lawful disobedience arrest that judge.

[yashin]

Originally Posted by iq_145

Yes, just like the Piep Piper of Hamlin again. Sheeple led into an even bigger mess.

Perhaps a little quantum tunneling was necessary for the particle trapped in the well (I mean, cell)?

Your getting it.
Rightly or wrongly, the courts have the power to give you a harsh lesson in the basics of Physics, as members of this very forum have discovered.

[aulus agerius]

Originally Posted by zhiba

So, basically put: if one questions authority (as one has a right to do) the weight of applied force is used to quieten the questions, yes?

They haven't been "quietened" for "questioning" authority but for breaking the law, or to put it more charitably, for defying authority - there is a bit of a difference there.

Whether the questions are valid or not does not come into the matter, question and you are oppressed.

That depends what you think the questions are. There seems to me to be a division in "freeman" type arguments between essentially political or philosophical ones - about what should and should not be against the law - and fantastical arguments about what the law actually is. Both neither is going to work in court, but for different reasons. The political questions don't work in courts because the courts' job is to follow the law. The fantastical arguements however, are in the courts territory - they claim to be questions about the law. For those arguements, their validity does matter. Unfortunately, freeman legal arguments are simply wrong, often hilariously so.

Now, i seem to recall from history lessons that those who questioned authority in Nazi Germany were silenced too.

Mind the Godwin.

If a judge is not working under his oath, is his legitimacy as a judge not questionable?

The premise here is flawed.

Why can a person / human being (whatever) not record court proceedings? If the court is acting above and within the law, then surely it has nothing to hide - the court officials record the proceedings, so why not the defendant, or anyone else?

Primarily because the law says so. There are justifications for that law, which you could legitimately question. You just can't expect a court to let you off punishment for breaking the law because you don't agree with it.

Asking under what jurisdiction the court is acting, is a simple question, which can be applied to the case, why is this, and the other points above, frowned upon in your reasoning.

Because this, too, is based on a misunderstanding of the law. While there can sometimes be legitimate challenges to a court's jurisdiction: 1. I've never heard of a freeman raising one and 2. It's not the court's job to help you out with your case.

[zhiba]

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

They haven't been "quietened" for "questioning" authority but for breaking the law, or to put it more charitably, for defying authority - there is a bit of a difference there.

.

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

Primarily because the law says so.

.

Yes, just like the Nazi's said that their authority could not be questioned: that doesn't mean to say that the authority is right, far, far from it.

So, the law says that no one can question it's authority in their court rooms.... point made, i think.

[h2pogo]

Originally Posted by zhiba

So, basically put: if one questions authority (as one has a right to do) the weight of applied force is used to quieten the questions, yes?

Whether the questions are valid or not does not come into the matter, question and you are oppressed.

Now, i seem to recall from history lessons that those who questioned authority in Nazi Germany were silenced too.

If a judge is not working under his oath, is his legitimacy as a judge not questionable?

Why can a person / human being (whatever) not record court proceedings? If the court is acting above and within the law, then surely it has nothing to hide - the court officials record the proceedings, so why not the defendant, or anyone else?

Asking under what jurisdiction the court is acting, is a simple question, which can be applied to the case, why is this, and the other points above, frowned upon in your reasoning.

Great points..After years here i still havnt heard these points debunked.

Only opinions like you would expect from a pre war German

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by zhiba

So, the law says that no one can question it's authority in their court rooms.... point made, i think.

No it doesn't, nor has aulus suggested that. In fact he specifically wrote: They haven't been "quietened" for "questioning" authority.
The way you quoted aulus and then suggested his response was in fact stating your own beliefs is quite underhand IMO.

[zhiba]

Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen

No it doesn't, nor has aulus suggested that. In fact he specifically wrote: They haven't been "quietened" for "questioning" authority.
The way you quoted aulus and then suggested his response was in fact stating your own beliefs is quite underhand IMO.

It was said that when people ask questions, in a court room, specifically of a judge, then they are in contempt of court (at the judges discretion, of course)..... And so the questioner is being quietened, by force when s/he asks questions of a judge in a court room.

