George Gordon and Common Law

[Lawdog]

From a 1997 article (http://www.adl.org/mwd/COMMON.asp) on various nuts:

Though Posse members such as James Wickstrom and Gordon Kahl were in the news more often, a less-known figure, George Gordon, provides an excellent example of how the common law philosophy was used in practice. Gordon, from Boise, Idaho, was a cantankerous man who adopted Posse ideology wholeheartedly as a way to rid himself of unwanted societal obligations. Primarily a tax protester, the high-school dropout began to study "common law" principles as a way to avoid paying federal and state income taxes, but his opposition expanded to include many court and police procedures. He developed a following in Boise, where he eventually established (in the basement of a local bar) the Barristers Inn School of Common Law. Gordon lectured on common law ideology to small audiences in return for fees. The following chronology offers some indication of the scope of his actions:

--April 1982. Gordon is arrested after refusing to comply with a traffic officer's instructions when pulled over. After being booked, he appears in court clad only in shorts and a T-shirt, because he tore up all his jail clothing.

--May 1983. Gordon files a $700,000 federal suit over a $615 tire bill he did not pay. A collection agency and local officials had taken him to court, and he filed his suit against them, claiming a violation of his constitutional rights in that he was coerced to submit to an oath against his religious beliefs. He also claimed to have been beaten and verbally abused by Ada County jail personnel. Officials successfully move for dismissal of the suit.

--August 1983. Gordon leads 100 people in a protest in a statehouse hearing room to demand the elimination of state income taxes.

--September 1983. Gordon leads another protest before a legislative subcommittee to demand reforms and reduction of government services and taxes. States Gordon: "I don't want your damned services and I don't want to pay for them...When the teachers scream for more money, let the children go home and be taught there. I don't want my children to go to public school. I'll teach them at home. I created them. I'll teach them." and "Did it ever occur to you that we might not want those services? Did it ever occur to you that we don't want the police driving up and down our streets spreading their police-court tyranny?"

--November 1983. Gordon files a $3 million lawsuit claiming a local hospital treated his daughter without permission and violated his civil rights in trying to collect $2,000 for care expenses. He claims hospital staff performed "pagan practices" on her against his will, then sought payment for her six-day stay. The suit alleges the girl was taken to hospital by an unidentified person and admitted on the grounds that state law allows a hospital to hold a child if there is a suspicion the child has been abused. The hospital successfully moves for dismissal.

--March 1985. Gordon loses a case in the Idaho Court of Appeals in which he argued that his constitutional rights to travel were violated by being required to have a driver's license. Gordon contends he is a "freeman" and exempt from regulations. The court sentences him to 35 days in jail for driving without a license, operating an unregistered vehicle and not having proof of liability. [This is Gordon v. State, the case I previously posted.]

--February 1986. Gordon, having moved from Idaho to Isabella, Missouri, now operates the George Gordon School of Common Law. He also travels around the plains states giving seminars on common law tactics, charging fees of $175 for individuals, and $225 for couples. He offers $1,000 week-long seminars for people in small groups and sells videotapes of his seminars. A promotional leaflet says: "We'll teach you how to stop a foreclosure, the common and civil law of real property, why national banks may not lend credit, the use of liens to supersede a bank mortgage, why bank fraud is an affirmative defense to foreclosure, and the courtroom strategy and procedure to accomplish these actions."

--November 1986. Gordon claims hundreds of students have been taught at his school, where he teaches them to not make "contracts" with the state. Payment for his classes must be made only in gold or silver, or barter. "I don't think I am a threat to anybody," he says. "I am a legal strategist. I don't give legal advice. I run a school and teach law, and that's freedom of speech." Gordon has been arrested more than 10 times in the past five years for various traffic violations relating to not having license or registration. He claims his school generated about $100,000 during the previous year, on which he paid no income tax.

--August 1995. Gordon is still living in Missouri and still operating the George Gordon School of Common Law. He charges 21 ounces of gold for a seminar. Says Gordon, "The average guy who walks in here, he's an anarchist, he wants to break the law. He wants to do what he wants to do without putting himself in the envelope of laws and rules. All George Gordon's ever done is research the law and learn how it is applied and made sure he is in that envelope. And I'm as happy as a clam at high tide." (14)

So there you have it. This article refers to TWO more suits Gordon lost, in addition to the two I already posted. 90% success rate? Yeah, right.

[netwrkranger]

Gordon has admitted his failures in his broadcasts. He says he has been to jail. He says he tried many other "remedies" that didn't work i.e. UCC, etc.

He says he learned much of what he teaches in his law school from Gerry Spence (I'm sure you know who that is Lawdog, yes?), and Benjamin Rice of Idaho.

I think you are making a lot of presumptions without listening to his broadcast. Perhaps you should try searching for George Gordon again, this time for cases in Missouri? If he is such a con artist, perhaps you can pull cases where he has been arrested and convicted for fraud? Pull all his felony convictions? Why haven't the State or Feds for that matter shutdown his school, his broadcast, and confiscated his personal property? Will you answer these questions?

