This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana: Your Move Eric Holder

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The one election outcome I actually cared about yesterday went the way I wanted it.  I am referring to Colorado’s Amendment 64, which regulates marijuana in a similar manner to alcohol.  It is basically full legalization of pot for adults over 21.  It essentially:

  • Makes the personal use, possession, and limited home-growing of marijuana legal for adults 21 years of age and older;
  • Establishes a system in which marijuana is regulated and taxed similarly to alcohol; and
  • Allows for the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp.

I’m proud to say that my state of Colorado led the way nationally by becoming the first state to legalize marijuana (although Washington passed a similar measure shortly after).  I supported this Amendment and voted yes on it for several reasons.

1) Based on personal experience as well as observations of others I believe that marijuana is a much more benign drug than alcohol, and in fact I think its benefits to society outweigh the negatives.  Like with anything in life, moderation is key.

2) I philosophically do not believe the Federal government should have any say in what people put into their bodies.  This is not to say that I believe the full legalization of all drugs is ideal.  For example, I would vote against the legalization of harder drugs like cocaine or heroin in Colorado if that was on the ballot.  That’s not to say I don’t think it has a right to be on the ballot, it’s just that I would vote against it.  We have 50 states for a reason.  These individual communities should be able to decide for themselves what they want to allow within their respective borders.  The Federal government should have absolutely zero say on this matter.

3) It’s about time we had a little confrontation with the Federal government on the issue of States rights.  As has been documented endlessly, civil liberties have been decimated since 9/11 and the overreaction to the endless “war on terror.”  The Federal government has become bolder, more aggressive and increasingly tyrannical.  While the degree is debatable the trend is not.  Marijuana legalization provides the ideal battleground on the issue of States rights at the moment.  The measure passed in a landslide in Colorado.  55% voted yes and 45% voted no.  The people have clearly spoken.

So now this sets up a potentially epic battle. The Huffington Post put out a great article highlighting the potential confrontation in its article “Amendment 64: Will Colorado Voters Legalize Marijuana On Election Day 2012?”  Here are some of my favorite passages:

However, the big unknown still is if the federal government would allow a regulated marijuana market to take shape. Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a vocal opponent of California’s legalization initiative in 2010 saying he would “vigorously enforce” federal marijuana prohibition, has continued to remain silent on the issue this year.

In September, Holder was urged by nine former heads of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to take a stand against marijuana legalization again. “To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives,” the nine said in the letter to holder obtained by Reuters.

The drug warriors say that states that legalize marijuana for recreational use will trigger a “Constitutional showdown” with the federal government.

Bring. It. On.

4) The “war on drugs” is violent, expensive and idiotic. As the years have passed, people have come to realize how ridiculous the “war on drugs” really is.  The Economist recently published an excellent article titled: “Legalizing marijuana: The View from Mexico.” In the article we discover the biggest losers would probably be the Mexican Drug Cartels:

The impact on Mexico could be profound. Between 40% and 70% of American pot is reckoned to be grown in Mexico.

In Mexico relatively few people take drugs. But many are murdered as a result of the export business. About 60,000 have been killed by organized crime during the past six years. Thousands more have disappeared. Many Mexicans therefore wonder if America might consider a new approach. Felipe Calderon, the president, has said that if Americans cannot bring themselves to stop buying drugs, they ought to consider “market alternatives”, by which he means legalization. Vicente Fox and Ernesto Zedillo, the two previous presidents of Mexico, have reached the same conclusion.

As a result, it estimates that Mexico’s traffickers would lose about $1.4 billion of their $2 billion revenues from marijuana. The effect on some groups would be severe: the Sinaloa “cartel” would lose up to half its total income, IMCO reckons. Exports of other drugs, from cocaine to methamphetamine, would become less competitive, as the traffickers’ fixed costs (from torturing rivals to bribing American and Mexican border officials) would remain unchanged, even as marijuana revenues fell.

It’s interesting that the two states to legalize marijuana both voted for Obama in this election.  Will he now betray all these faithful voters?  Based on his first term performance, you can count on it.  Your move Mr. Holder.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:25 | 2958780 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

HOLA from Oahu...   I'm so retarded right now...    B. Man

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:40 | 2958792 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Don't fear the reefer.

:)_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O511hmQbt50

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:46 | 2958803 john39
john39's picture

Weed smokers are obviously terrorists and must be stopped by our dear leaders...

My take, has everything to do with protecting big pharma and big alcohol. Raw hemp is a potent healing plant, that can never be permitted... Just like raw milk.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:47 | 2958808 Thecomingcollapse
Thecomingcollapse's picture

Long Doritos!

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:50 | 2958817 DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

Of Holder will go after them. Obama hates competition.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:55 | 2958839 john39
john39's picture

Ironic given that obomber did more than a little bit of drugs, but is perfectly fine having the government destroy lives by prosecuting people who do the same as he did. Scum.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:13 | 2958880 Zer0head
Zer0head's picture

and in that other communist country

this live stream of the opening of the China Congress

 

http://media.smh.com.au/selections/live-china-in-transition-3778721.html

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:17 | 2958901 Michaelwiseguy
Michaelwiseguy's picture

I want to move to Colorado.

In other news;

Fat lady has epic meltdown over Obama win, Blames Libertarians and Ron Paul Supporters.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f3_1352328148

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:24 | 2958919 Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture

What a fine kettle of fish for Obama!

Now, if pot calls a kettle black, will that be racist?

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:30 | 2958934 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Anyone watching CNN today saw stock footage of people smoking up, oh about 100 times or so. 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:32 | 2958938 tickhound
tickhound's picture

"There's a war being fought, and the people on drugs are winning it."

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:36 | 2958951 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

If legalized, how will the FBI, CIA, and NSA fund their operations?

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:50 | 2958992 tickhound
tickhound's picture

*crickets*

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:31 | 2959095 Stackers
Stackers's picture

Crank up the CHOOM WAGON !!!!

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:55 | 2960068 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

Wants....to...drag..needle...across....record...STRONG...URGE...CANT...CONTROL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_vt1KIV8zQ

 

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:28 | 2959289 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Cocaine from S America and Opium and Heroin from ME and Asia.

Does anyone still really believe VietNam was simply about the Domino Theory?

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 11:46 | 2960563 MSimon
MSimon's picture

See McCoy "The Politics of Heroin" free edition online.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 03:02 | 2959604 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

To whom would they sell their guns as well?

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:16 | 2959958 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

"There's a war being fought, and the people on drugs are winning it."

We're persistent if nothing else.

Or maybe we've been getting stoned long it enough we figure we might as fight while we're at it.

Freedom

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:29 | 2959088 SafelyGraze
SafelyGraze's picture

2009 tobacco tax revenue: $18billion -- tax policy center

historical tax rates -- ttb

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 00:16 | 2959404 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

          Anyone watching CNN today saw stock footage of people smoking up, oh about 100 times or so.

Why would anyone wanna watch that shit on teevee?  Guess that's why nobody's watching CNN, huh?

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 11:15 | 2960412 TheCanadianAustrian
TheCanadianAustrian's picture

"Anyone watching CNN today saw stock footage of people smoking up, oh about 100 times or so. "

So let's see, that's... [opens up calculator and enters 100 * 0]

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:53 | 2958997 vic and blood
vic and blood's picture

Move to Wyoming close to CO border. We banned Obamacare, yesterday. Smoke your pot in Colorado and catch a ride home to Obamacare-free Wyoming.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:17 | 2959261 Jam Akin
Jam Akin's picture

Nice combo.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:58 | 2959183 ForTheWorld
ForTheWorld's picture

Sounds like she's got a bit of a problem with people on Facebook not sharing the content she's sharing. Apparently, people have to "believe" in the things they post on Facebook.

"Learn how to use the internet or GET THE FUCK OFF IT!"

That's the message I've gleaned from this video.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 10:51 | 2960318 jjsilver
jjsilver's picture

If people would just look at the law, you would see the federal government has no jurisdiction, the problem is the STATES are either complicit or have no balls to challenge the presumption. So it is left to the people, and that is exactly what is happening behind the scenes.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:32 | 2958940 decon
decon's picture

Damn, should'a bought that Papa John's franchise in Denver!

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:34 | 2959104 toady
toady's picture

Payton Manning must have inside information...

