Free Inhabitants

Free Inhabitants (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Free Inhabitants (7/30/2015 4:45:23 AM)
I had never heard of these people before. No applicable laws, free to kill, mame, rape, whatever they want because they don't fall under the laws of the country. quote: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/379826-a-woman-hits-police-officer-with-old-school-law-knowledge-before-yelling-rape-when-this-happens/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Crime Dude Comedy brings us this video of a woman [caution: strong language] who drops some questionable “constitutional” knowledge on a police officer who is trying to tow a vehicle. The woman gets indignant that the police officer would even think of doing such a thing, and then refuses to exit the vehicle, even when the cop offered to “assist” her. The woman resists the officer’s polite insistence that she leave the vehicle, but then finally exits it. The woman is forcibly arrested when trying to leave the scene – having claimed earlier that she doesn’t have to “follow laws.” In the midst of her arrest, the “rape” allegations fly. Fortunately for him, the raucous affair was caught on video. I think it is really a stupid argument. Could be a comedy post, but according to their site, they just collect really stupid stuff people do and then post them. LOL http://dudecomedy.weebly.com/

Real0ne -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/30/2015 1:21:27 PM)
its from the days when the gubmint was more respectful of a persons status and did not syntactically combine all words to mean slave of the gubmint. There is a distinction between inhabitant and citizen. IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp Of course anyone who did not swear allegiance to the then new US was dubbed a 'fugitive from justice' because they had no legitimate jurisdiction to yank them into their commercial courts.

MercTech -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/30/2015 3:00:00 PM)
Meh, it would have been a valid argument before the Constitution was ratified.

KenDckey -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/30/2015 3:15:07 PM)
strange is all I gotta say

Real0ne -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/30/2015 3:20:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Meh, it would have been a valid argument before the Constitution was ratified. not true. the key is 'relation back' The constitution was not ratified by the inhabitants who are forced to live under it. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks/wisconsincreationofconstitutionpoliticiansbenefit1.jpg[/image] Nothing more than a business contract made by and voted on by business people, not the inhabitants. With exception to California I believe, the PEOPLE have NO right to vote for the level of taxation or what will be taxed. How about that for government OF, FOR, and BY consent of the people? if we look at the AOC: The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship [no wars between us] and intercourse [business and commerce] among the people of the different States in this Union, the 1) free inhabitants of each of these States, 2) paupers, 3) vagabonds, and 4) fugitives from justice excepted, 5) shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; In those days Estates. Just another one of those lost never understood by immigrants distinctions that fell by the way side, as we can plainly see they exist and are not the same as citizens. so what are they? Did the government simply wash its hands of a whole segment of american society? Where did these inhabitants go? [8\|]

Real0ne -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/30/2015 3:44:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey strange is all I gotta say CHAPTER 1 SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION OF THE STATE 1.01 The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution, snip; and the governor, and all subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction. So did anyone hear anything about 'inhabitants', or people in there anywhere? then we go to: 1.09 Seat of government. Be it enacted by the council and house of representatives of the territory of Wisconsin, that the seat of government of the territory of Wisconsin, be and the same is located and established at the town of Madison, between the 3rd and 4th of the 4 lakes, on the corner of sections 13, 14, 23 and 24 in township 7, north, of range 9, east. So I called up the legislative staff attorneys and asked them this question: If the seat of government is established in the 'territory' of wisconsin, what the hell is the 'state'? If anyone has the answer to that question step to the front of the line because as you may have already guessed: Then they gave me a great show.....

KenDckey -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/30/2015 3:54:50 PM)
Real You are having way to much fun aren't you? lol

MrRodgers -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/30/2015 6:10:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey strange is all I gotta say CHAPTER 1 SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION OF THE STATE 1.01 The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution, snip; and the governor, and all subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction. So did anyone hear anything about 'inhabitants', or people in there anywhere? then we go to: 1.09 Seat of government. Be it enacted by the council and house of representatives of the territory of Wisconsin, that the seat of government of the territory of Wisconsin, be and the same is located and established at the town of Madison, between the 3rd and 4th of the 4 lakes, on the corner of sections 13, 14, 23 and 24 in township 7, north, of range 9, east. So I called up the legislative staff attorneys and asked them this question: If the seat of government is established in the 'territory' of wisconsin, what the hell is the 'state'? If anyone has the answer to that question step to the front of the line because as you may have already guessed: Then they gave me a great show..... But Real, nowhere do we find 'govt. of the people, by the people and for the people' actually codified. We institute govt. only to protect our inalienable rights bestowed upon us, not by govt. but by our creator.

