Why, Why, Why? What for? what law?

[kayesem]

Ok, so here's another idea.

I should probably make it clear from the start that i have no intentions of hurting anyone or myself. I am a believer in the law of karma. I got right into the whole freeman ideas and civil/cognitive liberties etc. a few months ago, and the harder i looked into it, the more it appeared to be an impossible dream that seemingly required resistance and fighting, along with a huge technical know-how of the law. In any case, it definitely seemed that risks would need to be taken and while i would have been up for it in the past, i can no longer afford any slip-ups. So, completely unrelated to my researchings, i had this thought. It was so simple, yet in some way beyond my comprehension, that i reckoned there might be something to it.

I have posted the idea already in another forum and it got a mixed response, from; "Yeah, wow!" to "Expect to get tazered" to "You are required to follow laws simply by being a member of society and enjoying it's benifits should you choose them."

I also managed to piss off a lawyer - oops, sorry guy. The thread was titled - "Does law have any true foundation?" which, although it made sense in context, was probably taken on face value a bit more than it was supposed to.

So anyway, things were discussed but i never felt for sure that i got a reliable answer, if such a thing is even possible. I saw Torsten speaking at EGA and he seemed to know his shit, more than the average bear anyway, so I was meaning to ask him about it but I didn't really feel that it was the right time/place, and didn't want to accidentally offend anyone or be a button pusher.

So getting to it, here's the basic run down:

(Thinking about it again, it's probably useless to ask this directly of an arresting officer, so i might use a scenario of being in court and questioned by the prosecution or the judge or whatever, let's just say the Authority Figure) :

Authority Figure - "Mr. Soandso, you have been charged with breaking law 12986 B, what say you?"

You - "Could you please show me the law that states that i must abide by the law 12986 B ? "

Authority Figure - "Yes, well it's right here, law 151 states that you must abide by law 12986 B."

You - "OK, could you please show me the law that states that i must abide by the law 151 ? "

Authority Figure - "Yes, that would be law 79, which states that you must abide by that law 151 and therefore abide by law 12986 B."

You - "OK, could you please show me the law that states that i must abide by the law 79 ? "

.... And on it goes.

My question is, where does it end? What is the foundation? Will it all boil down to one specific law or legislation, and if so, what will the answer be should the question be repeated - Where is the law that states that i must abide by these laws?

And yes, in some way this idea is most likely directly related to the never ending "But WHY?"s of the questioning, curious child. Are they stupid because they have to ask so much? Or are they smart for not accepting anything blindly? And perhaps most importantly, can we ever really answer the question, or could it be true that like them, we ourselves can ultimately never know the reasons for it all?

Cheers.

Edited January 2, 2011 by kayesem

[lino pattern]

wow thats deffinetly an interesting thaught

[watertrade]

I can't really get into it much, but basically.. if you are a Australian citizen you have to obey Australian Laws, if you are not a citizen the conditions of your status while in Australia ( temp visa etc) will clearly state you must respect Australian values and will obey the laws. You have a choice to give up your citizenship and leave the country only to agree to some other governments laws. whether we are born into it or agree to it we have to obey the law. it kind of sucks, but wherever you live in the world, you have to obey someones laws.

the specific law would boil down to the responsibilities of citizenship.

as far as I know...

[kayesem]

I can't really get into it much, but basically.. if you are a Australian citizen you have to obey Australian Laws, if you are not a citizen the conditions of your status while in Australia ( temp visa etc) will clearly state you must respect Australian values and will obey the laws. You have a choice to give up your citizenship and leave the country only to agree to some other governments laws. whether we are born into it or agree to it we have to obey the law. it kind of sucks, but wherever you live in the world, you have to obey someones laws.

the specific law would boil down to the responsibilities of citizenship.

as far as I know...

 

Cheers for the response. It's similar to others i have had and it does seem to be the deadlock that it boils down to.

I guess i was wondering if the question could still be applied regardless.

[ThunderIdeal]

you said you've been looking into freeman so i'm probably telling you stuff you already known. theres a video of a guy in britain who seems to take control of a court room and dismiss his own case or something. there is also an australian video and his entire party ends up in a cell

i'd like to see what happens with more people trying it on in this country, but as you're probably aware the rumour is that we are subject to "maritime law" (which is everything bar common law) because we are corporate entities. whether or not it could work i think the idea behind being freeman-on-the-land is exactly what you're talking about, slipping out of the corporate entitie MR JOE SMITH who answers to maritime law, and avoiding all tricks to make you wear that entity.

