@TheoryIsSpeculation it will only take ONE person or ONE small group to teach enough of the youth the language and processes to completely collapse this system like a house of cards.
Give the youth the truth, instead of the garbage on the radio, television, in the theaters and magazines, and this criminal empire will not just crumble but turn on one another.
We just need to distribute this truth on a massive scale they will WILLINGLY consume..........
@TheoryIsSpeculation Agreed. You never want to present, represent or perform. You merely want to appear and exercise your constitutional jurisdiction over all levels of government as you are a member of the Republic who's rights and authority are your birthright for being born a human being in a Republic.
The police are given the threat of violence because what they are doing is not merely unlawful but completely illegal. Legislation can not be held over the people so they must threaten us.
@TheoryIsSpeculation read article 3, section 1 of the constitution, Judicial Powers.
Since the municipal and state courts have not been ordained or established by congress, they are non judicial courts. So that judge you are manipulated into STANDING under when they tell you to rise, is not a judge when in that court. He/she is a contractual arbitrator with no power over you without your consent.
It's like you being an employee at McDonald's and he's the general manager commanding you.
I understand what he's getting at, however the presume innocent until proven guilty simply means you're innocent until they can prove you did something wrong, if they didn't have that they could just throw you in jail or fine you without even seeing if you did something.
@tuffvibes1972 Haha I agree. If he could see just how ridiculous that looks he'd sprint to the barber as fast as he can. I'm about the same age and my hair is longer than it's been since the mid 70s. I am getting a haircut TODAY!
I thought Richard Cornforth was good, but this guys is better. I have heard all the "patriot nonsense" for years, my thought was "hey, these thugs will just put you in jail and take everything you have". The question I always asked these "patriots" is , does what you do actually work, I never got a straight answer. Well this guy gives straight answers. And what he does works!!
I see you also like to be a stuck up jerk who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. If you really cared then you wouldn't put people down like you just did. let me translate: "I enjoy helping others and debating...but i'm smarter than you and everyone else so you're wasting my time" I love to hear other ppls opinions and learn new things or get more info I didn't have, which is what you were doing up till that...which was great.
@black9897 wow, with your attitude and the way you perceive things, it is an absolute wonder you don't hate the government, and your teachers, and cops, and lawyers.
@black9897 I think we may be miscommunicating here. I am also posting a few other messages on other vids too. Maybe we got our wires crossed here. I'm not sure what you're talking about either.
I believe the founders (U.S.A) either had or should have had the intention of creating what I might call a voluntary society that has the following attributes: 1) no separate government, people govern themselves (politically and legally); 2) what they call, and we call, "government" really is nothing more than a business or agency that aids the WHOLE people in the business of existing among other nations and has no power over the people, who may individually choose to interact with it.
Statism is just another belief system (religion). Atheists believe there is no God because there is no proof. Well, Marc Stevens says the State is your God, and you shouldn't believe in it, because there is no proof. How many people have been killed, oppressed, or otherwise pissed on because of the beliefs of others, including statism? The world needs to be rid of religions, states, and massive governments.
The world needs limited government and true religion. Watch "The American Form of Government" .youtube . com /watch?v=YGL8CiUtXF0 for the right amount of government, and find a religion that doesn't pay anyone (to be a preacher), then maybe you'll find true religion.
@black9897 There is a maxim at law (and in many philosophies/religions) , "let one be subject to his own law." in other words: treat others as you would like to be treated. The U.S. supreme Court upholds this maxim among others when they opined "the rights of one may not be infringed because it is the will of the majority" (that's a paraphrase, I'm not near my references right now). Legislated law IS THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY. It cannot therefore bind the individual without consent.
@gintherlover I'm aware of this. It can, and does because that's the way the system is set up. We have checks and balances. There's nothing wrong with what we have, not perfect, but the best in the world....even better,it works. I'm very happy with it. If someone isn't and they have very good reason I'd be more than happy to hear it. So far this guy hasn't given any. Although there is SOME bit of truth in SOME of what he says.
@black9897 There are two aspects to what we are talking about in terms of the "law" binding individuals: 1) There is that which is legally, lawfully, theoretically correct; and 2.) There is the belief system, or reality, that the officials believe and will act on regardless of what you claim your "rights and liberties" are. And the more your mind can be conditioned to accept their reality, the more force they have against we who can see the truth.
Building on that, as Marc Stevens points out, there really is nothing lawfully binding anyone to "state" or "federal" "law." He bases his argument on the absence of any factual evidence that a "state" exists. I can agree with that. But even if one is to buy into the "Constitution" and all of the "land of the free" propaganda, the system is NOT set up to bind the people directly to laws made by congress or courts, and that's for a number of reasons.
The "system" which I agree, AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED, is a great system, but has been perverted. This is a republic, not a democracy. As such all rights and powers are vested in the people who retain them without diminishment, and not in a king or any elected official or group. True we delegated (not "given up") SOME authority to the agencies to regulate interstate commerce, etc. but we reserved our rights in the 9th, and never expressly authorized the courts to interpret the constitution for us.
the bottom line, as Marc himself might point out is: "the propaganda doesn't fit the circumstances." E.g. WHAT WE'RE TOLD: Free enterprise, liberty, freedom, privacy, property, free association, etc.....; WHAT IS REAL: Business permits/licenses, professional licensing, driver license, building permits, fence permit, MUST divulge all personal and business financial accounting to the government, marriage license, etc..... I make it my business to know WHY, and what I can do about it.
Most people are very well trained to have an emotional response to seeing anyone "break" the supposed rules. For example, I've seen these posts here where some "freedom activist" gets caught without a license and may put up some verbal resistance to the officer or court. Most people I know say, "well, what's the matter with that guy, why doesn't he just follow the rules? People like me ask, what the hell did that guy actually factually do WRONG? Who's injured? (aside from himself!)
@gintherlover There are soooooo many laws, so i'm sure you could find a few that might not make sense, however..the majority do. I agree we have gotten off track and we have some wrong ppl in our system, but I think America is waking up, if we the people do our job and vote ppl of character in that will uphold the Constitution, and life liberty and property (pursuit of happiness) then we will be much better. cont..
Further, while it is legally or logically correct that you are not bound these laws, and the chain of logic supporting that can be easily drawn and proven, the reality is, THEY HAVE THE GUNS. Those in power has certainly usurped all of the force they need to keep you and I at bay. The only safe approach to dealing with them when they interfere with your life is to play by their rules, and when possible, expose the sham in front of others, like in court. They hate that.
@gintherlover Laws are there for protection, some to prevent harm from coming to people. You're right this is a Republic and works great. As for the license thing, in this day in age we need that, you can't just let anyone drive...an very old person, a very young person, someone who is not mentally sound to drive, it also helps keep track incase somebody was kidnapped or to find criminals, the laws we have serve a very good purpose..cont
@black9897 You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate you staying part of the conversation. I never suggested a lawless society. I am simply clarifying a control issue related to the perception of what the system is. What you suggest through your statements is that you prefer that we live in a democracy. And since your state of mind is currently that of the majority, you can't see the problem because things are going your way.
@black9897 Further, I never said that the laws don't make sense. It is great that we hire these judges and legislators to make laws to ADVISE us. But again, they're advisory. You will mature in days ahead when things may turn against you. By the way, the Republic I was talking about is almost gone. If you have done enough research you will see that each state has TWO constitutions. On republican, and a later one communistic/democratic.
@black9897 I'm glad you noticed that. When you get a chance, check out your state constitutions. There will undoubtedly be an original republican style one from the late 1700s or early 1800s. Then there will be another one written at any time after the civil war (curiously). In my state, they are almost identical except for a few distinct changes, two of which seem to be the most detrimental. -see next post above-
The first, is that the courts in the old version were clearly common-law courts except for the courts below superior. The second is that the court of claims procedure was added, implying the state's "sovereign immunity" protection against being sued by individuals. What that means is, in first constitution, the state is a republic, the people are free, and the common-law was the rule. The second sets up an oligarchy where the people are subjects and duped into what they think is democracy.
@gintherlover I absolutely think what most of this guy says is totally wrong..not only that but doesn't make any sense. He talks about a world of which I would never want to live in. Besides, you can't blame the constitution or the whole system because of the bad ppl. He's basically promoting anarchy, and I will never support someone who does, because I know it doesn't work.