And if you think the ADL has credibility with me, you are wrong. Allow me to refute that presumption. I don't trust (or believe) nor will I ever trust (or believe) the ADL. Am I guilty of argumentum ad hominem? Yes. Regardless, the ADL has no credibility with me.

How can a person who preaches Mosaic Law and strict liability be such an anarchist? Are you upset that he refuses to play games of Commerce and enter into contracts, trusts, insurance, and license agreements?

It is my understanding that Gordon has never argued before the Supreme Court.

[palani]

Originally Posted by LawDog

Citizens have more rights than non-citizens, so this is a specious argument.

The eminent legal scholar LawDog might have just uttered a falsehood. As all governments today encroach upon rights perhaps all that is left are privileges and immunities.

Per the Articles of Confederation:

Originally Posted by Article IV

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.

[Lawdog]

The Articles of Confederation are no longer in force. They were superseded by the Constitution.

If non-scholar palani had a point he was trying to make, it remains obscure.

[Friendsplacect]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

From a 1997 article (http://www.adl.org/mwd/COMMON.asp) on various nuts:




So there you have it. This article refers to TWO more suits Gordon lost, in addition to the two I already posted. 90% success rate? Yeah, right.

You almost had me convinced until I saw the "adl.org"

ADL is the propaganda arm of the Government, I would of expected that post from Shoonra.

a

state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles and, to that end, it may require the registration of vehicles and the licensing of drivers).

Thats funny considering that in the very beginning of the CT Statute Book Title 14 it states the legislative intent of "Motor Vehicle Laws" is for "Identification and Revenue".
No where does it mention "safety"

[netwrkranger]

Lawdog,

Explain to me why the Supreme Court used the Articles of Confederation as justification for its opinion in Texas v. White, 74 US 700, nearly 100 years after the creation of the US Constitution?

Wouldn't the case above contradict your statement that:

The Articles of Confederation are no longer in force. They were superseded by the Constitution.

Seems to have had enough "force of law" to prevent a State from leaving the Union ???

[Friendsplacect]

Originally Posted by psholtz

George Gordon has won about 90% of this cases.

He's lost a few, but no one's perfect and a 90% batting average is quite commendable.

He's been in court probably 50 or 60 times or so.

I understand that he's argued before the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

Good point, I wonder how many "LAWDOG" has lost?

[Lawdog]

You see, boy, this is what you get when you take things out of context.

The Supreme Court can at times be long winded and go into irrelevant historical discourses. Just last week, in the controversial case about habeas corpus and Guantanamo detainees, the Court discussed whether in old Great Britain circa 1750 the writ was available in Scotland. I mean, who cares, really?

The Supreme Court does indeed MENTION the Articles of Confederation in Texas v. White. But the mention of the Articles is no necessary part of the holding. It's mere obiter dicta. And, right after mentioning the Articles, they say this:

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.'

- 74 U.S. at 725.

The Articles were inadequate, therefore they were replaced by the Constitution.

See how simple that was?

[netwrkranger]

Is it possible for you to address my questions without attacking me OR is that asking too much of you?

I think you are giving a biased personal opinion rather than a professional one. I seriously doubt the jurists of the Supreme Court bring up legal history in a case just to hear themselves speak since it all goes on record which it sounds to me that is what you are proclaiming.

I'll have to contradict you again:

Texas v. White

The main rationale for the argument that states could not legally secede was derived from the Articles of Confederation's description of the American Union as perpetual. This, combined with the current Constitution's expressed goal of creating a more perfect Union, suggested that the United States was now more perfectly perpetual. Also cited was the statement in Article Four of the United States Constitution that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." This implies that Texas would always be a state, distinct from its government (since the Constitution refers to a state as having a government rather than being a government). This also suggested that the Constitution could work to ensure states remain intact and to regulate state governments. As the Court wrote, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Hence Texas would still be a state even when laws are passed saying it is independent. Such laws would be "absolutely null."

The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility of the Union in the following statement:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Also, your words:

The Articles were inadequate, therefore they were replaced by the Constitution.

Doesn't reflect the quote you pulled from the case:

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.'

Do you see how simple that was ?

[Lawdog]

All you're proving is that you have little to no experience reading Supreme Court cases.

They don't bring up things just to hear themselves speak, true...they write these opinions. These aren't transcripts of things they say from the bench, you know.

The crux of the decision in Texas v. White was thus:

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.

- 74 U.S. at 726 [emphasis added]

Under the Constitution. No mention of the Articles. You getting it yet?

The Articles of Confederation are no longer in force. You won't find them cited as binding law (as opposed to historical curiosity) in cases after 1787. The first landmark Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison in 1803, was decided based on Article III of the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were not a source of the decision.

The President and members of Congress take oaths to support the Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation.

This is basic stuff, and you still can't get it. Yet you wonder why I poke fun at you?