Caught on tape: Judge wigs out, threatens Free Keene guy
into world of Soviet-style traffic court. As in old Russia, the defendant faces accusations of insanity for admitting he does not understand the proceedings. Correction to part of vid It’s not that the young man lacked insurance, it’s that he didn’t have his insurance card with him. More details: forum.freekeene.com How to buy an advertisement: RidleyReport.com Uniform commercial code ron paul ucc conspiracy theory ridleyreport sovereign individual new hampshire keene staters masons …
@thegreatfish Their US Constitution is the Law, that is what this nation was founded on. Freedom and Lawful protection. Statutes are copyrighted for the PROFIT of the people who right them, not for the protection of the people they serve. If you are too lame or weak to govern yourself and not harm others then you are right, you need these rules to keep you in line. I do not, therefore, I do not consent to them. Got it?
@thegreatfish are you serious? Driving would be against the Law if it was a breach of the peace?
Google is your friend, look up breach of the peace. Come on!
You didn’t say we should be lawless, but you’re suggesting a drastic change to the legal system that would prevent it from functioning properly. That’s why I’m trying to hammer down what everyone’s scope is. How far do you want to extend this rule? Just to traffic laws? Or to every law? So far, no one has been able to answer.
How would breaking a traffic law not be a breach of the peace?
@xchronox187 you are correct. When you stood up, or when you signed in with the clerk of the court, you contracted. The Police are one business. When you got the ticket, you promised to appear. When you got to court and signed in, you just granted jurisdiction. When you stood up, again. When you answered to the Persons name, again. When he called you Sir, again, when he called you Defendant, again. You gave consent and contract.
Law is ludicrous nonsense. The sooner we hang everyone involved, the better! Those serving this bull ARE the criminals and serious ones!
and props to that guy for being calm, reasonable, peaceful, and straight forward with the judge and others.
voluntarily walking in there was his 1st mistake. swearing himself in was the 2nd.
marshallone:
This is set for trial on 2/22. Idk how they can lawfully proceed without me understanding the nature and cause of the proceedings nor knowingly or voluntarily entering a plea. I never contracted with this court, as I did not “understand” the terms and conditions of their contract. How can they lawfully take it to the next level as if I did? Or did it start when I stood up and responded to my ‘LEGAL NAME’ is that where they got their ‘jurisdiction’ by default?
@xchronox187 that is true, for a court of Law. Traffic courts are usually not courts of record, therefore, they are PRIVATE courts, the law does not apply because you are in commercial law (maritime/admiralty jurisdiction) and it is 100% agreement, the judge (state) prosecutor (state) and statutes (state) all agree on the rules and YOU LOSE.
@thegreatfish your statement means nothing, this is the LAW: if your actions do not do actual harm to anothers body or property, breach the peace (which shooting at someone would) or commit fraud in your business dealings, there is no victim and therefore, no crime.
@thegreatfish thats called habeus corpus and its one of the few times the government actually does its lawful duty. Don’t be a fool, nobody said we should be lawless, but Statutes are copyrighted, for profit rules forced on the people who are supposedly free. There is law in this land, it is the Federal and State Constitutions. The rules are commercial and for profit.
We hardly do prosecute murders. I think over 80% of murders go unsolved. There’s no financial interest in solving murders or real crimes. That’s why cops don’t do shit but sit around and hand out tickets all day long.
The sooner you understand that the traffic courts, and most courts in general have little to nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with running a business and making money, the sooner you’ll be enlightened to reality and cut through all your indoctrination.
You would find this feat impossible because the murderer would be representing the state, as a member of the state, and therefore the state could not assign its own prosecutor unless they could show a written statement by the community as a whole that this prosecutor represented them. How would you go about assigning a prosecutor for the community if you don’t agree with the elections we already use as a means of assignment? Under your proposals, the legal system could not function.
thegreatfish:
Huh? I haven’t proposed anything. I’m only thoroughly debunking the myth that the man calling himself prosecutor represents anyone other than himself or his business(state).
He represents a run for profit corporation known as the State of NJ, fine. But represents any of the people living on the land commonly known as NJ? Not a chance. It can’t be proven with factual evidence that he even represents one single person.
For one, off the top of my head, we could never prosecute murderers. While there would be damage/injury, there would be no victim to assign a prosecutor on their behalf. Another person could not assign a prosecutor on behalf of the dead because under your logic, they received no injury. If you were willing to allow my logic that the murderer committed an offense against the community, we might be able to have the state assign an attorney to prosecute, but again,under your logic there’s a problem
fczwartek:
I was not challenging the jurisdiction of “traffic court” I was challenging the jurisdiction period. If there was a party there who lacked standing, than the court has no jurisdiction.
Standing requires 3 things:
1) Fact of damage/injury
2) Causation (injury/damage was caused by the alleged action)
3) Redress.
Can the State of NJ(legal fiction) show proof /evidence of damage or injury?
Educate yourself before believing by default conventional wisdom/consensus reality.
What you’re proposing is privatizing the whole institution, which would conflict with the constitutions requirements that the government provide legal counsel in certain situations. There’s a number of issues with your proposal that make it completely unrealistic and less efficient than the current system.
If you shoot at me but don’t injure me, how can you be charged with attempted murder? According to your logic, no crime has been committed, because no injury has occurred. Do you see the contradiction in your logic now? I’m not trying to offend you or even disagree with your notion that the law needs adjustment. I merely wanted to show you the angle you’re approaching it from is not efficient.
“you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
-says the guy who attempted to challenge a traffic court over it’s jurisdiction of….traffic laws.
By the way, the state of NJ MVC does apparently use the term “moving violation.”
thegreatfish:
Again, I said no hypotheticals or abstractions… I said EVIDENCE. What evidence, that means facts, can be placed into evidence to prove he represents anyone other than himself?
If you hire an attorney, he can provide evidence that he represents you because you signed a contract or cut him a check for his retainer. Can prosecutor prove that even one person in the whole state of NJ(millions) gave him either written or verbal permission to represent them? Of course he can’t.
thegreatfish: How many times must be explained to you that a majority of people NEVER PASSED ANY LAWS. You didn’t have ANY say in any of this. Again these “laws”(which are statutes, not laws) were passed by small groups of politicians/bureaucrats. The people had no say in it. Did you get a vote on the insurance ‘laws’?
fczwartek:
A ”moving violation, in the state of NJ falls under a criminal action.
See, this demonstrates that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
There are two kinds of actions, either civil or criminal. Period.
There isn’t a special kind of action known as a “moving violation”
With a criminal action, there MUST be a damaged party, and there MUST be a Corpus Delecti, otherwise no crime has occurred. Period, that’s the law.
And to the other guy, yes: Statues are not laws.
fczwartek:
This is very simple. What don’t you comprehend, dude? He NEVER explained the nature of the charges, he only explained what the charges were. There is a HUGE difference.
All he had to do was answer a couple of my simple questions so that I could understand the NATURE of the charges, not what the charges are. Which he absolutely refused to do. And for very good reason.
i.e Are these charges a criminal or civil action?
Is there a damaged party?
etc.
Very simple questions.
When someone is charged with a crime they can go to court to present a defense against the charges. Why else would that person be called the DEFENDANT?!?
“the brain washing of the american people is utterly mind blowing.”
Yes, you do offer a fine exhibit of that.
“there can be no crime without a human victim.”
To the best of my knowledge he wasn’t charged with a “crime”, he was charge with a moving violation.