The American Ruling Class

[5150]

To answer that question I must first ask you a question:
Specifically what law do federal or state authorities cite to you as giving them the right to deny your Constitutional right to bear arms?

Actually I'm not sure what the law states but I do know I keep hearing its against the law and a felony for any felon to possess a firearm (unless they have been cleared to) Id have to look into any of those laws to see what they exactly say but regardless of what they say I personally think its unconstitutional

Can you provide a link to the actual case you are talking about? Are you sure it is Texas v. State of Texas?

sorry I mean to say __?__ vs State of Texas,

I think it was a Hispanic name Curz or something and it was his name vs. the state of Texas,

I thought you had posted it int his thread a few pages back but missed it when I went looking for it

[dutchdivco]

Alcan & 5150,...again!

5150;
As I understand it, 'they' have you in a difficult position; IF you attempt to purchase a gun 'legally' that would then mean having your info submitted for a 'background check', and, assuming your name is 'flagged' as an ex-felon, just the act of attempting to purchase is a crime.
I should THINK you could pay a gun dealer the $20 to submit your name, while making it clear you weren't attempting to purchase. THEN you would have 'proof' that you were being blocked from purchasing. At that point, you could (maybe) have the basis for some kind of legal action to challenge such a block.
IF you are off probation/parole, and have made any 'restitution' required, you could research the laws in your state, to see IF your state provides a way for you to petition to have your rights restored.
Point is, there ARE legal avenues you can explore. Or, you can just remain p.o.'d that the state has 'taken your rights', and question the rationale, without doing anything about it.

Allcanadian; do an I-net search on 'sociopaths/psychopaths', more recently termed 'asocial personality disorder'. The # of such people is undergoing a dramatic increase, as a % of society as a whole. If such people are at the low to medium I.Q., and/or if they are in the lower income levels, they tend to end up in the criminal juste system. If, however they are at the higher end of I.Q. and/or income, they don't.
The main 'quality' of such people is they have NO conscionse (sp?); If you are above average in looks and 'charm', your more likely to go into a carreer where you can capitase on these innate qualities, like becoming an actor. If you have above avrage atheletic skills, into sports. If you have no consciounce, you (similarly) are more likely to go into a career where you can capitalise on that; Lawyers, Politicians, and Wall street, for example. Also, working youray up the ladder, to running major Corporations. If you really read up on S/P's and their behavior, you will see they are all around us.
We talk about 'zombies', but really these people are more like Vampires; they FEED off the rest of us, and you will see their behavior in the News on a regular basis. This is part of the answer to your question as to why we see this behavior so much.Jim

[aljhoa]

And then there are the sociopaths, who feed off of others, and are increasing steadily in #'s, as a % of the population. It seems the society we have created gives them an evolutionary advantage, or we are simply producing more. Either way, (Nurture vs. Nature) there #'s ARE increasing, and its unfortunate they aren't born with a big "Z" on their forehead, or some such easily distinguising mark.
They move 'freely' in amongst the population, reeking havoc on others lives, often with impunity.

Goim's Nature

"Experience is the thing of supreme value."
Henry Ford Quotes — Henry Ford Quotes

"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." -Bob Packwood
Experience Quotes

Have we learned anything if all we have been thought and cultured are "lice"?


Al

[aljhoa]

I have heard and read Barry's quoted statement several times, but he is wrong in thinking that the Constitution gives him the authority to skirt Congress and unilaterally write executive orders that are the equivalent of Congressional legislation.

He is not wrong if the Constitution of the United States is for the United States of America.


Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Constitution of the United States of America - Wikisource, the free online library


Tit-less Document

United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the Constitution of We the People for the United States of America?

Do CORPS have maggots in common?

Al

[rickoff]

Actually I'm not sure what the law states but I do know I keep hearing its against the law and a felony for any felon to possess a firearm (unless they have been cleared to) I'd have to look into any of those laws to see what they exactly say but regardless of what they say I personally think it's unconstitutional.

What state do you live in?

sorry I meant to say __?__ vs State of Texas.
I think it was a Hispanic name, Curz or something, and it was his name vs. the state of Texas. I thought you had posted it in this thread a few pages back but missed it when I went looking for it.

I tried using the search tool but couldn't find what you are referring to. Do you remember, generally speaking, what was quoted regarding the case?

[rickoff]

Originally Posted by rickoff
I have heard and read Barry's quoted statement several times, but he is wrong in thinking that the Constitution gives him the authority to skirt Congress and unilaterally write executive orders that are the equivalent of Congressional legislation.