MercTech -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/31/2015 9:33:36 AM)
I could be mistaken but I read "free citizen" in the Articles of Confederation refers to those that are eligible to vote. And, at that time, most states had a landowning test for voting rights. Free inhabitants referred to all others that have not passed the voting rights requirements. The other categories of people would be "indentured". A lot of the settling of the colonies was by people who signed up for a 7 year indenture bond as a way to pay for passage to the Americas. The first slave owned in the United States became such by petitioning the courts for relief from the 7 year indenture limitation under the law in order to be assured a place to live in his old age.

Zonie63 -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/31/2015 10:36:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I had never heard of these people before. No applicable laws, free to kill, mame, rape, whatever they want because they don't fall under the laws of the country. quote: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/379826-a-woman-hits-police-officer-with-old-school-law-knowledge-before-yelling-rape-when-this-happens/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Crime Dude Comedy brings us this video of a woman [caution: strong language] who drops some questionable “constitutional” knowledge on a police officer who is trying to tow a vehicle. The woman gets indignant that the police officer would even think of doing such a thing, and then refuses to exit the vehicle, even when the cop offered to “assist” her. The woman resists the officer’s polite insistence that she leave the vehicle, but then finally exits it. The woman is forcibly arrested when trying to leave the scene – having claimed earlier that she doesn’t have to “follow laws.” In the midst of her arrest, the “rape” allegations fly. Fortunately for him, the raucous affair was caught on video. I think it is really a stupid argument. Could be a comedy post, but according to their site, they just collect really stupid stuff people do and then post them. LOL http://dudecomedy.weebly.com/ I've heard of "sovereign citizens," but I'm not sure if this is the same thing. The article accompanying the video didn't mention why she was pulled over or what alleged "crime" was committed that led to this confrontation in the first place. That lack of information casts serious doubt on the credibility of whoever posted this video. In all fairness, the woman did request that the officer contact his superiors. It seems that he's overstepping his authority to presume to resolve a constitutional issue all on his own like that. That's what courts are for. He has a hierarchy and a chain of command to operate within, and he can't just fly things himself and go rogue like that. He should have contacted his superiors before taking any action. His refusal to do so speaks volumes about the culture within the law enforcement community. He also lied to the person in the video. At first, he said that he wanted her to exit the vehicle strictly for her own safety because he was going to have the vehicle towed. Then he changed his story and said "you are not free to leave." Even he admitted that she had not committed any crime, so why wasn't she free to leave? Something doesn't add up here.

MercTech -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/31/2015 1:08:41 PM)
Some sovereign's claim "free inhabitant" status based on the superseded legal code in the Articles of Confederation. For argument's sake; there was never any formal declaration that the Articles of Confederation were null and void. Another think sovereigns lock onto is the Uniform Commercial Code. As these are recommendations for state lawmakers to streamline interstate commerce; the implementation is actually a state law matter. Sovereigns try to consider it federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc Another thing sovereigns lock onto in law is the never repealed definition of U.S. Currency. The original definition was that a dollar was a coin containing the equivalent of one gram of gold and a dime is a coin containing the equivalent of one gram of silver. As the currency has been modified several times since the Lincoln administration started using fiat money during the civil war; most don't consider the original definition the LAW as do many of the sovereigns. Sidebar... "pieces of eight". During the days of the Mississippi Territories (Before Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, became states) The Spanish Dolore was more common in the territories than U.S. Currency. A dolore was usually traded on par with the U.S. Dollar. But, the Spanish made no coins smaller. Merchants would slice the dolore into eight pieces to make change. Each piece was 12.5 cents U.S. About all we have of that archaic term left is the parrot's line from Treasure Island and the football cheer, "Two bits, four bits, six bits, a dollar...." Oh yes... "Shave and a haircut, six bits." the old knocking code.