@black9897 YOU ARE RIGHT! It is bad people that make the system crappy. But HOW DO YOU PROTECT against bad people? It's hard when they have control. How do a small group of jerks get control of you? Centralized power. We have a Lockean system where all power begins in the individuals and trickles down through the constitution to the agencies that serve us. However, currently you are duped into believing a Hobbesean model where rights are granted by a higher source (constitution/government).
@gintherlover One, by making sure we do our job by getting good pppl in and bad ppl out. Like we both said we the people hold the power. I believe my rights come from God. So did the founders , thus the constitution.
@black9897 What's even more interesting is that I am arguing has no bearing on you and requires nothing from you. You are arguing that I should be subject to the laws simply because your current opinion is that they are needed and they are for our good. Not only that, but your entire argument smells of fear. An example: You're afraid that idiots would be let on the road if there were no licenses. HAVE YOU BEEN ON THE ROADS?
@gintherlover I think we should be subject to them, because they work and make sense. If certain laws were to violate the constitution or I think are morally wrong then I'd do something about it. Well, nothing wrong with fear...I mean obviously you don't want someone hitting you or wife/kids and killing them. there are many crazy ppl on the road, but without licenses it would be 10x worse. and the other things I mentioned about helping cops n stuff.
@black9897 Your thoughts are fear based. What stopped all of the "murder and anarchy" from arising in 1791? well before any new laws were enacted? Why weren't drivers licensed and horses/carriages registered? I would suspect running around in public with a team of large and powerful animals carries a significant risk to safety, don't you think? Shouldn't the "government" test and license these anarchist crazy lawless people?
@gintherlover and what's wrong with being afraid of something? Fear is good, fear keeps me from jumping off a cliff. 1791 is not 2011...totally diff. They aren't cars, not even the same. Cars are not only much more dangerous, but are much faster than horses. We have more/better technology than that time. Plus license aren't hurting anyone.
@black9897 really? what's really changed? I don't agree. So then let's say "guns" instead of horses and cars. Your misguided in thinking we've advanced in terms of civilization. It seems you're also associating technology with being smarter/more advanced. History has shown the opposite is true.
@gintherlover Licensing IS injuring EVERYONE for two reasons: 1) Again, licensing is a form of limited liability which conditions your mind to be LESS RESPONSIBLE. We have a ridiculous amount of traffic accidents and deaths resulting from insane driving practices by LICENSED drivers. 2) If you agree to a license you lose your rights to the following: jury trial, common law court, innocent until proven guilty, etc. THAT'S AN INJURY TO MY RIGHTS.
@gintherlover If licensing is really for "safety" (which by the way is the pretense/pretext for ALL legislation etc.), why are you not tested EVER after your first time? Why are testing standards so low. Why is it that I can speed, possibly endangering others, and only get a little ticket that might cost $200. Why is it that I am wary every time I go out on the road, that some idiot is going to hit my car and i will never be fully compensated for my losses? The "system". Get real.
@gintherlover maybe they should be tested every year, I wouldn't care if they made it that way, cuz I know I would pass. I know in my state they crack down pretty hard on you. Everything not perfect, there will always be improvements needed. as I stated before.
@black9897 I have been to court many times, dealt with judges and police, read many court decisions from many courts read much of legislated law, read much of Blackstone's Commentaries, read the Federalist Papers, read and studied the Dec. of Ind., Art. of Conf. and the Const. and some state constitutions, Lysander Spooner's essay, and and many other things. check out 1215-dot-org, freedom-school-dot-com, marcstevens-dot-net. Check out the ambiguous works of the AntiTerrorist on youtube.
@black9897 "they crack down pretty hard" ?? that's because they NEED MONEY. WAKE UP MAN. You're just proving my point. There are only two reasons in my book as to why any "law enforcement" body might want to crack down on driving. 1) They need to pre-condition you to accept the stricter circumstances and more regularity of traffic stops and tickets resulting in more revenue for them, or 2) the "licensed drivers" keep becoming increasingly less responsible and need a slap down.
@gintherlover I don't think it makes me less responsible, cuz driving is a privilege, not a right. That's not a result of a license , that's a result of drinking, texting, and do other stupid things. Sometimes an innocent mistake. What? how does a license cause that to happen??
@black9897 Cars are definitely more powerful and faster than horses, well, maybe yours is. But then why do we allow ourselves to use them? There are more deaths and injuries from cars every month than same from guns in a year.
If I may, I would like to point attention to your comment "licenses aren't hurting anyone." Maybe they aren't hurting you. But do you really presume to speak for "anyone"? Have you walked in everyone's shoes? Have you read studies done on traffic regulation? Do you have facts? Almost every comment you have made so far indicates a mind that , as long as things are going its way, would presume to decide for others that whatever is, must be good for them too.
@gintherlover ...with all this talk about driver licensing and following the laws, perhaps there might be interest in these tidbits: 1) The gov't will tell you that "driving a 'motor vehicle' is a privilege and not a right." 2) Many "freedom activists" think that's crap and that they have a right to self locomotion in their private car. 3) Both are correct and the gov't know it. You volunteer into your licensed privilege and give up your right to freely travel.
@gintherlover here's some evidence: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.]
@gintherlover here's more: "Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for ***commercial purposes*** on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo." - Code of Federal Regulations - Definitions
@black9897 there are others that specifically say "state" or "federal government". Not that it matters. Construction of the opinion can depend on context. Further, if you are in a court of record and are the plaintiff asserting your rights, you just declare what your rights are.
@gintherlover You say you love the constitution. Great. Read it. I don't mean take a glance. I mean READ IT. But you're not going to understand it. Fine. Get a few law dictionaries FROM AROUND THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN, and look up the meaning to EACH AND EVERY WORD, and I mean like "we" and "the" and "people"...etc. Then follow the chain of legislative acts, court rulings, etc. that led to "licensing."
@black9897 Reading and understanding are two separate concepts. You're probably young and still forming your mind. Since you implied you are in school, apparently to become law enforcement, let me tell you this: law enforcement officers are taught policy, not necessarily truth. Further statistically the average IQ of an officer is typically that of an administrative assistant. (no offense at all intended) Further, they won't usually let you in to the force if you are any smarter.
There was a court case on that a few years ago. An applicant to the police academy scored a 120 or so on his test. They would not let him in. He sued under equal protection. I forgot if he won, but the point was the revelation that they want "followers" and not "thinkers/decision makers" on the force. The other issue is lawyers. They are also fed policy and not law. Read a law dictionary from 1828, 1875, 1920, and so forth. You will see that lawyers are getting dumbed purposefully.
@black9897 ...see now, that's my point. You don't tell me what my rights are, I do. (see Const. Amend. 9 "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") and ("The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative."[Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829)]
@black9897 certainly not a more convenient one! But I choose to drive my car around without registration. I do carry insurance and a defunct license (for id) I do not accept the privilege of "driving a motor vehicle" from the government. I just get in my car and go. By the way, I assume you have passed the driver test, yes? And you've been driving for quite some time? What would change in terms of your ability to drive safely if your little license card got lost?
@gintherlover I have been driving for a while now with out a ticket or any kind of incident. Nothing. But wihtout a test no one knows that, you gotta prove it! It 's there for protection. and many other reasons.
@black9897 Without limited liability from a nanny-state we would all be much safer. When a "state" assumes power, control, or major influence on so many aspects of your life, it naturally becomes like a parent, and you, the child, will never grow out of needing it. And your comments herein are evidence of that mindset. Break free and grow your own mind man. Although I agree that if you want to be subject that's your prerogative. Just don't utilize the force of gov't to subject me.
@gintherlover I don't think for a sec we should give every aspect of our life to the state or the gov! I'm def not for a communist or anything of the like. I'm for the Constitution..
@black9897 I hope I didn't give that impression. I hate labels. Just to be clear, I did not intend on calling you a communist or anything like that. Not that there is anything wring with that either. Everyone is fully entitled to their own opinion and belief.
@gintherlover Oh no , I didn't think you did. Sure, and if someone believed in communism that's fine, as long as they didn't try to make America that way cuz we all know that doesn't work and I would fight against them.
@black9897 I actually like the Constitution also, but it takes on new meaning when You can truly understand what it is and what it means. Then compare that to how the legislature and the courts have decreed, and come to your own conclusions.
