Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT
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..._and_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
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT
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/2013/0...odern-slavery/
http://www.knowyourrightsgroup.com.au/fines/
http://themeasuringsystemofthegods.c..._identity.html
http://freedom-school.com/aware/your...al-person.html
http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2011/...piracy-theory/
http://youhavetheright.com/home/
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/in...eclaration.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.