KBCraig
Regular Member
Also known as "pay to play", intended to discourage you from exercising your right of appeal.
Honestly, this infuriates me as much as the rest... it's adding injury to insult.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Judge Fred Bonner, Seattle Municiple court, said that Washington is NOT an OC state.
- Thread starter Freedom1Man
- Start date
Honestly, this infuriates me as much as the rest... it's adding injury to insult.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
It's a 5k bond/bail which is the maximum fine for the level of crime that I am being accused of.
Jeff. State
Banned
And yet many still want "work within the system".
hint for anyone who does not yet realize......................
It's BROKEN!
The Courts, the politicians, their enFORCErs, the city councils, state legislatures, etc. NONE of them are worth a squirt of urine.
Remove your consent to be "governed" by a broken bunch of corrupted evil enslavers.
hint for anyone who does not yet realize......................
It's BROKEN!
The Courts, the politicians, their enFORCErs, the city councils, state legislatures, etc. NONE of them are worth a squirt of urine.
Remove your consent to be "governed" by a broken bunch of corrupted evil enslavers.
Primus
Regular Member
How do we do that? We can't leave. So please help us remove our consent.
()pen(arry
Regular Member
You've unwittingly hit upon the core of the problem: there is no consent where participation is forced. I did not choose to be born in the United States, and I never agreed to be bound by its laws. There is no "social contract". All "law enforcement" enacted against me is naked aggression.
Jeff. State
Banned
Whitney
Regular Member
"The People" are not madd enough yet
Every State or municipality is different, but generaly there is a way to remove these people from office. In this case "The People" should start HERE. The constitution of the state of Washington has provisions for removing elected officials. The real problem is the people of the city in which he is elected are not affected (generaly speaking).
So lets break this down.
RCW 3.50.095 Municipal judge — Removal from office.
A municipal judge shall be removed only upon conviction of misconduct or malfeasance in office, or because of physical or mental disability rendering the judge incapable of performing the duties of the office.
RCW 3.50.057 Judges — Residency requirement. Where does he live?
A judge of a municipal court need not be a resident of the city in which the court is created, but must be a resident of the county in which the city is located.
A quick check of the Sound Politics Washington State Voter Database indicates he likely lives in King County so he is good to go there.
How about that caveat to removal from office with a conviction of misconduct or malfeasance in office.
What we need to look at is the definition of the office he holds with regard to the criminal code.
RCW 9A.04.110Definitions. (13)"Officer" and "public officer" means a person holding office under a city, county, or state government, or the federal government who performs a public function and in so doing is vested with the exercise of some sovereign power of government, and includes all assistants, deputies, clerks, and employees of any public officer and all persons lawfully exercising or assuming to exercise any of the powers or functions of a public officer;
(23)"Public servant" means any person other than a witness who presently occupies the position of or has been elected, appointed, or designated to become any officer or employee of government, including a legislator, judge, judicial officer, juror, and any person participating as an advisor, consultant, or otherwise in performing a governmental function;
DING< DING< DING...
Well since public officer is out we can not use this, Chapter 42.20 RCW MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICERS.
So that leaves us with this RCW 9A.80.010 Official misconduct.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
(a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
(b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.
(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
The likelyhood of getting a conviction that would substantiate removal from office is unlikely. Alternatively any elected official can be removed from office by petion RCW 29A.56.110. The only real difficulty I see with this is getting the public to support the petition particularly in this part of the state. We all have busy lives and simply cannot pay attention to everything and as such we tend to be disinterested unless it gets our attention.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil and it takes a concerted effort, but like the title of my reply states, not enough people are engaged to execute the law. So we are back to the beginning.
~Whitney
Every State or municipality is different, but generaly there is a way to remove these people from office. In this case "The People" should start HERE. The constitution of the state of Washington has provisions for removing elected officials. The real problem is the people of the city in which he is elected are not affected (generaly speaking).
So lets break this down.
RCW 3.50.095 Municipal judge — Removal from office.
A municipal judge shall be removed only upon conviction of misconduct or malfeasance in office, or because of physical or mental disability rendering the judge incapable of performing the duties of the office.
RCW 3.50.057 Judges — Residency requirement. Where does he live?
A judge of a municipal court need not be a resident of the city in which the court is created, but must be a resident of the county in which the city is located.
A quick check of the Sound Politics Washington State Voter Database indicates he likely lives in King County so he is good to go there.
How about that caveat to removal from office with a conviction of misconduct or malfeasance in office.
What we need to look at is the definition of the office he holds with regard to the criminal code.
RCW 9A.04.110Definitions. (13)"Officer" and "public officer" means a person holding office under a city, county, or state government, or the federal government who performs a public function and in so doing is vested with the exercise of some sovereign power of government, and includes all assistants, deputies, clerks, and employees of any public officer and all persons lawfully exercising or assuming to exercise any of the powers or functions of a public officer;
(23)"Public servant" means any person other than a witness who presently occupies the position of or has been elected, appointed, or designated to become any officer or employee of government, including a legislator, judge, judicial officer, juror, and any person participating as an advisor, consultant, or otherwise in performing a governmental function;
DING< DING< DING...
Well since public officer is out we can not use this, Chapter 42.20 RCW MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICERS.
So that leaves us with this RCW 9A.80.010 Official misconduct.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
(a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
(b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.