[dworx]

What Thunder says, when you trace the laws back they all stem from common law which is said to come from Gods law [ I guess the ten commandments] but if you read the good book you will see the ten commandments never actually make it to the people - as they are smashed upon the ground. the rules thou shalt not kill etc are just rules and are not the actual commandments if the bible is true to word so, I would say the laws are based in fallacy, whether common or contract [maritime] laws.

[Magicdirt]

I wouldn't want to try arguing fundamental points of law without a QC on the payroll.

Arguing points of law wont get you far with most cops as they're taught to act within the guidelines of the law as they see it (only a very basic understanding is all most of them need to do their job)

If it does get to court then the judge would be forced to hold you in contempt for not recognising his/her authority, that's where legal representation is needed.

In theory though it has the potential to go to the highest court in the country, and it would be interesting to see how it turned out.

[LikeAshesWeFade]

My guess is, if you tried to question an Arresting Officer on this it would go sooo far over his head he'll probably just result in tasering you!

It certainly does get you thinking though.. if one connects to the other then what is the foundation of it all.

[mac]

I see your point with victimless crimes when there is no resulting damage to a person or property, no one should be prosecuted or fined for victimless crimes

mark mcmurtrie has some interesting videos & seems to be switched on with the aussie / english law

Edited January 3, 2011 by mac

[kayesem]

you said you've been looking into freeman so i'm probably telling you stuff you already known. theres a video of a guy in britain who seems to take control of a court room and dismiss his own case or something. there is also an australian video and his entire party ends up in a cell

i'd like to see what happens with more people trying it on in this country, but as you're probably aware the rumour is that we are subject to "maritime law" (which is everything bar common law) because we are corporate entities. whether or not it could work i think the idea behind being freeman-on-the-land is exactly what you're talking about, slipping out of the corporate entitie MR JOE SMITH who answers to maritime law, and avoiding all tricks to make you wear that entity.

 

Yeh, i have watched those vids. The aussie one doesn't offer much hope, but it does seem like some tiny little hillbilly place in the bush or something. Yeh, i am aware of the maritime/statute/contract/corporate law concepts. The info regarding actual applications in Aus in sparse. People on forums tend to mention that they're trying things out, and then are never heard from again. I believe one of the methods involves copyrighting your own name as a start point, but have not heard of anyone being successful trying that here. Another method is 'no contract', but same story AFAIK.

I wouldn't want to try arguing fundamental points of law without a QC on the payroll.

Arguing points of law wont get you far with most cops as they're taught to act within the guidelines of the law as they see it (only a very basic understanding is all most of them need to do their job)

If it does get to court then the judge would be forced to hold you in contempt for not recognising his/her authority, that's where legal representation is needed.

In theory though it has the potential to go to the highest court in the country, and it would be interesting to see how it turned out.

 

Yeh, i realised that having the convo with an arresting cop would be pointless. Perhaps a casual chat with a random cop would be interesting, but they still might get pissed off and tazer you for questioning them so deeply on the foundations of their reasons for working, livelyhood etc.

Would you be unable to represent yourself in the courts? I think it would be somewhat crucial, unless you had a truly amazing person to represent you. If the questioning actually worked, then what QC or lawyer would want to even admit that, let alone help you to argue it? It would mean that their livelyhood and career would be undermined no?

My guess is, if you tried to question an Arresting Officer on this it would go sooo far over his head he'll probably just result in tasering you!

It certainly does get you thinking though.. if one connects to the other then what is the foundation of it all.

 

Yep. Resisting arrest ay? Zap him boys, lol.

I see your point with victimless crimes when there is no resulting damage to a person or property, no one should be prosecuted or fined for victimless crimes

mark mcmurtrie has some interesting videos & seems to be switched on with the aussie / english law

 

Yeh, cheers. I have been meaning to look him up, his name has come up a lot and people seem to mention him left right and centre. Would be cool if i could actually contact him and get the low down, should see if i can i guess.

And yes, i am strictly speaking of hypothetical victimless crimes that do not conflict with common law.

Thanks for the replies people : )

[synchromesh]

How can a "victimless crime" be a crime at all? Anyway, there's some good stuff in here:

http://truthinjusticecampaign.com/links.html

[ThunderIdeal]

it's a little questionable because the camera turns off when he puts it in his pocket then he just says 'yeah the cops left soon after', but a guy in north america with an unreg'd car and plates that he had made saying 'free4life' or something, was being hit up by some cops. he had a written affidavit which they looked at in their car for a long time, then he started talking about fees for his time. both parties remained civil.

[kayesem]

How can a "victimless crime" be a crime at all? Anyway, there's some good stuff in here:

http://truthinjusticecampaign.com/links.html

 

I guess only by us giving away our consent to prosecutors?

