Thread: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and related subjects

Thanks for posting. I'll have to take a listen when I get a chance. Though you are correct that our legal system developed out of the British system, the current system used in many states bears no resemblance to it. There are still a few "common law" states, but most are purely statutory in nature. That's the problem with many of the tactics used by Freemen in the UK and Canada, they are supported by common law which my state doesn't recognize. Lord only knows what the residents of New Orleans could do since their system derives from Napoleonic Code. I'll definitely listen to see if these issues are addressed.

Quote from omegaflux

There are still a few "common law" states, but most are purely statutory in nature.

This is nonsense, everything is common law, anything less is a weakened derivative of that (statutes).

That's the problem with many of the tactics used by Freemen in the UK and Canada, they are supported by common law which my state doesn't recognize.

Recognizing the states tactics as the be-all and end-all is stepping into a conundrum, like their politically expansionist policies, which gives rise to more then what was originally intended.

There is no such thing as a "common law state" or not, you just have to be aware of how to demand what is yours as a flesh and blood sovereign soul.

Quote from Celtic Druid

This is nonsense, everything is common law, anything less is a weakened derivative of that (statutes).

'Common Law' is a term only used by Anglophile countries. Many of the nations 'grown' by Britain have disregarded Common Law after Independance. Their own prior law systems were 'common' to them - and often diverse and contradictory - and quite different to Britain's.

Quote from Percy

'Common Law' is a term only used by Anglophile countries. Many of the nations 'grown' by Britain have disregarded Common Law after Independance. Their own prior law systems were 'common' to them - and often diverse and contradictory - and quite different to Britain's.

How quaint an interpretation.

What are you talking about Percy.

We have a legal system that is based around our constitution (primarily based upon the Bill of Rights 1688/9 and the Magna Carta 1215) and is the summation of centuries of precedents set. This is the foundation of what created 'Common Law.' You are are out of your depth here and I hold superior knowledge on this matter.

Quote from Celtic Druid

How quaint an interpretation.

What are you talking about Percy.

We have a legal system that is based around our constitution (primarily based upon the Bill of Rights 1688/9 and the Magna Carta 1215) this is the foundation of what created 'Common Law.' You are are out of your depth here and I hold superior knowledge on this matter.

I admit to ignorance. I have no idea what has rattled your cage. Should I get a hose out to wet down your straw?

Quote from Percy

I admit to ignorance. I have no idea what has rattled your cage. Should I get a hose out to wet down your straw?

Nothing sir, we are hopefully good friends as ever.

Quote from Celtic Druid

Recognizing the states tactics as the be-all and end-all is stepping into a cunduldrum, like their politically expansionist policies, which gives rise to more then what was originally intended.

There is no such thing as a "common law state" or not, you just have to be aware of how to demand what is yours as a flesh and blood sovereign soul.

But unfortunately it's not what I believe or know to be true, it's what the enforcers have been taught and believe. In every video I've seen from the UK and Canada where Freemen were successful their success was due to the enforcer (constable, judge, etc.) being reminded of their oath, an oath grounded in common law. The police in my state took no such oath so I am very limited in tactics. The issue is not whether a state declares itself to follow common law or not but if the people with the monopoly on violence (government agents) believe so. So were the members of the White Rose just unaware of the proper way to demand what was theirs, the right to peacefully distribute flyers? Would they have known some special phrases to tell the judges to make clear they were sovereigns they would not have been killed? Were all of the slaves in the US free to go should they have been able to articulate they were sovereigns? You're presupposing that my state government, or any government, cares one iota about natural rights and is not a completely tyrannous criminal organization.

Ok, different variations are necessary in order to achieve a goal I've traditionally heralded as being fraught with dangers. Ideas of jurisdiction, oath, sovereignty are invariably linked with the legal fiction.

I hear your points omega, but what couldn't be heard by previous generations is now open to all. I understand, in the most humblest of terms, the history of those that have strove before, more than anybody, and my passion is fueled by this knowledge.

Sure, the state may not give one iota, but there's dedicated fellows like me and others who do give a damn, and we've been doing this solidly without respite.

If I can empower common folk to stare down the state beast then I will have done good.

The issue is not whether a state declares itself to follow common law or not but if the people with the monopoly on violence (government agents) believe so.

You misunderstand common law to be a tool of the state, when it's actually the lifeline of the people.

A U.S. law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.