Sovereign citizen tests his theories in practice; is shocked by the results

[Spiff]

Originally Posted by Chimera

You know folks, all this stuff about how it works in Canada is as relevant and on-topic as how it works in Zimbabwe.

Technically true, but I appreciate the context that it gives, i.e., how other LEOs might have reacted under different rules on taser use.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Muffin

The appropriate time to zap him would be up the ass during the strip search.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/idaho-p...man-with-taser:

Idaho police sodomize man with Taser

Dang, the Boise Ombudsman was not impressed. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Originally Posted by Chimera

You know folks, all this stuff about how it works in Canada is as relevant and on-topic as how it works in Zimbabwe.

You mean that the Boise Ombudsman should have reviewed best practices in the USA, Canada and Zimbabwe, rather than just best practices in the USA and Canada, when making his special report on taser use?

Or is it that because Coeur d’Alene is at the other end of the state from Boise and is nowhere near Boise’s jurisdiction, making the Ombudsman’s special report no more relevant than how it works in Zimbabwe?

Seriously, examining how it works in other relevant jurisdictions is the norm in policy making, particularly when it comes to policing in Canada and the USA.

In any event, there is little difference between Canada’s “causing bodily harm, or the member believes on reasonable grounds, that the subject will imminently cause bodily harm” and “immediate threat of physical harm” as recommended by Boise’s Ombudsman.

http://www.boiseombudsman.org/media/...Use_by_BPD.pdf:

OMBUDSMAN’S SPECIAL REPORT
Taser Use by the
Boise Police Department
. . .

BEST PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

. . .

The following major studies were evaluated in the course of this review:

. . .

These studies and recommendations contained a significant amount of information and
detail. The following areas are of the highest significance:

1. Tasers are an effective and valuable tool for law enforcement use.

2. Tasers should not be used against passive resisters. All agreed that Tasers were an
appropriate response to active physical aggression. However, opinions were divided
on whether Tasers should be used in the following circumstances:

a. Non-violent persons fleeing minor charges, e.g., traffic infractions, petty theft,
etc.

b. Persons who threaten physical resistance.

c. Persons who physically resist but are not aggressive and present no threat to
officers.

. . .

OMBUDSMAN’S RESPONSE TO NEW BOISE POLICE TASER POLICY

. . .

I recommend that, under the section that reads, “Unless exigent circumstances exist, the
Conducted Energy Weapon will not be used,” the following item should be added:

• On subjects whose active resistance is only defensive in nature and who pose no
immediate threat of physical harm to officers, themselves, or others.

[Muffin]

Besides, if I have my way, Idaho will become part of Canada. From a post in 2002:

Originally Posted by Muffin

I'd like to take Idaho back home with me, but they won't let me.

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I realize this is a little mind-bending....

Boy, you got that right. I've been reading up on this stuff over the last couple of days (figure it's only a matter of time before I encounter one, as Muffin did), and "mind-bending" doesn't begin to describe it.

[Small Hen]

Wow, that is some industrial strength crazy. This Freeman bullshit reminds me of a guy in collage who swore that if you were planning to drive drunk, always keep a beer in the front seat. Then, if a cop pulls you over, you can step out onto the shoulder, crack open the beer, and chug it. That way, the cop wont be able to prove your blood alcohol level while operating the vehicle. Even when I was a naive 18 year old, I couldn't believe anyone would get away with that.

I don't know how I missed these Freeman people. How hilarious is it that people think you can outwit a long established system like the United States Judicial branch with a few codewords, leaving all the government shaking their heads and wandering away in defeat, muttering "Aw Man!" like Swiper the fox?

As for the tasing, must have been a low setting. Robert barely shouts "Ow" before he's back to spouting nonsense jargon. I'm sure he was just fine. I'm also sure he's learned absolutely nothing from his experience.

[cjepson]

Originally Posted by Small Hen

I don't know how I missed these Freeman people. How hilarious is it that people think you can outwit a long established system like the United States Judicial branch with a few codewords, leaving all the government shaking their heads and wandering away in defeat, muttering "Aw Man!" like Swiper the fox?

The thing that I wonder is: Do they honestly believe that the people who developed the Constitution of the United States did not intend it to apply to actual human beings?