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:38 | 2959122 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

Im baked right now

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:19 | 2959268 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

"Smoke 'em if you got 'em!"

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:05 | 2959928 orangedrinkandchips
orangedrinkandchips's picture

"and were gonna smoke an ounce to that....G's up, Ho's down!"

 

See, I drink some but prefer grass. How painful it musta been in the 1st "great depression" with people so down and out and nowhere to hide. Now, when life sucks balls like now, I go have a drink and "escape" reality for a while.

That is why baby jesus put vices on earth for us to do!

Sometimes, you just need a drink or a puff to get away from depressing reality.

 

BRIDGE THE FUNDING GAP AND LEGALIZE IT PERIOD.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:57 | 2960078 pods
pods's picture

MJ will never bridge the funding gap.  

It ain't called "weed" for nothing!

Congrats CO though.  Bout time people beat the government back into it's place. Although this sounds a bit like really codified permission.

Let's hope it opens people's eyes (lol) a bit about what the role of the government is supposed to be.  
Gotta run and change another blown CFL light bulb,..............

pods 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:20 | 2959970 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

"Im baked right now"

I loke posting on ZH too...

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:53 | 2958828 AetosAeros
AetosAeros's picture

You hit it on the head- Raw hemp is potent..that can never be permitted.

From textile's, paper, biofuel (Henry Ford was a big supporter), rope, and literally THOUSANDS of other uses, the fight for Marijuana was never about MJ, it was about hemp.

The establishment ingrained bias to hemp is at such a level that when I talk to anyone seriously about just hemp, not MJ, they look at me as if I am trying to deal drugs to their kids. And I am not an mj smoker, or supporter, although what you do with your perceptions of reality are not my concerns as long as you don't attempt to affect me while 'high'.

Look for the 'showdown with the Fed' the minute someone plants a hemp farm, not when an mj farm is going. Mark my words- from DuPont to Big Pharma; hemp will not be allowed to grow, and mj will always (as it's been for over 80 years) be the excuse.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:08 | 2958872 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

AetosAeros

And here I was thinking it was all about controlling minorities.

Whitey done been hatin those dope smoking jazz playing Nigra's and those slinky hipped Hispanics.

That Colored music and hot sweaty dancin was a threat to them White chillens.

But hey sure Hemp miracle drug.

I do know that hemp core steel cable works like magic.


Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:18 | 2958903 john39
john39's picture

Big pharma has nothing that can compete with raw hemp for inflammatory or autoimmune. This is starting to get out now, I believe there is a documentary on it.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:23 | 2959026 Raynja
Raynja's picture

What if Cannabis cured cancer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy66MUZP538

the first two minutes thirty seconds alone are more than worth it

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:34 | 2958943 AetosAeros
AetosAeros's picture

Gully-

In case you weren't aware, and of course one of the reason's I have such a big beef with all these 'corporations' and the humans who lead them, about some of the uses of hemp.  The link is pretty good and isn't a 'shove it down your throat' thing, merely informational:

 

http://azhemp.org/Archive/Package/Uses/uses.html

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 04:07 | 2959658 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

It's always been about both--and the black market, and the funds and justifications for the police state.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:07 | 2959931 orangedrinkandchips
orangedrinkandchips's picture

Potent how?

 

Potent to the status quo?

 

thnx

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:20 | 2958905 Bunga Bunga
Bunga Bunga's picture

This is just the beginning. I the end they refuse to drink that flouride and aspartame.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:25 | 2959079 Bansters-in-my-...
Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

...???...HEMP...????

Huh...?

Don't want no rope dope.

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:33 | 2959306 The trend is yo...
The trend is your friend's picture

don't forget protecting the publicly traded prisons which profit off of jailed individuals for carrying small amounts of marijuana

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:36 | 2959112 ToNYC
ToNYC's picture

Genesis 1:29 swear on the Bible it's ordained meat. God is great and the Sun do shine.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 02:15 | 2959571 Treason Season
Treason Season's picture
BEST WEED STAND-UP COMEDY EVER! (2 of 2) (THE LATE GREAT BILL HICKS)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T8j18GTa3Q

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:32 | 2958784 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Handle it just like hard liquor sales and be done with it.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:05 | 2958864 Midas
Midas's picture

I would love to cut into the cartel's revenue as much as the next guy, but the scary thing about them is they still got to eat.  The MO in Mexico and Colombia when the drug money runs out has been to switch to kidnapping and ransom.  So we got that goin' for us.  Which is nice.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:16 | 2958898 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Cartels like Big Pharma you mean. If the trade in MJ was legalized it could be an on the books import and be quite lucrative for all involved, including State run dispensaries.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:49 | 2958988 XitSam
XitSam's picture

If it was legalized in Mexico (a huge hurdle) the criminal cartels would adapt, because they are not going to give up their profits. They would probably burn "legally cultivated" fields, easy to do, hard to prevent. And they are already involved in standard organized crime activities such as extortion, protection rackets and kidnapping. Legalization could just as easily increase these activities as their other revenue shrinks. I'm not against legalization, just don't assume that it would make things better in Mexico.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:26 | 2959082 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

Mexicans can fix Mexican problems.  As for allowing trans-national trade in MJ, that's an area entirely under the control of ICE, the feds....which is perfect.  Washington and Colorado can't be driven out of business by cheap imports, because it isn't Fed legal, just state.  You could argue, I realize, that it was under Fed control last year which didn't slow things down much.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 00:07 | 2959380 XitSam
XitSam's picture

Mexicans haven't fixed their problems so far.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 01:16 | 2959504 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

but al capone and his heirs don't control the liquor trade anymore.  stop letting the perfect and instantaneous be the enemy of the good and soon.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 16:59 | 2961996 XitSam
XitSam's picture

they have had years with declining results, how is that in any way the "perfect and instantaneous"? 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:38 | 2959087 tickhound
tickhound's picture

Mexico has already legalized drug possession.  The profits come from selling it here.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 00:04 | 2959373 XitSam
XitSam's picture

Posession for use, not trafficing or export quantities which is what we are talking about. Unless you have other information?

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/05/mexico...

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:07 | 2959214 ForTheWorld
ForTheWorld's picture

+1 for the Caddyshack reference.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:12 | 2959949 orangedrinkandchips
orangedrinkandchips's picture

I missed the caddy shack reference, but, perhaps it was the "it's so good you dont even know it....i got it from a negro!"

 

That is good, but my favorite is Dangerfield telling his Asian friend the club is restricted, dont tell em youre jewish!!!!

 

classic.....

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 10:43 | 2960285 pods
pods's picture

Love Caddyshack.  Chock full of great lines:

"This steak still has marks from where the jockey was hitting it."

:)

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:03 | 2959036 SmackDaddy
SmackDaddy's picture

wtf dont you people get?  IT DOESNT NEED REGULATED BY NO GODDAMN STATE

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:44 | 2959130 toady
toady's picture

NO NEW TAXES!

What happened to cutting regulations and small government staying out of peoples bedrooms?

Suddenly everyone is for new taxes and regulations?

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:09 | 2959939 orangedrinkandchips
orangedrinkandchips's picture

Right!

 

I'll have a fifth of Sahphire and an ounce of the O.G. Kush please! If youre out of the kush, Dutch Star will do just fine!!!

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:34 | 2958788 NuckingFuts
NuckingFuts's picture

Can't we all just get a bong?

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:50 | 2958816 ghengis86
ghengis86's picture

See you in the Choomwagon!

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:55 | 2958837 NuckingFuts
NuckingFuts's picture

I call shotgun!

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:54 | 2959001 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Puff Puff Pass

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 01:59 | 2959554 Stranded Observer
Stranded Observer's picture

Pass the dutchie (on the left hand side)

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:19 | 2959266 Jam Akin
Jam Akin's picture

Pass the knowledge...

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 00:33 | 2959436 MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

How about a new TV reality program: "THE BONG SHOW"

Sponsored by Doritos, of course.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:39 | 2958790 fuu
fuu's picture

Holder still trying to get ZH to load.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:42 | 2958795 Thecomingcollapse
Thecomingcollapse's picture

No kidding!  I was beginning to think we were down for the count there.... Something must be done Tyler's

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:53 | 2958826 john39
john39's picture

A number of Internet hubs are not functioning right now in NA. Have not heard a good explanation for why this is the case.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:07 | 2958870 Goldilocks
Goldilocks's picture

Tenjou Tenge - Korn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN02jdaOvak (2:21)

Korn - Twisted Transistor [Official Music Video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Viguvabl-JA (4:04)

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:20 | 2958910 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

+1

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:50 | 2959343 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

john39 said:

A number of Internet hubs are not functioning right now in NA. Have not heard a good explanation for why this is the case.

