• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

The natural guy,fishing w/o license - I like this guy ~ judge should rule on obj.

Status
Not open for further replies.

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The State required this man to have a license to feed himself.... Do the officials of the state have no shame. The gentleman clearly embarrassed the state and the kangaroo court.

Most folks simply pay the fine and fees and or obtain a license thereby giving the state the authority to have jurisdiction over them. The state counts on folks not to question the licensing fee in the first place, folks just say oh ok let me get a license to exercise my right to feed myself/fish etc
This man is not a commercial fisherman fishing for a profit, he is simply a man that was hungry. Tyrants cant stand a man that will argue and question their authority and their senseless lawless taxes,fees etc, they will label this man a tax protester or now the new term they throw around " Sovereign Citizen"
Question their unconstitutional statutes,fees, and rules and they give you a label. The dumb confused judge wanted to charge the guy with contempt of court, that is what tyrants try to do when their so called authority is questioned. Tyrants have no time for the rule of law or the Constitution, they simply want to collect fees, and line their pockets with the fruits of hard working citizens labor.

Now, what this gentleman incorrectly did was appear in the first place. He should have simply filed a motion to have the case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A local court does not have proper legal standing to rule on a case if the defendant argues common law, natural law or constitutional law. The second he entered the court room he basically gave them authority/jurisdiction to rule on the issue.

My .02

CCJ
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Now, what this gentleman incorrectly did was appear in the first place. He should have simply filed a motion to have the case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A local court does not have proper legal standing to rule on a case if the defendant argues common law, natural law or constitutional law. The second he entered the court room he basically gave them authority/jurisdiction to rule on the issue.

My .02

CCJ

I agree that some of that makes perfect sense ... a motion to dismiss ... but I think he made it clear that he felt that the court had no jurisdiction. A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter can be noted at any time ... even upon an appeal for the first time.

Its almost always the first motion I file in almost every case....make them show it.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I agree that some of that makes perfect sense ... a motion to dismiss ... but I think he made it clear that he felt that the court had no jurisdiction. A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter can be noted at any time ... even upon an appeal for the first time.

Its almost always the first motion I file in almost every case....make them show it.

Hi Davidmebeth

Yes I agree with what you say, however by not being present and not acknowledging their jurisdiction you do not subject yourself to being led away in cuffs for contempt of court... Tyrants like to put you in "contempt". I simply avoid the building completely.

Thank you and best regards.

CCJ
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Hi Davidmebeth

Yes I agree with what you say, however by not being present and not acknowledging their jurisdiction you do not subject yourself to being led away in cuffs for contempt of court... Tyrants like to put you in "contempt". I simply avoid the building completely.

Thank you and best regards.

CCJ

By not appearing you may just set yourself up to have a warrant issued and then led away in cuffs or held until your next court date. Probably not sound legal advice...
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
By not appearing you may just set yourself up to have a warrant issued and then led away in cuffs or held until your next court date. Probably not sound legal advice...

Filing the written motion to dismiss should take care of any warrants, also should you be ******** ** ****thrown into jail, then you sue for constitutional rights violations under USC 42 section 1983..

This method is what I would do, however you and others, results may vary.

Best regards and stay safe.

CCJ
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
On OCDO our Forum Rules cover that, including in the Social Lounge.

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

IMO championing someone that choses to break or ignore the law is little different.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
On OCDO our Forum Rules cover that, including in the Social Lounge.



IMO championing someone that choses to break or ignore the law is little different.

The defendant probably signed a notice to appear in this case. He could have refused. Signing a notice to appear ... does that infer jurisdiction? I'm guessing yes, until a motion to dismiss is filed.

He could have filed a motion to dismiss, making the appearance date moot.

Of course, one would need to chk the state's body of case law ... which I have not ...
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Hi Davidmebeth

Yes I agree with what you say, however by not being present and not acknowledging their jurisdiction you do not subject yourself to being led away in cuffs for contempt of court... Tyrants like to put you in "contempt". I simply avoid the building completely.

Thank you and best regards.

CCJ

I don't think that you claiming the court does not have jurisdiction over you could result in contempt. Clearly a court needs to have this and should welcome clearing the matter up one way or the other.

I think continually re-arguing it might ... as any re-argument of the same point...but most judges give a wide birth to pro-se litigants.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
On OCDO our Forum Rules cover that, including in the Social Lounge.



IMO championing someone that chooses to break or ignore the law is little different.

Who is ignoring the law other than the government thugs?

The courts have ruled that there can be no license required to exercise a right. You have the right to live and earn a living that is not a full list of the rights you have but they do pertain in this instance.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Who is ignoring the law other than the government thugs?

The courts have ruled that there can be no license required to exercise a right. You have the right to live and earn a living that is not a full list of the rights you have but they do pertain in this instance.
The words used were "IMO championing someone that chooses to break or ignore the law is little different."

Perhaps I would have been more clear to have stated, "IMO championing someone that chooses to break the law violates Forum Rules - ignoring the enforceability of law is little different."

The man fishing w/o a license did break the law intentionally AND ignored the enforceability of it in his conduct - although that was his apparent intended action. He did not utilize the court to affect change. He used it as a forum to further his political/legal views and in the end accomplished nothing beneficial to himself or us.

Called decision made. Forum rules apply in the Social Lounge equally as in the other sections/sub-forums of OCDO. Yes, called decisions have the same weight as the written rules.

Just to be clear, let's look at the rule one more time.

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

ad·vo·cate tr.v. ad·vo·cat·ed, ad·vo·cat·ing, ad·vo·cates
To speak, plead, or argue in favor of. See Synonyms at support.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advocate
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top