Thanks heaps for the link, seems like plenty of Aus links there to sink my teeth into : )

Just having a look at John Wilson's site and reading the transcript of his court case where he is challenging the jurisdiction of that court and all others. Fark it's hilarious, wish i had it in audio format : )

Will be printing it off for sure and giving it to others who i know would get a kick out of it

[synchromesh]

You're welcome. Funnily enough though, I probably wouldn't have found it if I wasn't looking for Wilson's.

Edited January 3, 2011 by synchromesh

[kayesem]

You're welcome. Funnily enough though, I probably wouldn't have found it if I wasn't looking for Wilson's.

 

Yeh, that is a bit funny. Scrolled down a fair way to pick it out randomly, wanting to have a quick squiz at some things tonight.

This quote is a big tripping point for me, in more ways than one -

If we are going to love GOD and love our neighbours as ourselves, we have no

choice but to fight the Forces of Evil because “the only way for evil to triumph

is that good men do nothing” (Edmund Burke 1729 – 1797).

As interesting as i find it all, stuff like that just doesn't make sense. ^

A part of me really wants to fight those evil fuckers, because after all, if nobody does anything to change or overcome the system then we'll only have more and more liberties stripped away until it is all too late, if it's not already too late.

But when i boil it down, even looking at the above quotes, it doesn't seem right for me personally. Fighting your 'enemy' is not loving your neighbor. And if it is true that 'what you resist, persists' then that doesn't help either.

FFS, where do you draw the line anyway? Jusifying war in the name of our gods? No thanks. And it's not like people are doing nothing, this Wilson dude has been in courts representing himself and all freemen for ten years apparently.

My view of the world is undoubtedly becoming more and more like one of a reflection. Any change that i want to impose on the world or others seems only to be a metaphor for my own need for change. How can i ever have a true appreciation, free of conditions for the perceived world and for myself, when i still single out bits and pieces, divide and seperate things and judge them as right or wrong?

Surely that would be a misguided waste of energy and a step backwards from acceptance and understanding.

It's a tricky one to contemplate. I also want to live freely and to govern myself, but to do so at the potential expense of my freedom doesn't seem to work. But maybe i'm just not seeing enough of the big picture still.

[botanika]

Follow Dexter's rules: Dont get caught.

[C_T]

when you are quoted laws in exact eg act 1532 of section 10 (made up)... Then you either need to actually know what they are referring to, to counter it with another law that either changes their stance or counters it.

thats what lawyers do...

if you don't know the book of law, you cannot just pretend and get away with it... i believe this is why "freemen" get their case thrown out of court, and the same reason any good solicitor can also get people off eg a technicality... because they know the law so well, they know of another "act" that exists in the same book of law they are trying to use, which either voids their case or changes it in such a way that the original act no longer stands.

unless i'm mistaken.

Edited January 4, 2011 by C_T

[kayesem]

when you are quoted laws in exact eg act 1532 of section 10 (made up)... Then you either need to actually know what they are referring to, to counter it with another law that either changes their stance or counters it.

thats what lawyers do...

if you don't know the book of law, you cannot just pretend and get away with it... i believe this is why "freemen" get their case thrown out of court, and the same reason any good solicitor can also get people off eg a technicality... because they know the law so well, they know of another "act" that exists in the same book of law they are trying to use, which either voids their case or changes it in such a way that the original act no longer stands.

unless i'm mistaken.

 

Yeh, true enough. The conventional defense is attack - fighting fire with fire, one law with another.

My thinking was just to throw a bucket of water on the whole thing.

I do think it would certainly be wise to actually take the process through with actual examples and all of the real world answers that one might encounter. For instance, if it is the unquestionable duty as an Aus citizen to obey statute laws, then it would be helpful perhaps to know the full story of what it actually means to be an "Aus citizen", and if there's any truth to the post in the other thread (and other sites) about the entire legal system being an illegal fraud itself, and it being impossible to even be a citizen sworn to a false nation etc etc.

Still, the point was sort of to avoid getting entangled in the whole web of this law and that. It was to cut right to the chase. Your point is duly noted though, and perhaps a better path, instead of blindly asking questions and seeing where they lead, would be to simply state every single question and answer in order and arrive at the finish line. I guess also, to know in advance any counter attacks or curveballs that could be thrown in by the prosecution in order to confuse or whatever.

