Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: On Ownership

  1. #1

    On Ownership

    This is regarding the Triumvirate:



    I spoke with a suitor being charged with felony wiretapping for recording the police breaking into his car. I presume he was inside the car recording things on his phone - likely presumptions if you don't mind for now. As this develops I will fill in details for the edification of Readers and Members here.

    For One- it smacks of desperation. Once in, the police could not find so much as a cold roach, in other words.

    Secondly though, this charge taken literally, and presumed to drive a plea for lesser charges exposes something delightful. Wiretapping is a violation, monitoring or intercepting signal intelligence that is not meant for you; in other words information that is owned prior to it becoming illegitimately obtained by the defendant.

    The phone monitors information of sight and sound.

    Therefore the claim in the charge is that the experience of the police breaking into the car - the sights and sounds - are signal intelligence, that is information that is owned by the "charging authority".

    My premise as clarified by watching a rerun of Kung Fu last night is that true ownership cannot be derived by registration and intentional subjugation alone. There must be a CHRIST Jesus component called Truth. In the episode, young Jody FOSTER believes she saw CAINE shoot a man dead. During the skirmish that is what her young eyes saw. - Her perceptions, albeit not knowledge. CAINE flashed back to his loss of innocence when he lied to protect a thief from execution. While the life of the thief was preserved, it saddened Master PO that CAINE was compelled to lie.

    I have often thought that for a left lane light violation, and the traditional offer to plead down to a broken headlight it would be amusing when returning to the courtroom after the DA meeting/agreement and say:

    Yes your honor. Before the memory of my dead mother and God himself I swear up and down before this honorable court that I did not run a pink left turn arrow and instead what I did was continue driving my car around town with a broken headlight. I swear to God!

    I think that might be my kind of fun!



    P.S. My point being the dishonorable flourish on your dishonor.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    134
    Interesting Ken Cousens video. At minute 6 1/2 he projects a quote...
    Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity".
    Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773
    But I can't find the Supreme Court saying that anywhere; that quote. However it's very nearly a quote from The Story of the Buck Act by McDonald and Modeleski.
    Last edited by lorne; 02-27-16 at 03:47 AM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Therefore the claim in the charge is that the experience of the police breaking into the car - the sights and sounds - are signal intelligence, that is information that is owned by the "charging authority".
    Total BS.
    If that is the case then how and why would a tv news agency purchase video from someone shot on their phones?
    The police tried to stop people from filming them before many times by taking them to court for it and they lose.
    The only way I can see them claiming ownership to the video if the video was shot on private property with out consent.

    Plea bargain so they won't get sued.
    If there is damage to the car then a good counter claim (tort) should be raised.

    Oh yeah, you have no standing in court unless you register the NAME as a DBA.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by lorne View Post
    Interesting Ken Cousens video. At minute 6 1/2 he projects a quote...


    But I can't find the Supreme Court saying that anywhere; that quote. However it's very nearly a quote from The Story of the Buck Act by McDonald and Modeleski.

    Can't help you finding that case but here is the Canadian equivalent of being held as Federal/state/municipal property.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAaog7WvJ5k

  5. #5
    What the police and such are doing is called malicious prosecution, perjury (false charges/oaths), coercion. Raising a prosecution for the purposes of coercing might also constitute conspiracy against rights: because the collusion and lying at the outset betrays a conspiracy to deprive one of the right of life, liberty or a fair trial from the get-go. Under one of the most early (and still standing AfAIK) definitions of terrorism such a thing might constitute a type of coercion:

    criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.
    And that is exactly what it is because the office holders know they are lying. Filming in public is not wiretapping even a 5 year old could soundly agree to that.

    In the late 1930s, the international community made a first attempt at defining terrorism. Article 1.1 of the League of Nations' 1937 Convention for the prevention and punishment of Terrorism,[34] which never entered into force, defined "acts of terrorism" as "criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public". Article 2 included as terrorist acts, if they were directed against another state and if they constituted acts of terrorism within the meaning of the definition contained in article 1, the following:



    1. Any willful act causing death or grievous bodily harm or loss of liberty to:

    a) Heads of State, persons exercising the prerogatives of the head of the State, their hereditary or designated successors;
    b) The wives or husbands or the above-mentioned persons;
    c) Persons charged with public functions or holding public positions when the act is directed against them in their public capacity.

    2. Willful destruction of, or damage to, public property or property devoted to a public purpose belonging to or subject to the authority of another High Contracting Party.

    3. Any willful act calculated to endanger the lives of members of the public. <<<

    4. Any attempt to commit an offence falling within the foregoing provisions of the present article.

    5. The manufacture, obtaining, possession, or supplying of arms, ammunition, explosives or harmful substances with the view to the commission in any country whatsoever of an offence falling within the present article. <<< {Taking up armed employment as a government official with intent to use that employment in support of terrorism}
    Criminals disguised as police are not police--its very simple. (P.S. I highlighted something in red. If you know something about U.S.A. history....) I have seen myself the League of Nations definition wielded successfully in a case (sealed case) in the past four years to shutdown rogue cop activity in the USA.

    "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

    Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

    Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
    Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
    If one or more persons get together to coerce a population into accepting abuse or to steer them from exercising their rights or to control their voting somehow...according to the current USDOJ definition of terrorism, even men disguised as government officials doing such things would be terrorists. Whether those perpetrating such things are disguised as government officials or not, if they are doing such things to make a populace too afraid to report crimes or kidnapping or abducting people (and calling it 'arrests') and they are doing these things to affect the conduct of government or they are out to intimidate or coerce a population through such conduct or if they are out to influence the policy of a government (such as "accept this or be {shot/abducted/sodomized/raped}) then according to the USDOJ it is terrorism.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    For One- it smacks of desperation. Once in, the police could not find so much as a cold roach, in other words.
    And would not 'desperate' be part of typical MSM profile of a terrorist?
    Last edited by allodial; 02-28-16 at 11:06 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  6. #6
    ..........
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  7. #7

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •