Because something is available on the either is not a proof of its truth or accuracy, as I am sure you are aware.
I have posted in response because of my training, education and much experience with the law and dealing with people that have used the mentioned organizations touted beliefs.
On several occasions contact with those that strongly held to such principles led to confrontation and ultimately to arrest and incarceration. That is fact, not supposition.
Sir I did not, nor do I now think your information was solicited by Members of this board, what I think is dictated by the language of your posts and reoffered by this last is you are posting what you call , and I think strongly believe, are FACTS while in my belief they are disputed as such.
Because something is available on the either is not a proof of its truth or accuracy, as I am sure you are aware.
I have posted in response because of my training, education and much experience with the law and dealing with people that have used the mentioned organizations touted beliefs.
On several occasions contact with those that strongly held to such principles led to confrontation and ultimately to arrest and incarceration. That is fact, not supposition.
If you feel that such facts are disputed then please feel free to dispute them.
If you feel that such facts are disputed then please feel free to dispute them.
OK, I will dispute them as I see it, based on my training.
This actually is a very interesting topic and I can see this happening in T2K as the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land.
As I have said earlier the English Common Law is not the highest authority in the US. In the US it is the Constitution, and yes it was based on many things including British Common Law. But just because it was based on it does not make any part that was not included part of it.
All of our major laws are part of the Common Law, practically every other legal entity has been introduced by governments for commercial and revenue generating reasons and are acts and technicalities of fairly dubious legal authority. The entire judicial system in the Western English speaking world is I believe commercial law which is not legally binding under Common Law.
As stated right above Common law is not legally binding in the US, so none of this has any application. I do know that they (the Sovereign Citizens) like to try and make a big deal out of Common/Commercial Law, but it does not hold water. One of the most common ones you see is they say that they can not be pulled over or even stop on the road and they do not need a drivers license as they are not driving (to them driving is only if for profit) they are traveling. The fact this has no bearing in fact is of no matter to them.
Police officers are officers of the peace, and legally have no right to question or arrest you if you have not broken the peace or broken a law. If you have not broken a law they have no right to ask for your name and address, and traffic and tax violations are not laws so the police have no real right to bother you over them. You also have no obligation to sign anything in a police station including a release document if you have broken no law.
Were to start, first Police Officer are not "officers of the peace", does that mean that they are not trying to keep the peace, no. But they are there to keep the public order, not the same thing. They have every legal right to ask you anything that they want weather you have broken a law or not. You may not have to answer them, but that is very different from what you posted. They also as defined by the courts (laws going back to the US Constitution) have said that Police have the authority to detain someone for a reasonable amount of time to determine what has happened.
There are also a lot of technicalities that you can legally challenge if you receive a summons or a fine by mail. Summonses have to be legally delivered to you in person, and all government mail is actually phrased incorrectly (deliberately) as it addresses you in your commercial strawman name in CAPS which is not your real name on your birth certificate. As you have never signed any document agreeing to the legality of a commercial summons or fine do not legally have to pay it or even attend court as you have broken no Common Law. That also applies to the draft or conscription into the armed forces.
I do not even know were to start with this, as it is so full of holes that it looks like a three year old came up with the idea. Just because your name is or is not written in caps makes no legal difference, if you say it does show me were this comes from. Once more it comes down to the fact that common law is not the law of the land.
Also a judge has no other name than a judge. Using your honour etc is court is optional. Also a judge is supposed to carry their oath with them at all times in court. Very few do and if you are in court for breaking an actual law and happen to ask the judge to see his oath and he or she cant produce it then the court is invalid and you are entitled to walk free and the judge knows it
Again as common law is not the law of the land this does not hold water.
Loads of potential T2k material for the legally unhappy to challenge authority.
Yes, there are many out there who try to use it, but it they have no legal standing. Would there be more in TW2000? Maybe, but seeing as there is not really a government any longer I would think they would just form there own with there group.
Louied
11-09-2015, 09:14 PM
Perhaps Lt OX can answer this? which US Agencies can swear in Deputies?
I seem to recall John Wayne doing a lot of that in his movies, I dont know if the US Marhalls Service still have that power.
When I went down to Katrina, we were told that we were all being sworn in as Deputy U.S. Marshals and/or would be sworn in a Deputy Sheriffs in whatever Parish we would be in. The powers that be on my job suddenly became very worried about this when we got down there and NOPD was basically begging us for help (offered to put two of their guys with two of our guys in each car, we called this a combat car up in NY). Sadly the nervous nellies (lawsuits or bad publicity) on my job won out, but we rescued a lot of dogs and cats........(not much actual police work)
Perhaps Lt OX can answer this? which US Agencies can swear in Deputies?
I seem to recall John Wayne doing a lot of that in his movies, I dont know if the US Marhalls Service still have that power.
I believe that if push came to shove all police can "Deputies" someone, as in that case all that they are doing is acting under the authority of the one who did so. You do not see it much as if I as a federal officer deputies you and you do something wrong it is on me. With the standards that there are today it is so easy for someone with out training to mess up. At the academy they talked about this just a bit, mostly with things such as if the officer is in a fight for their life and tell someone on the street to do some thing that person is covered.
raketenjagdpanzer
11-09-2015, 10:52 PM
I had vaguely heard of the Sovereign Citizen movement but didn't ever look in to it or anything. Then while watching King of the Hill, Dale goes off on a crazy rant in court. The judge tells him he can't smoke in the courtroom and Dale says something to the effect that the gold-fringed US flag was a Naval flag and that he didn't have to obey Navy rules (since he'd been dishonorably discharged, if I recall). At the time I thought Mike Judge, the series' creator, had really decided to write some super-wacky nonsense stuff for Dale to spout.
Years later I found out that there are people who actually believe that courtrooms have a gold-fringed flag in them in an attempt to "put you" in a "naval" court "at sea" where the US Constitution doesn't apply, but some arcane laws influenced by Navy rules. I was flabbergasted.
raketenjagdpanzer
11-09-2015, 10:54 PM
Actually trying any of that is likely to end rather badly for the average person though.
Ask Wesley Snipes, or look on youtube to see any number of idiots getting tased in a courtroom because they won't shut up, or won't give their proper name, file bogus paperwork, and so on.
LT. Ox
11-10-2015, 12:06 AM
When I went down to Katrina, we were told that we were all being sworn in as Deputy U.S. Marshals and/or would be sworn in a Deputy Sheriffs in whatever Parish we would be in. The powers that be on my job suddenly became very worried about this when we got down there and NOPD was basically begging us for help (offered to put two of their guys with two of our guys in each car, we called this a combat car up in NY). Sadly the nervous nellies (lawsuits or bad publicity) on my job won out, but we rescued a lot of dogs and cats........(not much actual police work)
In Colorado any certified Officer acting under the cover of his uniform (in line of duty) may enlist the aid of any citizen to perform tasks under direction of himself or another Certified Officer.
This was rarely done in my day and much less so now, possible because of our suit crazy lawyer infested erp..... Way too personal.
Well I will admit that I had some problems with doing that even when it was only to direct traffic at traffic accidents, after all one doe’s not have or take time to do background and phyic evals.
I only deputized two persons to assist me in a true we got work ta do situation here in the good old west and that was at a Bar with a whole lot of drunken cowboys when the PBA rodeo was in town, seems that the good old boys did not take kindly to the MAN getting in way of personnel fights. That was in 1981 and we had twelve Road Deputies for the County 24/7. Having come from Oakland PD to that was a real “ How in the Hell did I get into this situation” moment in time.
,
OK, I will dispute them as I see it, based on my training.
As I have said earlier the English Common Law is not the highest authority in the US. In the US it is the Constitution, and yes it was based on many things including British Common Law.
Most of the laws of the United States, and British Commonwealth and Ireland are derived from English Common Law. The US Constitution is the highest authority in the United States but the point I was making is that laws of the United States and the former British Empire stem from Common Law. From the American Bar Association: The law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. However, the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution and, under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, laws enacted by Congress and treaties to which the United States is a party. While the U.S. Constitution states that federal law overrides state laws where there is a conflict between federal and state law, state courts are not subordinate to federal courts. There are two parallel sets of courts with different, and often overlapping, jurisdictions.
If you feel that I didn't use the right phraseology when I was replying to Schone23666's thread in relation to T2K that's fine, but as you mentioned your training I'd like to know what your training was. Was it a police officer, a lawyer or a law maker and what legal aspects did you cover? Part of Masters degree in Political Science was related to British and European Union laws and legal development and I did a great deal of research in this area so it's not a topic I am unfamiliar with.
But just because it was based on it does not make any part that was not included part of it.
I stated that "The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist. All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions." I think this is the fourth time I have to repeat this on this thread so please stop misquoting me.
As stated right above Common law is not legally binding in the US, so none of this has any application. I do know that they (the Sovereign Citizens) like to try and make a big deal out of Common/Commercial Law, but it does not hold water.
The common-law system prevails in United Kingdom and the United States, and other countries colonized by Britain. It is distinct from the civil-law system which predominates in Europe and in areas colonized by France and Spain. The common-law system is used in all the states of the United States except Louisiana, where French Civil Law combined with English Criminal Law to form a hybrid system. The common-law system is also used in Canada except in the Province of Quebec, where the French civil-law system prevails. However as regards common law not being legally binding in the US that is open to debate. There are many books and website which will argue that the US Constitution basically adopted pre-Revolution English Common Law and called it Federal Law. If that's true or not I don't know but I do know and there are many legal experts in America who are a lot smarter than you and I who have been debating this for the past couple of centuries. But I do know that if you do any research on the US Constitution and the history of law in the United States the word Common Law pops up an awful lot. In fact the simplest explanation for the history of US laws is found on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States#Common_law.2C_case_law_an d_precedent
In regards to T2K and how serious the Sovereign Citizen's take the importance of Common Law google: Common Law courts in Garfield County, Montana
One of the most common ones you see is they say that they can not be pulled over or even stop on the road and they do not need a drivers license as they are not driving (to them driving is only if for profit) they are traveling. The fact this has no bearing in fact is of no matter to them.
Well that is not something I stated. I said "traffic and tax violations are not laws so the police have no real right to bother you over them" as in regards to sending you a fine by mail.
Were to start, first Police Officer are not "officers of the peace", does that mean that they are not trying to keep the peace, no. But they are there to keep the public order, not the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer
They have every legal right to ask you anything that they want weather you have broken a law or not. You may not have to answer them, but that is very different from what you posted. They also as defined by the courts (laws going back to the US Constitution) have said that Police have the authority to detain someone for a reasonable amount of time to determine what has happened.
I posted "legally have no right to question or arrest you if you have not broken the peace or broken a law". If you have not broken a law then they don't but that doesn't stop them doing so and there are mitigating circumstances such as obviously being a suspect. However legally they don't have the right to arrest you if you have not broken a law unless Habeas Corpus has been suspended. But once again you think that I'm solely referring to the United States which I wasn't. The US Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". Section 9 is under Article 1 which states, "legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States. Incidentally Habeus Corpus has only been suspended once in US History by Lincoln in the American Civil War.
I do not even know were to start with this, as it is so full of holes that it looks like a three year old came up with the idea. Just because your name is or is not written in caps makes no legal difference, if you say it does show me were this comes from. Once more it comes down to the fact that common law is not the law of the land. Again as common law is not the law of the land this does not hold water.
Are you calling me a three year old or the idea?
Do people believe this and try to contest fines? Yes they do!
http://www.yourstrawman.com/
https://inalienablerights.wordpress.com/tickets-fines/
http://truedemocracyparty.net/2013/09/strawman-understanding-legalese-definitions-of-bondage-definitions-of-modern-slavery/
http://www.knowyourrightsgroup.com.au/fines/
http://themeasuringsystemofthegods.com/html/strawman_identity.html
http://freedom-school.com/aware/your-straw-man-is-an-artificial-person.html
http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2011/11/20/the-strawman-conspiracy-theory/
http://youhavetheright.com/home/
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/individual_declaration.htm
Will I be using this argument next time I get a speeding ticket. Nope
Incidentally part of Wesely Snipes defence against tax evasion in 2006 was based upon this because the name on his indictment was listed in capital letters. He incidentally went to prison.
rcaf_777
11-10-2015, 08:59 AM
We are drifting off topic and starting to attack people. let all take a deep breath and relax before this topic gets closed
Play nice before I call Mom and Dad
Ancestor
11-20-2015, 05:57 PM
When I went down to Katrina, we were told that we were all being sworn in as Deputy U.S. Marshals and/or would be sworn in a Deputy Sheriffs in whatever Parish we would be in. The powers that be on my job suddenly became very worried about this when we got down there and NOPD was basically begging us for help (offered to put two of their guys with two of our guys in each car, we called this a combat car up in NY). Sadly the nervous nellies (lawsuits or bad publicity) on my job won out, but we rescued a lot of dogs and cats........(not much actual police work)
Louied did you go down there as law enforcement or National Guard? I was there with 35th ID (KSARNG) and worked a bunch of legal issues as the only JAG in the Division HQ for the first three weeks. Ran into some similar issues.