@black9897 Also, to your allegations about "10x worse..." There is plenty of substantial evidence based on actual real-world testing (most of which is provided by the NTSA no less) that the removal of strict regulation and licensing driving results in generally safer conditions on the road. The same was found in other areas of life, by similar official agencies.
@gintherlover I was referring to the thing about they know it would be safe without the rules of the road. I said that I don't think you can actually know that without it actually happening.
@black9897 Rules of the road are probably the best thing to happen since the invention of the automobile. No doubt. Our system of organized driving, in my mind, is second to none. My point is, we hired these 'officials' to develop that system for us.
There are skills and knowledge that are necessary to have before being able to drive safely. And it does make sense to have a public test. I have no issue with that. But there is a HUGE difference between the government establishing safety standards and certifying that you meet them, and "licensing." If you don't know the difference please find out, I'm a little tired of writing educational papers. There is a ton of published stuff right here on the net.
@gintherlover I see what you're saying. So you don't think we should hire officials to do that? also to the other reply, you don't think the gov should establish the standards?
@black9897 I think you misread. I just checked the message. There is no typo. I like to believe that the purpose I hire (elect) these people is exactly to spend time I don't have to figure out reasonable standards. And even certify (not license) the competency of those who wish to test themselves against them. I do not believe the gov't has the right to license anything let alone rights, or to abrogate rights under any pretexts.
@black9897 I enjoy debate, helping others, and being informative. But it is hard to do either of those things with someone who has such a limited repertiore. Please educate yourself as much as possible before wasting my time. I would appreciate it as my time is precious to me. Here are some good reading links for ALL: lysanderspoonerDOTorgSLASHnodeSLASH62; 1215DOTorgSLASHlawnotesSLASHlawnotesSLASHfoundationDOThtm.
@gintherlover As do I. Well excuse me mr. know it all. I was simply asking you ques to see what you had to say about it, don't go insulting me over it. I am educated and will continue to further it as time goes on. If I am somehow keeping you from saving the world, writing a best seller, or doing whatever then you are at anytime free to leave this conversation. I wouldn't want you to waste time with me, a mere uneducated child. cont...
@black9897 Take it easy. Didn't mean to be that offensive. Just tired of going around in circles is all. Although you clearly have good intentions, you clearly do NOT have a good foundation of principles with which to guide their execution. You express that government rules (man-made law) should be enforced on all is insane and unjust. You and your government are likened to an infant with a handgun. Read up on Lysander Spooner, James Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin, et al. Then get back to me.
@gintherlover That offensive? Well I don't get offended easily but I'm not a fan of ppl acting like they know everything, even if they do know a lot. Yes, because it works and MOST of our laws are good and there's nothing wrong with them. Plus I have nothing to worrying about cuz I don't break any laws. I will def check 'em all out. Thanks.
@black9897 Well, as they say, "if you can't take the heat......" Good luck to you and your laws. Please enlighten yourself. PLEASE! I don't think you know what "laws" are, or the difference between "lawful" and "legal." Further, in case your protective naivete is too thick to see it, you're breaking about 100 of your "laws" right now. You outlaw. Criminal. Let's call the U.S. marshal on you right now, and have you arrested for breaking clearly established law.
@black9897 Perhaps a more responsible reply to you would be: Although I apparently come across as learned, I claim to know very little. Those who lack wisdom have weak minds, are quick to trust, slow to learn, and seek either to control, or to be controlled. Legislated law is nothing more than the policy of the few.
@gintherlover As I said I'm a CJUS major so all my profs are either cops lawyers or somewhere in between, so i learn much about the law etc. Not that I take every word they say as truth or don't look into myself.
@black9897 You're full if it. You either adore them, or you would use them as authorities, or you wouldn't have mentioned them. What if I told you that I am a retired superior court judge, and have practiced law for thirty eight years? Any time anybody needs to pull rank, such as "I work for a lawyer" that fits nicely into the following adage: "when you have no law behind you, talk about the facts; when you have no facts, talk about the law; and when you have neither, talk about your gun."
@gintherlover I'm full of it? I simply meant I'm not getting my info off of Wikipedia, i'm getting info about law and crimes and gov, etc from ppl who are actually in those fields and know what they are talking about. Not that they know everything. If that's true , that's awesome. and I'm sure you would have lots of intersting things to say (as I can already tell). then again this is youtube, you never know who's behind the keyboard.
@black9897 DO NOT LOOK TO ME or anybody for that matter as an authority or reliable source for anything. That is my point. You are the authority for yourself. Check the facts that support your reality from time to time. You will find that most of what you have learned is false, and is a false reality. That is the place from which I am standing. I too (many years ago, lol) had great professors and mentors, and only later, after taking full responsibility for myself realized they too were deluded.
@black9897 If you are of average college age, let's just say I could be your father. Actually hey, you never know. Was your mom at the Phish concert at Sugarbush Vermont back in 91?
@black9897 I apologize, I almost forgot that you are a student of cops and lawyers, I will translate the adage for you: "if you have not reason, extol the facts; if you have not facts, extol reason; if you have neither, extol your power." In other words, if someone backs you into a corner, whether physically, or in a debate, you whip out your guns, or in the latter case, pull rank. Either way, the weakness is revealed.
@gintherlover lol. It's ok, I understood it. Only I never "pulled rank" Saying you learn from someone who knows more than you and or more about something than you do is not pulling rank.
@black9897 I'm glad we can talk like this. thanks for staying part of the conversation. In reply, you are claiming that your teachers know more than you? I think it stands to reason that they may have more experience than you. But can you prove they know more truth than you? I love hearing from those who have experience. But I always reserve my right to disagree with their conclusions. And I disagree with anyone asserting that if I must conform to their understanding for any reason.
@gintherlover Same to you. You're welcome. I enjoy talking about almost anything, and learning more. I can't prove that, and that's why I don't take what they say or anyone for that matter just cuz they say so.
@black9897 You could have simply said that you are "learning from those who are learned." But that would be redundant and superfluous, as we all learn from those around us who are presumably more learned. But instead you asserted your title ("CJUS Major") and asserted your rank in relation to those who have titles ("I am an apprentice to lawyers and cops") and thus indicating you are asserting some power or justification.
@gintherlover Well my intention was not to pull rank. I think that since they are in a field i'm going into what they teach would be good to listen and learn from. If there was another way of saying what major I am without sounding like i'm trying to pull rank, then I would say it. I mean saying you are studying a certain field would have some weight to it, right?
@black9897 You know what would be fun? Why don't you write a brief on how any laws are legally or lawfully enforceable on anyone. To make it easy, just choose one of the laws you think "should be obeyed" and lay out the chain of logic and set of facts that that may prove it. Seriously, I would love to see it. I AM NOT INCITING YOU, I REALLY WANT TO HAVE A SERIOUS DEBATE ON THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC.
@gintherlover That would be fun...really. I honestly wouldn't have the time. And I wouldn't want to tell you I'll do it then never actually do it. I know you'll prob think i'm just trying to get out of it...that's fine if you do.
@black9897 No. It's fine. I know what you mean. I am short on time too, as already mentioned. But this is important stuff we are talking about. I know Marc Stevens makes it seem like folly to get out of traffic tickets and embarrass judges and lawyers. But the fundamentals you and I are talking about, and those which Marc raises, are at the heart of many of the problems in this society, including murder, poverty, larceny, and abuse.
@gintherlover Yep it is. Yeah, i mean i see it as some loop holes to remember encase i ever need to get out of a ticket. I guess he comes off as an anarchist..... who hates gov , the constitution and the law we have. Which I don't agree with. But I'm always open to hear others thoughts.
@black9897 That he does! I don't really believe Marc hates law. I think Marc is a very level headed guy who knows what's right and wrong. "Laws are for the lawless" Just to be clear, anarchy does not mean lawlessness or disorder. It is the highest form of liberty. There is no special governing authority that has any power to enforce its will. I believe this country was supposed to be an anarchy. i believe the constitution if read in light of natural law implicates a near anarchist society.
@gintherlover Well clearly he's smart. but isn't anarchy defined as "absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority." I'd disagree about it being the highest form of liberty given the definition i put. I thought it was about small, limited government, not no gov at all.
@black9897 I was using def. "a. absence of government". And specifically, absence of a separate government entity. In practice we have an ignorant and complacently distracted mass of people being ruled by a few masters of propaganda, confusion, distraction, usurpation, and fraud. My interpretation of the const. is that the people are free and self-governing and have no ruler(s). The agencies created are just that, public servants, not rulers. Whatever they do, is ADVISORY, not mandatory.
@gintherlover There would still be law..cuz moral law would still be there. But generally when ppl talk of anarchy it's chaos and no law, like speeding, etc. To a point ppl are free and self-gov. and I mean we are free, I can go walk down the street, express how I feel etc. But having a society with rules and laws doens't mean we aren't free.
@black9897 Absolutely. We are talking the same language with different words. Well put. So let's agree that in this conversation that anarchy means: no law and total disarray. Therefore, in my opinion anarchy is bad.
@black9897 I have studied long and hard, and I cannot find anywhere in the constitution where a) the people expressed or implied their intent to, or did, surrender their liberty and individual sovereignty, or b) it mandates that the people obey any law the government makes, c) it binds any one of the people into any contract with anyone or anything.
@gintherlover Right, we don't HAVE to obey any law, but the way the const. is it kinda seems that's part of what we get. Thus the diff branches of gov. It makes sense in a Republic like ours that we have rules and regulations. Maybe we aren't bound into a contract, but it works and is good..so my ques would be why wouldn't anyone want it? If for some reason someone doesn't like it and wants to live their way then they should move to an island where they can.
@black9897 Nothing in the constitution mandates the people to obey any law made by a judge or legislature. In fact, the converse is true. There's no question in my mind that the const. is good in many ways. That isn't the issue. The issue is people in government are abusing it, and the people, from where I'm standing. The genius is in that the const. leaves it open to the people to obey or not, and to alter or abolish the gov't if they feel it is needed.
@black9897 I hold my position at : there's no need to abolish it, there's little need to alter it, it is the people that must do their duty in being ever vigilant, educated, and diligent about keeping the officials in line. Part of it is knowing the "law". And then forcing officials who break the law, to follow it. It's really that simple. It seems as if the people have submitted their minds to the notion that gov't is a ruler and is supposed to take care of them. Bad position to be in.
@gintherlover I agree with that position. ! Yeah, that's what I meant by fixing it/altering it. Oh def..way too many think gov should take care of them.
@black9897 It seems to be the law of nature that causes that. It could be a chicken/egg question....did the people first become ignorant on there own, and then government began to think for them out of necessity (parens patriae)? or did the government actively take over the role of thinking for the people, and therefore the people naturally felt no need to educated ignorant?
@black9897 Sorry ranting again. To answer your question, I agree. I like many if not all of the rules and regulations. There's really nothing wrong with the system except two things: 1) people are generally ignorant and trusting 2) certain officials with agendas have certainly made things rough for those who are ignorant. And I don't mean ignorant in a degrading way, I mean undereducated as to the law and the true system.
@gintherlover No, you're fine. Ok cool...so I pretty much agree with you about all of this then. The corrupted ppl need to be exposed, then thrown out . Cuz there are plenty of them.
@black9897 Perhaps you might be inclined to take it upon yourself, seeing that legal theory is part of your curriculum anyway, to read a simple letter. I'll give you the link, it's posted on the internet. wwwDOTlysanderspoonerDOTorg/node/62. It's long, and will take you a few nights to read. It is heavy reading if you have not a legal education. But evident in its subtext is the true law. I would bet none of these writings are part of your curriculum.
@gintherlover I will read it. I just glanced at it and I don't think it is apart of my curriculum, so far anyways. But yeah I'll read it when I get the chance. Thanks.
@black9897 Those whose lives fit the policy of the few with power, have not to worry. Those whose life does not, are oppressed. The latter have good reason to resist, but the former have a lawful duty to resist as well. And when they fail, they become agents of the tyrants. It is absolutely imperative one understand what law is, and is not. The word "law" is the most profusely misused terms in history. Enforceable Law cannot possibly, by it's nature emanate from a group of lawmakers or judges.
@black9897 The oppressed might include those whose lives (and the implied living thereof) does not entirely fit into the policy of the "lawmakers." For example: John Doe is a competent plumber. Tomorrow, the government passes a "law" that mandates that all plumbers must now get a license from the government to legally practice their trade. John Doe does not either want a license or cannot get a license for one reason or another.
@gintherlover Well if he doesn't want one, i'd say just suck it up and get one, won't hurt you, plus then not anyone can just go do it, seems like it would keep the legit ppl doing it and the ones who aren't away.
@black9897 I can posit this note of interest: If driver licenses were abolished tomorrow, the streets would be filled with a mix of idiocy and new found responsibility. It will be a mess, because the people were just freed. BUT THEN, after a few billion dollars in damage, there would be less people on the road, insurance rates would skyrocket, if you could even get insurance, and people would be driving EXTREMELY cautiously because THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES.
@black9897 I almost forgot to add: What we are experiencing RIGHT NOW, that most are blind to (not unlike the Jews and Germans both in 1930s-40s Germany), IS TYRANNY. SO FEW KNOW WHAT THE REAL LAW IS, NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THEY ARE DELUDED INTO THINKING THE CRAP THAT IS WRITTEN IS THE LAW, AND FURTHER, THEY DON'T REALIZE THAT THOSE WRITTEN LAWS ARE JUST THE CONTROLLING POLICY OF THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THEY ARE FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. We the people are dumber now than ever. WAKE UP!!!!!
@gintherlover Yeah, more people need to take a look at the Weimar Republic. I think ppl are starting wake up, and once they are they aren't going back to sleep.
@black9897 well, put. I don't mean to put anyone down here. My purpose is to remind people of who they really are and can be. And to educate themselves. In my younger years, I was a real mainstream yuppie. Professional career, nice house, nice car, etc. But one day, and for no apparent reason that I can recall, I just couldn't accept that what I was seeing around me was truth. 12 years and a bunch of research later I am just seeing with my own eyes, and not the rose glasses......
@gintherlover I'll tell you frankly, between year 1 and 4 of my research, I had discovered some major unnerving truths which literally ripped out my false reality. I actually made it to the emergency room 4 or 5 times with anxiety attacks. That's how profound some of this stuff is when you find nuggets of the real truth. I am still just getting past the tip of the iceberg, and frankly, it's bittersweet.
@black9897 Go on a serious quest for the truth and you will find some very seriously disturbing news that will make you vomit, I promise. I will not reveal those things here for the sake of not getting drawn into debate over them right now. Don't believe anything you hear from me, or see splattered on the internet without finding out for yourself. Just for reference I can recommend a few easy websites to check out to get started. Don't believe anything they have to say either until you prove it.
@johnnyshamma All states are based on this sort of fraud. States were formed through conquest, not by real consent or proper homesteading. Today they rule by opinion and by force, not by agreement.
I dub thee King Mullet...
LordFancourt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LordFancourt I thought only Phil Spector had a 'do' like that.
DaRyteJuan 2 weeks ago
Paypal? lol, I really thought this was from 1988.
Wesker1982 3 months ago
Comment removed
lazer1million 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation it will only take ONE person or ONE small group to teach enough of the youth the language and processes to completely collapse this system like a house of cards.
Give the youth the truth, instead of the garbage on the radio, television, in the theaters and magazines, and this criminal empire will not just crumble but turn on one another.
We just need to distribute this truth on a massive scale they will WILLINGLY consume..........
JonDeth 5 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation Agreed. You never want to present, represent or perform. You merely want to appear and exercise your constitutional jurisdiction over all levels of government as you are a member of the Republic who's rights and authority are your birthright for being born a human being in a Republic.
The police are given the threat of violence because what they are doing is not merely unlawful but completely illegal. Legislation can not be held over the people so they must threaten us.
JonDeth 5 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation read article 3, section 1 of the constitution, Judicial Powers.
Since the municipal and state courts have not been ordained or established by congress, they are non judicial courts. So that judge you are manipulated into STANDING under when they tell you to rise, is not a judge when in that court. He/she is a contractual arbitrator with no power over you without your consent.
It's like you being an employee at McDonald's and he's the general manager commanding you.
JonDeth 5 months ago
I keep rewatching this, it's so good.
reapfreak 8 months ago
I understand what he's getting at, however the presume innocent until proven guilty simply means you're innocent until they can prove you did something wrong, if they didn't have that they could just throw you in jail or fine you without even seeing if you did something.
black9897 9 months ago
2004? Try 1994.
dieyoung 9 months ago
Holy Smokes - this dude rules!!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH! Very cool stuff
igogosh 10 months ago
Epic mullet!
tuffvibes1972 11 months ago 2
@tuffvibes1972 Haha I agree. If he could see just how ridiculous that looks he'd sprint to the barber as fast as he can. I'm about the same age and my hair is longer than it's been since the mid 70s. I am getting a haircut TODAY!
