In retrospect, perhaps Hadokening the D.A. was a step too far…
What I don’t get it how anyone could decide that some bizarro world interpretation of multi-century old laws (that obviously wasn’t true at the time they were passed) was more legitimate than all the laws passed in the mean time.
My theory is that what these people are attempting to do is to “crash” the legal system by presenting it with the legalistic equivalent of a “basilisk”.
The odd thing is, that as a “formal, deterministic <> system – a system that, as predicted by a variant of Gödel’s Theorem in mathematics, can be crashed”, the law hypothetically could be susceptible to this; except that when faced with legal paradoxes the human beings who actually adminster the law just say “screw you”.
Yes, that’s right! We need to get back to the good old Common Law! No more of this tyrannical Admiralty Law, with its gold-fringed flags and its income tax!
Now, under the Common Law, a court didn’t even have jurisdiction over a person “until he had voluntarily submitted to it by entering a plea seeking judgment from the court”. (I know it’s true 'cause I read about it on Wikipedia.) So, if you disagreed with the law, you could totally skate by just refusing to plead one way or the other!
I’m surprised they bothered; couldn’t they just have said “ok, so-and-so is an outlaw and anyone who wants can kill him”? That would have gotten a lot of “pleas seeking judgement”
Yeah, but then you’d have a bunch of outlaws running around the place, doing God knows what until someone got the drop on them. Piling big heavy rocks on top of them was…well, “less messy” probably isn’t the right way to put it, but (from the point of view of the judge) quicker and more certain.
Having finished Mass Effect 3 recently, I can’t look at the title of this thread without imagining a Quarian standing in a courtroom, arguing that a gold-fringed flag implies that the court is operating under the laws of the Geth Consensus.
But I wonder if… at very low levels, like parking tickets, etc, there might not just be some cheat code.
I know that for a very brief time, you could sometimes screw up a moving violation in CA by overpaying, depending on how primitive the computer and operators were. Mind you, this continued on hwaaaay past it’s real “sell by date” leading it to become a UL. (Some UL’s are based on fact).
And I heard that one Traffic Court in CA basically ruled (for a short time) that all you had to do is raise a certain defense, and that judge would throw out your traffic -camera citation.
[nitpick] No doubt the U.S. Navy ceased to be regulated by the Admiralty by virtue of the Revolution, but admiralty law continued in the new republic and remains in effect to this day. [/nitpick]
Which isn’t to suggest the Freeman, sovereign citizen, debt elimination, tax protester, magic words, etc. arguments have any merit. They don’t, for reasons explained in the articles you link in the OP (and there are others). But that we “threw off the Admiralty” (thread title) isn’t one of them.
heart is the problem that red-light cams don’t identify the driver in a legall acceptable manner, or usually at all. A moving violation is also not weighed against the car, but against the driver. Well, judges took a long, hard look at the practice. If the police can’t fine you personally because your brother was speeding while borrowing your car, then civic officials handing out fines can’t do it either.
Since tickets are still handed out for this practice, which court found this to be illegal?
I don’t think they did. Here in San Mateo, CA when you get the ticket they send you the pictures and you can go online and see the video. If it isn’t you driving you can contest it.
It was only for a brief time, based upon how they issued the tickets or something. They changed some parts of how the tickets are handled based upon this.
Among other things, the picture shows a close up of the driver’s face now too.
Yes, I think that may have been the issue.
True, but how many “soveriegn citizens” use American roads, police protection, education and other services. I think that’s an implied concent right there.
I’m fairly well informed on legal matters, and I can easily see how to a lay person it really could seem like the law is an arcane art approaching magic. It seems like that to me sometimes!
I couldn’t believe copyright law applies to regions, so that even though I purchase a legit copy of FOO in oh Japan, the mere art of bringing it to the USA turns it into a copyright violation.
I can’t believe that not taking steps to make sure your own crop doesn’t get contaminated with designer genes makes you liable, even if you did nothing but harvest and replant your hybrid crop(hybridized by nature).
This seems totally counter to both common sense and justice, but well educated lawyers will scoff at my ignorant reaction and debate endlessly.
Then there is lawyers with an in at the court and outright corruption, huh all of a sudden the judge is so nice!
I can easily see how people could believe in this.
Prosecutor: “The defendent was apprehended by the police in the process of dismembering the last of twenty children he’d abducted, tortured, raped and murdered, as documented by the defendent’s own videotapes and by the sole eyewitness survivor”.
Defense Council: “habeus corpus Miranda Statute of Limitations de jure ex post facto fruit of the tainted tree!”
Judge: “Case dismissed”.
You forgot to do the dance. You have to do the dance, too.
And the 1800’s Admiral uniform