Sorry took me so long, been a bit busy. I will reply to some as this is a very easy topic to get out of hand.
Most of the laws of the United States, and British Commonwealth and Ireland are derived from English Common Law. The US Constitution is the highest authority in the United States but the point I was making is that laws of the United States and the former British Empire stem from Common Law. From the American Bar Association: The law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. However, the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution and, under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, laws enacted by Congress and treaties to which the United States is a party. While the U.S. Constitution states that federal law overrides state laws where there is a conflict between federal and state law, state courts are not subordinate to federal courts. There are two parallel sets of courts with different, and often overlapping, jurisdictions.
Last time I read it the US Constitution was when you get right down to it a limit on what the federal government can do. If it does not specifically say they can officially they do not have the authority to do so as that power belongs to the states.
If you feel that I didn't use the right phraseology when I was replying to Schone23666's thread in relation to T2K that's fine, but as you mentioned your training I'd like to know what your training was. Was it a police officer, a lawyer or a law maker and what legal aspects did you cover? Part of Masters degree in Political Science was related to British and European Union laws and legal development and I did a great deal of research in this area so it's not a topic I am unfamiliar with.
My training a bit more than eight years as a senior federal law enforcement instructor. Mostly firearms/use of force, but also ERT, and medical.
I stated that "The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist. All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions." I think this is the fourth time I have to repeat this on this thread so please stop misquoting me.
I am sorry if you feel that I was misquoting you, I was trying to say that common law English or as you called it American has no legal standing. If it is not a law written into the code it is not a law. Now does that mean it has no impact on the law, no. A good (bad you pick) Lawyer can argue precedent (Including common law) that it should mitigated the sentence but it is not a law.
Are you calling me a three year old or the idea?
I was saying the idea, I do not think that you believe this. Do people, yes. If someone does believe does that make them stupid? I would say that depends on how far they take it. But that is starting to get off the point.
rcaf_777
11-23-2015, 10:19 AM
Years later I found out that there are people who actually believe that courtrooms have a gold-fringed flag in them in an attempt to "put you" in a "naval" court "at sea" where the US Constitution doesn't apply, but some arcane laws influenced by Navy rules. I was flabbergasted.
There an old Law & Order episode called Nunfication. In the episode the criminals attempt to rob a armored car which leads to the prosecution of a suburban right-wing militia group that claims to be at war with the U.S. government.
When the Criminals are put before the Judge at their hearing they claim that they are POW's they can't judge by the court. They ask the judge to refer the case to a military court, which the judge responses she can't do. Then they pull put the flag argument. The judge tell she doesn’t care how many bells or fringes are on that flag, it’s not happening
Anna Elizabeth
11-23-2015, 10:25 AM
I used to run into guys like that - the "Gold Fringe" guys, when I worked retail. I guess my politeness was taken for agreement, because they would invariably escalate the conversation towards racism, homophobia, and the like.
Now I just wear my Pride jewelry all the time, and get more nasty looks, but far fewer dumbass conspiracy conversations.
Panther Al
11-27-2015, 03:06 PM
My take on this whole mess is just that it does more harm than good.
Same with the 'Open Carry' clowns that you see now and then walking around with AR's.
Whist I can be called conservative on a lot (even most) of issues, I fall in the more liberal camp on enough that the local GOP back in Defiance when I lived there had hated me (To be fair to the GOP on the whole, part of the problem the locals had was that I was Jewish, and not a 'Good Christian' - and yes, they said that was the problem where as the local GOP in the DC area had no major issues at all). So I am neither hard core righty, or hard core lefty: something the reasonable conservative middle as I call it.
The whole Sovereign Citizen nonsense - and I don't say that to be offensive, it is just how I see it myself, is that it paints everyone that shares even a smidge of agreement with any particular with the same brush. And because of that, they are oft times lumped into the same group of people that have legitimate and rational issues with government as it is constituted today - making it easy for other groups, be it the press, political parties, or activists of what ever stripe, to ridicule them in toto, and make what efforts that they are trying to make be pointless.
The same goes for the Open Carry nabobs. By walking around with AR's or the like they can honestly be painted as a major problem just waiting to happen. The frighten people that do not know the basic issues they are supposedly supporting into becoming hard core anti-gunners. They cause Police Officers, who have better things to be doing, to respond to spurious issues, at times at great risk of harm to either themselves, or the ones that are causing the trouble in the first place. I have nothing against concealed, or even open carry: I've done both. But there is a difference with walking around in everyones faces with an rifle and a discretely carried pistol at ones hip. With the latter, it isn't as obvious, and those that see it can easily choose to not see it if it offends them. Granted, I only carried openly a few times when I felt the need of deterrence was worth it: taking the days deposit to be dropped off in the after-hours drop box at the bank, or when I had to do a stop in a particularly bad neighbourhood where having an obvious pistol on my hip drove the risk-reward math into my favour, and not the local bangers - believe it or not, most of them are smart enough to figure out that going after a guy with a obvious gun isn't smart.
Both these groups give the more conservative side so many PR fits there are days I swear the left is actually behind it... but then I remember to take off my tinfoil hat. ;)
swaghauler
12-08-2015, 12:17 AM
This actually is a very interesting topic and I can see this happening in T2K as the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land.
All of our major laws are part of the Common Law, practically every other legal entity has been introduced by governments for commercial and revenue generating reasons and are acts and technicalities of fairly dubious legal authority. The entire judicial system in the Western English speaking world is I believe commercial law which is not legally binding under Common Law.
Police officers are officers of the peace, and legally have no right to question or arrest you if you have not broken the peace or broken a law. If you have not broken a law they have no right to ask for your name and address, and traffic and tax violations are not laws so the police have no real right to bother you over them. You also have no obligation to sign anything in a police station including a release document if you have broken no law.