I don't know the reason either, but those interested in the status of such things might find this useful:

http://www.internettrafficreport.com/

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:43 | 2958797 surf0766
surf0766's picture

Double up on their EBT's. They'll need it. !!!!!!!!!!!

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:25 | 2959282 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

If it is sold at WalMart they will come up with euphemistic verbiage to make sure it goes out the door in big bags.

"Herbal Sleep Formula 27"

or

"ED Preparation 7"

or

"Nausea Inhibiting Formula 14"

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:52 | 2959349 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

"Bales-a-Blazin'®"

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:43 | 2958798 Hayabusa
Hayabusa's picture

Whether or not marijuna was legalized, is really beside the point.  A state's rights showdown with the federal government needs to take place and if Colorado wins this one it's a step in the direction of getting the feds off of our backs.  Of course as the article states Obama and the feds et al won't give up any power on ANY issue... it would threaten their power base which they have been growing.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:11 | 2958878 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Hayabusa

I disagree.

There is lots of potential revenue for cash strapped states in drug legalization.

Money is the greatest motivator out there.

With no other hopes of increasing income streams more and more states have to legalize.

AND TAX.


Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:14 | 2959063 Hayabusa
Hayabusa's picture

Gully you haven't been paying attention to what happened in California (Medicino County)... they legalized it, hired more police who helped them regulate, tag, etc., and the resulting revenue was a boon to their economy.  About harvest time of year #2, the Feds came in and cleaned their clocks with just a few days to go.  I don't think you understand that money means less to those in power and have plenty of it than maintaining power/control of the underlings.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 00:26 | 2959418 Overfed
Overfed's picture

A sheriff has the authority to eject federal agents from his county. What we need are honest, constitutionally-versed sheriffs.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:52 | 2960066 exi1ed0ne
exi1ed0ne's picture

A Sheriff that does that won't get any more Federal grant money, which would increase the tax levy on the citizens, which would make staying Sherrif (an elected position) difficult.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it is astonishing how many state and county departments are hopelessly reliant on the IV drip from Uncle Sugar.  It is always about money.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:16 | 2958895 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

BS
Fedgov, as usual, holds the trump card, debt enslavement. Not sure on CO's balance but nearly all states owe Uncle Sugar millions that they've all borrowed to meet unemployment payments.
This is also why most all state AG assholes are completely mum on the MERS racket. Instead they're all waiting on a payout.
States so much as mention rebellion, fedgov reminds them of their debt that they haven't even demanded an interest payment on... YET!

Margin Call, Bitchez!

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:24 | 2958920 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

Freedom does feel good doesn't it?

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:44 | 2958799 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Irie man....

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:45 | 2958802 Dapper Dan
Dapper Dan's picture

What are the three words pot heads say the most?

 

Ear..............................take this............

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:55 | 2958838 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Yeah man, like just the other day I...uhhh, wait, I smell burgers ;-)

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:11 | 2958881 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Dapper Dan

I, uh forgot.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:34 | 2958945 knukles
knukles's picture

 

 

 

 

                        huh?

 

 

                         bupzxfltsss ummm

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:47 | 2958806 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Live from the Choomwagon.

EH: Hey Brah I'll get back to ya on that brah.

BHO: Catch ya later braah.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:49 | 2958807 haskelslocal
haskelslocal's picture

Pfizer up that joint!

Pass me that J&J.

Dude, I can see the Galxo man!

Save the Roche, I'm gonna smoke it later.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:48 | 2958813 3ringmike
3ringmike's picture

the price of pot is going to plummet.

there goes my retirement.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:54 | 2958833 Lloyd_Xmas
Lloyd_Xmas's picture

quick go long taco bell

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:03 | 2958860 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Only when they start subsidizing it.

(Insert obligatory Green Economy joke here)

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:54 | 2960071 exi1ed0ne
exi1ed0ne's picture

Your avatar's "assets" could be used to fill the funding gap.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:51 | 2958819 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

It's perfect. Huxley called it in Brave New World: the "people" are narcotized into submission. Take some Soma whenever you feel stressed by your financial situation. Or smoke a bowl, man. 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:57 | 2958843 NuckingFuts
NuckingFuts's picture

I believe it was:  "A gram is better than a damn"

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:39 | 2958957 Zgangsta
Zgangsta's picture

"Take a holiday from reality whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache or a mythology."

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 20:51 | 2958822 nmewn
nmewn's picture

For the one bazzilionth time...decriminalize DON'T legalize.

Why?

A simliar measure passed in Washington state...

"The Washington referendum called for a 25% tax rate imposed on the product three times: when the grower sells it to the processor, when the processor sells it to the retailer, and when the retailer sells it to the customer. It's not clear exactly how much tax revenue legalization would bring in. Estimates for the Washington measure run as high as $500 million - a figure analysts say is overstated.

Two other states, Colorado and Oregon, were also deciding whether to legalize marijuana."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/07/colorado-washington-pass-marijuana-legalization-oregon-says-no/?iref=allsearch

And you think they are "allowing" freedom?...lol...a pack of doobies will wind up costing five hundred bucks once the Colorado road department "gets a whiff" of this ;-)

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:17 | 2958899 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

+420

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:26 | 2958925 nmewn
nmewn's picture

They suck em right in don't they?...lol..."It's Legal Now!!!"

Gawd...we are sooo fucking screwed.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:53 | 2959165 Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

If I had been growing/distributing weed for several years and all of a sudden the gov't starts to "legalize" it you can bet your ass I won't be taking my operation main-stream "legal" any time soon. Example... I do enough building related side jobs off book. You think I'm going to jump into bed with gov't even if they declare that working under the table is now "legal" with no extra taxes? The consequences of signing up for the gov't program regardless how harmless it looks is a recipe for personal disaster.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:29 | 2958933 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

nah..  you can grow so you only pay retail w/taxes if the product is really good or you smoke faster than you can grow

 

sure the scare is that some fools buy some fake poison on the street and die and then all hell breaks loose which would be an easy false flag from big Pharma to do (since they have tons of poisons)

 

but places like Colorado has a shot to smart about it unlike some asswipe places like Jefferson County in Missouri where idiots rule

 

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:46 | 2958977 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I hadn't heard it was cool to cultivate for personal use.

So, it would still be illegal to retail (like a home grown tomato) without a state tax stamp? Just curious on the legal mechanism(s) involved. It looked to me like Washington was looking at it from a tax revenue standpoint as opposed to freedom, while Colorado's governor was still trying to sort the two issues out.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:39 | 2959124 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

It's my guess that the WA decriminilization is mostly a tax stream. The Seattle Times was estimating a $1 Billion tax take in the first 5 years.

Also, as a legal strategy for the eventual high court battle, it would fit in with the Roberts Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare that it's all good if it's just a tax.

Since the WA initiative also included language that will standardize testing for driving under the influence of said substance, it's really just another booze tax in the eyes of this state.

And while the US Constitution is about as relevant to the Feds as buggy whips, I note that it had to be amended before Uncle Sammy could prohibit the sale and possession of alcohol. Of course, that was back in the 1920's when some people still believed the rule of law ruled the nation.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:54 | 2959169 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Very good summary, I agree.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:45 | 2959337 AetosAeros
AetosAeros's picture

Long Drug Dogs for the Highway Patrols in-

Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, as I see a lot of 'bud' moving from the north through WA first. The CO border towns will already be doing more random stops (for cause of course), maybe their police pensions will be covered after all......

 

Nah!

 

Disclosure- I do not smoke, sell, trade, grow, buy, transfer, or in any other way deal in Marijuana or other non-regulated, non-prescription, or prescription drugs. Except alcohol after a depressing day of reading headlines, and only to medicinally help my conscious avoid rebellion.

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:59 | 2959022 NuckingFuts
NuckingFuts's picture

you know Jeff Co.?  Festus?  Crystal City?  Why would you think they would fuck up?

