So a couple of months ago someone started a thread with a video featuring a (seemingly) Afrocentric black man with incomplete and misspelled youtube video titles, yammering on incoherently about various issues of sovereignty and the like.
One of the things I read in the description of the video (because the majority of what he says in the video is largely unintelligible) is this notion of a difference between you as a person and you as a fictional entity as designated by your name in all-caps on official government documents.
Obviously it sounds largely unhinged, and the messenger doesn't help this at all.
However...I just saw this video posted by the guy who runs a youtube channel that hosts videos largely from him and various other people displaying disobedience in the face of State coercion. Now, the subject of the video is actually audio that he recorded from the proceedings of a court case of his about 5 or 6 years ago.
He introduces the audio by explaining essentially the same concept...that the State recognizes a fictional corporation, and you are recognized as the agent of that corporation. Again, it sounds absurd, but what I find incredibly compelling is the way the proceedings unfold...and the way the "judge" (commissioner) [the way the guy refers to him in the video description] is kept at bay by this guy's constant refusal to play ball.
I would have never expected things to go they way they did. I honestly don't understand this at all, and have no idea how this guy didn't end up in prison.
Needless to say this is something to be looking into:
Naw, this is insane.
First, the judge was only going around with this guy because the judge had a hard-on for debating process with a legal ignoramus. Most judges will not put up with this kind of interchange and will go straight to either contempt or involuntarily waive your right to trial.
Second, when it comes down to it, they won't hesitate to state flat-out that you (the human being) have no choice but to participate in the legal process or to have the charges found presumptively in the State's favor. After all, it is the State (the judge's employer) who is the plaintiff in the vast majority of cases. While the purpose of the courts is to maintain the charade that this is somehow a lawful process (which it is not, it's a blatantly criminal process in terms of common law), they will remove the mask if they're pushed hard enough and simply state the blunt truth that you have to participate because you have no choice.
Third, it's laughable that he thinks his lawsuit against a judge which will be reviewed by that judge's peers - who rely on precisely the same coercive powers in their own courtrooms - has even a snowball's chance in hell to actually do anything against the judge. Judges and prosecutors have absolute immunity. Even police only have qualified immunity and they can beat you to death. Imagine what people with absolute immunity can get away with.
Clayton -
That's all about what I figured, but I want to know...
Why did the judge threaten him with contempt, and then when it was called out as a threat, the judge denies it was a threat, and then when the guy doesn't give up, he "withdraws his request"?
Well, like I said, I think they try to maintain the charade as much as possible - normally, threatening contempt will put the difficult person in line but it didn't in this case and I suspect that it may have been legally incorrect to charge contempt for this particular situation. When the judge realized he hadn't scared him straight, he withdrew the request to the bailiff to have him removed from the courtroom.
Why was the judge so concerned with the guy's insistance that he was being forced from the courtroom? If it didn't matter, why would he care so much that it not be framed in the light of the man being forcably removed?
Well, the guy is right that a lot of what happens in a courtroom is a kind of code or trickery. It's the same kind of trickery you get from the cops or a DA - they threaten you with arrest (cops) or higher charges (DA) which is an absolutely credible threat if you don't rat yourself out. Of course, once you rat yourself out, they have a confession which is "airtight proof" in our Saturnian courts1 which are actually modeled on Inquisitional courts.
Why wasn't the man found to be in contempt and thrown in jail?
I could be mistaken but I suppose that refusing to follow some legal point of order is not contempt since it is not a refusal to obey an order issued by the court. But I'm no legal scholar so I don't know.
And ultimately, why didn't the trial go on without him and he thrown in jail after?
Well, I don't know what happened with the State's case but there's no way the State is going to just drop the matter, even if it's a lowly traffic ticket. They will have their pound of flesh. I think that the courts per se don't really give a shit either way. The feeling I get from the dealings I've been forced to have with the court system is that they view themselves as kind of dwelling in the ether above and outside the State but complying in every detail with the State's requests.