There are also a lot of technicalities that you can legally challenge if you receive a summons or a fine by mail. Summonses have to be legally delivered to you in person, and all government mail is actually phrased incorrectly (deliberately) as it addresses you in your commercial strawman name in CAPS which is not your real name on your birth certificate. As you have never signed any document agreeing to the legality of a commercial summons or fine do not legally have to pay it or even attend court as you have broken no Common Law. That also applies to the draft or conscription into the armed forces.
Also a judge has no other name than a judge. Using your honour etc is court is optional. Also a judge is supposed to carry their oath with them at all times in court. Very few do and if you are in court for breaking an actual law and happen to ask the judge to see his oath and he or she cant produce it then the court is invalid and you are entitled to walk free and the judge knows it
Loads of potential T2k material for the legally unhappy to challenge authority.
US law is based on the Constitution which is based on a variety of legal concepts, not just English Common Law.
The terms Police Officer and Peace Officer have very different definitions depending on the state/agency you are referring to. I will refer to PA law in addressing this. In PA, a Peace Officer has only limited powers of arrest based on his office. Constables, Probation Officers, Dog Catchers, and Meter Maids are Peace Officers under PA law. They can only act with limited authority and make arrests within a limited set of circumstances. A Police Officer is vested by PA Act 120 with powers of Investigatory Arrest. He can investigate a crime that a third person says happened and charge someone with a crime after the investigation. Because of this power, he has EVERY RIGHT to ask you any question he chooses to during the investigation into whether a crime was committed or not (and this power was heavily expanded in the ill conceived Patriot Act). Additionally, not answering or giving false information can also be crimes (obstruction, false reports to a law enforcement officer).
Traffic and tax violations ARE laws and I have arrested and jailed 100s of people for these very infractions. So are Conscription Laws. There are people in America who are in jail right now because they were either a "Stop Loss" or an Active Duty/Active Reserve who were deployed and did not go.
Summons are routinely sent through the mail and the PA method follows the Title 18 Standard (Title 18 is the US code referring to the enforcement of domestic law) that every other state we ever dealt with used as well. A mailman will attempt to deliver a Summons (with you signing for it) three times. If you sign for it, you will have ten days to report to Court and enter a plea. If they cannot deliver it, they will return it to the Court. If you do not respond in 10 days or the post office cannot deliver it (usually due to a refusal to sign), A Warrant is issued for your arrest (for failure to respond). Someone like me then shows up at your house. Depending on the severity of the crime, I might even enter your house without permission (in the case of a felony). You will then see the Judge to enter a plea and (most likely) a bail will be set. There is NO OPTION in this. You MUST respond to any legal charges presented against you. It doesn't matter whether you choose to sign a document or not. If you do not respond to even a Summons, someone like me will find you and arrest you.
A Judge DOES NOT have to carry his oath. His oath is administered when he takes office. That is the start of his power. He has that power 24/7 in PA and never gives it up as long as he is in office. PA's check on Judicial Authority is that ALL Judges in the Commonwealth Of PA are ELECTED by the people of PA. Thus, his power is actually an extension of the people's power to judge.
Once again, these are just the rules of court for PA. Other states might do things differently.
swaghauler
12-08-2015, 12:33 AM
Has anyone read up on these two particular movements? Here's a wiki article for those that are interested with general information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
And if you want to watch some amusing (and at times violent) encounters between Sovereign Citizens/Freemen and law enforcement, here's this on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM
I believe Swaghauler mentioned he'd had more than a few run-ins with the Sovereign Citizen crowd. Sound like a really fun bunch, especially when they start breaking out the firearms and explosives....
My personal observation....yeah, I get people are frustrated with government, but JIMINY F**KING CHRIST ON A JIMMY STICK, these guys must idolize fellas like Timothy McVeigh. :O If you want to change the political system you have to actually get involved in the political process. These nutballs seem to take an entirely different route.
Yeah, I can definitely see some of these guys forming New America in T2k or some nutball militia in Merc2000....or just being part of any so-called "Sovereign Nation Militia" popping up in some part of America, Australia, the U.K. or elsewhere with their own bizarre interpretation of a republic.
My experience with the Sovereign Citizens involved repeated run-ins with a handful of said individuals. They really don't like to pay their property taxes and can become violent when you show up to list their property for Sherriff's Sale. I take it VERY PERSONALLY when you point a gun at me! It ended very badly for the man in question...7 to 15 years and a good old fashioned Pittsburgh Street Beating...
They also don't like to show up for court when you cite them for things like driving without a license or insurance. That means your's truly has to go and get them. This can often become an exercise in patience or turn violent very quickly. Especially when they bring up the same BS arguments (which SEVERAL courts have ruled against already) that RN7 brought up in his post (not signing, no service by mail, etc...).
Finally, they don't think the rules of court apply to them (like no video recording devices in the courtroom). Some of these I agree with them on (like letting cameras into the courtroom), but I don't get to make the rules, I only enforce them. It has turned violent on occasion. The druggie who bit me on the bicep was a Sovereign Citizen.
Combine this with the fact that many of them are substance abusers (alcohol, meth, and weed being the most common) with poor decision- making skills, and you can see how much fun the Sovereign Citizens can be.
US law is based on the Constitution which is based on a variety of legal concepts, not just English Common Law.
Well when I stated that " the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land" I included the United States in the English Common Law area which it is, but I failed to differentiate the subtle difference of the relevance of the authority of the US Constitution in regards to US Laws and was applying the English Common Law rule to the entire former British Empire.
The terms Police Officer and Peace Officer have very different definitions depending on the state/agency you are referring to. I will refer to PA law in addressing this. In PA, a Peace Officer has only limited powers of arrest based on his office. Constables, Probation Officers, Dog Catchers, and Meter Maids are Peace Officers under PA law. They can only act with limited authority and make arrests within a limited set of circumstances.
But they are not really police officers are they?
A Police Officer is vested by PA Act 120 with powers of Investigatory Arrest.
A Pennsylvania Police officer would be what the original idea an Officer of the Peace should be, and if he/she is investigating as suspect who is believed to have broken a law then the Police Officer would have the authority to question or arrest the suspect whom they believed committed an offence under the law.