Great vid though.
kevjay777 10 months ago
@kevjay777
Mullets are ace! The world needs more mullets!
tuffvibes1972 10 months ago
@tuffvibes1972 LOL you must be the guy wearing it!
kevjay777 10 months ago
@kevjay777
could be!
tuffvibes1972 10 months ago
is it possible to superlike this?
taylorkerz 11 months ago
Wow that was awesome!
solar9019 1 year ago
I thought Richard Cornforth was good, but this guys is better. I have heard all the "patriot nonsense" for years, my thought was "hey, these thugs will just put you in jail and take everything you have". The question I always asked these "patriots" is , does what you do actually work, I never got a straight answer. Well this guy gives straight answers. And what he does works!!
unclefixer 1 year ago
I see you also like to be a stuck up jerk who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. If you really cared then you wouldn't put people down like you just did. let me translate: "I enjoy helping others and debating...but i'm smarter than you and everyone else so you're wasting my time" I love to hear other ppls opinions and learn new things or get more info I didn't have, which is what you were doing up till that...which was great.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 wow, with your attitude and the way you perceive things, it is an absolute wonder you don't hate the government, and your teachers, and cops, and lawyers.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Why's that? What do you mean?
Oh, I meant the small limited gov part was about the constitution, I figured you already know that but just wanted to make sure.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I think we may be miscommunicating here. I am also posting a few other messages on other vids too. Maybe we got our wires crossed here. I'm not sure what you're talking about either.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Oh, yeah I have had that happen to. I was just talking about how the constitution is for limited small gov.
black9897 1 year ago
I believe the founders (U.S.A) either had or should have had the intention of creating what I might call a voluntary society that has the following attributes: 1) no separate government, people govern themselves (politically and legally); 2) what they call, and we call, "government" really is nothing more than a business or agency that aids the WHOLE people in the business of existing among other nations and has no power over the people, who may individually choose to interact with it.
gintherlover 1 year ago
Statism is just another belief system (religion). Atheists believe there is no God because there is no proof. Well, Marc Stevens says the State is your God, and you shouldn't believe in it, because there is no proof. How many people have been killed, oppressed, or otherwise pissed on because of the beliefs of others, including statism? The world needs to be rid of religions, states, and massive governments.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover
The world needs limited government and true religion. Watch "The American Form of Government" .youtube . com /watch?v=YGL8CiUtXF0 for the right amount of government, and find a religion that doesn't pay anyone (to be a preacher), then maybe you'll find true religion.
Roylamx 1 year ago
Why are they taking control of your life, property etc??? Because you broke the law!!! it's very simple to understand.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 There is a maxim at law (and in many philosophies/religions) , "let one be subject to his own law." in other words: treat others as you would like to be treated. The U.S. supreme Court upholds this maxim among others when they opined "the rights of one may not be infringed because it is the will of the majority" (that's a paraphrase, I'm not near my references right now). Legislated law IS THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY. It cannot therefore bind the individual without consent.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I'm aware of this. It can, and does because that's the way the system is set up. We have checks and balances. There's nothing wrong with what we have, not perfect, but the best in the world....even better,it works. I'm very happy with it. If someone isn't and they have very good reason I'd be more than happy to hear it. So far this guy hasn't given any. Although there is SOME bit of truth in SOME of what he says.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 There are two aspects to what we are talking about in terms of the "law" binding individuals: 1) There is that which is legally, lawfully, theoretically correct; and 2.) There is the belief system, or reality, that the officials believe and will act on regardless of what you claim your "rights and liberties" are. And the more your mind can be conditioned to accept their reality, the more force they have against we who can see the truth.
gintherlover 1 year ago
Building on that, as Marc Stevens points out, there really is nothing lawfully binding anyone to "state" or "federal" "law." He bases his argument on the absence of any factual evidence that a "state" exists. I can agree with that. But even if one is to buy into the "Constitution" and all of the "land of the free" propaganda, the system is NOT set up to bind the people directly to laws made by congress or courts, and that's for a number of reasons.
gintherlover 1 year ago
The "system" which I agree, AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED, is a great system, but has been perverted. This is a republic, not a democracy. As such all rights and powers are vested in the people who retain them without diminishment, and not in a king or any elected official or group. True we delegated (not "given up") SOME authority to the agencies to regulate interstate commerce, etc. but we reserved our rights in the 9th, and never expressly authorized the courts to interpret the constitution for us.
gintherlover 1 year ago
the bottom line, as Marc himself might point out is: "the propaganda doesn't fit the circumstances." E.g. WHAT WE'RE TOLD: Free enterprise, liberty, freedom, privacy, property, free association, etc.....; WHAT IS REAL: Business permits/licenses, professional licensing, driver license, building permits, fence permit, MUST divulge all personal and business financial accounting to the government, marriage license, etc..... I make it my business to know WHY, and what I can do about it.
gintherlover 1 year ago
Most people are very well trained to have an emotional response to seeing anyone "break" the supposed rules. For example, I've seen these posts here where some "freedom activist" gets caught without a license and may put up some verbal resistance to the officer or court. Most people I know say, "well, what's the matter with that guy, why doesn't he just follow the rules? People like me ask, what the hell did that guy actually factually do WRONG? Who's injured? (aside from himself!)
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover There are soooooo many laws, so i'm sure you could find a few that might not make sense, however..the majority do. I agree we have gotten off track and we have some wrong ppl in our system, but I think America is waking up, if we the people do our job and vote ppl of character in that will uphold the Constitution, and life liberty and property (pursuit of happiness) then we will be much better. cont..
black9897 1 year ago
Further, while it is legally or logically correct that you are not bound these laws, and the chain of logic supporting that can be easily drawn and proven, the reality is, THEY HAVE THE GUNS. Those in power has certainly usurped all of the force they need to keep you and I at bay. The only safe approach to dealing with them when they interfere with your life is to play by their rules, and when possible, expose the sham in front of others, like in court. They hate that.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Laws are there for protection, some to prevent harm from coming to people. You're right this is a Republic and works great. As for the license thing, in this day in age we need that, you can't just let anyone drive...an very old person, a very young person, someone who is not mentally sound to drive, it also helps keep track incase somebody was kidnapped or to find criminals, the laws we have serve a very good purpose..cont
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate you staying part of the conversation. I never suggested a lawless society. I am simply clarifying a control issue related to the perception of what the system is. What you suggest through your statements is that you prefer that we live in a democracy. And since your state of mind is currently that of the majority, you can't see the problem because things are going your way.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I acutally think we should live in a republic which is what we have now like we both said.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Further, I never said that the laws don't make sense. It is great that we hire these judges and legislators to make laws to ADVISE us. But again, they're advisory. You will mature in days ahead when things may turn against you. By the way, the Republic I was talking about is almost gone. If you have done enough research you will see that each state has TWO constitutions. On republican, and a later one communistic/democratic.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I agree that it is almost gone! and we gotta do something about it. really...what do you mean a communist/demcratic one?
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I'm glad you noticed that. When you get a chance, check out your state constitutions. There will undoubtedly be an original republican style one from the late 1700s or early 1800s. Then there will be another one written at any time after the civil war (curiously). In my state, they are almost identical except for a few distinct changes, two of which seem to be the most detrimental. -see next post above-
gintherlover 1 year ago
The first, is that the courts in the old version were clearly common-law courts except for the courts below superior. The second is that the court of claims procedure was added, implying the state's "sovereign immunity" protection against being sued by individuals. What that means is, in first constitution, the state is a republic, the people are free, and the common-law was the rule. The second sets up an oligarchy where the people are subjects and duped into what they think is democracy.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover well I will look into that. cuz I don't believe I've head of this before.
black9897 1 year ago
@gintherlover I absolutely think what most of this guy says is totally wrong..not only that but doesn't make any sense. He talks about a world of which I would never want to live in. Besides, you can't blame the constitution or the whole system because of the bad ppl. He's basically promoting anarchy, and I will never support someone who does, because I know it doesn't work.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 YOU ARE RIGHT! It is bad people that make the system crappy. But HOW DO YOU PROTECT against bad people? It's hard when they have control. How do a small group of jerks get control of you? Centralized power. We have a Lockean system where all power begins in the individuals and trickles down through the constitution to the agencies that serve us. However, currently you are duped into believing a Hobbesean model where rights are granted by a higher source (constitution/government).