And this is the essence of the charade. The prosecutor works for the Department of Justice. The courts are State courts but they pretend to just be "courts of law" as if they are not beholden to any particular interest, the State's or any other.
And I think this is the crucial issue that the courts will seek to actively evade. I would be interested to see someone try to pursue the conflict-of-interest issue legally by challenging the conflict-of-interest of a State court acting as an arbitrator between the State and the individual. In fact, I'm sure this is why most State's courts actually list the State as "The People of the State of ________ vs. John Doe".
If you were to demand a change of venue to a non-State arbitrator because the State's court is an interested party in any dispute between the State and yourself, the court would respond that it is not the State who is charging you, it is the people who are merely represented by the State's prosecutor, which is why the prosecutor must be an appointee of an elected official (such as the governor) and usually ratified by the elected legislature.
If you were to press the matter, they probably would agree to a change-of-venue - unless you were in one of Virginia's Federal star-chamber courts in which case they'd simply physically muzzle and strait-jacket you - but they would simply transfer it to another State court and/or another deputy prosecutor. And they can keep that going for as long as you like until you literally can't afford to challenge it anymore.
1 - Bonacci's legal theories are complete nonsense and he completely misses the obvious point that State courts who hold the power to sentence you to death or imprison you for life don't have to concern themselves about legal technicalia beyond the point that they find it useful. However, he has a lot of really great observations about the parallels between modern courts and Inquisitional courts.
Clayton:When the judge realized he hadn't scared him straight, he withdrew the request to the bailiff to have him removed from the courtroom.
He didn't request the bailiff to do anything. Listen to it again. He basically said "if you continue to be disruptive I'll hold you in contempt"...and the guy insists "is that civil or criminal?"...and the judge won't answer...but the guy keeps pushing...and when the judge can't come up with an answer, he just says "at this point I withdraw my request". He had not said a single word to the bailiff. I do not know what you're talking about.
Why was the judge so concerned with the guy's insistance that he was being forced from the courtroom? If it didn't matter, why would he care so much that it not be framed in the light of the man being forcably removed? Well, the guy is right that a lot of what happens in a courtroom is a kind of code or trickery. It's the same kind of trickery you get from the cops or a DA - they threaten you with arrest (cops) or higher charges (DA) which is an absolutely credible threat if you don't rat yourself out. Of course, once you rat yourself out, they have a confession which is "airtight proof" in our Saturnian courts1 which are actually modeled on Inquisitional courts.
I don't understand. "It is a credible threat if you don't rat yourself out." ...but if you do rat yourself out...it's a credible threat?
Why wasn't the man found to be in contempt and thrown in jail?I could be mistaken but I suppose that refusing to follow some legal point of order is not contempt since it is not a refusal to obey an order issued by the court. But I'm no legal scholar so I don't know.
"refusing to follow some legal point of order is not [...] a refusal to obey an order issued by the court"
The judge is considered the court. Judges on the bench refer to themselves in the third person as "this court". The judge told him he needed to be quiet, quit being disruptive, and essentially to sit down and go along with everything. And the guy didn't do it. I do not understand how that is not "a refusal to obey an order issued by the court".
Well, I don't know what happened with the State's case but there's no way the State is going to just drop the matter, even if it's a lowly traffic ticket. They will have their pound of flesh.
He says this was 5 or 6 years ago. What are they waiting for?
As for everything else you said, I don't see how it really supports your position that this is all nonsense. If anything you sound to be agreeing with this guy's essential position.
CORRECTED: "It's the same kind of trickery you get from the cops or a DA. They threaten you with arrest (cops) or higher charges (DA) - which is an absolutely credible threat - if you don't rat yourself out."
Apologies for the mistake.