He can investigate a crime that a third person says happened and charge someone with a crime after the investigation. Because of this power, he has EVERY RIGHT to ask you any question he chooses to during the investigation into whether a crime was committed or not (and this power was heavily expanded in the ill conceived Patriot Act). Additionally, not answering or giving false information can also be crimes (obstruction, false reports to a law enforcement officer).
Although once again you are assuming I was referring only to the United States which I was wasn't. A Police Officer can ask you a question in regards to an investigation of a crime but I believe he would have to inform you why he is asking that question. Most people would be happy to answer that question but I believe you still do not have to answer that question in the United States unless I am reading the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights incorrectly.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation "
Maybe the 6th Amendment too?
However if a Police Officer charges you with a crime or in regards to obstruction of an investigation then I think you need to get a lawyer!
But what I was referring to was that if you are walking down the street and acting in a lawful manner then a Police Officer has no right to bother you unless you are being charged with breaking a law. If you haven't broken a law and the Police Officer knows you haven't broken a law then the Police Officer shouldn't be bothering you.
Traffic and tax violations ARE laws and I have arrested and jailed 100s of people for these very infractions.
Maybe they are called laws in the United States, but they are acts and amendments of acts elsewhere. Under English Common Law there is a difference between actual laws and acts.
So are Conscription Laws. There are people in America who are in jail right now because they were either a "Stop Loss" or an Active Duty/Active Reserve who were deployed and did not go.
I presume these people were already enlisted personnel because I don't think there has been conscription (the draft) in the United States since 1973. If you went to someone's house who wasn't a member of the military and arrested them for not reporting for duty then you might get fired and end up in jail!
Summons are routinely sent through the mail and the PA method follows the Title 18 Standard (Title 18 is the US code referring to the enforcement of domestic law) that every other state we ever dealt with used as well. A mailman will attempt to deliver a Summons (with you signing for it) three times. If you sign for it, you will have ten days to report to Court and enter a plea. If they cannot deliver it, they will return it to the Court. If you do not respond in 10 days or the post office cannot deliver it (usually due to a refusal to sign), A Warrant is issued for your arrest (for failure to respond). Someone like me then shows up at your house.
Again I wasn't referring only to the United States, but the system you described is similar to other countries. For motoring offences In the UK/Ireland if you fail to respond to a fine sent by mail over a time period a Police Officer will call to your house and issue you with a summons which "invites" you to attend court. Commercial laws (acts) can't demand that you attend court but have to aske nicely and invite you! If you don't attend court after receiving a summons then a warrant is issued for your arrest. However as regards to minor fines such as parking offences, road tolls and TV licences you can bamboozle the relevant authority with Common Law rhetoric if you know what you are doing, sometimes they give up pursuing you.
Depending on the severity of the crime, I might even enter your house without permission (in the case of a felony). You will then see the Judge to enter a plea and (most likely) a bail will be set. There is NO OPTION in this. You MUST respond to any legal charges presented against you. It doesn't matter whether you choose to sign a document or not. If you do not respond to even a Summons, someone like me will find you and arrest you.
Would that not be violating someone's rights under the 4th Amendment?
A Judge DOES NOT have to carry his oath. His oath is administered when he takes office. That is the start of his power. He has that power 24/7 in PA and never gives it up as long as he is in office. PA's check on Judicial Authority is that ALL Judges in the Commonwealth Of PA are ELECTED by the people of PA. Thus, his power is actually an extension of the people's power to judge.
They do outside the US. I know someone who walked from an assault charge in Ireland after he asked the judge to see his oath and the judge had to dismiss the case against him as he could not produce his oath.
OK, I will bite. You say that you are not talking about the US, yet keep using the excuses that they use here in the US. When we tell you why they do not work here you seam to be getting defensive. Do they try and use the English Common law? Yes, but as has been stated it does not fly in the US. I do have to say that I have not read up on the movement outside the US, so I can not say if it has much of a following outside the US. Now based on what I think you have been saying there would be one big difference that I am seeing. If I understand you correctly outside the US they are fully within there legal rights, and are not doing anything against the law is that correct? Here in the US they are breaking all kinds of laws. I am not going to get into a debate about if the laws are good or not, they have been found legal by the courts so that is what matters.
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
"The terms Police Officer and Peace Officer have very different definitions depending on the state/agency you are referring to. I will refer to PA law in addressing this. In PA, a Peace Officer has only limited powers of arrest based on his office. Constables, Probation Officers, Dog Catchers, and Meter Maids are Peace Officers under PA law. They can only act with limited authority and make arrests within a limited set of circumstances."
RN7
"But they are not really police officers are they?"
I am not sure what you are asking. No they are not, but what he was showing is that Police Officer are not Peace Officers, that you were earlier saying they were. Or at least in the US they are not.
RN7
"... But what I was referring to was that if you are walking down the street and acting in a lawful manner then a Police Officer has no right to bother you unless you are being charged with breaking a law. If you haven't broken a law and the Police Officer knows you haven't broken a law then the Police Officer shouldn't be bothering you."
I guess that depends on what you mean when you say that they have no right to bother you. If you are in the public a Police Officer has every legal right to talk with you, do you have to stop and talk with them? No, do you have to answer there question? Again, no but they do have the right to stop and talk with you, the same as any other person in public. And if when talking with you they see something they can go from just a meet and great to an investigation.
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
"Depending on the severity of the crime, I might even enter your house without permission (in the case of a felony). You will then see the Judge to enter a plea and (most likely) a bail will be set. There is NO OPTION in this. You MUST respond to any legal charges presented against you. It doesn't matter whether you choose to sign a document or not. If you do not respond to even a Summons, someone like me will find you and arrest you."
RN7
"Would that not be violating someone's rights under the 4th Amendment?"
No, as when they did not show there is a bench warrant put out for them, so when they are showing up they are arresting them under the warrant.
OK, I will bite. You say that you are not talking about the US, yet keep using the excuses that they use here in the US. When we tell you why they do not work here you seam to be getting defensive. Do they try and use the English Common law? Yes, but as has been stated it does not fly in the US.
No CDAT I am only asking questions and trying give examples of how US law is related to Common Law. Also I did state........
"the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land" I included the United States in the English Common Law area which it is, but I failed to differentiate the subtle difference of the relevance of the authority of the US Constitution in regards to US Laws and was applying the English Common Law rule to the entire former British Empire.