Alus said:

"They haven't been "quietened" for "questioning" authority but for breaking the law, or to put it more charitably, for defying authority - there is a bit of a difference there."

Therefore the law does quieten those who question it in the court room by applying contempt of court, yes? when the questions are deemed contempt of court, the questioner(s) are quietened, yes?

Or no?

i think my point stands.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by zhiba

It was said that when people ask questions, in a court room, specifically of a judge, then they are in contempt of court (at the judges discretion, of course)..... And so the questioner is being quietened, by force when s/he asks questions of a judge in a court room.

What sort of questions are you talking about?

[aulus agerius]

Originally Posted by zhiba

It was said that when people ask questions, in a court room, specifically of a judge, then they are in contempt of court (at the judges discretion, of course)..... And so the questioner is being quietened, by force when s/he asks questions of a judge in a court room.

Alus said:

"They haven't been "quietened" for "questioning" authority but for breaking the law, or to put it more charitably, for defying authority - there is a bit of a difference there."

Therefore the law does quieten those who question it in the court room by applying contempt of court, yes? when the questions are deemed contempt of court, the questioner(s) are quietened, yes?

Or no?

i think my point stands.

You seem to have ignored most probably the most important thing I said. There are two strands to freeman arguements. There are essentially political ones (i.e. "I think the law is wrong") and there are essentially legal ones (i.e. "I think the law is right, but it isn't what everyone thinks it is).

Courts are not the right place to resolve political arguments. It is not the role of a judge to say what the national speed limit ought to be, for example. It is the role of a judge to interpret and enforce the law. People who make political arguments generally go to court expecting to loose, because they are making a political point. This is what many non violent protesters have done in the past, and, often, they win in the end, not because some court decides to ignore the law and let them off, but because that law is changed.

Freeman legal arguments, however, are in the courts' domain, because they are essentially claims about what the law is, not what it ought to be. In this case freemen go to court claiming they're going to win. They sometimes even keep on claiming it after they've lost. They loose however, not because they are "challenging authority" but because they are wrong about the law. The law isn't what they claim it to be. People who make ridiculous claims about the law have been going nowhere fast for years.

So, to summarize, if you go into court and say "M'lud, I am not guilty because the county council wastes money, and I don't think I should have to pay taxes to the council if it doesn't use them properly. I know the law says I have to pay, but I think it's wrong so I won't." You will loose, because the law is against you. But you might get some sympathy and one day the law might change.

If you go into court and say "M'lud, I am not guilty because the law says I don't have to pay council tax, because I was born on a Tuesday and ancient common law says those born on Tuesday are immune from taxation." you will loose because are wrong about the law. You will probably also get laughed at.

[gremlin]

Originally Posted by zhiba;1060970820[B

]Yes, just like the Nazi's said that their authority could not be questioned:[/B] that doesn't mean to say that the authority is right, far, far from it.

So, the law says that no one can question it's authority in their court rooms.... point made, i think.

correct, and If you went against the regime you were a TERRORIST!

[straw man]

Originally Posted by zhiba

[B
]Yes, just like the Nazi's said that their authority could not be questioned:[/B] that doesn't mean to say that the authority is right, far, far from it.

So, the law says that no one can question it's authority in their court rooms.... point made, i think.

Originally Posted by gremlin

correct, and If you went against the regime you were a TERRORIST!

Really? That's a little insulting to the millions who died. They were never classed as terrorists.

You can question the law. You can question the courts. What you can't do is mock the law and declare yourself immune from it, or above it.

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by straw man

Really? That's a little insulting to the millions who died. They were never classed as terrorists.

You can question the law. You can question the courts. What you can't do is mock the law and declare yourself immune from it, or above it.

whats more you can appeal the courts decisions all the way to the ECHR

[relentless]

Originally Posted by straw man

Really? What you can't do is mock the law and declare yourself immune from it, or above it.

Why not?

[msbpunk]

Originally Posted by relentless

Why not?

Well, of course you can. But you will still be treated just like anyone else and will have to take the consequences.