As for the essence, yes, I am absolutely sympathetic with the idea of challenging the jurisdictional, procedural and common-sense moral right of the courts to hear cases in which there is this blatant conflict-of-interest where the Court is employed by the very same entity which is charging the individual. This is why the State absolutely monopolizes criminal law - most people being charged by the State are being charged for really bad crimes that they really did commit. This acts as a kind of "moral blind" to cover over the rest of their dirty business.
However, I don't think it will work in practice. The point is that it is just a charade and if you call it out as a charade then they really will just take the gloves off and beat the shit out of you. Those officers are employed by the State but they get their orders from the courts. The video you linked the guy does not say that nothing has happened since. And even if he's not been dragged to jail yet, that doesn't mean that it isn't filed away as some kind of cold case that they'll get back to later.
Clayton: It's the same kind of trickery you get from the cops or a DA - they threaten you with arrest (cops) or higher charges (DA) which is an absolutely credible threat if you don't rat yourself out. CORRECTED: "It's the same kind of trickery you get from the cops or a DA. They threaten you with arrest (cops) or higher charges (DA) - which is an absolutely credible threat - if you don't rat yourself out."
It's the same kind of trickery you get from the cops or a DA - they threaten you with arrest (cops) or higher charges (DA) which is an absolutely credible threat if you don't rat yourself out.
I don't see how the hyphen changes anything. Again, I don't understand. "It is a credible threat - if you don't rat yourself out." ...but if you do rat yourself out...it's a credible threat?
However, I don't think it will work in practice. The point is that it is just a charade and if you call it out as a charade then they really will just take the gloves off and beat the shit out of you.
?
From what I understand, that murderer came into the court looking like that. What relevance does it have to this topic? You're actually using photos of a murderer who was beaten and then brought into court as support for your argument that if you challenge the charade of the State court system they'll "take the gloves off and beat the shit out of you"?
The video you linked the guy does not say that nothing has happened since.
I'm sorry, what? That's precisely what he says. I'm beginning to wonder if you even watched the whole thing.
Which, I mean, it's fine if you didn't, you don't have to watch any of it. I would just expect that if someone is not only going to comment directly on a video (let alone make claims about what was said or not said in it), actually viewing it is something they would do.
And even if he's not been dragged to jail yet, that doesn't mean that it isn't filed away as some kind of cold case that they'll get back to later.
Again, it's been 5 or 6 years. This guy literally spends his time basically being an asshole to State agents. (Seriously. Watch his channel.) What are they waiting for?
I've heard of this kind of thing before actually. The guy in the video may actually have some legal justification for his position but he comes across a insane, which certainly doesn't help matters, if most people tried this in the same manner as the guy in the video they would probably be institutionalized. He constantly used the term "fictional character" when it would seem that his point would be better expressed in the following: "Are you referring to the biological or legal entity?" Sorry to be nitpicking it just bothered me for some reason.
As far as I can tell, from reading/listening to the information about this kind of thing, the legal basis would be that you never signed or consented to a contract stating that you would not violate the law in question. And the whole "legal/corporate entity" thing which the guy in the video was using. (Haven't read/listened to much about this so I can't say if the guy got off because he really did kick the judge's butt (legally speaking) or because the judge just thought he was a loon.)
I would never try this however. For the very simple fact that the law doesn't really matter to the government, they have the power to do what they want, and no one can stop them.
REPHRASED: "It's the same kind of trickery you get from the cops or a DA if you don't rat yourself out. They threaten you with arrest (cops) or higher charges (DA) - which is an absolutely credible threat in order to get you to rat yourself out and once you do..."
Serpentis-Lucis:He constantly used the term "fictional character" when it would seem that his point would be better expressed in the following: "Are you referring to the biological or legal entity?" Sorry to be nitpicking it just bothered me for some reason.