/sarc/

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:49 | 2958961 fuu
fuu's picture

Good luck out there 16-20 year olds. No choomwagon for you.


PART V DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA
Sec. 31. RCW 46.20.308 and 2008 c 282 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:

(i) The driver is age twenty-one or over and the test indicates either that the alcohol concentration of the driver's breath or blood is 0.08 or more((,)) or that the THC concentration of the driver's blood is 5.00 or more; or ((if))
(ii) The driver is under age twenty-one and the test indicates either that the alcohol concentration of the driver's breath or blood is 0.02 or more((,)) or that the THC concentration of the driver's blood is above 0.00; or ((if))

pg. 47 http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/i502.pdf


 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:51 | 2958989 knukles
knukles's picture

fuu

 

I love that blood concentration of 5% THC

blechhhhhhehehehehehehe

 

 

wow

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:57 | 2959012 fuu
fuu's picture

I believe that is 5 nanograms per milliliter of whole blood.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/03/the_science_behind_st...

The study mentioned with the bad link:

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:34 | 2959107 Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

Would you willingly consent to the test?

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:42 | 2959126 fuu
fuu's picture

"(1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506, to a test or tests of his or her breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration, THC concentration, or presence of any drug in his or her breath or blood if arrested for any offense where, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or was in violation of RCW 46.61.503. Neither consent nor this section precludes a police officer from obtaining a search warrant for a person's breath or blood."

"(a) If the driver refuses to take the test, the driver's license, permit, or privilege to drive will be revoked or denied for at least one year; and
(b) If the driver refuses to take the test, the driver's refusal to take the test may be used in a criminal trial; and"

I'm not sure a Washingtonian has much of an option.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:31 | 2959298 Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

Consent is a two-way CONTRACT. Consent under duress/force is not. Do you comprehend all that "legaleze" in your post? WTF is RCW 46.61.506 because I don't (that's rhetorical, by the way).

What are Acts, Statutes, Bylaws, etc? They are rules of corporations. They are not LAW. If a cop from Microsoft Security tried pulling you over on a public road to administer a breathalyzer on you, would you consent? And if you failed would you go to Microsoft jail?... even though you don't work for them or buy their products?

Sorry for the rushed and simplified reply. There's much more. We really need to start realizing we don't WORK for the corporate arm of the countries we live in. Their rules only apply to their EMPLOYEES. And since I don't live in WA their corporate rules don't apply to me. And since I don't work for any corporate gov't, none of their Acts, Statutes & Bylaws apply to me. But they have the guns to force roadside "confessions" and the sheeple keep following along.

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:54 | 2959356 fuu
fuu's picture

Hopefully some day you will not be so rushed and you can expand.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 01:24 | 2959512 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Actually, this has been held at the highest courts of your respective state and nation...  it is also the same model that law enforcement will use.  If you drive, then you consent...  if you don't have a license, then you break another law too.  This may come as a shock, but this is the law... 

In short, you may declare governance yourself, but there will be a car with blue lights and a former high school bully who failed the IQ test (otherwise he would be a detective) who is going to apply the real law of the land...  the tazer and night stick.  Also, even a jury of your peers will not believe you.  While you might disagree with the law, unless you're intrinsically motivated to argue with them, you're probably barking up the wrong tree.  Best of luck.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 02:08 | 2959567 Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

Did you CONSENT to give the courts power over your life? If you did, and you abide by their rulings over you, you are truly a fucking sheep.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 10:22 | 2960188 fuu
fuu's picture

Oh I get it now.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 11:10 | 2960361 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Yes.  Textbook example of "my theory is right until it is actually tested".  It's as if the "sovereign" men bury their heads in the sand and get off the grid that the laws no longer apply to them...  no, it's just that uncle sam and his extended family don't care to travel as far to break it off in your ass.  But please don't think that they've given up or that you don't have a balance accruing.

The "sovereign" men annoy me to no end.  Typically, there is this incredibly disingenuous display of legal justification thrown together with a complex and ancient rabbit hole of dicta and, although valid case law, not rooted in the specific argument they're actually making, which has already specifically been shot down by the holding in other cases.  In reality, they're even more deluded than the general sheep...  if they really want to be sovereign, and use that word in its actual meaning, then they'll necessarily have to create their own state (because this one is going to crack the whip on them).  And, unless uncle sam and his extended family (including the citizenry) are just in a generous mood to grant you statehood and cut all the puppet strings, then that necessarily means some form of illegal activism and, practically speaking, taking up arms against the existing government because it's sure as hell not going to hand them what they're seeking.  Faced with this dilemma, the choice is made to go find a patch out in the woods and try and eliminate ties with the existing government, rather than actually effectuating sovereignty...  but this won't stop them from still calling themselves sovereign.  holy.denial.batman

If you want to separate yourself from the system, fine...  it might even be necessary to survive moving forward...  but please don't attempt to claim yourself as sovereign.  That ship sailed a long time ago.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 11:39 | 2960477 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

Don't want to be 'soverign' or king over anyone.

correct term would be freeman.

There are two types of these.  Those that have a freehold and those that don't.

The ones that don't are heirs and assigns of all the public lands...

In response to the rest of your post, at least there are people out there trying to regain their liberty.

Misguided or not.  If they fail, this nation is going to go into the shitter in a way that no one will like...not even TPTB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 11:53 | 2960600 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

You want to be sovereign over yourself...  this is the point.  Otherwise, a "sovereign man" would by synonymous with government, no?  Call it whatever you like.

Trying to regain your liberty is one thing.  Deciding that the laws don't apply to you and ignoring cases to the contrary is not "regaining" anything.  You're avoiding the substance of my post.  These types of people are intrinsically motivated to masturbate and create legal fictions to justify their masturbation.  The problem is, if you're going to accept people as "misguided", then dismiss them...  do not purport to accept the truth of the matter asserted.  It's nonsense.  This is not trying to regain liberty at all...  this is delaying the inevitable through specious legal arguments that are destined to lose (and have lost before).

What does a "freeman" do when charged with DWI?  Go to jail...  like the rest of us.

Please do not claim that these people have any chance of "regaining their liberty" through the means they choose to employ.  I'll posit that this is exactly why they choose this method.  They're simply not prepared to actually employ any method that has a chance of success or otherwise meeting their goals.  Their failure is certain.  total.farce

You claim that this nation is going to go into the shitter if they fail, but this presumes, among other things, that these folks are capable of staving off rudimentary math and fulfilling the exponential demands of the system.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but even if successful, they will have to pay the fiddler (or the "equation" as Mako calls it). 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 14:59 | 2961373 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

I don't say the laws does not apply to me. I will say that many laws do not apply to me.   For instance, if I live in Kentucky, then Texas Law Doesn't apply to me and French Law also doesn't apply to me. Many laws are also made specifically for the people in government or people in a certain industry. 

In your example, A freeman might know enough about his rights to keep from ever being charged with the DWI in the first place. 

Here is a very simple example;

The Alderman in a City make an Ordinance that the grass must remain under 8" high.

(Cities do this all the time).

So this group of a few people got together and made a rule for everyone else that lives in the City.

Does that seem presumptuous to you?  Or tyrannical? 

They probably saw a few overgrown properties (probably bank owned foreclosures) and decided that would be a good idea to pass an Ordinance like that. Road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is also possible that someone came down to City Hall and complained to the Alderma about their neighbor.  I have seen that happen.  They do this rather than speak with the neighbor because it is easier to get someone else to do their dirty work.

 

They can make laws like that.

They certainly have the authority.

But their authority is limited.

That law only really applies to the property (grass/land) that they actually own.

The argument is jurisdiction and standing.

If they can get you to admit they have jurisdiction, then they do.

Otherwise, their grass ordinance only applies to the grass on the City Hall Lawn.

Most people will assume that the Ordinance applies to them and that is good enough for the City.

It depends on how they use this power, how they enforce the ordinance, etc.

Sometimes, the city ends up spending more to enforce their ordinance against someone than it would cost to simply go and cut his lawn.

They put liens against peoples private property, etc.

Just because they can make a rule like this, doesn't mean they should make a rule like this.

 

However, they don't have jurisdiction over my private property unless I give it to them.

Government by the consent of the governed.

A free person might also argue that the City has no cause or standing if they try to enforce the ordinance.