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Small Hen

Wow, that is some industrial strength crazy. This Freeman bullshit reminds me of a guy in collage who swore that if you were planning to drive drunk, always keep a beer in the front seat. Then, if a cop pulls you over, you can step out onto the shoulder, crack open the beer, and chug it. That way, the cop wont be able to prove your blood alcohol level while operating the vehicle. Even when I was a naive 18 year old, I couldn't believe anyone would get away with that.

Well, almost, sort of, in a round about way, on occasion, it might to some degree (weasel words, weasel words, weasel words), help the drunk if the drunk broke the seal in front of witnesses and chuged down a fair bit of hard alcohol, and then spilled the rest of the bottle.

If the amount of alcohol is known and the time of consumption is known, it is possible to estimate what the person's BAC would have been at the time of testing. By comparing this with what it actually was at the time of testing, it is possible to estimate what the person's BAC was prior to testing. If the person chugs a lot of hard liquor, and spills a lot, and is not tested until the alcohol has had time to enter the blood, then it will no longer be possible to estimate what the pre-chug BAC was because the amount of alcohol that was chugged is not known due to the spillage.

That usually makes it impossible to prove blowing over and unless there is other evidence (e.g. witnesses seeing drinking shortly prior to the collision), it may make it impossible to prove impaired. Fortunately, there is often other evidence.

When neither blowing over or impaired can be proven, it is still usually possible to nail the person with obstruction of justice if they consumed alcohol immediately after the collision. The penalty may be less for obstruction than for impaired causing death (it is where I live: max 10 v. max life).

A good example of this is RCMP Officer Robinson, in B.C., who when off duty had a collision with a motocycle, whose rider was killed. He walked home, had a couple of shots of vodka, and walked back to the scene of the collision. Since the amount of vodka consumed was not known (they were not measured shots), it was not possible to nail him for blowing over, and there was no witness evidence of his being impaired prior to the collision. He ended up being convicted this summer on obstruction, so he faced 10 years rather than life.

He went on paid leave for a few years while the matter made its way through the courts, and when it came to sentencing, he played the alcoholic card (sentencing should try to rehabilitate him) and the aboriginal card (pay particular attention to aboriginals when trying to find sentences that do not incude incarceration), such that all he ended up with was a month of house arrest, eleven months of overnight curfew, and alcoholism treatment. Just as he was about to be sentenced, he quit his job, thus avoiding the administrative hearing he was facing. All in all, he could have been facing life, but got off without jail time, so in all probability, it worked for him. He had lucky cards and he played his hand well.

Coincidentally Robinson had previously been the leader of a group of officers who tasered a man to death. A fellow from Poland who did not speak any English flew in to Vancouver in the early afternoon to begin immigration. At the airport, it took many hours to process him, and in the meantime his waiting mother was told he had not arrived, so she went home. Eventually he ended up on his own in the airport, late at night, and was tired and frustrated, so he acted out by throwing a computer screen and a very small table on the ground, well away from anyone. Police arrived, were advised that he did not speak English, and then approached him and verbally commanded him, so he retreated and picked up the stapler that Gorsnak referred to earlier in this thread. At no time was anyone in any danger. The police zapped him five times, and he died. Here’s the video: http://youtu.be/IPe_hf7aBXM . This led to a major inquiry into taser use (Braidwood Inquiry). The description that the police officers gave of the person’s behaviour was so greatly different than that given by the other witnesses and shown by the video that perjury charges were brought. Robinson is still facing the perjury charge.

The Braidwood Inquiry recommended that tasers should only be used if there is bodily harm or imminent bodily harm. It used the National Use of Force Framework, which Canadian and American police had previously developed, which, et alia, broke behaviour down in categories such as passive resisting and active resisting. The National Use of Force Framework was used in the RCMP taser policy (see my post on page one of this thread), and both the Braidwood Inquiry and the National Use of Force Framework were used by the Complaints Commission released earlier this week (again refer to my post on page one), recommending that a person being active resistant is not sufficient to justify taser use in Canada – there must be bodily harm or imminent bodily harm, as has also been recommended in Boise (threat of physical harm).

[Smeghead]

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the legal justification that allows judges to ban video cameras from courtrooms? Is it just one of those "he's a judge, it's his courtroom, therefore what he says goes" things, or is there more to it than that?