I thought about that too, but coming from the perspective of someone who knows what the guy is talking about (because he told us right before playing the audio), it sure seems like the judge knows what he's talking about...and is doing his best to skirt around it while not outright denying the premise the guy is bringing about. To me, if the judge wasn't bound by this "code" as the guy puts it, he wouldn't be so patient and be choosing his words so carefully...and be afraid to just outright put the guy in jail, let alone just answer the question "is it civil or criminal". Notice how the judge doesn't even want to do that.
(Haven't read/listened to much about this so I can't say if the guy got off because he really did kick the judge's butt (legally speaking) or because the judge just thought he was a loon.)
Again, I considered that too, but he certainly wasn't treated like a loon. If someone was clearly insane he wouldn't even be standing trial by himself and it would be ordered that he be evaluated (they have to determine that he is fit to stand trial, etc.) And the judge certainly wouldn't be so choosy with his words, let alone so patient with him. You don't win a court proceeding with the judge threating to hold you in contempt and then officially "withdrawing his request", and then the judge essentially letting you walk out and declaring the trial over, by just being a loon.
This was my whole point in posting this. Evidently that doesn't appear to be the case in practice. I'm not arguing one side or the other, I specifically created this thread to spread the info and request more...but again, if you want to debate this issue of "they can do whatever they want", you'd have to address my earlier questions.
Clayton:REPHRASED: "It's the same kind of trickery you get from the cops or a DA if you don't rat yourself out. They threaten you with arrest (cops) or higher charges (DA) - which is an absolutely credible threat in order to get you to rat yourself out and once you do..."
It's starting to make more sense. You're saying it's the same kind of trickery you'll get from agents of the State to try to get you to rat yourself out.
@John James.... many good observations or questions and I shall continue to hope you discover reasons or answers for all of them. After all... when reason is absent there can be no justice.
@ John James
I agree with you and find the questions you asked interesting. It does seem to support the notion that the guy in the video really did make a valid case, even if it wasn't eloquent. The best answer I can give to your questions is that maybe the judge was being patient and/or nice by letting the guy get off without any jail time. Of course that answer is poor at best since the judge seemed to be frustrated somewhat. We can't know exactly what the judge was thinking. I would also like more information on the subject, it is interesting regardless, even if it isn't practical. After all, even if the government doesn't respect the law, we can always use that as further criticism that the system is unjust.
The best answer I can give to your questions is that maybe
let me rephrase...
They will have their pound of flesh. I think that the courts per se don't really give a shit either way.
Regarding that sentiment which is the whole government has the guns yada yada line of thought.
I = I, I != Us/We
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
When reason is absent there is no justice.
If a court just does whatever the hell it wants to because government has the guns 1) is it justice, and 2) is administering non-justice excusable?
If a man with the faith of a mustard seed were to get robbed by a hungry thief would it surprise you if a man with the faith of the mustard seed wrote his robber a check and cooked him dinner?
Would you expect a man with the faith of a mustard seed to write Ceasar a check and cook Ceasar dinner to render unto Ceasar that which is not Ceasar's? Is there a difference between Ceasar and a thief?
Well maybe not to libertarians as libertarians make no distinction between the State and a thief. Libertarians despite all their bitching are just as enslaved by the State as any other tribe. Libertarians seek out and enjoy privileges of the state or tender things of value to the state just like other slaves of the state.
Why? Because most people fear death. Not lying may sound like a good idea until you get that first spanking for telling the truth.
State slaves do not inspire revolutions, it is men with the faith of mustard seeds because they fear something greater than death.
@LfoD: What does any of what you wrote have to do with what I wrote?
I think it's possible he was smoking weed.
@Clayton
What is the competant authority of a traffic court?
I don't know what you mean by "competent authority".
I noticed you changed the spelling on "competant" to "competent". I must have been in error however I find it difficult to believe you are able to correct a spelling error and not know the word. What dictionary do you propose I can use to select terms from so my words will have defined comprehendable meaning?
Marc Stevens > this guy.
Dean Clifford > Marc Stevens.
Why anarchy fails
I know what competent means.