(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
The likelyhood of getting a conviction that would substantiate removal from office is unlikely. Alternatively any elected official can be removed from office by petion RCW 29A.56.110. The only real difficulty I see with this is getting the public to support the petition particularly in this part of the state. We all have busy lives and simply cannot pay attention to everything and as such we tend to be disinterested unless it gets our attention.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil and it takes a concerted effort, but like the title of my reply states, not enough people are engaged to execute the law. So we are back to the beginning.
~Whitney
Primus
Regular Member
I like it. Good info and ideas.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
OC Freedom
Regular Member
Mainsail
Regular Member
What in the world leads you to believe you have to agree to be bound by law? You are, whether you like it, recognize it, or agree to it.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but if you're saying you have no obligation to recognize and obey the laws of the land, you're full of crap.
()pen(arry
Regular Member
As you might imagine, I am under no delusion that I can flout the laws of the United States and its various applicable subdivisions without repercussion. But the laws of this land apply to me only because they are applied to me. I do not participate in this application; it is forced upon me.
Suppose a woman is kidnapped and taken to a heated cabin on a remote, barren mountain in the dead of winter. She is given a choice: leave the cabin naked but free, or stay and be raped repeatedly. Do we consider the consequences of her decision to be of her own choosing? Or do we recognize that she was unjustly forced into the dilemma?
Imposed governance offers just such a dilemma: heed laws that you did not choose to be beholden to, or enjoy the violence of the state. Ask yourself whether any law that requires such imposition can justly exist in the first place. There is only one answer, and it rhymes with "no".
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
What made those Brits living in 18th century America think they were not bound by the law of England?
Mainsail
Regular Member
FAIL.
You are a participant in a society. You have an equal say in the who/what/how of the government. If the government displeases you then you are free to effect change with your portion of government control, your vote. Just because so many people are willing to believe a lie doesn't negate your position or your control. The laws are no more forced on you than the paved street you drive on is forced on you.
There are a LOT of aspects of this current government that we don't like, nevertheless, it is our government and our laws, and ours to change.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
So a vote means you have to obey the rules of the majority, screw the minority?
Doesn't rebut his point at all that, those laws are thrust upon someone whether they acquiesed or not.
()pen(arry
Regular Member
This is not reddit, nor 4chan, nor Fark; it is not an AOL chat room. If you disagree with me, you will not win more argument points by typing in uppercase and acting puerile. Feel free to emulate the adults in this conversation.
I am included in many societies, all defined by people based upon various factors. Some of these societies I freely include myself in, such as the society which is OCDO. Other societies people include me in whether I recognize that inclusion or not, such as "upper-middle class". With regard to the geopolitical societies of the United States and its subdivisions, I "participate" in those societies in much the way that a black in the pre-1863 South "participated" in farming cotton.
I live my life, and I interact with others. My participation in any given society is mine freely to begin and end. "Subject of the United States" was forced upon me. That isn't participation in society; that's unwilling indenture.
That is ridiculous in both law and fact. There might be the merest chance of that being true in a direct democracy, but in the United States, by imposition, I am required to delegate my will to another, who purports to represent me. Moreover, even that system is grossly subverted to the machinations of others, in the form of political parties with legal recognition and legal inclusion in the electoral process. I am not free to enact my will; I am not even free to vote with it. I am required to delegate my will to people who have been selected for that purpose by other people. There is no liberty in that. Moreover, those people, by threat of violence, impose upon me the will of others. There is no liberty in that. A democratic republic becomes no more liberty-friendly than a direct democracy by taking even more self-determination away from me. Both systems are predicated upon the imposition of will by threat of violence.
It is my government in the way that the allegorical cabin is the rape victim's home. It becomes no more mine by virtue of imposed false choice.
EDIT: Seriously, OCDO? We're auto-censoring for political correctness? "N*gro" is a correct term to refer to blacks in the context of American slavery.
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
So if your a rape victim in a cabin why haven't you walked out the wide open door?
By your claim your "upper middle class" so I assume you have enough money to buy a house in mexico. Or maybe Canada. Or any other place.
()pen(arry
Regular Member
I'll let you answer that yourself:
You should try reading before you start responding.
I'll repeat:
If you can't figure this out (and it's obvious), kindly recuse yourself from the conversation.
Primus
Regular Member
So your alleging the state will make you leave naked? Lol
Actually your story is jacked up....
You weren't kidnapped and raped. Someone in your family moved into said "rape house". (Unless your African american and trace back to slave ownership, if so the kidnapper was some private enterprise not the state).
Once your family of rape victims moved into said rape house they made a baby with each other. The rapist (state) didn't make you. So once you turned 18 (maybe sooner) the rapist said hey I'm about to rape you (taxes, unfair laws, etc). You then got raped. After said rape (the very first year you paid taxes) you said "ow that hurts but I'll stay".
Now maybe when you were 18 you had no means (clothes to not be naked when you leave?) To leave the country. Have you been saving everything you can since you were 18 to leave said rape house? Or have you been staring out the open door while taking it and complaining? As I said, by your admission you seem to have clothes on your back if you left. Would they be rags? Maybe.
But a rape victim would gladly sprint out the door naked and poor then get raped again for some comforts.
Can we move on from this stupid rape analogy now?
Mainsail
Regular Member
I think I have my answer.
This forum used to be very different.
This forum used to be very different.