Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

02-13-2008, 04:55 AM

I need to run this buy all... since it's the community funding this place and Paypal seems to be the method for them and for us.

For $59.95, you get a downloadable audio and written package to teach you the arraignment procedure, the pre-trial motions, trial strategy, and the appeal. (The Stop the Cop Package is 14.5 MB)

I was thinking how much good we could do with thousands of tracker users having it and beating charges.

IMHO it would make a great torrent and empower a lot of people, but like I said, it's community funds so I seek approval.

pojohnny · 02-13-2008, 05:34 AM

I'd think those kinds of tactics would involve a huge degree of charisma. The defendant would not only need the facts that these torrents could provide, but also the psychological presence, in a courtroom, to pull it off and answer questions that couldn't be responded to with only a superficial familiarity of the law. It's a recipe for failure, imo. The facts don't matter. And your average forum/torrent junkie ain't gonna have enough mojo to make it work in a real world situation.

That's my opinion because I know I couldn't do it effectively. Your millage may vary.

blove8. · 02-13-2008, 05:41 AM

good points pojohnny, i also wonder if having this or purchasing something like this implies guilt in itself or a plan to be guilty of crimes in the future. i think there is plenty of info out there open source and free that there isn't much reason to buy this. i haven't seen it tho. is there a link somewhere?

02-13-2008, 05:42 AM

I guess I'm just one of the bolder ones then.

I actually wrote the stop the cop folks and asked them some questions.... one of which was "if the judge tried to enter a plea on your behalf, why not respond with: Sir, that's not allowed, and since you obviously don't fully undertsand the law regarding this, please read your oath and bond information into the court record this instant, as I doubt you preside from the bench legally"

When you listen to their advice, versus what I'd have done, I'd have backed them right up to the wall... right then... right there, no messing around. They pussyfoot.

LoopRadar · 02-13-2008, 06:08 AM

I'd say yes.
If people know what their right, duties and remedies are, they may act accordingly.
At least they'll have the choise.

Like Alan Watt once said; "The choise not to know is also a choise."

LR

pojohnny · 02-13-2008, 06:19 AM

Well, the bolder ones may act accordingly. Maybe it's just my vaccination speaking.

blove8. · 02-13-2008, 06:26 AM

what makes ya think you'll even get to see a judge? :wink:

pojohnny · 02-13-2008, 07:15 AM

Quote:I'd say yes.
If people know what their right, duties and remedies are, they may act accordingly.
At least they'll have the choise.

Like Alan Watt once said; "The choise not to know is also a choise."

LR

I've given that further thought and have come to the conclusion that "to know" equals knowing the system is not designed for truth, justice and fairness. That's what knowing is. It's not a question of knowing how to claim your 'rights, duties and remedies' within the system that's been handed down from the top. Fighting legalism with legalism is a losing battle. Especially when someone else has written the law.

To me, it furthers my appreciation of the answer Jesus gave when questioned by Pilate. Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" He answered, "So you say."

Were you guilty of speeding? (Well, who's to say what speeding is... they are to say, it's their system.) "So you say"

See what I mean? Jesus already had this all worked out. It's actually a very sophisticated answer if you think about what it implies.

al_uh_looyah · 02-13-2008, 07:50 AM

i got the audio on my old computer (without www) from this tracker. i was unimpressed with the program. maybe if i had the written materials it would have been better.
If you've got your political status straight, you can travel on the roads lawfully. if you're engaged in commerce at the time you're stopped, it might be a different story. If you're corporate fiction signed the driver's license, and you claim that corporate fiction at the stop, then you're liable for the statutory infraction that the officer caught "you" in.
http://thinkfree.ca is pretty tits.
i also like: http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm

LoopRadar · 02-13-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:I've given that further thought and have come to the conclusion that "to know" equals knowing the system is not designed for truth, justice and fairness. That's what knowing is. It's not a question of knowing how to claim your 'rights, duties and remedies' within the system that's been handed down from the top. Fighting legalism with legalism is a losing battle. Especially when someone else has written the law.

To me, it furthers my appreciation of the answer Jesus gave when questioned by Pilate. Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" He answered, "So you say."

Were you guilty of speeding? (Well, who's to say what speeding is... they are to say, it's their system.) "So you say"

See what I mean? Jesus already had this all worked out. It's actually a very sophisticated answer if you think about what it implies.

And you live your everyday life on those principles?
If you do, good for you!
For me, I need something tangible and practical in addition to my personal ideals and what I'd wish the world was like (and hope it someday will be).
(And following that thought, I think the Canadian Freeman movement is a good example.)

LR

eyeland · 02-13-2008, 03:08 PM

I think it would be worth having as part of over all resistance.