-Not in any way, shape, or form a lawyer.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Smeghead

Is it just one of those "he's a judge, it's his courtroom, therefore what he says goes" things, or is there more to it than that?

Under common law, the judge controls the courtroom. Statute law can change that by espressly banning cameras or expressly permitting cameras.

[StGermain]

Can someone show me the toe shoes? I don't know what you're talking about.

StG

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by StGermain

Can someone show me the toe shoes? I don't know what you're talking about.

StG

Toe shoes.

[StGermain]

I thought maybe it was these.

I wonder if he had any real business with the courts, or if he just wanted to show of his magic words?

StG

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by StGermain

I thought maybe it was these.

Holy shit, those are . . . something. Really something.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by StGermain

I thought maybe it was these.

I wonder if he had any real business with the courts, or if he just wanted to show of his magic words?

StG

Parking ticket. He needs to stop loaning his car to his birth certificate.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Thank you for introducing me to Rational Wiki.

[Maggie the Ocelot]

Originally Posted by runner pat

Toe shoes.

Originally Posted by StGermain

I thought maybe it was these.

See, I immediately pictured these...

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by StGermain

I wonder if he had any real business with the courts, or if he just wanted to show of his magic words?

Apparently, he did. In searching for more on this, I found that he got a ticket for riding his bike at night, without a light. This was his chance to fight it. He kept saying he needed to speak with the prosecutor, so I'm guessing he was going to use his magic words in his conversation with the prosecutor.

[Zebra]

If you had business in the court, would you want some stranger recording the proceedings and putting it on the internet?


Probably not.

[Timchik]

Originally Posted by cjepson

The thing that I wonder is: Do they honestly believe that the people who developed the Constitution of the United States did not intend it to apply to actual human beings?

No, as always with these sorts, the original Constitution was perfection incarnate. It all seems to have gone to hell in 1871 or thereabouts, with the formation of the District of Columbia. Details in the conspiracy mother lode, sort of. If you can figure out a coherent narrative from that, you're ahead of me.

Best quote:

Originally Posted by a rambling nutter

"All Rule comes from "District of Columbia" which is run by the Gnostic Priesthood of the undisclosed mystery Babylon.

Naturally, the Knights Templar and the Masons are involved.
Not saying that our friend Robert believes everything in this website, but this is the kind of place he's gleaning his information from.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

I think that most of the references in this thread about the flag fringe thing have avoided the point. Way back when I was a tax protester, the whole point wasn't that it was 'an admiralty court' exclusively. It was that 1. It could operate under 'admiralty laws' which could disregard Constitutional rights, and 2. the fringe on the flag was a clear and obvious sign that it could operate under admiralty laws, and the whole point of any flag, anywhere, is to let everybody know what they were getting into, so to speak, and that if you didn't protest/challenge the jurisdiction immediately, you waived all right to challenge the fact that you were given the bum's rush into the electric chair/Sing Sing, because you had blamed well agreed to less than Constitutional rules.
Allegedly, there was case law which backed that up.
If I mis-read any of the above posts, I apologize; as it is, I didn't interpret any of them to show that this was the issue in re: the borders of the flag. I think the judgement cited above was dodging the issue by saying that the Defendant was making the claim of exclusivity, or else the def. was totally unclear even of his own point.


BTW, did you all catch the "...it's not like I haven't been tazered before." Priceless.

I'm not sure if I understand. Are you saying you believe the flag nonsense? There is no case law about what a particular flag in a courtroom means. There could be a flag with gold trim, no trim, no flag or a Mickey Mouse flag. It makes no difference.

[Spoons]

I knew we'd discussed this topic before, and I found it. See here:

Freeman on the Land - opting out of society

Some interesting commentary there, that may help us all understand what these folks are all about.

[Lumpy]

My favorite pet theory on the subject, which I've mentioned before in a couple of thread, is that the people trying this think that the legal system can be "crashed" the way that the Gödel incompleteness theorem predicts that any logical system can fail. This might in fact be technically true, if it weren't for the fact that the legal system is administered by human beings who have common sense.