The City is not injured in any way if I don't cut my grass.

 

In the example of the DWI, they contracted with you when you signed your drivers license.  You brought yourself under their jurisdiction.

In the case of the IRS, you contracted with them when you applied for a job, or when you signed up for a bank account (agreed to obey the rules of the Treasury).

Same goes for the Patriot Act, HIPAA, etc.

To me this is using a Con-fidence trick.  They are using the person's trust in the institution to bring them under a contract.

 

Criticize the soverign citizen guys all you want.  They are trying to help you.  To regain the good and limited government we originally had in this Nation.

If we do not, it leaves us exposed to attack from within and without.  A nation divided against itself.

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 15:05 | 2961453 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

You are completely and totally confused and rambling all over the place.  I appreciate the civics lesson, but I think the general level of knowledge on this site has passed it already.

That law only really applies to the property (grass/land) that they actually own.  The argument is jurisdiction and standing.  If they can get you to admit they have jurisdiction, then they do.  Otherwise, their grass ordinance only applies to the grass on the City Hall Lawn.

Please show me a SCOTUS case or appellate level case where the methods you are proposing have worked...  also, for the sake of saving time, please shepardize it.  Jurisdiction and standing are certainly valid legal defenses (for example, they're working every day to defend against foreclosure), but they are VERY specific in application...  the arguments you are making, at the general level, are legal nonsense.  It's time to start providing case cites for your propositions.  I've already thrown down the gauntlet a few posts before...  I call, let's see your hand.

[Aside from the fact that the court has INHERENT power to find that it has jurisdiction over you...  it has nothing to do with whether you admit anything, although that tends to speed up the process]

Sometimes, the city ends up spending more to enforce their ordinance against someone than it would cost to simply go and cut his lawn.  They put liens against peoples private property, etc.  Just because they can make a rule like this, doesn't mean they should make a rule like this.

Aside from moving the goal posts with this argument (and it being off topic), it really is the ONLY argument the "sovereign" movement has to make.  The reason why an action might appear to be legally successful challenging standing isn't because the government doesn't have standing, it's simply that the people involved are too stupid and apathetic to challenge you on it...  they don't get paid anything extra for doing any research or for even thinking on their own.  This is why the "inherent" standing/jurisdiction argument is so complicated...  it's meant to distract civil servants and idiots.  Fortunately, not all of our public servants are that stupid nor apathetic.

Whether or not they SHOULD make the law is for the local community to decide...  so long as you live within the city, you are subject to its jurisdiction, presuming it has been granted jurisdiction for the act it takes by the state [99.9% of the time, it has...  although, I was able to get my town to back down on the issue of whether they had authority to issue plumbing code (it had actually been reserved to the state)...  this is the exception and not the rule].

However, they don't have jurisdiction over my private property unless I give it to them.  Government by the consent of the governed.  A free person might also argue that the City has no cause or standing if they try to enforce the ordinance.

Again, show me the success stories.  Show me where appellate courts recognize these arguments.  These are neat in a vacuum, but haven't been relevant in the real world for...  at least 70 years.

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 15:39 | 2961522 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

"All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein one man ruleth over another to his own hurt." - Ecclesiastes 8:9  

 

Rambling and all over the place.  Guilty as Charged.

Confused..definately.  Confused as to why people do this to each other.  Life is hard enough.


The reason you don't see these cases is because they never get to court or end up in the court record.  They only go as far as the clerk.

Are you a Lawyer..i.e. officer of the court.  Did you take your oath 'lightly'?

--------------------

To the Clerk of Grass City

Writ of Praecipe -

Defendant is making a special Limited written appearance to challenge jurisdiction. No warrant should issue because the Defendant has appeared.

Without Prejudice,

John LongGrass

----------------------

There are other writs besides this one.  Lots of them.  Privileges and Immunities. 

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 15:44 | 2961653 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

"All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein one man ruleth over another to his own hurt." - Ecclesiastes 8:9

What the fuck does this jibberish have to do with whether or not the court has jurisdiction over you?  Denial is not a river in Egypt.  If you've been reduced to quoting the bible at this point, then you're going to be completely embarassed upon actual scrutiny.

It sounds like you might be a Lawyer..i.e. officer of the court.  Did you take your oath 'lightly'?

Yes, I am a lawyer.  I presume that you recognize the signature because few people other than lawyers have the knowledge to know how full of shit you are...  in the poker world, this is called a tell.  Typically bullshit artists have a very keen eye for people who stand a chance to expose them.

The reason you don't see these cases is because they never get to court or end up in the court record.  They only go as far as the clerk.

You're talking nonsense again.

If it is a "case", then it made it to court.  If you make a "speal limited written appearance" (as opposed to a verbal appearance?), then it made it to court.  If you send a document to the clerk as part of a case, then it is FILED and becomes part of a record [unless it is also sealed, then anyone can go view it].  If you do not file it, then any party or approved person may file it just to add it to the record without your permission.  [special appearances have also been eliminated in my state, btw; I trust it's the same elsewhere...  the court considers all appearances as general appearances...  and, instead, classifies a pleading by its content].

Please do not respond to this by changing the definitions of these terms...  it's specious at best.  They're commonly used in courts every day.

I'm telling you that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.  Please prove your case...  please show me the precedent upon which you rely.  Please prove its relevance to TODAY.  Please show me success stories of people who follow your path.  All of them are in public records, if they exist.  I'm telling you that you're a complete and total bullshitter.  Let's see the goods.

[you realize that it's the court that determines whether or not it has jurisdiction over you, right?  The same thing that you're alleging has no jurisdiction...  gets to decide whether it does...  keep us informed how that turns out]  

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 16:28 | 2961764 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

This is a case I thought of right off the bat.  I will have to think about your request and come up with a better one.

Listen to the Judge closely - Judge part starts at about 4m30s.

Gets really interesting at about 12m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnqonxOKEu4

Recordings like this are rare because not many men have the nutsack to actually try out these 'bullshit' theories.

"you realize that it's the court that determines whether or not it has jurisdiction over you, right?"'

They get you to admit you 'understand'  (stand under) the charges against you.

They get you to 'plead' or beg that you are guilty or not guilty or no-contest.

Making a limited appearance stops some of this.

They have a guy standing there with a gun and handcuffs all the while they are doing this.

 

You know that you could actually help these people with your knowledge right?

Didn't you promise (by oath or affirmation) you would do that when you accepted the office of profit and trust?

 

BTW; calling names during a discourse is not nice. i.e. "full of shit".

Just because our world views are different does not mean you have to call me names.

It is okay though because I am rubber and you are glue..it bounces off me and sticks to you. (oops called you glue).

In my example above, you end up with a case dismissed on the record and not much else.

Search LexNex.  I cannot afford it.  If you are an attorney, tell me you have not came across redacted records. Please.

 

I think you would also find this interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8MAQEJZbuY

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 17:02 | 2961893 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

This is a case I thought of right off the bat.  I will have to think about your request and come up with a better one.  Listen to the Judge closely - Judge part starts at about 4m30s.  Gets really interesting at about 12m.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnqonxOKEu4  They don't like you recording the innerworkings of their temple.

This is completely embarassing...  and actually encompasses everything wrong with your argument.  You've shot yourself in the foot...  you've actually provided a video of exactly what happens when someone tries to present these arguments in a court.  They don't get very far... 

Here is the inherent problem with your argument.  You are attempting to use the law to explain why the law does not exist.  YOU CANNOT USE THE LAW TO DO THIS.  You have to appeal to an authority outside of the law to actually make your arguments plausible, e.g. god/creator.  You believe that the law is out to get you and rob you of your sovereignty, but yet you can use it to gain your sovereignty?  This is internally inconsistent.  You must appeal to a different authority.

(also, if this guy "didn't hear anything out of the court", then he probably has a warrant for his arrest...  might wanna check that one out)[ps, if this guy tries this routine again in a real court (sounds like a traffic court), he'll get shitcanned and meet bubba in the slammer with a contempt charge].

"you realize that it's the court that determines whether or not it has jurisdiction over you, right?"'  They get you to admit you 'understand'  (stand under) the charges against you.  They get you to 'plead' or beg that you are guilty or not guilty or no-contest.  They have a guy standing there with a gun and handcuffs all the while they are doing this.