I read that Wilson bloke's transcript from the Paramatta Courts with great amusement and interest. He has been in the courts for 10 years apparently with no success and only corrupt officials, so this time he questions the jurisdiction of the court, first and foremost, claiming that it has no authority and demanding a fair trial by a special and impartial jury, which is supposed to be our right. When the magistrate asked what proof he had to submit to the court, he said that there was no court, that he need not submit anything and that the magistrate cannot judge in their own case, that once the jury was empanelled then they could go through it all and it would be for them to decide, not her. He arrived by special appearance and made clear that in no way did he consent to the court or it's jurisdiction.

In the end, he just walked out and the judge made a plea of guilty to all charges on his behalf (in his absence) and a ruling upholding all charges (concerning tax returns) against him. The judge noted on the record that something like this would turn the whole court system on it's head, and according to Wilson she acted totally illegally and had no right or authority or jurisdiction to do anything, but she ignored all that and did what she knew best anyways.

Maybe he should have only written letters and not appeared at all, but they probably still would of ruled in his absence?

Doesn't inspire much confidence. If you play by the 'rules' you just admit jurisdiction and quite possibly get fucked. If you contest jurisdiction you get ignored and get fucked.

[botanika]

Maybe he should have only written letters and not appeared at all, but they probably still would of ruled in his absence?

Doesn't inspire much confidence. If you play by the 'rules' you just admit jurisdiction and quite possibly get fucked. If you contest jurisdiction you get ignored and get fucked.

 

Unless you want to waste bucket loads of time and money, or you have a bullet proof legal vest, you just have to beat them at their own game. Like learning to play an instrument and then playing in a band. Ultimately it's not about how good the PA system is, it's about how good the song is. If you don't bother turning up, no one gets to hear you. To change the whole scene you gotta be one bad ass cat. I've done some expert witness work and conceded my first few procedings. I was absolutely hopeless. But soon learnt how to kick the legal ball, score points and not be a sore loser. Enter into their jurisdiction guns blazing. Those with the gold make the rules - but gold is maleable. It can be a lottery but most of the time it's simply the merit of the arguments, hard work and attitude. 'If you want to be an outlaw, you have to live an honest life'.

Edited January 7, 2011 by botanika

[rogdog]

To the OP, you are asking the wrong people the wrong questions. Lawyers and police have sworn and oath of alligience to someone who isn't you..Lawyers swear an oath to the bar, police swear an oath to the queen (in aus), you can not expect them to tell you the truth, when they have sworn an oath to somebody else, who happens to be thier employer.

The way to screw those people up, is to challenge thier authority. At the end of the day, they are goverment employees, and the goverment, is for and by the people...

So....let them do what they need to do, which is get your name and address(and possibly date of birth) to send a summons to, and get on with your day. No point in arguing with a robot.

When you get the summons to court, then you get to ask/demand where the court gets it's authority from, and if you are like me, they get thier authority from you/me....now you just have to tell them that you do not give them authority to do anything.....easy as a few simple letters, and you never have to show up at court, and enter thier juristiction

edit..this is for magistrates courts, if you are summonds by a higher court, good luck/or not, I could care less about people charged with real charges

Edited January 7, 2011 by rogdog

[kayesem]

Yeh cheers man. I saw some of your posts in the freeman thread so will discuss such things there. Was going to comment on your letters the other night but my internuts dropped out.

And yeh, definitely only magistrates court matters.

[kayesem]

Ah, just stumbled upon this, it's exactly the line of thought i was on for this topic and will open up more research and ponderings for me and anyone else interested

It's called infinite regression, and the argument could also be tied in with 'begging the question' i believe.

According to this argument, any proposition requires a justification. However, any justification itself requires support, since nothing is true just because. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned, like a child who asks "why?" over and over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument

Nice to find an interesting thought from William James off the same page too:

The pragmatist philosopher William James suggests that, ultimately, everyone settles at some level of explanation based on ones personal preferences that fit the particular individual's psychological needs. People select whatever level of explanation fits their needs, and things other than logic and reason determine those needs. In The Sentiment of Rationality, James compares the philosopher, who insists on a high degree of justification, and the boor, who accepts or rejects ideals without much thought:

The philosophers logical tranquillity is thus in essence no other than the boors. They differ only as to the point at which each refuses to let further considerations upset the absoluteness of the data he assumes.

Cheers peoples : )

Edited January 11, 2011 by kayesem

[jilli]

 

Hey everyone, totally new on here but just thought i'd add some mcmurtrie links for you, and does anyone know if there is any validity in sending a registered letter to the courts with lawful reason for not attending court cases? Only for trivial matters of course...

Interesting. Wish I could add more right now, but after ten hours at work I'm a bit mushy....

[kayesem]

Not sure if i am qualified to say, but welcome Jilli

I think you want the 'freeman on the land' thread: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23532