[silenus]

Alice #251 through 500: Do you require something, lord?
Capt. Kirk: No. Yes! My ship.
Alice #251 through 500: I am not programmed...
Alice #251 through 500, Capt. Kirk: [together] ... to respond in that area.
Capt. Kirk: Yes, I know.
Alice #251 through 500: Is there anything ANY of you require to please you?
Capt. Kirk: Alice, give us back our ship to please us. Return us to our ship because we desire it.
Alice #251 through 500: We are programmed to serve. We shall serve you to your best interests to make you happy.
Capt. Kirk: But we're unhappy here.
Alice #251 through 500: Please explain "unhappy."
Spock: Unhappiness is the state which occurs in the human when wants and desires are not fulfilled.
Alice #251 through 500: Which wants and desires of yours are not fulfilled?
Capt. Kirk: We want the Enterprise.
Alice #251 through 500: [her badge number starts to flash] The Enterprise is not a want or a desire. It is a mechanical device.
Capt. Kirk: No, it's a beautiful lady and we love her!
Alice #251 through 500: [badge light remains on] Illogical, illogical. All units relate. All units. Norman, coordinate.

If Norman was human he'd just phaser them.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by cjepson

The thing that I wonder is: Do they honestly believe that the people who developed the Constitution of the United States did not intend it to apply to actual human beings?

It's not so much that as a sort of understanding of the conceot of rules that stems from getting it from TV and movies.

It's a pretty common trope in entertainment to have someone beat a system through some sort of absurd technicality, one that quite often happens by virtue of just knowing the right things to say, or getting the antagonist to say the right things. If that's your understanding of how The System works, you might find the "sovereign citizen" idea fascinating; holy shit, they figured out the hole in the system! The fact that the actual legal system does not work that way, and in fact no large and complicated system run by human beings would eer allow itself to be talked out of its own purpose, isn't something you see in movies.

That's not all of it, of course - soverign/freebirds are also the sort of people who don't understand fractional reserve banking and so that's why they think they don't have to pay back debts - but fundamental innocense about how systems work is a big part of what makes it possible for people to grab on to these fringe beliefs.

[Chimera]

As I think I said at least some variant in the other thread;

I'd love to take all these Freemen and dump them in thier own colony/island/planet and then back away for about 200 years and see what develops.

Either they or at least parts of them would wake the fuck up and return to a normal system of government, or some wacky scifi hijinks would ensue.

[NoCoolUserName]

Originally Posted by Chimera

... or some wacky scifi hijinks would ensue.

"Coventry" by Heinlein.

Not exact, but pretty close.

[Lumpy]

What's the deal with "Admiralty Law", at least as interpreted by the sovereign citizen movement? As far as I can tell from a quick reading on Wiki, it started out as a quasi-international consensus on maritime law, and was (or is?) in some limited cases alongside and separate from a country's "laws of the land". But evidently some people take it to be a potential back door to bypassing the Bill of Rights.

[OttoDaFe]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

What's the deal with "Admiralty Law", at least as interpreted by the sovereign citizen movement? As far as I can tell from a quick reading on Wiki, it started out as a quasi-international consensus on maritime law, and was (or is?) in some limited cases alongside and separate from a country's "laws of the land". But evidently some people take it to be a potential back door to bypassing the Bill of Rights.

(Emphasis mine)

Your question contains its own answer. Since Admiralty Law isn't 100% redwhiteandblue don'ttreadonme 'Murrican, it can't possibly apply to free and sovereign 'Murricans. Case closed.

Or perhaps it's a convenient shibboleth against a court decision one doesn't like, with the added benefit that no understanding of the concept is required. Think that might be a factor?

[Muffin]

Admiralty/maritime law tends to be federal law (even when a state court might be hearing a matter) set out by federal statues. The statutes and court decisions are often affected by international treaties and international practices (trying to minimize conflict between laws of different nations in international shipping), so one tends to think of it as private international law.

Some folks are allergic to law because (1) it is law (Doan' need no stinkin' law!), (2) it may have commercial/corporate aspects (Only people bleed!), (3) it may have personal aspects (Doan' chew lock me up an' take my child from me!), (4) it may be federal law (State/provincial rights, damnit!), (5) It may have international law aspects (Only 'merkin/Canadian/English law for 'merkins/Canadians/Englishmen, yew fuckin' commies!), but then one or more of these can be said for most law, so I don't see any reason for the nutters to hang their hat on admiralty law in particular.

