Officer Doosh thinks he knows the law...

[wally05]

LOL, he's a "Sovereign Citizen"

Yep, I gathered that in about .5 seconds of reading his posts... just kills me to read/listen to their runabout nonsense stating "laws and codes" that are either 1. misinterpreted or 2. Out of date due to court decisions.

BehindBlueIs is 100% correct, though.

 

[wally05]

The "state" dose not exist. Again a code or what ever you want to call it dose not make it right or law. There is no such thing as the "state" just like there is no such thing as a forest. There is only individual people in a "state" just like there is only individual tree's in a "forest". Quote any code you want dose not make it right.

"no such thing as a forest"... what?

 

[sgtonory]

"no such thing as a forest"... what?

Laugh at me all you want. But i have not had anyone answer any of my questions. A forest is a idea just like "government". There is only individuals. Can you prove there is a "state". How a code or statue that such "state" creates has anything to do with me or you? If so then what stop's me from creating a "state" and making my own codes and statues and try and run your life.

 

[sgtonory]

Yep, I gathered that in about .5 seconds of reading his posts... just kills me to read/listen to their runabout nonsense stating "laws and codes" that are either 1. misinterpreted or 2. Out of date due to court decisions.

BehindBlueIs is 100% correct, though.

What codes or law did i misinterpreted? And from what behindblueis says he will go as far as to kill you for a speeding ticket. You say he would not. Lets say he try's to pull you over for speeding. You pull over and refuse to give ID or talk. He trys to "arrest"/kidnap you. You try and defend your from such a kidnap. At what point would this officer walk away? There is no end to what he would do in attempt to arrest you including killing you for defending yourself.

 

[Smokepole]

What codes or law did i misinterpreted? And from what behindblueis says he will go as far as to kill you for a speeding ticket. You say he would not. Lets say he try's to pull you over for speeding. You pull over and refuse to give ID or talk. He trys to "arrest"/kidnap you. You try and defend your from such a kidnap. At what point would this officer walk away? There is no end to what he would do in attempt to arrest you including killing you for defending yourself.

REALLY!?

Yes, there is. The very State that you choose to "not recognize" has written laws that govern his actions as well as yours. HE cannot kill you for your obtuse example, just as you cannot kill him.

In answer to your question "who is the state", here is an explanation deriving from our founding fathers.

The Declaration's third self-evident truth answers the question, why do men establish government? The answer: to secure natural rights, or the rights people are born with. The Declaration implies that these rights are not secure outside of government. Outside of government, people are in what the Founders called "the state of nature." They have natural rights, but when men live without government, those rights are jeopardized. As James Madison explained in Federalist no. 51, in the state of nature, "the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger." In such a state, even the decent may be tempted to act according to their selfish passions rather than their reason and duty. As James Madison put it in the same number of The Federalist, men are not angels-that is, they are not simply rational. The state of nature is characterized not by life, liberty, and happiness, but rather by violent death, slavery, and misery. Because of this-and so that they can enjoy their rights in peace-people join to form governments.
When people set up a government, they must give up some of the power they had in the state of nature. For example, one gives up the right to punish wrongdoers and gives that right to government. In this sense, one surrenders some of the natural right to liberty. But in another sense, the right to liberty is unalienable, meaning that one never gives it up at all. That is, no one rightfully assigns to a government absolute authority over his freedom of action, and no one rightfully gives up his ultimate right to revolt against a tyrannical government. One surrenders liberty conditionally: we give some of it to government, on the condition that government secures our rights.
For instance, people may not rightfully give government the right to kill or enslave them or confiscate their property (except as restitution for injuries committed). But people accept some restraints on the liberty they enjoyed in the natural state for the sake of more secure liberty. For instance, they give a portion of their property for the greater protection of the right of acquisition (e.g., when taxes go to pay for judges and for national defense).

Link: Founding.com: A Project of the Claremont Institute

Have our representatives taken their "governing responsibilities" to the extreme to the point of becoming oppressive? Yes! I believe that they have. But the majority of us prefer to work within the system until it is time not to. But if you prefer to continue on your "sovereign" course you are welcome to. Just get together with a group of your "sovereign" brethren, go buy an island and set up your own government. Or rather Non-Government. That would probably work for you. Until you find out as the Plymouth settlers did that some form of government (rules system) is necessary to secure some form of harmony. Been that way all through history. Just as the eventual corruption of said government has. It is part of the failings of the human condition.

 

[sgtonory]

At what point would a Leo leave you alone if say you have not violated anyones rights but desides to arrest you for a crime against the state? There can be no crime if there is no vcitim. And seeing how the "state" is the same as the easter bunny the "state" can not be a vicitm. So at what point is it ok to force to defend your rights. And if you use force to defend yourself a leo will also in a attempt to kidnap you.

