[CDAT]

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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?

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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?

Originally Posted by RN7

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?

Originally Posted by RN7

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.