RETIRED POLICE SGT. HELD IN JAIL FOR CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS (OREGON)

NewsWithViews.com ^ | Oct. 14, 2002 | Paul Walter

[GovernmentShrinker]

The judge appointed an attorney for the nutcase, and said attorney will be happy to answer all his nutty questions. The judge has done his job.

[citizenK]

Pay up or else.

Very funny, except for the threat.

Actually, if you think I owe you money, you are entitled, in this country, to take me to court to make your case and have it adjudicated by a third party. What's your point?

[William Terrell]

I can and will sue you for every penny you have. I will make your life a living hell. Jail, in fact, will be a vacation for you. And that, again, is your choice.

You don't much about the law, do you? If I were to damage your automobile, I would be liable for the damages I did. That's all. If I paid for the damages, any civil suit you brought would likely be thrown out, unless you could bear the burden of proof that more remedy was justified.

If you did bring such a suit, you would have to pay a lawyer, whereas I would defend myself pro per. My expense, if you didn't win, would be a tiny fraction of yours. If I did not have a license, that would make no difference to your remedy at all. I would not go to jail. The worst would be a citation for Driving Without a License, and chances are, I would not be cited for that.

If you were to "make a life a living hell", I would sue you and if I kept documentation on your actions, I would win. And even if I didn't, I would have prosecuted the case myself and you would have lots and lots of lawyer fees.

So, let's not make threats we have no idea about how to follow through with, shall we?

[malakhi]

Self bump.

[Eustace]

Besides the privilages we have from the federal government which we have signed contracts to receive ( drivers license , marriage license , SS , W2's W4's , birth certificates , hunting and fishing licenses giving up our Rights as United States of America Citizens protected by our Constitution and accepting a corporate position in the United States ( federal government), our courts have been Admirality courts since 1938.

We have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS in an Admirality court.

Besides that America has been under the Emergency Powers Act since Roosevelt , which gives the Executive branch power over all of us.

Our government has done everything possible to get around our Constitution in order to convince us that it is outdated.

When in fact it is the only thing stopping Bush from sending out cattle trucks and forcing us to get the oil in Iraq.

[mlo]

Besides that America has been under the Emergency Powers Act since Roosevelt , which gives the Executive branch power over all of us.

Ray, is that you?

[Calculus_of_Consent]

A better choice was to show his driver's license on request .....

Yes that would have been a better choice for him personally, but not a better choice for America. Most of the unconstitutional laws we have are there because it is easier and cheaper to go along and pay your fines than it is fight back. I for one am glad that there are still men with the will to fight back.

[Maelstrom]

ad hominem

Very good...at least you're consistent.

[wimpycat]

Pssssst....I think Catspaw is a lawyer.

[William Terrell]

I'd be suprised. What makes you think so?

[Catspaw]

Actually, I wouldn't have to pay a lawyer. It'd be two pro pers fighting it out. And I would have a ball.

[Poohbah]

Actually, if you think I owe you money, you are entitled, in this country, to take me to court to make your case and have it adjudicated by a third party. What's your point?

And you've allied yourself with the corrupt so-called judiciary branch.

[DonQ]

This sets a dangerous preceden[t]. The same philosophy was practiced within the Third Reich. Adolph Hitler had people incarcerated under mental health simply for holding an opposing view.

I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate knowing that being a prisoner of the Nazis was no worse than getting a traffic ticket, a day in court, an appropriate amount of hassling for acting childishly in court, and a psychiatric interview. Until now I thought that being a prisoner of the Nazis was an ugly experience.

[wimpycat]

The real question here is what makes you think your opinions on the Constitution are more valid or correct than hers. What is it about you that makes your pronouncements on the Constitution more worthy of anyone's consideration than hers?

[Eustace]

No.

[teeman8r]

why must one possess a driver's license... why should a free individual need permission from the state to travel as he wishes. states should be allowed to license certain road usage of merchandise, but private citizens moving about freely? just another abdication of our freedom... i applaud this gentleman, but think he needs a better lawyer..

[Catspaw]

You can move freely. You can walk, you can jog, you can run, you can ride a bike, you can use a skateboard, scooter or rollerblades. You just can't operate a motor vehicle on a public highway if you don't have a driver's license.