joether -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/31/2015 1:54:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I had never heard of these people before. No applicable laws, free to kill, mame, rape, whatever they want because they don't fall under the laws of the country. quote: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/379826-a-woman-hits-police-officer-with-old-school-law-knowledge-before-yelling-rape-when-this-happens/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Crime Dude Comedy brings us this video of a woman [caution: strong language] who drops some questionable “constitutional” knowledge on a police officer who is trying to tow a vehicle. The woman gets indignant that the police officer would even think of doing such a thing, and then refuses to exit the vehicle, even when the cop offered to “assist” her. The woman resists the officer’s polite insistence that she leave the vehicle, but then finally exits it. The woman is forcibly arrested when trying to leave the scene – having claimed earlier that she doesn’t have to “follow laws.” In the midst of her arrest, the “rape” allegations fly. Fortunately for him, the raucous affair was caught on video. I think it is really a stupid argument. Could be a comedy post, but according to their site, they just collect really stupid stuff people do and then post them. LOL http://dudecomedy.weebly.com/ Ah, a 'sovereign citizen' moron. I love the videos with those people in them. Its fun to watch how much patience the police officer has in dealing with someone. More often than not, the officer is the one whom is mature, courteous, polite, and reasonable. Long after I would have drawn a gun, pointed at them and gave them a choice: obey or die. These 'sovereign citizens' are all the same branch of stupid and moronic. The officer has jurisdiction in that scene to arrest the airhead 'citizen'. Doesn't matter if she is a US Citizen, illegal, or an alien from Alpha Centauri! What she should have done, was get out of the car and remained silent. Since by action and word, she caused herself further criminal charges. A good way to 'own' these 'sovereign citizens' during an arrest is to ask if they have a 5th amendment right. Since they are not held to anything of the government, should they be allowed anything by the government? Of course they will say 'yes'. At which point you point out that if the 5th amendment applies, so does the rest of the US Constitution. If the US Constitution applies, so does all the laws created since the 18th century. Where therefore means the 'sovereign citizen' is up the metaphorical river without a paddle!

joether -> RE: Free Inhabitants (7/31/2015 2:13:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne its from the days when the gubmint was more respectful of a persons status and did not syntactically combine all words to mean slave of the gubmint. There is a distinction between inhabitant and citizen. The government has as much respect for people then as it does now. More so now, thanks to the numerous laws on the books. Because back in the 19th century, the law enforcement could arrest you and not tell you, you ad civil rights. This was allowed until about the 1960's. After which time, when being arrested the police officer(s) are duty bound to state and explain (to a reasonable degree) your rights. There is a distinction between white and black. Whites could vote, blacks in 3/5ths. All Whites were free, many blacks were not. That your tying to use an 18th century concept into 21st century usage is amusing RealOne. Unfortunately, laws were pass since to explain the previous rules. It would be in the form of an amendment. I know, you get confused with amendments! Not an amendment as in 'the Bill of Rights', but when laws are used to correct previous standing law, its called 'an amendment'. The ACA for example has seventeen pages of amendments....(not that you read that document either....). Your 'argument' here is null and invalid because we are using 2015 laws in 2015, and not 1776 laws in 2015. Nice try with the evading..... quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp Unfortunately you and the airhead is wrong. The Articles of Confederation, are not current law. The United States Constitution is the law of the land. The AoC was 'law' for about eight years between 1781 to 1789. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Of course anyone who did not swear allegiance to the then new US was dubbed a 'fugitive from justice' because they had no legitimate jurisdiction to yank them into their commercial courts. No they weren't! What pathetic excuse for a history book are you reading this garbage from? Anyone that didnt wish to be a citizen, didn't have to be a citizen. Most people in the late 18th century thought of their existence as 'local and state'. Because going from Maine to South Caroline in those days took a week or two (today, about 1.3 hours). As the nation grew, communication and transportation advances led more people to realize the spot they lived in was part of something greater than just a town or state. Its likely there were many towns in the states that did not feel they were 'part' of the new experiment. Yet, when they needed help protecting their property from bad people, they then had to agree to 'The Terms and Conditions' (to use a modern day phrasing).