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover One, by making sure we do our job by getting good pppl in and bad ppl out. Like we both said we the people hold the power. I believe my rights come from God. So did the founders , thus the constitution.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 What's even more interesting is that I am arguing has no bearing on you and requires nothing from you. You are arguing that I should be subject to the laws simply because your current opinion is that they are needed and they are for our good. Not only that, but your entire argument smells of fear. An example: You're afraid that idiots would be let on the road if there were no licenses. HAVE YOU BEEN ON THE ROADS?
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I think we should be subject to them, because they work and make sense. If certain laws were to violate the constitution or I think are morally wrong then I'd do something about it. Well, nothing wrong with fear...I mean obviously you don't want someone hitting you or wife/kids and killing them. there are many crazy ppl on the road, but without licenses it would be 10x worse. and the other things I mentioned about helping cops n stuff.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Your thoughts are fear based. What stopped all of the "murder and anarchy" from arising in 1791? well before any new laws were enacted? Why weren't drivers licensed and horses/carriages registered? I would suspect running around in public with a team of large and powerful animals carries a significant risk to safety, don't you think? Shouldn't the "government" test and license these anarchist crazy lawless people?
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover and what's wrong with being afraid of something? Fear is good, fear keeps me from jumping off a cliff. 1791 is not 2011...totally diff. They aren't cars, not even the same. Cars are not only much more dangerous, but are much faster than horses. We have more/better technology than that time. Plus license aren't hurting anyone.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 really? what's really changed? I don't agree. So then let's say "guns" instead of horses and cars. Your misguided in thinking we've advanced in terms of civilization. It seems you're also associating technology with being smarter/more advanced. History has shown the opposite is true.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Licensing IS injuring EVERYONE for two reasons: 1) Again, licensing is a form of limited liability which conditions your mind to be LESS RESPONSIBLE. We have a ridiculous amount of traffic accidents and deaths resulting from insane driving practices by LICENSED drivers. 2) If you agree to a license you lose your rights to the following: jury trial, common law court, innocent until proven guilty, etc. THAT'S AN INJURY TO MY RIGHTS.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover If licensing is really for "safety" (which by the way is the pretense/pretext for ALL legislation etc.), why are you not tested EVER after your first time? Why are testing standards so low. Why is it that I can speed, possibly endangering others, and only get a little ticket that might cost $200. Why is it that I am wary every time I go out on the road, that some idiot is going to hit my car and i will never be fully compensated for my losses? The "system". Get real.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover maybe they should be tested every year, I wouldn't care if they made it that way, cuz I know I would pass. I know in my state they crack down pretty hard on you. Everything not perfect, there will always be improvements needed. as I stated before.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I have been to court many times, dealt with judges and police, read many court decisions from many courts read much of legislated law, read much of Blackstone's Commentaries, read the Federalist Papers, read and studied the Dec. of Ind., Art. of Conf. and the Const. and some state constitutions, Lysander Spooner's essay, and and many other things. check out 1215-dot-org, freedom-school-dot-com, marcstevens-dot-net. Check out the ambiguous works of the AntiTerrorist on youtube.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@black9897 "they crack down pretty hard" ?? that's because they NEED MONEY. WAKE UP MAN. You're just proving my point. There are only two reasons in my book as to why any "law enforcement" body might want to crack down on driving. 1) They need to pre-condition you to accept the stricter circumstances and more regularity of traffic stops and tickets resulting in more revenue for them, or 2) the "licensed drivers" keep becoming increasingly less responsible and need a slap down.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I don't think it makes me less responsible, cuz driving is a privilege, not a right. That's not a result of a license , that's a result of drinking, texting, and do other stupid things. Sometimes an innocent mistake. What? how does a license cause that to happen??
black9897 1 year ago
@gintherlover I'm saying with more/better technology there might need to be better rules.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Cars are definitely more powerful and faster than horses, well, maybe yours is. But then why do we allow ourselves to use them? There are more deaths and injuries from cars every month than same from guns in a year.
gintherlover 1 year ago
If I may, I would like to point attention to your comment "licenses aren't hurting anyone." Maybe they aren't hurting you. But do you really presume to speak for "anyone"? Have you walked in everyone's shoes? Have you read studies done on traffic regulation? Do you have facts? Almost every comment you have made so far indicates a mind that , as long as things are going its way, would presume to decide for others that whatever is, must be good for them too.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover ...with all this talk about driver licensing and following the laws, perhaps there might be interest in these tidbits: 1) The gov't will tell you that "driving a 'motor vehicle' is a privilege and not a right." 2) Many "freedom activists" think that's crap and that they have a right to self locomotion in their private car. 3) Both are correct and the gov't know it. You volunteer into your licensed privilege and give up your right to freely travel.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover here's some evidence: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.]
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover here's more: "Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for ***commercial purposes*** on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo." - Code of Federal Regulations - Definitions
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover It says city...not state. but i'll check it out later when i have time.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 there are others that specifically say "state" or "federal government". Not that it matters. Construction of the opinion can depend on context. Further, if you are in a court of record and are the plaintiff asserting your rights, you just declare what your rights are.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover You say you love the constitution. Great. Read it. I don't mean take a glance. I mean READ IT. But you're not going to understand it. Fine. Get a few law dictionaries FROM AROUND THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN, and look up the meaning to EACH AND EVERY WORD, and I mean like "we" and "the" and "people"...etc. Then follow the chain of legislative acts, court rulings, etc. that led to "licensing."
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I will def do that. I'm a Criminal Justice Major so I read much of it for school anyhow.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Reading and understanding are two separate concepts. You're probably young and still forming your mind. Since you implied you are in school, apparently to become law enforcement, let me tell you this: law enforcement officers are taught policy, not necessarily truth. Further statistically the average IQ of an officer is typically that of an administrative assistant. (no offense at all intended) Further, they won't usually let you in to the force if you are any smarter.
gintherlover 1 year ago
There was a court case on that a few years ago. An applicant to the police academy scored a 120 or so on his test. They would not let him in. He sued under equal protection. I forgot if he won, but the point was the revelation that they want "followers" and not "thinkers/decision makers" on the force. The other issue is lawyers. They are also fed policy and not law. Read a law dictionary from 1828, 1875, 1920, and so forth. You will see that lawyers are getting dumbed purposefully.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Well if that is the case that's very dumb.
black9897 1 year ago
@gintherlover I will always be forming my mind. No, I'm not going to be come a cop, the field is very broad, i'm actually going into armed security.
black9897 1 year ago
@gintherlover You have a right to travle on foot or bike, but not a car. For good reason.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 ...see now, that's my point. You don't tell me what my rights are, I do. (see Const. Amend. 9 "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") and ("The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative."[Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829)]
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover How would having one hurt someone. Well it works well for most ppl, if not all. I don't see the prob.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 "I don't see the prob." Yeah, I know, that's why we're still conversing.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Do you know of a better way to get around?
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 certainly not a more convenient one! But I choose to drive my car around without registration. I do carry insurance and a defunct license (for id) I do not accept the privilege of "driving a motor vehicle" from the government. I just get in my car and go. By the way, I assume you have passed the driver test, yes? And you've been driving for quite some time? What would change in terms of your ability to drive safely if your little license card got lost?
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I have been driving for a while now with out a ticket or any kind of incident. Nothing. But wihtout a test no one knows that, you gotta prove it! It 's there for protection. and many other reasons.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Without limited liability from a nanny-state we would all be much safer. When a "state" assumes power, control, or major influence on so many aspects of your life, it naturally becomes like a parent, and you, the child, will never grow out of needing it. And your comments herein are evidence of that mindset. Break free and grow your own mind man. Although I agree that if you want to be subject that's your prerogative. Just don't utilize the force of gov't to subject me.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I don't think for a sec we should give every aspect of our life to the state or the gov! I'm def not for a communist or anything of the like. I'm for the Constitution..