I don't have a clue as to what the Freeman's beef is, but I would be surprised if is based on feelings arising from (1) through (5), such that they just don't want to accept that the law/court has jurisdiction over them. I wouldn't worry too much about what they base their reasoning on, for from what I have come across in courtoom videos, they seem to think that the court is a ship (shouting Man overboard! and Abandon ship! upon the court recessing), which is so nutty that it really doesn't matter if they think that because the court is a ship it is a vehicle for admiralty law, or if they think that because the court is a vehicle for admiralty law it is therefore a ship, or if they think that a court is some sort of stone frigate and therefore part of the Admiralty/navy.

They have a belief system that is not based on reality and reason.

[Balance]

Originally Posted by RickJay

It's a pretty common trope in entertainment to have someone beat a system through some sort of absurd technicality, one that quite often happens by virtue of just knowing the right things to say, or getting the antagonist to say the right things.

Well, every now and then, that works, sort of. Just not the way these nutters believe.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

While I am not in any way inclined to defend this "Freeman on the Courtroom Floor," the flat assertions of fact above are the sort of thing generally amenable to citation of statistical proof.

I'd be interested to see some.

Originally Posted by Hello Again

UK Study:
We found officer injury rates associated with M26 deployment were lower than those for CS spray and baton use. Subject injury rates were lower in M26 deployment than in deployment of CS spray, batons or police dogs.
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.c...199-9/abstract

I'm sorry, are chemical sprays and clubbing with batons "physical restraint?" (I agree that dogs might restrain someone).

I understood "physical restraint" to mean some big burly guys wrapping him up and hauling him off. Chemical weapons and blunt instruments and (dog bites too, for that matter) seem like a different kettle of fish.

[Boyo Jim]

Maybe tasers were developed to short-circuit Admiralty Law.

More seriously though, in the US police have been using tasers more and more as a way to end conversations they no longer see as productive. They don't see a need to grapple with uncooperative people anymore, or even come into physical contact until they are relatively helpless and prostrate on the ground. If I were a cop, I'd be probably be paranoid enough about my own safety to act the same way. Since I'm not a cop, I'm free to think that taser use is getting out of hand.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

They don't see a need to grapple with uncooperative people anymore, or even come into physical contact until they are relatively helpless and prostrate on the ground. If I were a cop, I'd be probably be paranoid enough about my own safety to act the same way.

I'd probably be twice as paranoid about grappling with uncooperative people if I were a cop with a loaded gun on my belt.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

I'd probably be twice as paranoid about grappling with uncooperative people if I were a cop with a loaded gun on my belt.

That's why they should keep their bullet in their shirt pocket!

[friedo]

Originally Posted by Balance

Well, every now and then, that works, sort of. Just not the way these nutters believe.

Even in that case, it has nothing to do with magic words that make the court do your bidding. A clever defendant simply took advantage of sloppiness on the part of the prosecutor and trial judge in failing to establish all the elements necessary for his plea.

[Sirreal72]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

That's why they should keep their bullet in their shirt pocket!

I'm sure as soon as the criminals walk themselves into the jail on Friday night and lock themselves up, the police will institute the Mayberry Protocol.

[Sirreal72]

Ok, so this guy says he's not bound by the law, not a US citizen etc. I wonder what argument he'd give if the police just whacked him over the head. After all, he has no legal rights...right? He's not even a person...or something.

[Alan Smithee]

Oh, he thinks he has rights, just not rights derived from being a citizen. He has natural or "common law" rights, inasmuch as men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [and] . . . among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and he believes "that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

You see, apart from all the BS about admiralty law and legal personhood, the other source of sovereign citizen/FOTL beliefs is that they take seriously and literally the words the founders used to justify the new government they created for the US (and, in other cases, the philosophical justifications for the governments of Canada and the UK) and think they have legal force. That's what makes these people so interesting to me. If the power of a government really does depend on the consent of the governed, then there should be a way to opt out. Jefferson himself argued that a Constitution should be valid only as long as the majority of citizens still alive were around when it was ratified, and even developed actuarial tables to figure out exactly how long that would be.