I know what authority means.
Together, I would guess you mean "someone who wields power ably" but I don't understand what that has to do with this discussion. You can help matters by giving more explanation rather than making snarky comments about your own spelling mistakes.
I'm not being snarky. If anyone is being snarky I suggest you are. You have posted many long winded posts on "legal" topics. "Competent authority" is a concept that has signifigant meaning in a legal context and it is not even a rocket science concept. For instance:
If it is true a small claims court is a competent authority in controversies of equity not exceeding $5000, it is an attribute of jurisdiction. An attribute because that doesn't mean a small claims tribunal has jurisdiction over controversies in equity not exceeding $5000 in China.
It is also important to note the concept of competent authority in legal contexts includes the concept for a source of authority because in a legal sense authority can only be competent if it is derived from a legitimate source of authority. Now I already know trying to discuss this latter point with you is a waste of time as evidenced in previous threads. You say since government has a majority of force government can do whatever it wants to do irregardless of how authority is derived. For instance, to you, it does not matter if the IRS is a competent authority in the sense that authority of the IRS is derived from a legitimate source.
So...
What is the competent authority of a traffic court?
Live_Free_Or_Die: Now I already know trying to discuss this latter point with you is a waste of time as evidenced in previous threads. You say since government has a majority of force government can do whatever it wants to do irregardless of how authority is derived.
Now I already know trying to discuss this latter point with you is a waste of time as evidenced in previous threads. You say since government has a majority of force government can do whatever it wants to do irregardless of how authority is derived.
When someone says that the government has the might to enforce its rules, and that it does so, he is making a descriptive statement. I have yet to see Clayton say that this is the way things ought to be. In fact, I think he has consistently said the opposite.
So, what's wrong with making descriptive statements about reality?
livefreeordie: What is the competent authority of a traffic court?
This varies depending on the traffic court in question. To my knowledge (and I'm checking this to make sure) traffic courts are established by the state, and more directly, the particular municipality in which they reside.
But I suspect you already knew this or at least I hope you did.
livefreeordie: If it is true a small claims court is a competent authority in controversies of equity not exceeding $5000, it is an attribute of jurisdiction. An attribute because that doesn't mean a small claims tribunal has jurisdiction over controversies in equity not exceeding $5000 in China.
Btw why doesn't a US small claims court have jurisdiction in China or vice versa? Why don't the Chinese enforce American rulings?
I'm not being snarky. If anyone is being snarky I suggest you are. You have posted many long winded posts on "legal" topics. "Competent authority" is a concept that has signifigant meaning in a legal context and it is not even a rocket science concept. For instance: If it is true a small claims court is a competent authority in controversies of equity not exceeding $5000, it is an attribute of jurisdiction. An attribute because that doesn't mean a small claims tribunal has jurisdiction over controversies in equity not exceeding $5000 in China. It is also important to note the concept of competent authority in legal contexts includes the concept for a source of authority because in a legal sense authority can only be competent if it is derived from a legitimate source of authority. Now I already know trying to discuss this latter point with you is a waste of time as evidenced in previous threads. You say since government has a majority of force government can do whatever it wants to do irregardless of how authority is derived. For instance, to you, it does not matter if the IRS is a competent authority in the sense that authority of the IRS is derived from a legitimate source. So... What is the competent authority of a traffic court?
I guess my only answer to all of this is the following moral principle:
Legitimate authority1 can only be given, never imposed or assumed
Please show me the delegation process from me to the IRS by which the IRS has derived its legitimate authority to collect taxes from me. If I signed or even implicitly agreed to a contract somewhere along the way, well, then that portion of my paycheck would, in fact, be property of the IRS. But - unless I have amnesia and simply forgot about giving the IRS or someone else this authority - I have never given someone authority to collect a portion of my paycheck.