He is not wrong if the Constitution of the United States is for the United States of America.

I'm really not quite sure what you are trying to say. Could you explain what it is, in your own words?

[aljhoa]

I'm really not quite sure what you are trying to say. Could you explain what it is, in your own words?

Terminology Game

All of that was the doing of Corporation U.S., a private corporation, not the federal government.

Therefore:
He is not wrong if the Constitution of the UNITED STATES is for the United States (i.e. Republics) of America.

The rewritten 1871 Constitution of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION bypasses the original Constitution for the United States of America, which explains why our Congressmen and Senators don’t abide by it, and the President (CEO) can write Executive Orders to do whatever he/she wants. They are following corporate laws that completely strip sovereigns of their God given unalienable rights. Corporate/Commercial Law is not sovereign (private), as it is an agreement between two or more parties under contract. Common Law (which sovereigns operate under) is not Commercial Law; it is personal and private.
History | Republic for the united States of America

Al

[dutchdivco]

By the way

In Arizona, an officer can issue a citation to a passenger of a vehicle he/she has 'pulled over' if the passenger can't (or presumably, won't) provide I.D.

The fine was $180, when I paid it. This WAS several years ago, but I believe the law is still 'on the books', and being enforced. Jim

[rickoff]

Terminology Game



Therefore:
He is not wrong if the Constitution of the UNITED STATES is for the United States (i.e. Republics) of America.

The rewritten 1871 Constitution of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION bypasses the original Constitution for the United States of America, which explains why our Congressmen and Senators don’t abide by it, and the President (CEO) can write Executive Orders to do whatever he/she wants. They are following corporate laws that completely strip sovereigns of their God given unalienable rights. Corporate/Commercial Law is not sovereign (private), as it is an agreement between two or more parties under contract. Common Law (which sovereigns operate under) is not Commercial Law; it is personal and private.
History | Republic for the united States of America

Al

Ok Al, now I see what you are getting at. Whenever I refer to our Constitution I am referring to the People's Constitution unless I specifically state that I'm talking about the Corporation U.S. Constitution, which has been so bastardized that I don't recognize it as having any lawful status whatsoever. Actually, though, even the Corporation U.S. Constitution is not being followed by the Corporation. Barry is pretty much making up the rules as he goes along, rather than following any corporate charter or corporate bylaws.

Rick

[rickoff]

In Arizona, an officer can issue a citation to a passenger of a vehicle he/she has 'pulled over' if the passenger can't (or presumably, won't) provide I.D.

The fine was $180, when I paid it. This WAS several years ago, but I believe the law is still 'on the books', and being enforced. Jim

What did you get pulled over and stopped for?

[5150]

I tried using the search tool but couldn't find what you are referring to. Do you remember, generally speaking, what was quoted regarding the case?

Rick,

My bad it wasn’t posted on this site but was a story I read and was linked from somewhere else. Anyway I found it and the case is Brown vs. State of Texas

Brown v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was reading about the case of a long haul trucker who was adhering to the federal mandate (Law) on the required rest and sleep a truck driver must have while over the road. He was parked and then a police officer woke him up and asked him for ID. You can read this particular case and the argument at this link

Internal Documents in TX Trooper lawsuit: Cops admit "the passenger is under no obligation to comply with request" for ID

After you posted those other case laws a few pages back and sent me the link to the other site via PM, since that time I have been trying to read up on case law. I really would like you to do a thread on case law from the initial interactions with a police officer regarding stop and all the way up to and in the court system.

For example when a police officer or judge asks you if you understand the charges you are not to say “yes” or “no” but rather respond, “for clarification if you are asking me if I consent to and agree to participate or submit to have you hear and judge me, then the answer is no”

(something like that) and any and all case law that can help assist a person during any interaction with LEOs. The case of Brown vs. the state of Texas can be used when asking a passenger for ID and if you know the case and can state it then it only helps to some degree.

Officers have the right to conduct an investigation of a driver following a traffic violation, but do not have authority to investigate a passenger without reasonable suspicion.” St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (holding that arrest of passenger for failure to identify not valid absent legal detention).

[dutchdivco]

Rick,

In my case, the officer had PC to pull me over, 'lane wandering'. And, I WAS driving without my licence in my posesion; I was licenced, but had left it at home. So, after detirmining that I WAS who I said I was, and licenced, (over the radio/computer), he asked my wife if SHE had her licence with her; she didn'. (So, he had a 'valid' reason for asking her, as he could have told her to drive the rest of the way home, since I didn't have my licence).
He then issued me aicket for driving without my licence in my possession, and SAID he could issue HER a ticket as well, but wasn't going to.