These people ignore the fact that the courts have ruled that things like the Declaration of Independence (and even moreso pamphlets like "Common Sense," etc.) are not legal documents but political and philosophical ones. But there is a certain strict logic to these elements of the freeman arguments. Why should the courts be willing to release someone who didn't consent to having their car searched, but not someone who never consented to the government at all. They assume that the laws must be logically consistent with themselves and with their philosophical underpinnings, and therefore the government must be asserting that the FOTL gave their consent and if they can disprove that then the court will release them. The alternative is that the whole thing is a sham and we're actually living under an illegal dictatorship, in which case why would the government recognize any rights? It makes sense if you ignore the way the world actually works, and you can argue that they do have a valid moral point if not a legal one.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

That's what makes these people so interesting to me. If the power of a government really does depend on the consent of the governed, then there should be a way to opt out. Jefferson himself argued that a Constitution should be valid only as long as the majority of citizens still alive were around when it was ratified, and even developed actuarial tables to figure out exactly how long that would be.

If Jefferson believed that majorities were important, then that contradicts the idea that any individual person should be able to opt out. "Consent of the governed" refers to the governed as a whole, not to the consent of each and every individual person. If that were the case, then majority rule and voting would have no meaning.

[Alan Smithee]

BTW, if I ever meet one of these "Freemen On The Land" I plan on pointing out to them that the conspiracy they imagine is actually real and goes much deeper than they ever imagined. After all, the courts have, as I said, ruled that the DoI, the preamble to the Constitution, and the writings of John Locke and Thomas Paine are not legally binding, implicitly denying their intent to follow these principles that the FOTL see as binding. But not only that, I'm in on it too! I'm not one of the ignorant sheeple; I KNOW that the government has repudiated and abandoned the basic principles that justify their power, and I willingly give them my support in exchange for the benefits I get from living under their regime. And in fact, the same is true of most people. We KNOW the truth, we KNOW that the government doesn't actually exist to protect our rights, but we don't care! In fact, we know that YOU, Mr. John Q. Freeman, have not consented to be governed, and we're perfectly willing to see you locked up (or tazed, as this thread shows) to support the existing unjust power structure! Muahahahaha! You're down the rabbit hole now, Mr. Freeman!

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

If Jefferson believed that majorities were important, then that contradicts the idea that any individual person should be able to opt out. "Consent of the governed" refers to the governed as a whole, not to the consent of each and every individual person. If that were the case, then majority rule and voting would have no meaning.

Correct, and AFAIK (and IANAHistorian or Political Scientist) neither Jefferson nor the other founders explicated or explicitly defended this concept of "the governed as a whole"—a concept that you have to admit seems a bit suspect from an objective standpoint. All the other arguments the founders made seem to depend on individual rights, but when you get to this "consent of the governed" thing, suddenly you're talking about some collective? The "freemen" seem correct in inferring that IF the government and the founders are logically consistent then there must be some intermediate step by which an individual willingly becomes part of this whole. Rather than admit that their premise might be flawed, they dedicate themselves to finding this missing step somewhere in the arcane structures of the law, whence we get all the nonsense about Admiralty law and gold fringes. They are searching for something that doesn't exist, and so they resort to "finding" it in anything they don't understand.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

a concept that you have to admit seems a bit suspect from an objective standpoint.

Does it really? I don't agree that this is either objective or seemingly correct.

All the other arguments the founders made seem to depend on individual rights, but when you get to this "consent of the governed" thing, suddenly you're talking about some collective?

I don't really see how it's that complicated objectively. When they talk about individual rights, they are talking about specific rights in the face of government authority. But for any of the governmental structures they created to have any meaning there has to be a government, and every time a majority or minority is mentioned, it implies that the majority can, under certain circumstances, force its will upon the minority. An individual is just a minority of one. That's what is logically consistent.

[Smapti]

Seems to me that their parents consented to government on their behalf by choosing to have their child acquire US citizenship by birth.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Does it really? I don't agree that this is either objective or seemingly correct.

I don't really see how it's that complicated objectively. When they talk about individual rights, they are talking about specific rights in the face of government authority. But for any of the governmental structures they created to have any meaning there has to be a government, and every time a majority or minority is mentioned, it implies that the majority can, under certain circumstances, force its will upon the minority. An individual is just a minority of one. That's what is logically consistent.