 

[Bill of Rights]

At what point would a Leo leave you alone if say you have not violated anyones rights but desides to arrest you for a crime against the state? There can be no crime if there is no vcitim. And seeing how the "state" is the same as the easter bunny the "state" can not be a vicitm. So at what point is it ok to force to defend your rights. And if you use force to defend yourself a leo will also in a attempt to kidnap you.

Your position is the most liberty-conscious, that I'll grant you. Sadly, however, when you find yourself in a very small room with steel bars on all sides and a preset date when you will be allowed to depart such place, it won't matter how much you call it "kidnapping", you will still be there and without recourse other than to petition to the "non-existent" state.

Or I suppose you could fight the arresting officers, but the non-existence of the state will not make the bullets they use to kill you any less real.

No man is an island. Just as you cannot post here without the actions of others does not mean that there are only computers, there is no internet.

(which brings to mind the obvious contradiction: A sovereign citizen, rejecting government in toto, posting on the internet, which started off as DARPAnet, and thus is a creation of the non-existent state.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Light]

Your position is the most liberty-conscious, that I'll grant you. Sadly, however, when you find yourself in a very small room with steel bars on all sides and a preset date when you will be allowed to depart such place, it won't matter how much you call it "kidnapping", you will still be there and without recourse other than to petition to the "non-existent" state.

Or I suppose you could fight the arresting officers, but the non-existence of the state will not make the bullets they use to kill you any less real.

No man is an island. Just as you cannot post here without the actions of others does not mean that there are only computers, there is no internet.

(which brings to mind the obvious contradiction: A sovereign citizen, rejecting government in toto, posting on the internet, which started off as DARPAnet, and thus is a creation of the non-existent state.)

Blessings,
Bill

Technically all the internet is is a bunch of servers networked together, the servers only being large computers, and us paying our ISP for permission to use their network...

I understand what he is getting at. The state is simply a group of people who decided to get together and declare themselves a government. This is how any government body is formed. It is simply a group of people.

The issue with his argument however is that this body of government claimed a defined amount of land. If you wish to not be a resident of this state, you need to remove yourself from their property to excersize your god given rights without their interference. The problem is however that there is very very very little land anywhere in the world that does not belong to some form of government any longer.

Your house resides on Indiana property. It resides on government property. You may think it's yours, but you pay taxes on it. Own a mortgage? It's the banks property. You can only own a house there if your state and government have given you permission to. Want to defy them? Go ahead, but it's their country and their rules. If you don't like them, you can go through due process to change them, or find somewhere off their jurisdiction to live.

Also you sir have an extremist point of view, although a radically correct one.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Technically all the internet is is a bunch of servers networked together, the servers only being large computers, and us paying our ISP for permission to use their network...

I understand what he is getting at. The state is simply a group of people who decided to get together and declare themselves a government. This is how any government body is formed. It is simply a group of people.

The issue with his argument however is that this body of government claimed a defined amount of land. If you wish to not be a resident of this state, you need to remove yourself from their property to excersize your god given rights without their interference. The problem is however that there is very very very little land anywhere in the world that does not belong to some form of government any longer.

Your house resides on Indiana property. It resides on government property. You may think it's yours, but you pay taxes on it. Own a mortgage? It's the banks property. You can only own a house there if your state and government have given you permission to. Want to defy them? Go ahead, but it's their country and their rules. If you don't like them, you can go through due process to change them, or find somewhere off their jurisdiction to live.

Also you sir have an extremist point of view, although a radically correct one.

All quite true. I am an extremist... I believe in the US Constitution. I am a libertarian (with a lowercase "L") and I believe in minimal government. I recognize that there are some things an individual is not capable of doing, however, at least not alone. My approach is practical rather than letting ideology and "what should be" hinder me.
I obtained a LTCH not because I think it's the right thing to do or that I owe a duty to the state to pay for the privilege of exercising my rights, but because while I'm in the process of fighting to change the law, it is far easier to do that from within it than from the outside.
I further submit that while in the course of exercising my rights, I am exceptionally unlikely to be at odds with an officer of the law or to find myself before a judge or locked in a cage. Others may consider my position appeasing, and perhaps it is. If they wish to make some point by being in those adversarial situations, that also is their right.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[sgtonory]

So someone can just claim ownership of a region and you must obey or move? How can you support such a violent group? I don't know about you but I will not support a criminal gang that claims this to be there "state".

