Posted on 07/26/2002 5:12:23 PM PDT by christine
However, do Libertarians believe in the sovereign citizen philosophy, as Stanley does? Do Libertarians acknowledge the jurisdiction of state and federal courts or do they want their own common law court system? Do they believe in filing leins and UCC filings on the property of public officials or anyone else that crosses them? Do Libertarians have a hidden streak of anti-semitism I haven't heard about? I'm curious as to how Stanley's sovereign citizen positions jibe with the Libertarian party. His political philosophy seems more in line with the Constitution Party, rather than Libertarians, at least those who believe in limited government.
Did you ever demand a copy of the published rules for criminal prosecution under statutory jurisdiction so that you could better defend yourself?
My interpretation? Seems like a court has already decided this.
Juries are usually made up of reasonable persons and it is the "interpretation" of these persons that decides. If I were on a jury I would not consider what he was soing to be anything other than a political statement challenging the City of Denver to prosecute him. This is not an act of personal defense. Rick has said this is so! You are not talking about someone who is actually in fear of his life with a pistol discreetly carried in his car (illegal in Denver), or someone tucking a gun in his belt while investigating a disturbing sound in his yard. So far, juries and the Colo supremes have stood behind Denvers gun ordinances.
If "We The People" preceded and created the federal government, then how can "We The People" be created by the very entity that We created. That logic seems twisted to me.
However, if you and I begin with different assumptions about who our Creator is, then we will certainly draw different conclusions about many things, based on those differing assumptions.
Also, your unsolicited advice about the selectivity of the material I read is condescending and unappreciated.
If I got to decide, he would be allowed to carry. It is the Law that decides (that means legislation, judges, juries, etc.). If you want to win, you have to deal with things the way they are, not the way you want them to be. Rick lost, and he will loose his appeals. I am not saying that there is no chance of his cause winning someday, but this approach will not work. Wasted dffort and dissipated energies.
These are the very types of anti-Constitutional RULES (not laws) that Rick Stanley is fighting -- and getting flamed for doing so.
The system is warped! The deck is stacked! And Stanley's got more balls to fight it then anyone I know. He gets my support.
So what? The jury sheeple cannot take away someone's Constitutional Right. Neither can the Colorado Supreme Court, who are appointed by the very tyrannts who are undermining the Constitution with almost every statute, rule, regulation, and code that they impose.
Jury trials are a rigged game. The judge decides what evidence is permitted or prohibited. The judge tells the jury what the law is. The judge is often appointed by the tyrant politicians. The whole game is "fixed." One can no more get justice in the courts than he/she can with the countless unConstitutional statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, etc., etc. that are heeped upon us.
So who gets to decide? When someone feels threatened and believes he needs a gun to defend himself, should he first call a judge, a jury, the City Council, or who, to ask their permission to exercise his 2nd Amendment Right? Stanley obviously doesn't give a crap what the "City Fathers" say, or what the brainwashed sheeple think. And neither do I. The 2nd Amendment stands on its face.
No, the LAW is the Constitution -- The Supreme Law of the Land. The 2nd Amendment is clear -- "shall not infringe."
Stanley's not caving like the rest of the sheeple. However, he knows he's fighting a losing battle, but he's still fighting the tryant, just as did our Founding Fathers, who didn't accept the King's "law."
You never addressed the question. Guess you're too busy continuing to give me un-asked-for advice.
Only because they are a collection of morons. When Denver first introduced it's 'assault weapons ban' they were taken to Court. Reluctant testimony from the Sheriff and Police Chief at the time revealed that in the ten years prior to the ban being enacted, only ONE of these types of weapons had been used in a crime. ONE.
The court still upheld the statute on a rational basis test, concluding that it was rational to believe that the ordinance MIGHT reduce crime.
Rubbish. The correct standard of interpretation is strict scrutiny, but on the facts of the case, the damn statute isn't even rationally related to reducing crime. It sure as hell can't pass strict scrutiny and it damn well infringes on a fundamental right.
But that doesn't matter to these idiots.
So what is he fighting or fighting for? His 2A rights, or is he attempting to challenge the judiciary? He has a chance if he sticks with the 2A issues; attempting to work his will on the court system is another matter. In essence, by his act of civil disobedience, he's challenging both the 2A laws & ordinances and the court system? In that case, I wish him luck when he tells the appellate court that he's a sovereign citizen and doesn't have to comply with their rules, because, quite simply, they will not accept filings from him that do not comply with their rules.
From my observations, however, sovereign citizens in our courts refuse to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court over them. By challenging the law and putting himself in the position to be arrested means that he does want the courts to rule on this matter, so what he's done is contradictory--as a sovereign citizen, he doesn't acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court, but as someone who wants to challenge the laws, he's accepting the court's jurisdiction over him.
The system is warped! The deck is stacked! And Stanley's got more balls to fight it then anyone I know. He gets my support.
As well he should get your support. But as I understand it, he did receive a six month jail sentence but all but one month is suspended. Apparently, but he and Jim Traficant may well be campaigning from a jail cell, although Traficant may well be in for years, whereas Stanley will be out in less than a month, if he gets good time.
I told you plainly what's not allright with me, boy. Pasting 30,000 words into the middle of a thread is just downright rude. If you can't make your point without using that many words from someone else, then whatever point you're trying to make isn't even your own. That crap clogs a thread and anyone wanting to skip it has to scroll past for nearly a full minute. Have a little regard for others.
Agreed. Unfortunately they are a collection of morons supported by a whole lot of trigger happy firepower. In any ultimate contest of their will vs. my will they are going to win and I am going to loose. I just don't see that hill being worth dying on. Gotta have a more important hill than that!
Nice to have an authoritarian no-it-all for a pen pal.
That we are citizens of the USA is self evident, if you don't accept that, you are in denial of reality.
With the Constitution, prior to the 14th Amendment, there were no citizens of the USA. There were only citizens of the respective states in which they resided. The Consitution did not afford the federal government a way to reach in and touch a state citizen directly. However, with the 14th and 17th Amendments, that changed. The tyrannical federal government was not happy without the ability to directly control individual sovereign Citizens. So the federal government "created" juristic persons, so that they could control and regulate them.
Now, since Rick Stanley does not wish to be treated as a juristic person, he is challenging this concept, in law. He did not give his consent to be a juristic creation, because he is a freeborn, sovereign Citizen, who already has a Creator. Granted he will probably lose the challenge, since the courts are run by "system" tyrants.
debate is not productive when you are talking to a kool aid drinker.
Well you certainly are spending a substantial amount of time engaging in this unproductive debate. You see me as a kool aid drinker and I see you as a government butt-wiper.
A recipe for jail time, and possibly becoming a person prohibited from owning firearms. And then, possibly much, much more jail time.
Would you rather be right or stay out of prison? A firearm discreetly carried, all be it illegally, and used in self defense is less likely to put you away forever one used to make loudly outspoken anti-government statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.