Yes, so what is your point?  That you admit to jurisdiction, but somehow you don't admit to jurisdiction?  As an inherent measure, you can plead initially as to jurisdiction... although, the court will dispense with that fairly quickly. 

You know that you could actually help these people with your knowledge right?  Didn't you promise (by oath or affirmation) you would do that when you accepted the office of profit and trust?

What the fuck are you talking about Chumba?  I try to avoid criminal representation, like the case in your video.  The problem, of course, is that as the attorney, I get to make trial decisions.  If an argument is a born loser, then I won't risk your credibility for the sake of making the argument (unless it might be proffered or otherwise made without consequence).  That's my decision.  If you want to represent yourself, and have a fool for a client, then that's your business.  But if your case (and you will have a case) hinges upon your testimony and credibility, you will have lost it entirely by making these arguments...  just like you have lost credibility on this website.

BTW; calling names during a discourse is not nice. i.e. "full of shit".  Just because our world views are different does not mean you have to call me names.

Telling you that you are full of shit is not calling YOU a name.  It is telling you that I believe you are wrong...  are you even a native english speaker?  Are you even an american? 

In my example above, you end up with a case dismissed on the record and not much else.  Search LexNex.  I cannot afford it.  If you are an attorney, tell me you have not came across redacted records. Please.

No.  You may not shift the burden of proof.  It is your assertion that these are the facts and that they prove you are a "freeman".  It is your burden to prove your thesis.  You have and will continue to fail miserably.  Google is your buddy.  If not, then the public library is your buddy.  If not, then hit up the nearest university.  I won't hold my breath on your results.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 17:43 | 2962212 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

Yeah, I am a American Native.  Born and raised here and lived all my life in one State. 

I am not even sure what you are asking me to prove.  Let's look at this Statute;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

See what it says about DC there at the end?
They pass laws all the time that just apply in DC.
Those laws / codes /whatever are applied to people outside that Jurisdiction.

Are you telling me that if I raise this argument in court I will loose? i.e. Your Honor this law only has Jurisdiction in DC where Congress has exclusive Jurisdiction.
Maybe I will loose - but I will be right.

I know a man that has been in jail for 10 years because of one of them. He has children, grandchildren, etc. He was a teacher and a minister. He would not have hurt a fly. He had no clue what he was walking in to when he went into court. He didn't even technically break the law he was charged with breaking. They took about a million dollars worth of property from him (most of which wasn't even in his name).
 
 That was what started me down this path of study.

If you go back and look at the Statutes at Large that created the code, many times there are additonal protections that don't even make it into 'The US Code'. Have you sat down and actually read something like the Patriot Act? yeesh. Are you saying you don't want to fix something like that?

We are still free people in the USA. Can a group of thugs come along and attack you? Yes of course. I am a little clueless as to why the government is acting like they do. What is the point exactly? Sooner or later we will be so weak as a nation, that someone will come along and capitalize on that situation.
China will foreclose on their debt or something. It is exactly the departure from our Constitution that has put us in that situation.

There are things I would much rather be doing than studying the law.

From the Declaration of Independence; "For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:"

That is happening again, along with most of the other grievances in that document.
I am telling you things will get bad.  I don't care how rich you are or how connected you are. I don't know any way to deal with that but by trying to wake people up to what is going on and study the subject myself.

The whole point of the court system is so that men do not have to actually fight with each other. If you are an officer of that system then you should recognize how sacred of a duty it is.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 18:21 | 2962376 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I ask you to prove your point, and you provide a tangential rant...  without a scintilla of evidence to support your burden.

Here is the cite you provided (your link is broken btw):

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

This is what you wrote about the above paragraph: See what it says about DC there at the end? They pass laws all the time that just apply in DC.  Those laws / codes /whatever are applied to people outside that Jurisdiction.

Well, the law you cited simply states that congress can pass laws that only apply to the district of columbia...  nowhere in what you've cited does it prove that laws strictly as to the district of columbia are universally applied to the states... 

Are you telling me that if I raise this argument in court I will loose? i.e. Your Honor this law only has Jurisdiction in DC where Congress has exclusive Jurisdiction.  Maybe I will loose - but I will be right.

No, I'm telling you that you will lose...  you will be loose after a little while in prison.  (give the biggest guy in there your food any maybe you'll be OK).  Not only will you lose, but you will be wrong...  because you couldn't be bothered to actually do legal research that would have proven you were wrong before you made yourself look like an idiot.

If you go back and look at the Statutes at Large that created the code, many times there are additonal protections that don't even make it into 'The US Code'.

This is common in the passage of laws...  often times they're not formatted in an efficient fashion in the bill phase...  the codification is simply a tool to help organize it and hit the high points.  However, generally speaking, it covers all material provisions.  If there is a missing item, then you have the right to raise that in your defense.

Have you sat down and actually read something like the Patriot Act? yeesh. Are you saying you don't want to fix something like that?  We are still free people in the USA. Can a group of thugs come along and attack you? Yes of course. I am a little clueless as to why the government is acting like they do. What is the point exactly? Sooner or later we will be so weak as a nation, that someone will come along and capitalize on that situation.  China will foreclose on their debt or something. It is exactly the departure from our Constitution that has put us in that situation.

Complete and total tangent...  nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Please stay on topic.

There are things I would much rather be doing than studying the law.

I'm not sure what you're calling what you've been doing, but it's not studying law.

From the Declaration of Independence; "For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:"  That is happening again, along with most of the other grievances in that document.  I am telling you things will get bad.  I don't care how rich you are or how connected you are. I don't know any way to deal with that but by trying to wake people up to what is going on and study the subject myself.

It's been happening for decades...  many, many decades (at the least).  However, what you're doing is trying to get people into significant legal trouble by relying on invalid legal arguments that will damage their credibility in court.  All I can say is that your search for information has lead you to the wrong source.  Read texts from the founding fathers...  a few choice legal scholars along the way...  a few choice economists along the way...  and buy used textbooks on ebay.  If you can reason for yourself, you can probably pinpoint in the textbooks where they're stretching...  where they're discussing a value statement rather than facts.  Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  These are also the same documents that will be used when you go to court...  best to learn the rules.

The whole point of the court system is so that men do not have to actually fight with each other. If you are an officer of that system then you should recognize how sacred of a duty it is.

Eh, no.  At best, your explanation only covers civil suits.  The real answer is vastly more complex, but in large part, it is merely to enforce and interpret the laws of the state and to exact justice according to the law (note: not how you want necessarily or to recognize any of your beliefs).  The state has already declared you its minion and subjected you to its jurisdiction, whether you like it or not.   This is why it's asinine to go into court and attempt to tell a judge that he has no authority over you. The fact that you are sitting in front of him is ample evidence that he has authority over you.  Dispute this all you want, but practically speaking, this is how it goes.

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 20:10 | 2962648 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

I really do appreciate the discourse..I really do...

"However, what you're doing is trying to get people into significant legal trouble by relying on invalid legal arguments that will damage their credibility in court. ".

Seriously? No, I am not -  I post links to things that interest me and I hope will interest others.   I also post ideas.  It is way cool. Never in history (to the best of my knowledge) have people ever been able to communicate like this.  You could be the Pres. and I wouldn't know and we can still talk.

  How is any argument invalid? Maybe as an attorney you can't use some arguments.  Maybe it is time for some new arguments.  If someone pleads it is frivolous, I can plead..no your honor (or people of the Jury), I found this in Blackstone's commentaries...or I found this in this letter by Thomas Jefferson. 

Are you going to call Thomas Jefferson frivolous in an open court?  No one disses Jefferson. 

Who gets to decide what arguments are frivolous?  In theory, it is my court - if I file a claim or a counter-claim.  I object!! Magistrate is supposed to be independent of the tribunal.

"The Judge has authority over you" -   The Judge has an oath or affirmation of office made to the public, of which I am a member.  I can accept that and then that forms the contract between the Judge and myself. 

In theory he is supposed to be a public servant.  He is empowered by the pleadings and his oath.

If he doesn't have an oath, he doesn't have an office.  Am I wrong about this point?  If so then please let me know how?

 

BTW: I don't exactly see  you posting a how-to guide.  You say go get text books but then don't say which ones?!

 

I have done plenty going and getting old text books.  Everything we have now is still built on those foundations.

