Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
So you were told you acted in a "beligerent manner"?? Anytime someone tries to defend their rights they are marked as beligerent. I see the police as being beligerent when they try to trample my rights.
read the snippet below, I found it in the WI thread;
ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS by Richard C. Donaldson and Alfred Adask
The individual Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,
Go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system.
Ignorance makes the public more "manageable" in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizen's Rights, government has a vested interest in the public ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false, education on what our Rights should be.
Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. Silence gives rise to fraud - or - silence gives rise to agreement.
[align=left]Jack Lancaster: Only Belligerents Have RightsFight Your Way To Freedom![/align]
So you were told you acted in a "beligerent manner"?? Anytime someone tries to defend their rights they are marked as beligerent. I see the police as being beligerent when they try to trample my rights.
read the snippet below, I found it in the WI thread;
ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS by Richard C. Donaldson and Alfred Adask
The individual Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus." [Emphasis added]
[align=left]Notice the verdict's confrontational language: "fighting", "combat", and most surprising, "belligerent". Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being "passive" or "ignorant"? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be "belligerent" IN COURT...?[/align]Go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system.
Ignorance makes the public more "manageable" in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizen's Rights, government has a vested interest in the public ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false, education on what our Rights should be.
Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. Silence gives rise to fraud - or - silence gives rise to agreement.
[align=left]Jack Lancaster: Only Belligerents Have RightsFight Your Way To Freedom![/align]
.springerdave.