I think I made myself quite clear did I not?
Also I earlier said....
"The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist. All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions."
and.
"Most of the laws of the United States, and British Commonwealth and Ireland are derived from English Common Law. The US Constitution is the highest authority in the United States but the point I was making is that laws of the United States and the former British Empire stem from Common Law. From the American Bar Association: The law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. However, the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution and, under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, laws enacted by Congress and treaties to which the United States is a party. While the U.S. Constitution states that federal law overrides state laws where there is a conflict between federal and state law, state courts are not subordinate to federal courts. There are two parallel sets of courts with different, and often overlapping, jurisdictions."
Again I was referring to the entire English Common Law area not just the United States. However in my original first reply I failed to make that distinction clear. But you guys are or will only talk about laws in the United States, so I am trying to respond in the best way that I can by using examples or asking questions about US laws in relation to your points.
I do have to say that I have not read up on the movement outside the US, so I can not say if it has much of a following outside the US.
English Common Law is the highest law of the land outside of the US in the Common Law countries.
Now based on what I think you have been saying there would be one big difference that I am seeing. If I understand you correctly outside the US they are fully within there legal rights, and are not doing anything against the law is that correct?
It would depend on what exactly you are referring to, but yes legally there are limits on what a policeman can ask or why he cam detain you and if it ends up in court that will likely stand. If you end up in a police cell and have done nothing then you have to be charged with something or released. From what I'm reading from what you and the other guys are saying correctly it seems that people in the Common Law areas outside of the US have more rights, or at least there are more restrictions on what the police can do legally.
Here in the US they are breaking all kinds of laws. I am not going to get into a debate about if the laws are good or not, they have been found legal by the courts so that is what matters.
I think the "Sovereign Citizens" in the US are more extreme and less well informed than they are outside of the US. To some of them anything that they hear or read about that challenges the laws is an excuse no matter if they are right or wrong because many of them are idiots.
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
"The terms Police Officer and Peace Officer have very different definitions depending on the state/agency you are referring to. I will refer to PA law in addressing this. In PA, a Peace Officer has only limited powers of arrest based on his office. Constable, Probation Officers Dog Catcher and Meter Maids are Peace Officers under PA law. They can only act with limited authority and make arrests within a limited set of circumstances."
RN7
"But they are not really police officers are they?"
I am not sure what you are asking. No they are not, but what he was showing is that Police Officer are not Peace Officers, that you were earlier saying they were. Or at least in the US they are not.
I would not consider a Constables, Probation Officer, Dog Catchers, and Meter Maids a Police Officer or a Peace Officers by my definition. And I never said it, the article on Wikipedia did. The fact that some US states consider Probation Officers, Dog Catchers, and Meter Maids as Peace Officers is a peculiarity to these US states.
I guess that depends on what you mean when you say that they have no right to bother you. If you are in the public a Police Officer has every legal right to talk with you, do you have to stop and talk with them? No, do you have to answer there question? Again, no but they do have the right to stop and talk with you, the same as any other person in public. And if when talking with you they see something they can go from just a meet and great to an investigation.
I'm sorry I don't quite know where you are taking this. In a free country a policeman cannot stop you, question or harass you or detain you without good reason. If he has good reason then that is another matter. But if he doesn't have good reason then it is illegal. If a policeman did that to a law abiding citizen outside of the US without very good reason then he and the police service would be wide open to a very large law suite. I believe the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies to all 50 US states and territories, have individual US states given policemen extra legal rights to question and detain citizens which I am unaware off?
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
"Depending on the severity of the crime, I might even enter your house without permission (in the case of a felony). You will then see the Judge to enter a plea and (most likely) a bail will be set. There is NO OPTION in this. You MUST respond to any legal charges presented against you. It doesn't matter whether you choose to sign a document or not. If you do not respond to even a Summons, someone like me will find you and arrest you."
RN7
"Would that not be violating someone's rights under the 4th Amendment?"
No, as when they did not show there is a bench warrant put out for them, so when they are showing up they are arresting them under the warrant.
But it was the way Swaghauler phrased it " Depending on the severity of the crime, I might even enter your house without permission (in the case of a felony). You will then see the Judge to enter a plea and (most likely) a bail will be set" implied that the 4th Amendment was being ignored. I mean I really just had to say it!!
No CDAT I am only asking questions and trying give examples of how US law is related to Common Law. Also I did state........
"the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land" I included the United States in the English Common Law area which it is, but I failed to differentiate the subtle difference of the relevance of the authority of the US Constitution in regards to US Laws and was applying the English Common Law rule to the entire former British Empire.
I think I made myself quite clear did I not?
I do not think you have been clear at all, hence the reason I have been trying to make sense of what you have been saying. It has looked and maybe I was wrong, but looks like you have been saying that it applies to the US, and then when we say it does not you say that you were not talking about the US. So are you talking about Sovereign Citizens in the US or not? As almost everything so far that I have seen so far does not apply in the US.
Also I earlier said....
"The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist. All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions."
and.
"Most of the laws of the United States, and British Commonwealth and Ireland are derived from English Common Law. The US Constitution is the highest authority in the United States but the point I was making is that laws of the United States and the former British Empire stem from Common Law. From the American Bar Association: The law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. However, the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution and, under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, laws enacted by Congress and treaties to which the United States is a party. While the U.S. Constitution states that federal law overrides state laws where there is a conflict between federal and state law, state courts are not subordinate to federal courts. There are two parallel sets of courts with different, and often overlapping, jurisdictions."
I am not sure what you are saying, are you saying that common law does or does not apply to in the US?
Again I was referring to the entire English Common Law area not just the United States. However in my original first reply I failed to make that distinction clear. But you guys are or will only talk about laws in the United States, so I am trying to respond in the best way that I can by using examples or asking questions about US laws in relation to your points.
Maybe I missed it before, but this is the first that I can think of were it does not sound like you were talking about the US only. I do not know anything about laws outside of the US, so I can not speak to anything about how English Common Law does or does not apply outside the US.
It would depend on what exactly you are referring to, but yes legally there are limits on what a policeman can ask or why he cam detain you and if it ends up in court that will likely stand. If you end up in a police cell and have done nothing then you have to be charged with something or released. From what I'm reading from what you and the other guys are saying correctly it seems that people in the Common Law areas outside of the US have more rights, or at least there are more restrictions on what the police can do legally.