  Most of what I find out when I read the older books is that I was taught a bunch of lies when I was in the public school system.  Maybe the did the same thing to you in your institution of higher learning.

As for the founding fathers, Please go read this limited government argument from Jefferson.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp

He is arguing to 'limit' government.  That is my argument.  Limited government.  That is what makes a person free.   I like the government and the court system and our public records system - because I see it being corrupted that bothers me very deeply.

Seriously, go get some of the recent acts of Congress and read them... Jefferson's famous saying was to "Bind them down with the chains of the Constitution" and to "Watch - be observant".

 

I also like Blackstone's Commentaries and West's Commentaries. Those are books of 'authority'. They are not dead law.  Only dead in the fact that they 'pillars' of our system. (Jefferson again)

 

Have you ever considered that some of those holdings and word definitions are only in the 'context' of that particular case.

Someone said..a "text without context is a pretext".  It was this guy and he was talking about the Bible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

Please take some time and give that a watch. 

Start here if you don't want the corny jokes intro;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY#t=19m20s

 

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 21:23 | 2962859 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

really do appreciate the discourse..I really do...  "However, what you're doing is trying to get people into significant legal trouble by relying on invalid legal arguments that will damage their credibility in court. ".  Seriously? No, I am not -  I post links to things that interest me and I hope will interest others.   I also post ideas.  It is way cool. Never in history (to the best of my knowledge) have people ever been able to communicate like this.  You could be the Pres. and I wouldn't know and we can still talk.

First, if you have no more conviction than that in what you're posting ("I just post links n stuff man, n like, you're free to do whatever dude"), then you will never win anyone over...  you've made my case for me that you're a bullshit artist.

Second, you're absolutely posting theories that can really get people in trouble (certainly contempt).  So you are not attempting to tell people that the government does not actually have authority over them?

However, they don't have jurisdiction over my private property unless I give it to them.  Government by the consent of the governed.  A free person might also argue that the City has no cause or standing if they try to enforce the ordinance.

What do you think the Court will do when you refuse to recognize its authority?  I'll give you a hint...  it rhymes with jail.  The person in the video you posted caught the judge on a good day...  the next time won't be so nice.

How is any argument invalid? Maybe as an attorney you can't use some arguments.  Maybe it is time for some new arguments.  If someone pleads it is frivolous, I can plead..no your honor (or people of the Jury), I found this in Blackstone's commentaries...or I found this in this letter by Thomas Jefferson.  Are you going to call Thomas Jefferson frivolous in an open court?  No one disses Jefferson.  Who gets to decide what arguments are frivolous?  In theory, it is my court - if I file a claim or a counter-claim.  I object!! Magistrate is supposed to be independent of the tribunal.

Because it is not based on any law?  Or reason for that matter... 

And for about the dozenth time, the Court decides what arguments are frivolous.  The same institution that "doesn't have authority over you."  Also, guess who has the decision over whether he should recuse (whether he is "independent of the tribunal")?  The judge!  Again, you are in la-la land.

What Jefferson says is not binding on the court... 

"The Judge has authority over you" -   The Judge has an oath or affirmation of office made to the public, of which I am a member.  I can accept that and then that forms the contract between the Judge and myself.  In theory he is supposed to be a public servant.  He is empowered by the pleadings and his oath.  If he doesn't have an oath, he doesn't have an office.  Am I wrong about this point?  If so then please let me know how?

By virtue of having ("minimum") contact with a jurisdiction, you submit to its jurisdiction...  it's that simple.  If you own any property, have a residence (even if leased), act, or conduct business in a locale, then you've submitted yourself to its jurisdiction...  This entire discourse whereby you get this choice in the matter does not exist.  Effectively, by virtue of living, you submit yourself to the court's jurisdiction.     

BTW: I don't exactly see  you posting a how-to guide.  You say go get text books but then don't say which ones?!  I have done plenty going and getting old text books.  Everything we have now is still built on those foundations.  Most of what I find out when I read the older books is that I was taught a bunch of lies when I was in the public school system.  Maybe the did the same thing to you in your institution of higher learning.

Ah...  see, here's the difference.  I actually participate in the real world.  Where I get to see if these theories hold any water on a daily basis.  They do not.  Ergo, what I "learned" in higher education (nothing) is irrelevant.

PS, I'm not going to post a how-to guide because it doesn't exist...  it's not my point to prove....  it's not my burden of persuasion, it's yours and you're failing miserably.

As for the founding fathers, Please go read this limited government argument from Jefferson.  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp  He is arguing to 'limit' government.  That is my argument.  Limited government.  That is what makes a person free.   I like the government and the court system and our public records system - because I see it being corrupted that bothers me very deeply.  Seriously, go get some of the recent acts of Congress and read them... Jefferson's famous saying was to "Bind them down with the chains of the Constitution" and to "Watch - be observant".  I also like Blackstone's Commentaries and West's Commentaries. Those are books of 'authority'. They are not dead law.  Only dead in the fact that they 'pillars' of our system. (Jefferson again).

First, your argument is that the state has no authority over you.  If you want to amend this argument to be of "limited authority", then you'll need to concede a lot of previous issues.

Second, limited government does not make you free...  and you can't have possibly read anything regarding inalienable rights and actually understood it.  Keep reading.

Third, this is completely off point again.  Have you noticed that each time you make an assertion, and then I refute it, you don't go back to it and materially address the substance of the refutation?  Instead, you change the subject?  This is called losing.

Have you ever considered that some of those holdings and word definitions are only in the 'context' of that particular case.

Well, since you actually haven't cited any cases to bolster your thesis, I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Could you possibly be more vague? 

 

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 09:53 | 2969615 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

You probably forgot about this thread a long time ago but..if not..I don't even know how to respond.  You read things into my posts that aren't there and state positions that I am not taking and then argue against them.   Maybe you were reading someone elses post and mistook it for mine?  I am not sure.  I write a lot fictional stuff and train of conciousness type stuff but I just don't think I make the claims that you say that I make. 

(I think) The inital couple of posts that started this discussion were - These are my words.

"I don't say the laws does not apply to me. I will say that many laws do not apply to me.   For instance, if I live in Kentucky, then Texas Law Doesn't apply to me and French Law also doesn't apply to me. Many laws are also made specifically for the people in government or people in a certain industry."

and this;

"No..not anarchy. The government can do some stuff and when they do this stuff, it is a good thing. They put a structure around it so that people cannot game the system or take advantage of each other. If the government doesn't do these things, people will loosely self organize and do it anyway. Like Coin money and regulate the value thereof, establish weights and measures for commerce. Establish post offices and postal roads. Regulate commerce between the States (note it says the states, not the people in the states or the businesses)  and it says regulate commerce, not private transactions or people. Pretty much all the stuff listed out in Art.1 Sec 8."

Somehow from that you got that I am a "soverign" and my argument is "the state has no authority over me".   I don't think I have ever said either of those things.    I would still argue that limited government does make men free.  It gives them a way to resolve their differences without resorting to actual conflict.  It gives them a solid framework (weights and measures) and protects their rights.

I'm going to go off on one of those tangents, take the chance that you might have enough juice or know someone who does that can help this guy.  He has suffered a lot. 

Pastor Hovind is a great example of a law being applied to a person that was intended to regulate a bank (I think).  This man has been in jail for about 10 years now becasue of this.  45 of his charges are for faling to fill out a CTR? (I think).  Literally, his wife was taking the chruches money out of the account to pay their employees.  She was taking out $9500.00 at a time.  The actual law they charged him with said over 10K.  It didn't matter.  He was found guilty*45.  I don't know about his other charges, but I went and tried to look up the original act that created the CTR requirement.  Some of the Federal Laws are practically unreadable.  Part of this one is in sometihng called the Riegel? Community Redevlopment Act.  Other parts are scattered elsewhere.  If you read the actual law, you find out a couple of things.  First of all, there is a list of exempt organizations (I didn't dig into this any further yet but it makes sense that churches and charities might be exempt)  Second of all, it looks to me like it is a requirement for the Bank to fill out the CTR, not the person. 

This 'code' book I have says this; When any person engages in a currency transaction of more that $10K with a financial institution, the financial institution must report the identity of the person or persons involved and file a report on a Currency Transaction Report, Form 4789, containing certain detals of the transaction within 15 days. Elsewhere it says this is single transactions in excess of 10K

It clearly says it is the financial institution that has to fill it out.  He didn't ever break the 10K limit.  He still was convicted of 45 counts.  yikes. 