But what's the philosophical rationale for it? You go straight from wanting the government to have meaning to allowing force upon the minority. But what's the justification for wanting to empower the structures of government and why do those justifications warrant infringing upon the agreed upon rights of the minority to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Keep in mind, I agree with you that it is justified for the majority to impose its will (in certain circumstances) upon the minority, but I don't think (and neither do the FOTL) that you can find that justification if you limit yourself to the arguments put forth explicitly by the founders. And again, the basis of FOTL/sovereign citizen thought is the (false!) idea that the laws and the justifications for the laws put forth by the founders must be explicitly logical. Someone above likened it to Kirk trying to trick Nomad into a logical trap. It's not enough for them to say "Clearly the founders must have thought majority rule was acceptable or they wouldn't have established it." If the government didn't show its work in getting from the premises of natural law to the conclusion of majority rule, the whole thing broken because of a giant loophole that surely (they think) the courts will acknowledge if it's pointed out to them.

Originally Posted by Smapti

Seems to me that their parents consented to government on their behalf by choosing to have their child acquire US citizenship by birth.

I agree with you, but that goes against the 17th century Protestant philosophy that led to the idea of individual rights and that (according to the FOTL) forms the only legitimate basis for law. What are you, some kind of Papist?

[Lumpy]

I sometimes wonder if the political theory of the Founders had at its root a contradiction: trying to reconcile a natural philosophy that's ultimately anarchic while still retaining government. If you take natural rights seriously at face value, you come to the conclusion that there shouldn't be any government at all, like an L. Neil Smith libertarian utopia. But that would lead to a power vacuum and the reimposition of tyranny, as the then not-so-long-ago example of Cromwell showed. So then the best that could be done was to deliberately create a preemptive. limited tyranny as a sort of vaccine to even worse alternatives.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne

While the legal crazy is of course crazy, the use of a taser there is ridiculous and a little frightening to me; people seem far too willing to accept the use of these things. There were numerous officers present; how annoying he might have been doesn't justify the use of a taser to subdue him when he wasn't violent and appeared to be in no danger of causing harm to anyone. Physically restraining him would have been more than adequate, and by the looks of it, not particularly difficult (it seems likely he would have shouted more "legal" nonsense, but not fought back). Add the fact that the event took place in an area where he had already been checked for weapons, and the officers had no plausible way to think he would pull out a dangerous weapon if they attempted to simply apprehend him physically.

In general, I am concerned about the appearance that law enforcement agents are turning to tasers as their FIRST line of response to any resistance or confrontation, rather than as an intermediary step between conversing and use of lethal force. While tasers are generally non-lethal and usually non-injurious, there are people who and conditions where they are dangerous. That's why Canada has scrutinized their policy, and I approve.

Training is also important to differentiate resistance and fighting back with motion from reacting to pain, etc.

Originally Posted by septimus

Two bailiffs were dedicated to physical blocking his path; if he had stayed there, taunting them for five hours, should the taxpayers afford ten man-hours to block him? Just before the tazering it appears "Robert" tried to shoulder his way past the bailiffs. Should they have let him continue to do that, perhaps wrestling with him?

Inform him that he will not be allowed in, and trying to force his way past is grounds for arrest. Advise him that they are placing him under arrest. Tell him to put his hands behind his back, try to physically position him. If he does not comply, instruct him that they will taze him if he fails to comply.

Perhaps an arrest for "disturbing the peace" was appropriate, but the camera dissuaded that route?

I have to wonder if that played a role in the slow response in the courtroom. They took their time double checking and conferring on the radio in order not to disrupt the proceedings. I assume their intent was to arrest him as soon as they cleared the courtroom, except he exited with the rest of the crowd.

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

But wasn't he in a municipal or state courthouse? So even if you accept the loony arguments about the Federal Government, the state or municipal courts still are valid, right?

He was physically there so he could present his case that they did not have proper jurisdiction. He had to go to them physically to have the conversation.