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'd also like to add that while I don't agree with his position, despite any tone to the contrary, I respect the fact that member "sgtonory" has spoken up and gotten involved. I respect the courage of his convictions that he demonstrates. I don't believe he's entirely wrong, either, as I said above, though I also don't believe he's entirely right. So long as his actions do not harm others, I take no issue with them personally. So long as his posts here (or anyone else's, for that matter) do not violate INGO rules, I take no issue with them while in the role of a moderator either.

Sgtonory, if my tone came across as mocking you, I do apologize, that was not my intent, however in re-reading my post, I see it could have been taken that way.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[sgtonory]

If you try t change the state you are validating it as having power to rule. I will not waste my time trying to change the tide or the "state". The state can only rule thru violence.

 

[Light]

If you try t change the state you are validating it as having power to rule. I will not waste my time trying to change the tide or the "state". The state can only rule thru violence.

The issue is that they have a majority. That majority will rise against you if you were to take violent measures against them, the same as a village defending itself. If you wish to do so that is your choice, but you will not succeed. The second option is to work in the process created by this government to change their rules and practice.

 

[sgtonory]

The issue is that they have a majority. That majority will rise against you if you were to take violent measures against them, the same as a village defending itself. If you wish to do so that is your choice, but you will not succeed. The second option is to work in the process created by this government to change their rules and practice.

How has that worked for us in the past? Has government only gotten bigger? Do we have more liberty because of this system? Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[Bill of Rights]

How has that worked for us in the past? Has government only gotten bigger? Do we have more liberty because of this system? Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

What do you recommend that won't result in less liberty? If I stop paying taxes (Who is John Galt?) I'm quickly going to find myself in a cell. There is nowhere to move to allow me personal liberty on the scale you seem to be describing.

It's easy to complain about the current system. Finding a workable solution is much more difficult.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[sgtonory]

What do you recommend that won't result in less liberty? If I stop paying taxes (Who is John Galt?) I'm quickly going to find myself in a cell. There is nowhere to move to allow me personal liberty on the scale you seem to be describing.

It's easy to complain about the current system. Finding a workable solution is much more difficult.

Blessings,
Bill

I try and live my life in this way Agorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. As far as taxes go do what you want to stay as free as you can. But what can be defined as taxable income? If you don't own your labor then who owns you? Don't underestimate your power to throw a wrench in the systems.

 

[jgoeden]

This guy is a prime example to why I hate most cops. They are undertrained power hungry jerks who don't know the law, and when they do they will lie to your face (which they are allowed to do) to get you to comply with their orders...

You DO NOT have to identify yourself to an officer unless you are being detained. Simply ask the officer, "Am I free to go". I love how Dana quoted Delaware v. Prouse, yet this idiot cop tells her to "look it up".

 

[Bill of Rights]

I try and live my life in this way Agorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. As far as taxes go do what you want to stay as free as you can. But what can be defined as taxable income? If you don't own your labor then who owns you? Don't underestimate your power to throw a wrench in the systems.

Again, your described position is the most liberty-conscious. I'm not quite sure I fully understand the Agorist theory you linked, but I can say that I'll not be violating the tax code... Federal PMITA prison is not a place I'd find comfortable. Thanks for your input-this has been educational.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Woah there. First, you're generalizing. I happen to know quite a few LEOs, some of whom will be reading your post and who will, quite appropriately, take offense at your insulting comments. The cops I know enter the profession with one goal: To protect and serve. Now... We all know about Castle Rock v. Gonzales and the other cases that define them as not having a duty to protect, but to paint all or even most cops with that unbelievably broad brush is not only uncalled-for, it's just plain wrong. Do SOME do what you described? Sure, no question. You, however, said it was "most", and that's where I'm taking issue.

And as stated upthread, Delaware v. Prouse addressed the issue of driver's licenses being demanded of drivers; it had nothing to do with LTCHs or their other-state equivalents. (not to mention that many states don't require any form of permission slip to OC.)

Lastly, no, I'm not a LEO. I'm just trying to prevent cop-bashing (especially undeserved) from turning into another argument.

Blessings,
Bill

This guy is a prime example to why I hate most cops. They are undertrained power hungry jerks who don't know the law, and when they do they will lie to your face (which they are allowed to do) to get you to comply with their orders...

You DO NOT have to identify yourself to an officer unless you are being detained. Simply ask the officer, "Am I free to go". I love how Dana quoted Delaware v. Prouse, yet this idiot cop tells her to "look it up".

 

[TravisJ]

There are good cops and bad cops, but we only have one kind of government. One that becomes more oppressive and tyrannical by the day. I have no idea how to fix it, for those of you who do, I wish you good luck. I'm just going to keep my head down and try to live as freely as possible.