In actually reading some of the Federal Code when I was looking this one up, there is no way anyone could ever understand it. (Maybe you can but I can't)  One section amends another section, and that amends another section and one uses a definition from one act in another act.   Everyone should pick out a recent Act or Bill and just try to read it and understand it.   It is impossible and it has gotten worse. 

Anyways, if you can help him somehow, please do.  I don't understand how the courts could treat someone this way.  This guy is a decent guy.  Even if you don't agree with his beliefs.  He has grandkids.  He was contributing to society.  Watch his age of the earth video, I linked to it in prior post.  If it wasn't for people like him, who would the Simpsons and South Park have to make fun of.  '

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 15:30 | 2961583 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

"Whether or not they SHOULD make the law is for the local community to decide."...

wanted to reply to this as well.  If you have spent any time around local legislatures, you know good and well that is not where the 'laws" come from.

They come from a group of people who think they know better than everyone else.

Then end up coming from things like this;

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM

and other various 'think-tanks' and 'non-profit' groups.  Most small cities and counties have pretty much implemented this 'uniform' group of ordinances that don't come from the local community at all.

The people who did this were very clever and have been working on it for about 30 years now.

Congress did an investigation into them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8cC21jB9EE

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 15:51 | 2961697 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Actually, uniform laws do exist and they tend to provide an easier legal framework for lazy municipalities.  However, states and municipalities have no obligation to enact the uniform rule in its entirety.  Most jurisdictions actually opt to tweak them and simply use the uniform laws as a framework from which to draw.

Who is it then that should decide municipal issues?  Are we to have any government?  [yes, in order for there to be a government, it has to be filled with people who believe they know what is right for others].  We're hopelessly off topic at this point.  Please stay on the point.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 11:27 | 2960447 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

You could always make amends.

Legal Definition of the word 'Overcome' = to rebut a presumption.

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 13:55 | 2961139 fuu
fuu's picture

Make amends for what? Oh I see we are in the "legal word games" phase. Yes, I would bet amends are made.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 14:22 | 2961283 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

Don't you pretty much earn your living off legal word games?

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 14:29 | 2961298 fuu
fuu's picture

Not that I am aware of. I do work, then I get paid.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 15:24 | 2961551 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

It's the same nonsense over and over again...  pontificating on dead law and then not seeing the arguments through to an appellate precedent.  They're emboldened because it works sometimes at the local level, but that's simply because the civil servants don't get paid any extra to deal with it...  however, it has got nothing to do with finding the truth of the matter asserted...  it's a dodge...  a con...  insincere.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 16:23 | 2961817 fuu
fuu's picture

I am not a lawyer so I was hoping someone would provide the magic words I can use in court if I get pulled over in Washington driving 12 hours after burning a joint.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 16:59 | 2961983 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Well...  I would strongly encourage you to use your right to remain silent (even in the back of the cop car, alone...  they have mics rolling at all times)...

The other issue is that the way DWI/DUI laws are set up, you can either consent to testing and either pass (release, no harm, no foul) or fail (straight to jail + revocation of your license for a pre-determined period of time...  yes, even before a trial) or refuse the testing.  If you consent to testing, then you run the risk of additional evidence of your guilt being created.  If you refuse to testing, then you likely break a law (sometimes with a worse penalty than if you had submitted to testing and failed, btw).  About the only way to get around refusal to submit to testing is to have a bonafide medical condition that restricts your ability to comply [know of a case where a guy got out of a dwi on that one], e.g. asthma causes you to not be able to blow on the breathalyzer.  If you feel like the machine that tested you was incorrect, then you should go immediately following your incarceration to a hospital, etc., and get your own test done.  Typically, intoxication levels can be backward calculated so that if you have X in your system Y hours after an arrest, then you would have had Z in your system at the time of your arrest.   

Generally speaking, officer testimony alone is sufficient to justify a DWI/DUI conviction (and it's probably all on tape, along with audio).  Best of luck.

My suggestion is to not look like a pot smoker...  not have drugs or paraphernalia visible in your car from the outside...  not have it smell like you've been smoking...  and get a concealed handgun license (even if you have no plans of owning a gun).  When you get pulled over, be sure to notify the officer that you have the license, but that you have no firearms in the car (if that is the truth).  Instant brownie points [he knows you had to pass a lengthy criminal search to get it].  If you ever get a ticket, make for damn sure it never goes on your driving record...  or else you'll just keep getting tickets.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 18:07 | 2962335 fuu
fuu's picture

If it is legal to own weed and a pipe I would think they could be in the trunk like alcohol?

Thanks for the reply.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 18:28 | 2962405 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Sure, but if you have an empty beer bottle sitting in your floorboard, do you really expect to avoid field sobriety tests?  Same goes for anything in plain view of the officer.  Put it all in a smell proof container out of sight.  Hopefully he doesn't have a drug dog to goose so it can have a "point" on your car and "give" him probable cause to search. 

Realistically, it's simply a question of strategy.

The simple answer is to be responsible and have someone sober drive for you when you've been drinking or are otherwise under the influence...  welcome to being a responsible person.

Sat, 11/17/2012 - 23:03 | 2992837 Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

MachoMan - A crime is commited when???

A crime is commited when you injure another person (human) physically or via fraud.

Explain to me exactly how a GOVERNMENT CORPORATION is harmed, even if you're driving drunk and get stopped in a random inspection when there has been no crime or injury thus far? The cops are literally claiming the GOVERNMENT is the victim for you blowing over THEIR set limits. And if their sneaky roadside inspections causes a SOBER person to have an accident, do you think THEY will ever be liable?

The cops won't even come to your house if you've had a burglary unless you killed the intruder. Most won't even attend to traffic accidents unless PYHSICAL HARM has been done. Yet they set up in every playground/school zone to rape you at gun point from your hard earned money for going 3mph over the speed limit for the bullshit purpose of protecting stupid children from running across the road into traffic. UN.FUCKING.BELIEVEABLE. that most parents these days think it's the cop's responsibility to fine their neighbors for driving a bit too fast. The fucking idiot parents should be reported the CPS for negligence and child abuse.

I have never needed the "services" of any police FORCE anywhere in 50 years of life. At least real criminals will negotiate with you when they put a gun to you head. Cops and Gov't won't do that.

Courts, testimony, subpoenas, etc.... it's rules for THEIR EMPLOYEES!

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 23:41 | 2978698 Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

Magic words = I DO NOT CONSENT.

Going to court is a fools game. By entering their arena you automatically CONSENT to their power over you. A summons is nothing more than an invitation. What happens if you ignore it? Oooohhh... they threaten to take away your drivers "license" and you can't renew it until the fine is paid. Does that stop you from travelling and your freedom to do so?

STOP . ASKING . PERMISSION. to live your life. I drive, hunt and fish without licenses. I've had 2 cops question me thinking that I was a burglar in our own warehouse. They kept yelling at me "show me some I.D."! I said showing them my I.D. would imply a CONTRACT and I would bill each of them for my time. The big young dumb one actually laughed and muttered the word contract under his breath. I told him I don't work for the gov't and don't have any gov't issued I.D. He stopped asking me personal questions at that time and his interest became more focused on some fairytale burglary.

In case you're wondering, yes, I carry gov't I.D. (drivers license, BC, etc). Why? Because if I CHOOSE to do business with the gov't on any level I need to show them THEIR papers, etc. I haven't had to whip those documents out in the past 12 years because I do not want to do business with those criminals.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 14:21 | 2960499 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

It is not that bad to be a sheep.  Even when they get sheared, it doesn't hurt them - maybe just scares them a little.

They probably even feel pretty good after it is over.

Shepard provides protection, food, water, etc. 

Edit; downvote; no comment left.  Very nice.

Just sayin..people are always asking the sheeple to wake up.  Maybe they are happy that way.  Once you raise your head up and stop eating grass, you can see all of the wolves and shit on the periphery.

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 12:03 | 2960430 Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

License; "permission granted by competent authority to do some act which would otherwise be illegal"

Who are you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buiO1K_kRSg

"So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains, and we never even know we have the key" - Eagles, Already Gone.

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!