Some of the issues here may be on what you mean by "ask" and "detain". As a Police Officer here I can ask you anything, but you do not have to answer me, as for detain I can ask you to stop and talk with me, but again you do not have to. So I could walk down the street and ask any random person to stop and talk with me, and then ask them if they had any drugs on them. They do not have to stop or answer me, and if it would or would not hold up in court is different than if I could do it. I am not breaking any laws doing it, policy is a different story. My understanding is that foreign law enforcement has at least the same ability as we do in the US.
I think the "Sovereign Citizens" in the US are more extreme and less well informed than they are outside of the US. To some of them anything that they hear or read about that challenges the laws is an excuse no matter if they are right or wrong because many of them are idiots.
I am not going to say that everyone who calls them self a Sovereign Citizen in the US is a criminal, same as everyone who calls them self a crypt is not a criminal, but for the most part both are considered criminal organizations.
I would not consider a Constables, Probation Officer, Dog Catchers, and Meter Maids a Police Officer or a Peace Officers by my definition. And I never said it, the article on Wikipedia did. The fact that some US states consider Probation Officers, Dog Catchers, and Meter Maids as Peace Officers is a peculiarity to these US states.
I think this is also one of the reason that this has been as confusing as it is. You brought up the term Peace Officer (I do not remember what source you used or the context it was used in) and then when it was pointed out that the term applies to others, not Police Officers you said the above. So are you talking about Police Officers or Peace Officers as they can be different?
I'm sorry I don't quite know where you are taking this. In a free country a policeman cannot stop you, question or harass you or detain you without good reason. If he has good reason then that is another matter. But if he doesn't have good reason then it is illegal. If a policeman did that to a law abiding citizen outside of the US without very good reason then he and the police service would be wide open to a very large law suite. I believe the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies to all 50 US states and territories, have individual US states given policemen extra legal rights to question and detain citizens which I am unaware off?
There is a difference between what I have been talking about and what you are talking about here. There is also a big difference between talking with some one and harassing them. Yes, the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies in all 50 States and the Territories, but that does not stop you from talking with someone the same as any other person. So not sure what you are trying to say here?
But it was the way Swaghauler phrased it " Depending on the severity of the crime, I might even enter your house without permission (in the case of a felony). You will then see the Judge to enter a plea and (most likely) a bail will be set" implied that the 4th Amendment was being ignored. I mean I really just had to say it!!
I am not seeing this. I will give a couple of examples that could fit (as I am not him so do not want to speak for him). 1st) I am a patrol officer who sees someone hit a vehicle and then run (drive away) from the the accident. So I turn on my lights and he runs (drives), I follow he gets home and runs in to his house. I do not need a warrant as I saw him commit the crime and have followed him. 2nd) I have a warrant for his arrest. I will show up and enter and arrest the person. Yes, these are simple examples but there are more.
I do not think you have been clear at all, hence the reason I have been trying to make sense of what you have been saying. It has looked and maybe I was wrong, but looks like you have been saying that it applies to the US, and then when we say it does not you say that you were not talking about the US. So are you talking about Sovereign Citizens in the US or not? As almost everything so far that I have seen so far does not apply in the US.
If it is not clear to you when I stated "the rights of the Sovereign Citizen as termed under Common English Law which is the defacto law of the land in most of the former British Empire and the United States is legally the highest authority in the land" I included the United States in the English Common Law area which it is, but I failed to differentiate the subtle difference of the relevance of the authority of the US Constitution in regards to US Laws and was applying the English Common Law rule to the entire former British Empire." then there is nothing I can do about that.
I am not sure what you are saying, are you saying that common law does or does not apply to in the US?
I said
"The US Constitution is I think partially based on English Common Law, now known as American Common Law. After the revolution some English Common Laws or traditions were outlawed by the US Constitution, but some were retained and over the past 230 years they have just divergence from British laws but still exist. All US states except Louisiana have enacted reception statutes which generally state that the common law of England is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions."
and
"Most of the laws of the United States, and British Commonwealth and Ireland are derived from English Common Law. The US Constitution is the highest authority in the United States but the point I was making is that laws of the United States and the former British Empire stem from Common Law. From the American Bar Association: The law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. However, the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution and, under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, laws enacted by Congress and treaties to which the United States is a party. While the U.S. Constitution states that federal law overrides state laws where there is a conflict between federal and state law, state courts are not subordinate to federal courts. There are two parallel sets of courts with different, and often overlapping, jurisdictions."
If that is not clear to you then there is nothing I can do about that.
Maybe I missed it before, but this is the first that I can think of were it does not sound like you were talking about the US only. I do not know anything about laws outside of the US, so I can not speak to anything about how English Common Law does or does not apply outside the US.
I said " Again I was referring to the entire English Common Law area not just the United States. However in my original first reply I failed to make that distinction clear. But you guys are or will only talk about laws in the United States, so I am trying to respond in the best way that I can by using examples or asking questions about US laws in relation to your points."
If that is not clear to you then there is nothing I can do about that.
Some of the issues here may be on what you mean by "ask" and "detain". As a Police Officer here I can ask you anything, but you do not have to answer me
As a free citizen I can also ask another free citizen anything, but they do not have to answer me and I know what they would likely say to me.
as for detain I can ask you to stop and talk with me, but again you do not have to
As a free citizen I might entertain you or ignore you depending on my mood.
So I could walk down the street and ask any random person to stop and talk with me, and then ask them if they had any drugs on them. They do not have to stop or answer me, and if it would or would not hold up in court is different than if I could do it. I am not breaking any laws doing it, policy is a different story. My understanding is that foreign law enforcement has at least the same ability as we do in the US.
Could be as I am not a police officer but I am also well aware of my own rights.
I am not going to say that everyone who calls them self a Sovereign Citizen in the US is a criminal, same as everyone who calls them self a crypt is not a criminal, but for the most part both are considered criminal organizations.
If someone who considers themselves to be a self Sovereign Citizen or a crypt is not a criminal and have not broken a law then you can't bother them over their believes.
I think this is also one of the reason that this has been as confusing as it is. You brought up the term Peace Officer (I do not remember what source you used or the context it was used in) and then when it was pointed out that the term applies to others, not Police Officers you said the above.
