Coconut will not pay : 9-26-08

[lastlady]

Wow! Congrats very well done. 

I think it helped that the judge knew you were not going to pay.

[bigmike]

mark stevens, the author of "adventures in legal land" has a post on his website that refers to the "save-a-bureaucrat-foundation". this is a good thing for free/no-staters. we just need to push it.

judge burke is a prime candidate for either:

a) reforming the system from within, or
b) leaving the system and telling his terrorcrat buddies why he's leaving

both are good for us, and will become better if we can determine his effectiveness when talking to his colleagues from other cities.

someone needs to take this guy to lunch, off the record. approach him as he's walking to his car. see how he really feels and get an idea for what type of influence he has. let him know what our plans are like Ian did with the Keene councilman.

to me it's the same as trying to date a girl that works in the department that picks random voters for jury duty. i'd hit on her if i got the info i was looking for. has anyone ever used FIJA as a defense for jury tampering? not that i've found. any takers?

working from within doesn't necessarily mean going inside, and as things become worse, what's the harm in having a mole or two or three? until you get burke on the record, but off the record, we'll never really know what a true friend of liberty we have in this man who wears a robe every day. he might be our friend.

[Coconut]

Unfortunately he'd probably never tell us, because he knows it would get out. The system is built to force out people who don't want to use force on others. You may change your mind on him when you see the video from Ian's hearing today.

[FTL_Ian]

I'm taking Carl Patten out to lunch.

[Coconut]

I'm taking Carl Patten out to lunch.

Just don't record him 

Just remember; he is trying to pass the buck to his boss, just like every other person who is hurting others in the name of government. It doesn't make him innocent. It's good that you're willing to reach out though. It shows that you're not interested in fighting when you don't have to.

[Russell Kanning]

cool ... good to see they will not try to use force on you ... beyond making you come to court.

[Russell Kanning]

Indeed, the pursuit of liberty may already have a potential ally on the bench in New Hampshire.  At the very least a possible sympathizer.  It would be unwise to alienate or destroy this opportunity.  If this judge remains consistent in his rulings his future campaigns for reelection should be supported.  Unfortunately he may also become a target of the authoritarians.

he is a real sweetheart ...
he sent me to jail once for not having papers
he has always convicted me of not having proper papers
he wants money or community service right now
if he convicts me 2 more times, I will sit in the Concord State Prison for a mandatory year

I am putting him up for a sainthood.

[Paul]

Vehicle registration papers?  Touchy issue.

Personally I think if someone is taking advantage of a system constructed by a certain organization they are obligated to abide by whatever rules set forth by that organization, regardless of its nature.  If however one is a participating member of that organization who is directly contributing to the upkeep of those roads an argument can be made that being a member of that organization, the People as represented by the State in this case, they possess and unalienable right to the use of those roads without restriction.  This right naturally does not extend to destructive modification of the roads or violation of whatever guidelines the organization has set forth for interactions within and on the road system for the purpose of preventing bodily harm (driving the wrong way in traffic, for instance).  Vehicle registration obviously does not meet this.  So while the participant (tax-victim) is not obligated to submit vehicle registration, the non-participant is as they have no legitimate claim to those roads.  This applies to publicly and privately funded roads alike.

The question in this case comes down to participation.  Do only property taxes serve to maintain the government roads?  What about gas taxes?  Does everything just go into a general fund which road maintenance is paid out of?  There has to be a clear association for a claim of sovereignty to be valid because ultimately one is free to walk.

Look at it from the judge's perspective.  If you find a flaw in the logic he used to arrive at his position, help him find it.  Show him the alternatives like Coconut did.  Most importantly, help him to act on this knowledge.  Give him problems and he'll just get angry and throw it right back at you thrice fold.

[Coconut]

The question in this case comes down to participation.  Do only property taxes serve to maintain the government roads?  What about gas taxes?  Does everything just go into a general fund which road maintenance is paid out of?  There has to be a clear association for a claim of sovereignty to be valid because ultimately one is free to walk.

As I understand, there is supposed to be a stand-alone road fund. However, they have been taking from the road fund for other projects. As long as they're breaking their own rules, why does anyone else have to follow them?

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Vehicle registration papers?  Touchy issue.

Personally I think if someone is taking advantage of a system constructed by a certain organization they are obligated to abide by whatever rules set forth by that organization, regardless of its nature. 

No one should be obligated to follow rules that they did not agree to follow outside of common law.

[Paul]

In my opinion the initiated use of any service qualifies as an agreement to the conditions of use set forth by whomever is offering the service.  If one is in and of themselves the provider of the service (tax-victim) they have grounds to object to those conditions.  Private property common law applies so long as one recognizes the legitimacy of the State as an entity serving as a representative body of the People.  The mere act of stepping into the Court with the intention of representing or defending ones self is an admission of the Court's legitimacy, and by proxy the legitimacy of the State. 

You can't walk into their court, say yes to being searched at the door, approach the bench when requested, and then suddenly start noncooperating and still expect to be taken seriously.  This sort of quasi-civil disobedience from within the system is just bizarre.  I don't know how anyone can be surprised when it backfires. If one is not going to recognize the legitimacy of the Court, one should simply not submit to the Court's authority and refuse summons as Canario did.  If one wishes to challenge the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the particular law or the Court itself, they should state their purpose as such and remain true to this agenda as Coconut or to a much greater extent Sam (in Texas) has done.  One certainly can not agree to the Court's ruling (such as accepting a sentence of community service) and then not expect consequences if this agreement is broken.

I support true civil disobedience and those who practice it because there are limits to my own personal activity, but you can't enter the lion's den and start poking things with a stick and not expect to have your head bitten off.  I've been in front of enough judges and spent enough time in jail to know I never want to go back.  But I feel I can relate current events to my experiences with some authority and at least let others know what they can expect when they attempt to play their game in the State's arena.

[Paul]

Don't let me be a deterrent though.  I'm just stating the reality of dealing with the State.  When a matter goes to court it's going to have one of a few outcomes.  It's either dismissed, you're acquitted, or you're sentenced.  The ratio depends on the demeanor and persuasion of the judge.  Those who challenge the legitimacy of the Court do so with full knowledge that if they fail it must be recognized (likely meaning they pay whatever citation requested their presence in court in the first place) or face the reality that men with guns will place them in a cage.  I myself like to avoid cages, but I respect those that face this outcome with dignity.  The greatest sacrifices produce the greatest results.

Personally I think if one does not wish to recognize the legitimacy of the State as a sovereign of the land to which they lay claim they should ignore its demands completely.  Better yet, send a messenger.

[dalebert]

That's why Ian made it clear when he showed that he did so under duress, knowing full well that the refusal to do so would result in further violence from the state. Russell says the same thing when he goes to court. He explains that he's simply trying to avoid the violence that would inevitably ensue.

[Coconut]

What's the difference between going to court because you're afraid of their guns, or just paying your fine because you're afraid of their guns?

People who say "If they have no authority, just don't go" do have a point. I dunno. It's all confusing.

When I went, I wrote a letter beforehand stating that I was showing up as an act of good-will, and that I'm not trying to hide from anyone.

[J’raxis 270145]

What's the difference between going to court because you're afraid of their guns, or just paying your fine because you're afraid of their guns?

The latter gives them money. The former costs them money. I'll always opt for costing them.