Arizona travel - Page 3

aksis · #21 05-30-2006, 01:16 PM

Stating your name is identification.

scooterdog · #22 05-30-2006, 02:46 PM

Ok, in the Hiibel case, there was suspicion of a crime being commited. More than that, it was reported. When he talked to the police, aperently, can't really tell from the case, was a witness. I could be wrong there, but thats what its looking like to me.

Further, this is way off from what I have been saying, the case I mean. This guy refused to verbally tell them his name, was drunk, and being an ******* to the cop. Sure he was going to jail.

What I have been getting at is this--- traffic tickets(most, but not all) deal with "TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS", THESE are a civil matter, not criminal. Commiting a crime and being pulled over while traveling are two entirely diff. cases. If you walk down the street with a white shirt with blood all over it, someones going to ask questions.

This case is a terrible example of what I'm getting at. AS I suspected, that was a poorly argued case.

UGA Lawdog · #23 05-30-2006, 06:02 PM

You can blather on until you are blue in the face about how you're a "sovereign white man," but it's a racist, non-sensical argument and not a court in the land agrees with you.

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: (1) individuals ("free born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law `de jure' citizens of a state, etc.") are not "persons" [within the meaning of the statute]; ...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

UGA Lawdog · #24 05-31-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooterdog

"Since in common usage, the term person does not include the Sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." U.S. v. Fox 94 U.S. 315.

Having read the entire text of this case, I can tell you that this quote appears NOWHERE within.

That's part of the problem with you folks...you tend to just cut and paste stuff from some knucklehead's website without bothering to double-check the citations.

This case was about a man who, in his will, left some land in New York state to the federal government. The question was whether such a devise was permitted under New York law.

Quote:

That [New York] statute provides that a devise of lands may be made 'to any person capable by law of holding real estate; but no devise to a corporation shall be valid unless such corporation be expressly authorized by its charter or by statute to take by devise.'

The term 'person' as here used applies to natural persons, and also to artificial persons,-bodies politic, deriving their existence and powers from legislation,-but cannot be so extended as to include within its meaning the Federal government. It would require an express definition to that effect to give it a sense thus extended. And the term 'corporation' in the statute applies only to such corporations as are created under the laws of the State. It was so held by the Court of Appeals in White v. Howard, 46 N. Y. 164, 165, and its construction of the statute is conclusive upon us. A devise to the United States of real property situated in that State is, therefore, void.

The case also says this:

Quote:

It is an established principle of law, everywhere recognized, arising from the necessity of the case, that the disposition of immovable property, whether by deed, descent, or any other mode, is exclusively subject to the government within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 202. The power of the State in this respect follows from her sovereignty within her limits, as to all matters over which jurisdiction has not been expressly or by necessary implication transferred to the Federal government.

DID YOU SEE THAT? "The power of the State in this respect follows from HER sovereignty..." You are not a sovereign. The government, whether state or federal, is the sovereign.

You can see the full text of the Fox case here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...l=94&invol=315

Akira · #25 05-31-2006, 08:28 AM

Fictions are sovereign ? ROFL !!

Know thyself !

For HIS Glory,
Akira

scooterdog · #26 05-31-2006, 09:05 AM

Good one AKira.

Here you go law dog: "In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who
act through the organs established by the Constitution." Chisholm
v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3
Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Yo
v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370.

AND: Strictly speaking, in our republican form of government, the
absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation;
and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of
its public functionaries, is in the people of the state. 2 Dall.
471; Bouv. Law Dict (1870).

UGA Lawdog · #27 05-31-2006, 09:15 AM

"Organs established by the Constitution" = the various branches of the GOVERNMENT.

Still not getting it, are you?

Akira · #28 05-31-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGA Lawdog

"Organs established by the Constitution" = the various branches of the GOVERNMENT.

Still not getting it, are you?

And who established the 1789 Constitution? (not that municipal toilet paper of Feb 21, 1871)

Ever read it? 14,400 words.. (takes about 20 minutes!)

Power ONLY flows downhill.... Congress can only control what it creates... the creation can never be greater than the creator...

Even under a national emergency... the president still only exercises the priviledge of sovereignty. We the People accomodate the president's wishes by CHOICE, not because he has any authority over them..

14th amendment citizens, on the other hand, have to do what mommie and daddy congress tells them to..

Quote:

"In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution."

Act through... that means sovereigns bark orders.. and government employees jump !

If you don't do what we tell you.. we have lawful authority to fire your butt and do it ourselves.

I am sovereign by right, one of many blessings, from Almighty God (know thyself)

The opinion of a self acknowledged slave is of no consequence.

For HIS Glory,
Akira

scooterdog · #29 05-31-2006, 10:01 AM

Okay lawdog, now YOU need to understand how our current system stands.

If you read up on your history, the short history of sovereignty in the U.S. is this: At first, good old George held all the chips. The colonists were isolated enough from George that they got rather pissed off about his ridiculous claims of god-given sovereignty. Maniac editorialists of the time like Pain and Jefferson really kicked over the bee hive. We're all pretty familiar with the result: the colonists said get lost George and George was so busy bickering with his neighbors in France that when he turned around, it was too late and the colonies were already independent enough politically that it wasn't worth the effort anymore.

The net effect of this is summarized very well in Chisholm v. Georgia.
Read the entire case, but the key parts are:

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens,and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA(US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 DALL 1793 pp471-472

Now we are getting a little of subject here. With that, read your OWN states constitution, it says your sovereign, mine does anyway.

The government only has what the people give from their own, people includes the individual(case after case on that!)

FreeFromContract · #30 05-31-2006, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akira

And who established the 1789 Constitution? (not that municipal toilet paper of Feb 21, 1871)

Doesn't it go ?

For HIS Glory,
Akira

If I might add, the Common Law/Contract law level is the point where the government will attempt to extinguish our Common Law rights through contracting us into agreements and thus into other judiciary venues.

A driver's license has all the elements required to qualify it as a contract.

(Comments Akira?)