When I enter a restaurant and eat their food, I thereby transfer a portion of my property to the restaurant owner by implicit agreement. He then has the legitimate authority to collect that property and may even resort to force to defend that property from my aggression should I keep it in my possession over his objections. He could even hire someone to act on his behalf and delegate his own legitimate authority to that party. But the authority of the collector or repossessor is ultimately derived from the authority that I gave to the restaurant owner by virtue of transferring a portion of my property to him.
I don't know legal terminology so if "competent authority" is a legal term, you'll have to explain it in plain English - I still don't get it from what you wrote. And I don't see the point of applying existing legal concepts to the question of criticism of the social order - those concepts just are the existing social order. A traffic court can have all the competent authority it likes, but it has no legitimate authority unless it is acting on the behalf of the owner of the road I was driving on and with whom I thereby had an implicit agreement.
1 The "legitimate" ought to be redundant... unfortunately, aggression in our social order is so sysematic that the word "authority" is virtually synonymous with "power". "A police officer has the authority to pull you over for a traffic stop" means that "the police officer has the power to pull you over for a traffic stop." Our culture is infused with the Leviathan mindset that identifies authority and power. In other words, might makes right.
I guess my only answer to all of this is the following moral principle: Legitimate authority1 can only be given, never imposed or assumed
Now we are getting somewhere.
Legitimate authority is only given. It is impossible for legitimate authority to be forced becuase it is a contradiction of concepts. Forced authority is by conceptual definition illegitimate. Forced authority is slavery and I do believe slavery has been abolished except in controversies of personal injury or property damage.
Since you know this and have articulated the most important aspect of any controversy, what is the goal? Have you ever heard the phrase 'he who writes the contract wins'? The goal is to write an unrebuttable contract (or if you prefer as it would apply to this thread... legal brief). On that same note, if you do write your own contract and lose... who are you going to blame?
A nice analogy. Let's say the restaraunt owner in your analogy files in small claims court for non payment. Clearly there is no legitimate authority of a small claims tribunal if the restaraunt owner's claim is not valid. This is the exact line of thought behind the debt validation movement. The only honorable response is, of course I will pay any valid debts owed to any legitimate authority collecting upon a valid debt... I only ask the debt be proven valid... and since I am writing this debt validity contract... this is the evidence I require. Is a traffic tribunal any different?
"A police officer has the authority to pull you over for a traffic stop" means that "the police officer has the power to pull you over for a traffic stop."
I dare say if you know a police officer has no legitimate authority to pull you over and you voluntarily pull over... you have legitimized the traffic stop. If you do pull over I suggest you have a list of evidence prepared in advance that the only reason you pulled over is because of a clear and present danger to your life, liberty, or property in order to rebut the presumption of legitimacy by your own voluntary actions. This shouldn't be too hard to produce because the number of innocent people killed or injured by law enforcement is quite long and growing daily. I might also only affix my signature to any thing notating next to my signature it is signed under duress.
livefreeordie: Forced authority is slavery and I do believe slavery has been abolished
What abolished slavery in the United States?
I might also only affix my signature to any thing notating next to my signature it is signed under duress.
Yeah, brilliant.
Usually when someone makes an argument they include supporting evidence... not contradicting evidence. Supporting evidence that something has no merit would be instances of it being ignored not instances of it being acknowledged. If it means nothing... why would it be scratched out?
In any event you pick out the lessor thing. You choose to ridicule the claim and not the evidence for the claim. Anyone can claim anything. Claiming duress in and of itself doesn't mean anything. Anyone can claim a debt is owed. It doesn't mean anything by itself.
If it can be demanded of a person claiming a debt to validate the debt it can surely be demanded of a person claiming duress to validate the duress.... That is the part that counts, not something next to a signuature. I mentioned having your evidence of duress prepared in advance. It does not matter when you claim duress if the duress is valid but if you claim duress initially and maintain the consisentcy of your claim you do not create an opportunity for your claim to be challenged based upon your own actions or statements.