[William Terrell]

The real question here is what makes you think your opinions on the Constitution are more valid or correct than hers. What is it about you that makes your pronouncements on the Constitution more worthy of anyone's consideration than hers?

If he or she has an opinion on the law or the various constitutions that is based on knowledge it certainly wasn't posted on this thread. The total of his/her posts are these:

"Has he been practicing, "No One Knows The Trouble I've Seen" and banging his tin cup on the jail cell bars?"

A block of cases cut and pasted from the ADL site "Militia Watch Dog".

"You may have missed it in the story, but the defendant in question admits to being on a public road, not private property."

"I tell you what: you can drive without a license, if you so choose. If you hit me while driving your (probably unregistered and unlicensed) car, I can and will sue you for every penny you've got--plus you're going to go to jail. But that's your choice, isn't it?"

"Oh, how dire. But it's your choice to drive without a license. It's your choice to go to jail. And if you hit me with your car while driving without a license, I can and will sue you for every penny you have. I will make your life a living hell. Jail, in fact, will be a vacation for you. And that, again, is your choice."

"Actually, I wouldn't have to pay a lawyer. It'd be two pro pers fighting it out. And I would have a ball."

"You can move freely. You can walk, you can jog, you can run, you can ride a bike, you can use a skateboard, scooter or rollerblades. You just can't operate a motor vehicle on a public highway if you don't have a driver's license."

I don't see anything remotely resembling constitutional knowledge in this. Do you?

[ALS]

I see a lot of grazers on here defending their own demise.
Good work to you and the Citizen.

The "old coot" is doing what he believes in, which is far more than what I am witnessing here. Those who rant and rail against him remind me no less than that of athiests ranting and railing against a believer in a Creator.

What these people are really angry about is that they themselves have capitulated to their masters and damn the man who does not the same. Their focus misses the point, of which I would be inclined to reveal, had they not chosen their stances to the last sheared sheep.

In a make believe world, the "nutball" may well be the realist.

[citizenK]

You say this case is a loser - maybe it is. We don't know the entire set of circumstances behind the arrest, or the entire set of circumstances behind the court proceeding itself. I have addressed these concerns and have made some concessions in previous posts, so I don't think we need to rehash these points.

I do have a problem though, in that you say this guy shows obvious signs of being unbalanced. A related question about the obvious was asked of me before. I responded by saying that his imbalance was obvious to some because of what he believes re "divine anarchism" and for how he looks - people even posted pictures meant to discredit him, you must have seen the pics. Furthermore, my response to this query was to also say that from my own perspective, nothing is obvious where it comes to people's motivations and what they believe.

What exactly do you see as the "obvious signs of being unbalanced" demonstrated by this man? Is it simply for the reason that he thinks differently - the reason given by the judge himself? Did the man lash out violently in court or something? What am I missing here, aside from the fact that the judge rationalizes his action to submit the defendant to mental competency testing on the basis of this man's different way of thinking?

My concern here is that the same rationale used by the judge could be applied to anyone else who expresses "different" thinking according to the powers that be. On one of the later posts to this thread, someone, apparently joking, equates the circumstances of the defendant to being held prisoner by the Nazis - saying it must not be that bad to be a victim of the Nazis if the experience is similar to the defendant's. This of course is a complete distortion of the point the author of the article was trying to make. (Ooops, forgot, am I not supposed to talk about the (crackpot)author here, among friends?) The fact is, the Nazis did use mental health as a means of disposing of political enemies. Do you honestly believe that this could not happen in America? What happens when political correctness and muticulturalism take further root in the institutions of our society? Teachers and government employees are already being fired for using the word "niggardly." The demands for the enactment of hate crime legislation are growing stronger. How much longer will it be until people in this country are jailed for "thought crimes" a la Orwell? Don't you see how the justice system can be abused where it comes to determining mental competency for people who think "differently?"

Like I said, maybe I am missing something here in this case, and the defendant acted out violently or in some other "crazy" way. But why shouldn't we be concerned about related issues outside the context of this particular case? Our culture appears to have a prediliction for viewing problems singularly - like when we view terrorism as a series of isolated crimes or events instead of as a continuing effort on the part of our enemies to wear us down and kill us. I am afraid that too many people view the issues of this discussion singularly too, literally on a case-by-case basis, and in so doing, lose sight of the forest for the trees.