It's on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer
So are you talking about Police Officers or Peace Officers as they can be different?
I suppose that would depend on the jurisdiction
There is a difference between what I have been talking about and what you are talking about here.
What would that be exactly?
There is also a big difference between talking with some one and harassing them. Yes, the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies in all 50 States and the Territories, but that does not stop you from talking with someone the same as any other person. So not sure what you are trying to say here?
And either do I know what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to put words into my mouth?
I am not seeing this. I will give a couple of examples that could fit (as I am not him so do not want to speak for him). 1st) I am a patrol officer who sees someone hit a vehicle and then run (drive away) from the the accident. So I turn on my lights and he runs (drives), I follow he gets home and runs in to his house. I do not need a warrant as I saw him commit the crime and have followed him. 2nd) I have a warrant for his arrest. I will show up and enter and arrest the person. Yes, these are simple examples but there are more.
And you would have good reason to do all of that. But if you didn't see him hit a vehicle and then run (drive away) from the accident but you thought that he did even though he didn't, or you just didn't like the look of the guy for whatever reason what then? And then after you did all of the following where would that leave you and the guy you did all that to if it ended up in court. Would the judge just convict the guy on your word or would the case against guy be dismissed and how would you be punished? And do you think that you would deserve to be punished or that the guy should be convicted on the basis of your word?
LT. Ox
12-28-2015, 10:38 AM
"And you would have good reason to do all of that." Ok that is nice and you both agree, how wonderful.
"But if you didn't see him hit a vehicle and then run (drive away) from the accident but you thought that he did even though he didn't, or you just didn't like the look of the guy for whatever reason what then? And then after you did all of the following where would that leave you and the guy you did all that to if it ended up in court. Would the judge just convict the guy on your word or would the case against guy be dismissed and how would you be punished? And do you think that you would deserve to be punished or that the guy should be convicted on the basis of your word?"
Now I have to wonder what this is for. Are you implying that CDAT would take such action?
Perhaps you see Law enforcement Officers as a whole taking such actions or only Officers in the US?
Or just maybe that ending is just trolling? Well ye caught me.
You are well spoken and it seems enjoy debate, but to what end?
Where this thread started and where you have managed to transport it seem (albeit with help) to me, much different than was intended by the author of the original post.
I bow to your vast knowledge of jurisprudence of American Law in the 21st century and how it has developed. My degree and experience of a couple of decades was in the last.
I will however add that I never lost a case in court, I was sued a number of times or at least I had the intent papers filed by attorneys for those I had brought charges against, none went so far as to be heard and I never dropped or lowered the proffered charges to have that done.
One of the requirements used for the past thirty years or so for an officer to take action is called reasonableness. It is a broad area to explain in a short post and is the subject for Law enforcement Officer while in academy and as refresher classes later. I taught those classes for five years
.
Did and do officers get it wrong sometimes? Oh yes and with varying degrees of resultant effects for them and for the unfortunate persons they dealt with inappropriately. I also had the distasteful duty to investigate such incidents when they involved my department.
It is not the best idea for the average person to get into a debate with an on duty Officer that is attempting to perform his sworn duty; there will always be a time and a place to do so.
The people and the reasons for their arguments that this thread was started to discuss about gaming ideas have little to do with keeping our streets safe and much to do to effect what you have perpetuated, debate and confusion, perhaps not for you but I am sure for many that read this thread.
I am done and will let the hook go now.
Rainbow Six
12-28-2015, 10:59 AM
much to do to effect what you have perpetuated, debate and confusion, perhaps not for you but I am sure for many that read this thread.
You left out boredom.
As far as I can see this thread has had absolutely nothing to do with T2k for quite some time (more or less from the second post) so maybe it's time those that still wish to debate the matter consider taking it to private message where they can debate to their heart's content.
Rainbow Six:
I totally agree, it has become tedious and it a bit too personal in its nature for my liking although it certainly wasn't my intension to let it develop that way.
LT. Ox:
Firstly if you don't like what you read and feel that your only contribution to a thread will be to heavily criticise someone for sharing information which is widely available in books and online then don't.
Secondly you were the first person that I can recall who came one here to admonish me for doing that, and then let me know that you had a career in law enforcement as if to put me in my place.
Thirdly CDAT is an obviously intelligent person and I would not reply to him if he wasn't, and he doesn't need you to speak up for him.
Fourthly " It is not the best idea for the average person to get into a debate with an on duty Officer that is attempting to perform his sworn duty; there will always be a time and a place to do so". Maybe it would not be the best idea for an on duty officer to come on here and then tell everyone he is one when discussing laws and the interpretation of it.
Lastly: Trolling! We had one on here a month ago and it was unpleasant for all and I was perhaps the main target of it. I am not a troll and I don't like being accused of trolling.
This discussion is not contributing to Twilight 2000 and has gone way off topic as far as I am concerned. I have enjoyed discussing US law and English Common Law with CDAT, swaghauler and LT. Ox but before we all end up choosing weapons at dawn I think we can all agree that it now needs to be put to rest.
rcaf_777
12-29-2015, 03:31 PM
Can this thread be closed please
LT. Ox
12-29-2015, 09:19 PM
This discussion is not contributing to Twilight 2000 and has gone way off topic as far as I am concerned. I have enjoyed discussing US law and English Common Law with CDAT, swaghauler and LT. Ox but before we all end up choosing weapons at dawn I think we can all agree that it now needs to be put to rest.
Said sabers but I am way too old and slow so it must be shotguns at ten feet er 3 meters .
Thanks RN7
jester
01-03-2016, 02:50 AM
Yes, boredom! Much ado about nothing.
Yes, English Common Law and the EAST of the US, where the West is more Statute Law and Europe the Napoleonic Code.
And I am done without a hangover of straight flavored vodka like when I attended law classes.
and now I am not forgetting the whole ALL THING I am omitting it on purpose!
As for the topic, "Soveirgn Citizens" I can see more like free people who chuck the laws or those sent to enforce the laws of whatever the local government of the area or who claims the area. I mean comeon, We have Civgov, Milgov and probably local gov. setting up their rules, all of which would tax and make demands of "WHAT THE LAW IS!" I can see local people saying enough is enough! They chuck the current governing body and strike out on their own. Which would make them outlaws by the government they threw aside and here comes the real discussion.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.