It's like having a shot gun under your bed. You may not be a crack shot but you feel a whole lot safer and will probably do a bit of damage, the assailant will think twice next time.

02-13-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:
Quote:I'd say yes.
If people know what their right, duties and remedies are, they may act accordingly.
At least they'll have the choise.

Like Alan Watt once said; "The choise not to know is also a choise."

LR
I've given that further thought and have come to the conclusion that "to know" equals knowing the system is not designed for truth, justice and fairness. That's what knowing is. It's not a question of knowing how to claim your 'rights, duties and remedies' within the system that's been handed down from the top. Fighting legalism with legalism is a losing battle. Especially when someone else has written the law.

To me, it furthers my appreciation of the answer Jesus gave when questioned by Pilate. Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" He answered, "So you say."

Were you guilty of speeding? (Well, who's to say what speeding is... they are to say, it's their system.) "So you say"

See what I mean? Jesus already had this all worked out. It's actually a very sophisticated answer if you think about what it implies.

Have you seen the film Al posted a link to, called the Magnificent Deception? If you watch it you'll see where I'm coming from.

When the Magna Carta was written, King John had put into it that the rights granted therein last forever. He was the law of the land at the time, and such proclamation where legal. Who's some judge to tell me now that I do not have the RIGHT to use His Majesty's highways and need to pay a toll?.... or ask permission be getting a licence? Since I already was granted such rights, and in my country the prosecutor is called the CROWN prosecutor and is said to represent the monarch, why not hold them to task? In the interests of safety, why wont the gov't pass a law saying a driving skill/knowledge test is required? That they DO have a prerogative to do.... but to be on the highways themselves is a RIGHT.

I don't think you understand when I'm coming from. This isn't about getting off, it's about getting FREE.
Watch The Magnificent Deception please, you'll understand what I mean.

02-13-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:i got the audio on my old computer (without www) from this tracker. i was unimpressed with the program. maybe if i had the written materials it would have been better.
If you've got your political status straight, you can travel on the roads lawfully. if you're engaged in commerce at the time you're stopped, it might be a different story. If you're corporate fiction signed the driver's license, and you claim that corporate fiction at the stop, then you're liable for the statutory infraction that the officer caught "you" in.
http://thinkfree.ca is pretty tits.
i also like: http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm

That's only a sample audio Al. The site explains there is more to be had, both in audio and forms.
All the sample really deals with is arraignments or "first appearance" as it's called in Canada. There's also preliminary hearing (USA, Grand jury) trial and appeal. We've only heard a small morsel.

02-13-2008, 03:49 PM

I'll throw this at you too pojohnny, why should I be forced to be tried in a military tribunal aka "Admiralty law". Why wont they give people trials under common law?

I'll tell you why, because under common law, there's actually NEEDS to be DAMAGES of some sort. IOW, sombody must suffer loss, injury, damage to property etc for a crime to even be commited.

Now for an example.... I've driving the #2 Highway between Edmonton and Calgary and my car breaks down. I coast to the side of the road, over the shoulder, and up onto the adjacent grass well out of any danger to either myself or the public. Since my cell phone was forgotten at home I begin walking to the nearest pay phone to call a tow truck to have it towed home. By the time I get back to my car, it's gone. The City of Calgary has ticketed it and impounded it for parking on the freeway.

My car was harming nobody, I was making my best attempt to have it removed in reasonable time, yet now I have to pay towing to a location that doesn't benefit me, I have to pay the ticket itself, and I have to pay storage fees to the impound yard.

My car breaking down hurt nobody. Parking it on the grass OFF OF the shoulder wasn't putting anyone at risk, and since nobody was hurt I should not have been ticketed.

Doesn't that sound a little tyrannical on the part of the City of Calgary? It happens every day here.

The ticket itself if disputed in court will not be tried civilly as there's no sworn statement by and injured party, nor is an injured party present. The court will try the "offence" criminally, yet for ANYTHING to be a crime two conditions MUST exist TOGETHER. 1) Actus Reus... the act itself... IOW the car parked where it should not have been, 2) Mens Rea ... called in english, "criminal intent".

The question is, although actus reus seems to have happened, did mens rea? Did I INTEND to park it there in violation of the law or was I simply doing my duty to others by moving it to safety? I would submit only 1 of 2 prerequisites occured, thus it wasn't a crime and no parking ticket should result.

See where I'm coming from now?

pojohnny · 02-13-2008, 04:47 PM

I'd say you've got a strong case there, Ctrl. And what they did does sound absolutely tyrannical.

Here in the State, their selling off our publicly paid for highways and turning them into private toll roads. It's infuriating.

I'll check out that movie that you mentioned. Thanks for the heads up, I missed the link to that earlier.