"Sovereign Citizens" and the Freemen movement

[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.

[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.

[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!!

[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.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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

Originally Posted by CDAT

So are you talking about Police Officers or Peace Officers as they can be different?

I suppose that would depend on the jurisdiction

Originally Posted by CDAT

There is a difference between what I have been talking about and what you are talking about here.

What would that be exactly?

Originally Posted by CDAT

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?

Originally Posted by CDAT

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]

"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]

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

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.

[RN7]

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.

[RN7]

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]

Can this thread be closed please

[LT. Ox]

Originally Posted by RN7

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]

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.