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I hope I didn't give that impression. I hate labels. Just to be clear, I did not intend on calling you a communist or anything like that. Not that there is anything wring with that either. Everyone is fully entitled to their own opinion and belief.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Oh no , I didn't think you did. Sure, and if someone believed in communism that's fine, as long as they didn't try to make America that way cuz we all know that doesn't work and I would fight against them.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I actually like the Constitution also, but it takes on new meaning when You can truly understand what it is and what it means. Then compare that to how the legislature and the courts have decreed, and come to your own conclusions.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@black9897 Also, to your allegations about "10x worse..." There is plenty of substantial evidence based on actual real-world testing (most of which is provided by the NTSA no less) that the removal of strict regulation and licensing driving results in generally safer conditions on the road. The same was found in other areas of life, by similar official agencies.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover That's hard to believe they can know that without it actually happening.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I'm not sure what you mean by "know that without it actually happening."
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I was referring to the thing about they know it would be safe without the rules of the road. I said that I don't think you can actually know that without it actually happening.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Rules of the road are probably the best thing to happen since the invention of the automobile. No doubt. Our system of organized driving, in my mind, is second to none. My point is, we hired these 'officials' to develop that system for us.
gintherlover 1 year ago
There are skills and knowledge that are necessary to have before being able to drive safely. And it does make sense to have a public test. I have no issue with that. But there is a HUGE difference between the government establishing safety standards and certifying that you meet them, and "licensing." If you don't know the difference please find out, I'm a little tired of writing educational papers. There is a ton of published stuff right here on the net.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I see what you're saying. So you don't think we should hire officials to do that? also to the other reply, you don't think the gov should establish the standards?
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I think you misread. I just checked the message. There is no typo. I like to believe that the purpose I hire (elect) these people is exactly to spend time I don't have to figure out reasonable standards. And even certify (not license) the competency of those who wish to test themselves against them. I do not believe the gov't has the right to license anything let alone rights, or to abrogate rights under any pretexts.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Huh? What did i misread? I was asking you a ques. But isn't that what they're doing now? getting hired to go though stuff we can't?
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I enjoy debate, helping others, and being informative. But it is hard to do either of those things with someone who has such a limited repertiore. Please educate yourself as much as possible before wasting my time. I would appreciate it as my time is precious to me. Here are some good reading links for ALL: lysanderspoonerDOTorgSLASHnodeSLASH62; 1215DOTorgSLASHlawnotesSLASHlawnotesSLASHfoundationDOThtm.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover As do I. Well excuse me mr. know it all. I was simply asking you ques to see what you had to say about it, don't go insulting me over it. I am educated and will continue to further it as time goes on. If I am somehow keeping you from saving the world, writing a best seller, or doing whatever then you are at anytime free to leave this conversation. I wouldn't want you to waste time with me, a mere uneducated child. cont...
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Take it easy. Didn't mean to be that offensive. Just tired of going around in circles is all. Although you clearly have good intentions, you clearly do NOT have a good foundation of principles with which to guide their execution. You express that government rules (man-made law) should be enforced on all is insane and unjust. You and your government are likened to an infant with a handgun. Read up on Lysander Spooner, James Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin, et al. Then get back to me.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover That offensive? Well I don't get offended easily but I'm not a fan of ppl acting like they know everything, even if they do know a lot. Yes, because it works and MOST of our laws are good and there's nothing wrong with them. Plus I have nothing to worrying about cuz I don't break any laws. I will def check 'em all out. Thanks.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Well, as they say, "if you can't take the heat......" Good luck to you and your laws. Please enlighten yourself. PLEASE! I don't think you know what "laws" are, or the difference between "lawful" and "legal." Further, in case your protective naivete is too thick to see it, you're breaking about 100 of your "laws" right now. You outlaw. Criminal. Let's call the U.S. marshal on you right now, and have you arrested for breaking clearly established law.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover What heat? I do know. What 100 laws am I breaking?
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Perhaps a more responsible reply to you would be: Although I apparently come across as learned, I claim to know very little. Those who lack wisdom have weak minds, are quick to trust, slow to learn, and seek either to control, or to be controlled. Legislated law is nothing more than the policy of the few.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover As I said I'm a CJUS major so all my profs are either cops lawyers or somewhere in between, so i learn much about the law etc. Not that I take every word they say as truth or don't look into myself.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 You're full if it. You either adore them, or you would use them as authorities, or you wouldn't have mentioned them. What if I told you that I am a retired superior court judge, and have practiced law for thirty eight years? Any time anybody needs to pull rank, such as "I work for a lawyer" that fits nicely into the following adage: "when you have no law behind you, talk about the facts; when you have no facts, talk about the law; and when you have neither, talk about your gun."
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I'm full of it? I simply meant I'm not getting my info off of Wikipedia, i'm getting info about law and crimes and gov, etc from ppl who are actually in those fields and know what they are talking about. Not that they know everything. If that's true , that's awesome. and I'm sure you would have lots of intersting things to say (as I can already tell). then again this is youtube, you never know who's behind the keyboard.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 DO NOT LOOK TO ME or anybody for that matter as an authority or reliable source for anything. That is my point. You are the authority for yourself. Check the facts that support your reality from time to time. You will find that most of what you have learned is false, and is a false reality. That is the place from which I am standing. I too (many years ago, lol) had great professors and mentors, and only later, after taking full responsibility for myself realized they too were deluded.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Good advice. haha..so how old are you?? Well I'll def look into things for myself.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 If you are of average college age, let's just say I could be your father. Actually hey, you never know. Was your mom at the Phish concert at Sugarbush Vermont back in 91?
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Yeah , i'm 21. Um...don't think she was . Plus i was born in '89 lol.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I apologize, I almost forgot that you are a student of cops and lawyers, I will translate the adage for you: "if you have not reason, extol the facts; if you have not facts, extol reason; if you have neither, extol your power." In other words, if someone backs you into a corner, whether physically, or in a debate, you whip out your guns, or in the latter case, pull rank. Either way, the weakness is revealed.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover lol. It's ok, I understood it. Only I never "pulled rank" Saying you learn from someone who knows more than you and or more about something than you do is not pulling rank.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I'm glad we can talk like this. thanks for staying part of the conversation. In reply, you are claiming that your teachers know more than you? I think it stands to reason that they may have more experience than you. But can you prove they know more truth than you? I love hearing from those who have experience. But I always reserve my right to disagree with their conclusions. And I disagree with anyone asserting that if I must conform to their understanding for any reason.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Same to you. You're welcome. I enjoy talking about almost anything, and learning more. I can't prove that, and that's why I don't take what they say or anyone for that matter just cuz they say so.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 You could have simply said that you are "learning from those who are learned." But that would be redundant and superfluous, as we all learn from those around us who are presumably more learned. But instead you asserted your title ("CJUS Major") and asserted your rank in relation to those who have titles ("I am an apprentice to lawyers and cops") and thus indicating you are asserting some power or justification.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Well my intention was not to pull rank. I think that since they are in a field i'm going into what they teach would be good to listen and learn from. If there was another way of saying what major I am without sounding like i'm trying to pull rank, then I would say it. I mean saying you are studying a certain field would have some weight to it, right?