USED to be, in this situation, that you would just take your licence to court, to show the judge you HAD a licence, and just neglected to have it on you, and they would 'drop' the ticket, no fine.

Thats what I expected, and the judge was real hard nosed; said thats not the way we handle it, anymore! And re-iterated my wife could have been ticketed under the same statute; apperently they decided (perhaps after too many officer involved shootings) that they want the officers to be able to know who everyone is in the car. At least thats the explanation I got at the time, as near as I can recall.

My recollection is that this law would apply eaqually to a pedestrian walking down the street; that you must be able to provide an officer with 'valid' I.D., if asked.

Personally, I've always felt it was best to mply with any reasonable 'request' or order from a LEO; you don't argue your case on the side of the road, thats what the courts are for. But, thats me,....Jim

[dutchdivco]

Interesting link;

Which you can find HERE;
Utopia Silver's Fight for Health Freedom
It details the legal case of a man in Texas, who, it appears, succesfully fought off state 'officials' acting for the FDA, (and who were attempting to 'shut his business down') using the same legal arguments Rick has been posting about. i.e 'corporate' U.S. vs. 'organic' U.S Constitution, etc.

Apperently, just as 'Corporate U.S. Governments' jurisdiction is limited to the District of Columbia, so are the jurisdictions of any Departments OF that corporation, such as the FDA. Which of coarse makes sense, just hadn't thought of it that way,myself. Anyway, this recounting of the legal steps ends with a 'deafening silence' from the officials, in 2007. As this person/company is still selling the product 'in question', in 2014, I think we can say his actions were succesful. Just thought it was/is interesting, and may even give some useful info on how to use this legal argument in thre own situation. Jim

[5150]

Which you can find HERE;
Utopia Silver's Fight for Health Freedom
It details the legal case of a man in Texas, who, it appears, succesfully fought off state 'officials' acting for the FDA, (and who were attempting to 'shut his business down') using the same legal arguments Rick has been posting about. i.e 'corporate' U.S. vs. 'organic' U.S Constitution, etc.

Apperently, just as 'Corporate U.S. Governments' jurisdiction is limited to the District of Columbia, so are the jurisdictions of any Departments OF that corporation, such as the FDA. Which of coarse makes sense, just hadn't thought of it that way,myself. Anyway, this recounting of the legal steps ends with a 'deafening silence' from the officials, in 2007. As this person/company is still selling the product 'in question', in 2014, I think we can say his actions were succesful. Just thought it was/is interesting, and may even give some useful info on how to use this legal argument in thre own situation. Jim

Thanks Jim for the great read and link, I never thought of the limitations of jurisdiction before until reading this. You said Rick had mentioned it before but I must have missed it. What a great argument but I am sure as soon as others see this loophole and use it then the government will find some new law or executive order to close it and make the people submit to the authority of all these agencies.

[dutchdivco]

5150

My understanding of this is admitedly less than complete, and Rick is definetly our 'resident expert'. And, the link he provided earlier to the 'Law' website, I'll look back and see if I can find it and post it, goes into great detail.

As i understand it, back in 1857 (?) (or so) they changed 'things'. They formed a Corporation, which was used to 'replace' the original jurisdictional Gov't. of the United States. All elected 'officers' of the gov't resigned their posts, (Senators, president, etc.) and were promptly appointed as 'officers' of this Corporation. This Corporation, by its paers of incorporation (or whatever) ONLY has legal jurisdiction over the 10 square miles of the district of Columbia, i.e. Washington D.C.
Therefore, any Departments of this Coporation, such as the DEA, Homeland Security, BATF, FDA, etc., ALSO can ONLY HAVE JURIDICTION over this same geographical area. Therefore, unless you live in D.C., they have no juridiction over you.
This cannot be changed, (I don't THINK) by simply passing a law, or by an executive order, its too fundamental. his is worht your pursueing, even tho it would require a lot of research on your part, because the same thing this Company did, to tell the FDA to go suck eggs, you could (I THINK) dpo to tell the BATF they can't restrict you owning a gun. Certainly worth pursueing.

It is a little complicated, but the history and jurisprudence is all 'layed out' on that website, which I will see if i can find the link for, now, and post in a minute. Hope it helps. Jim