ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS by Richard C. Donaldson and Alfred Adask The individual Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that, The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person. McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus. [Emphasis added.] Notice the verdicts confrontational language: fighting, combat, and most surprising, belligerent. Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being passive or ignorant? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be belligerent IN COURT...? Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system. Clearly, we must do SOMETHING, for as Sir Edmund Burke said, The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. But apathy (doing nothing) isnt simply a function of cowardice or indifference; apathy is a synonym for ignorance. What is it -- apathy or ignorance? I dont know and I dont care. Ignorance makes the public more manageable in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizens Rights, government has a vested interest in the publics ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false, education on what our Rights should be. If you are a product [victim] of the public school system then consider this, The Department of Education gets what it pays for. ...and you need to get yourself smart -- the sooner the better! This is not a good time for dumb-ass. Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. Silence gives rise to fraud - or - silence gives rise to agreement. What better way to acquiesce than to not object? Acquiescence is acceptance! Jack Lancaster: Only Belligerents Have Rights Fight Your Way To Freedom! Temples Of Baal The Temples Of Baal The Pro-Se Litigant Movement, a perspective The United States is a Corporation For Further Study: Belligerent Claimant Belligerent Claimant Belligerent Claimant (different) Belligerent Claimant Court Speak Dealing with Contempt of Court and much more... Notes on PERSON Lawful Arrest, Search, Seizure, FAQ See also, Competent Counsel Questionaire Competent Counsel Questionaire ARE LAWYERS AND ATTORNEYS LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW? Proof That An Attorneys Retainer Is A Rip Off Lawyers and Attorneys Are Not Licensed To Practice Law The Pro Se Litigant movement, the militia, jural society and de jure government HOW TO ARGUE AND WIN EVERY TIME Gerry Spence HOW TO ARGUE AND WIN EVERY TIME Gee, someone say, contempt? USING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT USING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT Sue A Judge? Judicial Immunity? Visit caught.net Get to Know The State of Texas Get to Know The State of Texas THE STATE OF TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS Annexation of Texas? Social Security Wards Ancillary information: US CODE: Title 15, § 1127 Construction and definitions F.Y.I.: Believe it or not, everybodys case is pretty much the same. The System (b)leeds you to believe you are some kind of special case. The absurd accusations they have brought against you are NOT a mistake. It is a SCAM to keep you dizzy with and in fear. Its NOT about misunderstanding you -- THEY ARE DOING IT DELIBERATELY! Remember: Its their system - not yours. FOLKLORE? A man who, appeared on a criminal charge. The judge asked him if his name was John Doe He replied; My mother told me that was my name. This statement then cannot be used to certify the identity of the defendant, as it is hearsay. The judge looked at him a little funny, and asked, How do you plead? To which the man replied, Judge, Im ready to plead but first I want to know who is going to certify the charges to the court? That is all he said, and after the judge haggled with the clueless prosecutor a while, he cut him loose. Probably because they could not certify his identity, as he declined to testify as to his identity. CONSIDER: No one ever appears their strongest when theyre on the defensive. Responding to every argument can dilute the strength of your [closing] arguments. Dont let your opponent lead you down rabbit trails, because those trails never lead anywhere that you want to go. Instead, stick to the theme of your case, argue your strongest points, and only address the arguments that you need to rebut. When you do, your closing argument will be more persuasive, compelling the jurors to give you the verdict that you are looking for.
Posted on: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 04:02:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015