"Sovereign Citizens" and the Freemen movement

[Schone23666]

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/Sovere...tizen_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.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

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/Sovere...tizen_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]

Actually trying any of that is likely to end rather badly for the average person though.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by CDAT

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]

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]

These guys will probably turn into marauders and warlords in the T2K timeline.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by RN7

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]

Originally Posted by RN7

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

[RN7]

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

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.

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

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."

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

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" ?

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

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.

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

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.

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

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]

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]

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.

[Louied]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

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)

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

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.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

[RN7]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[rcaf_777]

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

[CDAT]

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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?

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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!

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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?

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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.

[CDAT]

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.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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 CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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 CDAT

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!!

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

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/Sovere...tizen_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.