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 You know what would be fun? Why don't you write a brief on how any laws are legally or lawfully enforceable on anyone. To make it easy, just choose one of the laws you think "should be obeyed" and lay out the chain of logic and set of facts that that may prove it. Seriously, I would love to see it. I AM NOT INCITING YOU, I REALLY WANT TO HAVE A SERIOUS DEBATE ON THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover That would be fun...really. I honestly wouldn't have the time. And I wouldn't want to tell you I'll do it then never actually do it. I know you'll prob think i'm just trying to get out of it...that's fine if you do.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 No. It's fine. I know what you mean. I am short on time too, as already mentioned. But this is important stuff we are talking about. I know Marc Stevens makes it seem like folly to get out of traffic tickets and embarrass judges and lawyers. But the fundamentals you and I are talking about, and those which Marc raises, are at the heart of many of the problems in this society, including murder, poverty, larceny, and abuse.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Yep it is. Yeah, i mean i see it as some loop holes to remember encase i ever need to get out of a ticket. I guess he comes off as an anarchist..... who hates gov , the constitution and the law we have. Which I don't agree with. But I'm always open to hear others thoughts.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 That he does! I don't really believe Marc hates law. I think Marc is a very level headed guy who knows what's right and wrong. "Laws are for the lawless" Just to be clear, anarchy does not mean lawlessness or disorder. It is the highest form of liberty. There is no special governing authority that has any power to enforce its will. I believe this country was supposed to be an anarchy. i believe the constitution if read in light of natural law implicates a near anarchist society.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Well clearly he's smart. but isn't anarchy defined as "absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority." I'd disagree about it being the highest form of liberty given the definition i put. I thought it was about small, limited government, not no gov at all.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I was using def. "a. absence of government". And specifically, absence of a separate government entity. In practice we have an ignorant and complacently distracted mass of people being ruled by a few masters of propaganda, confusion, distraction, usurpation, and fraud. My interpretation of the const. is that the people are free and self-governing and have no ruler(s). The agencies created are just that, public servants, not rulers. Whatever they do, is ADVISORY, not mandatory.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover There would still be law..cuz moral law would still be there. But generally when ppl talk of anarchy it's chaos and no law, like speeding, etc. To a point ppl are free and self-gov. and I mean we are free, I can go walk down the street, express how I feel etc. But having a society with rules and laws doens't mean we aren't free.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Absolutely. We are talking the same language with different words. Well put. So let's agree that in this conversation that anarchy means: no law and total disarray. Therefore, in my opinion anarchy is bad.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Ok cool. Sounds good.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I have studied long and hard, and I cannot find anywhere in the constitution where a) the people expressed or implied their intent to, or did, surrender their liberty and individual sovereignty, or b) it mandates that the people obey any law the government makes, c) it binds any one of the people into any contract with anyone or anything.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Right, we don't HAVE to obey any law, but the way the const. is it kinda seems that's part of what we get. Thus the diff branches of gov. It makes sense in a Republic like ours that we have rules and regulations. Maybe we aren't bound into a contract, but it works and is good..so my ques would be why wouldn't anyone want it? If for some reason someone doesn't like it and wants to live their way then they should move to an island where they can.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Nothing in the constitution mandates the people to obey any law made by a judge or legislature. In fact, the converse is true. There's no question in my mind that the const. is good in many ways. That isn't the issue. The issue is people in government are abusing it, and the people, from where I'm standing. The genius is in that the const. leaves it open to the people to obey or not, and to alter or abolish the gov't if they feel it is needed.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Exactly...too many ppl are! Well I hope most would choose to fix/alter it rather than abolish it.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I hold my position at : there's no need to abolish it, there's little need to alter it, it is the people that must do their duty in being ever vigilant, educated, and diligent about keeping the officials in line. Part of it is knowing the "law". And then forcing officials who break the law, to follow it. It's really that simple. It seems as if the people have submitted their minds to the notion that gov't is a ruler and is supposed to take care of them. Bad position to be in.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I agree with that position. ! Yeah, that's what I meant by fixing it/altering it. Oh def..way too many think gov should take care of them.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 It seems to be the law of nature that causes that. It could be a chicken/egg question....did the people first become ignorant on there own, and then government began to think for them out of necessity (parens patriae)? or did the government actively take over the role of thinking for the people, and therefore the people naturally felt no need to educated ignorant?
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Yep. Good ques. I would lean toward the latter, but both could be true.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Sorry ranting again. To answer your question, I agree. I like many if not all of the rules and regulations. There's really nothing wrong with the system except two things: 1) people are generally ignorant and trusting 2) certain officials with agendas have certainly made things rough for those who are ignorant. And I don't mean ignorant in a degrading way, I mean undereducated as to the law and the true system.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover No, you're fine. Ok cool...so I pretty much agree with you about all of this then. The corrupted ppl need to be exposed, then thrown out . Cuz there are plenty of them.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Perhaps you might be inclined to take it upon yourself, seeing that legal theory is part of your curriculum anyway, to read a simple letter. I'll give you the link, it's posted on the internet. wwwDOTlysanderspoonerDOTorg/node/62. It's long, and will take you a few nights to read. It is heavy reading if you have not a legal education. But evident in its subtext is the true law. I would bet none of these writings are part of your curriculum.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I will read it. I just glanced at it and I don't think it is apart of my curriculum, so far anyways. But yeah I'll read it when I get the chance. Thanks.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Those whose lives fit the policy of the few with power, have not to worry. Those whose life does not, are oppressed. The latter have good reason to resist, but the former have a lawful duty to resist as well. And when they fail, they become agents of the tyrants. It is absolutely imperative one understand what law is, and is not. The word "law" is the most profusely misused terms in history. Enforceable Law cannot possibly, by it's nature emanate from a group of lawmakers or judges.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Ok, but who is being oppressed?
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 The oppressed might include those whose lives (and the implied living thereof) does not entirely fit into the policy of the "lawmakers." For example: John Doe is a competent plumber. Tomorrow, the government passes a "law" that mandates that all plumbers must now get a license from the government to legally practice their trade. John Doe does not either want a license or cannot get a license for one reason or another.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Well if he doesn't want one, i'd say just suck it up and get one, won't hurt you, plus then not anyone can just go do it, seems like it would keep the legit ppl doing it and the ones who aren't away.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 I can posit this note of interest: If driver licenses were abolished tomorrow, the streets would be filled with a mix of idiocy and new found responsibility. It will be a mess, because the people were just freed. BUT THEN, after a few billion dollars in damage, there would be less people on the road, insurance rates would skyrocket, if you could even get insurance, and people would be driving EXTREMELY cautiously because THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@black9897 I almost forgot to add: What we are experiencing RIGHT NOW, that most are blind to (not unlike the Jews and Germans both in 1930s-40s Germany), IS TYRANNY. SO FEW KNOW WHAT THE REAL LAW IS, NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THEY ARE DELUDED INTO THINKING THE CRAP THAT IS WRITTEN IS THE LAW, AND FURTHER, THEY DON'T REALIZE THAT THOSE WRITTEN LAWS ARE JUST THE CONTROLLING POLICY OF THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THEY ARE FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. We the people are dumber now than ever. WAKE UP!!!!!
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Yeah, more people need to take a look at the Weimar Republic. I think ppl are starting wake up, and once they are they aren't going back to sleep.
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 well, put. I don't mean to put anyone down here. My purpose is to remind people of who they really are and can be. And to educate themselves. In my younger years, I was a real mainstream yuppie. Professional career, nice house, nice car, etc. But one day, and for no apparent reason that I can recall, I just couldn't accept that what I was seeing around me was truth. 12 years and a bunch of research later I am just seeing with my own eyes, and not the rose glasses......
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover I'll tell you frankly, between year 1 and 4 of my research, I had discovered some major unnerving truths which literally ripped out my false reality. I actually made it to the emergency room 4 or 5 times with anxiety attacks. That's how profound some of this stuff is when you find nuggets of the real truth. I am still just getting past the tip of the iceberg, and frankly, it's bittersweet.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover wow....so what was it that made you have anxiety attacks?
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Go on a serious quest for the truth and you will find some very seriously disturbing news that will make you vomit, I promise. I will not reveal those things here for the sake of not getting drawn into debate over them right now. Don't believe anything you hear from me, or see splattered on the internet without finding out for yourself. Just for reference I can recommend a few easy websites to check out to get started. Don't believe anything they have to say either until you prove it.
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover Well Idc if you do, I won't debate you on them, I'd just like to hear them. Good advice, I agree!
black9897 1 year ago
@gintherlover I would agree with education yourself . What exactly couldn't you accept as being truth?
black9897 1 year ago
@black9897 Not sure about what you are referring to here either in "...couldn't you accept as being truth?"
gintherlover 1 year ago
@gintherlover oh, i meant what couldn't you accpet as being true? You said something like you couldn't accept the truth you saw?
black9897 1 year ago
top man legend so right
shapeshiftersisters 1 year ago
4:25 - wtf?
TheGambler666 1 year ago
top man
shapeshiftersisters 1 year ago
what happens when they say thats criminal this is civil?
teamgrn 1 year ago
Is this relevant to the UK?
johnnyshamma 1 year ago
@johnnyshamma All states are based on this sort of fraud. States were formed through conquest, not by real consent or proper homesteading. Today they rule by opinion and by force, not by agreement.
Nielsio 1 year ago
@johnnyshamma
shapeshiftersisters 1 year ago
I always thought lawyers and judges were full of shit. Now it's official.
basilsullivan 2 years ago 10
The guy on the right has an amazing hair do
GalaxyHorse 2 years ago 8
@GalaxyHorse is that Phil Spector?
machwon 1 year ago
read his book, adventures in legal land.
rmcc0002 2 years ago