Originally Posted by Muffin

A couple of things stood out in the video for me as being very different from what I am used to. First, the security guards in the video put up with the Chihuahua in the toe shoes far longer than the security in the courts in my area would have. Around here, after being told that he could not bring the camera into the courtroom, if he continued to press the issue, he would have been escorted out of the building, for disruptions (including distracting court security) are not tolerated. Second, when the nutter’s behaviour changed from passive resistant to active resistant as he tried to push his way through, the officers up here would have cuffed him and marched him off, rather than zapping him, for arguably bodily harm was not imminent, or if it was, there was time to draw and warn him before zapping him. In other words, around my area, I would have expected a firmer response earlier on to have removed him, but if he still tried to push through, then I would have expected the arrest to be made without escalating to a zapping.

Agreed. They seemed to flounder for a while with his passive resistance, but took extra strong action when he made the mildest active resistance.

Originally Posted by OttoDaFe

It took me a while to find it — I'd forgotten the exact title — but this is an interesting (to me, at least) insight into the sovereignty mindset.

Interesting, and it has two cites of The Straight Dope.

Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne

I didn't see any assaulting going on in the video before the tasering.

Technically, when he physically tried to push past the guards, that was assault. It was not violent and not causing harm or potential harm, but it did change from passive resistance (refusing to comply) to active resistance.

But they for some reason felt it was necessary to zap him before trying to apprehend him or even telling him that they were arresting him.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

That may all be true, but I thought it was of some value to point out that his uncooperative attitude with the bailiffs started before part 3 of the video. Considering how part 2 ended, it's hard to imagine how they got him out of the courtroom without some physical force, but seemed to stop short of arresting him. We're also seeing the tape as edited and presented by the person who was tased, so we're not seeing the parts he doesn't wish us to see.

That is on the long version. Since he refuses to turn off the camera and refuses to leave, they begin to clear the courtroom. I assume they were going to then confront him again and arrest him for whatever (disrupting the peace, failure to comply, whatever), but he chose to leave with the rest of the crowd, thus relieving the situation. So when he's standing around in the lobby area, they apparently are conferring on how to proceed. I assume that is when they agreed on the plan to block his access and arrest him if he tried to push his way in.

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

BTW, did you all catch the "...it's not like I haven't been tazered before." Priceless.

Yeah, that jumped out at me. I notice mom wasn't quite so eager to push the camera issue a second time. Then again, there is one moment when she tells him "I want to to do what they tell you", so she wasn't fully as committed as he was.

[Chicago Craig]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

You can see at the end of the first video that he's wearing toe shoes. I think that justifies the tazering tight there. Even Vinny didn't try showing up in court wearing toe shoes.

ETA: Holy shit, I think his mother's wearing toe shoes too! Someone with him is. Are toe shoes a Sovereign Citizen thing?

Are you trying to create joinder between his toes???

[Chicago Craig]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Crazy as the Creationists are, they at least have a consistent basis for their beliefs - they base everything on the Bible.

But Free Men/Sovereign Citizens? They're claiming that the Law of the United States gives them the power to live outside of the jurisdiction of the Law of the United States.

And that the elites who created this system were smart enough to do it but stupid enough to leave loopholes gaping enough for a lukewarm-IQ teenager to exploit.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Chimera

You know folks, all this stuff about how it works in Canada is as relevant and on-topic as how it works in Zimbabwe.

If Zimbabwe's rules worked and had a greater consensus amongst Americans than current laws, then, I guess you're right.

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by Chimera

You know folks, all this stuff about how it works in Canada is as relevant and on-topic as how it works in Zimbabwe.

Originally Posted by BigT

If Zimbabwe's rules worked and had a greater consensus amongst Americans than current laws, then, I guess you're right.

I'm not sure where Chimera is coming from with his (her?) remark. Canada is a common-law country, as is the USA (and the UK, Australia, India, and to the best of my knowledge, Zimbabwe). Most "common law" countries take their system of law from the British tradition. In this regard, Canada is no different from the US: stare decisis rules. What this means is different caselaw, same result.

That being said, I've been doing some research into the Freeman stuff (including caselaw), and there are some differences between the US and Canada in this regard. Perhaps most laughable is the fact that Canadian freemen seem to think that the United States constitution and statutes apply here in Canada; at least, according to the documents they foist on authorities. I've reviewed Canadian freemen documents that cite the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the American UCC, Magna Carta, and the US Code. None of the above apply here in Canada.

In short, law works in Canada the same way it does in the US; and as a result, the freemen's arguments are just as worthless here as they are in the US.