Real0ne -> RE: Free Inhabitants (8/1/2015 10:25:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I had never heard of these people before. No applicable laws, free to kill, mame, rape, whatever they want because they don't fall under the laws of the country. quote: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/379826-a-woman-hits-police-officer-with-old-school-law-knowledge-before-yelling-rape-when-this-happens/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Crime Dude Comedy brings us this video of a woman [caution: strong language] who drops some questionable “constitutional” knowledge on a police officer who is trying to tow a vehicle. The woman gets indignant that the police officer would even think of doing such a thing, and then refuses to exit the vehicle, even when the cop offered to “assist” her. The woman resists the officer’s polite insistence that she leave the vehicle, but then finally exits it. The woman is forcibly arrested when trying to leave the scene – having claimed earlier that she doesn’t have to “follow laws.” In the midst of her arrest, the “rape” allegations fly. Fortunately for him, the raucous affair was caught on video. I think it is really a stupid argument. Could be a comedy post, but according to their site, they just collect really stupid stuff people do and then post them. LOL http://dudecomedy.weebly.com/ Ah, a 'sovereign citizen' moron. I love the videos with those people in them. Its fun to watch how much patience the police officer has in dealing with someone. More often than not, the officer is the one whom is mature, courteous, polite, and reasonable. Long after I would have drawn a gun, pointed at them and gave them a choice: obey or die. These 'sovereign citizens' are all the same branch of stupid and moronic. The officer has jurisdiction in that scene to arrest the airhead 'citizen'. Doesn't matter if she is a US Citizen, illegal, or an alien from Alpha Centauri! What she should have done, was get out of the car and remained silent. Since by action and word, she caused herself further criminal charges. A good way to 'own' these 'sovereign citizens' during an arrest is to ask if they have a 5th amendment right. Since they are not held to anything of the government, should they be allowed anything by the government? Of course they will say 'yes'. At which point you point out that if the 5th amendment applies, so does the rest of the US Constitution. If the US Constitution applies, so does all the laws created since the 18th century. Where therefore means the 'sovereign citizen' is up the metaphorical river without a paddle! Supreme Court Justise Douglas in terry v ohio: To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. 3939 Until the Fourth Amendment, which is closely allied with the Fifth,[4] is rewritten, the person and the effects of the individual are beyond the reach of all government agencies until there are reasonable grounds to believe (probable cause) that a criminal venture has been launched or is about to be launched. There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today. Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign,* if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can "seize" and "search" him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country. moron? moron who? Oh and btw, sovereigns and law existed long before the word government was invented. So as long as we are having so much fun! What do you think about these morons joe? Supreme court 1795: Vanhorne v. Dorrance The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. [8\|] sheesh, may want to consider reading some of my history books one of these days. [8D]

Real0ne -> RE: Free Inhabitants (8/1/2015 10:56:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Your 'argument' here is null and invalid because we are using 2015 laws in 2015, and not 1776 laws in 2015. Nice try with the evading..... Its not that easy for you Joe, simpy standing on your soap bax screaming I am wrong with out supporting citations etc wont cut it. Do you care to support your claim with some appropriate citation or force me to dismiss all that as nothing more than rhetorical rant? quote: ORIGINAL: joether Unfortunately you and the airhead is wrong. The Articles of Confederation, are not current law. The United States Constitution is the law of the land. The AoC was 'law' for about eight years between 1781 to 1789. Well Joe the right to travel is not enumerated in the constitution, but is in the Aoc, so if what you say is a fact then you will need to provide citations that you do not have the right to travel since the AoC is obsolete. [according to you] I deleted your last quote since its in error and does not exist in my post. Sometimes I get carried away and do not get to correct typos johnny on the spot.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.929688E-02