Cold, dead hands: Buffalo to seize guns from families following owners' funerals

[dtwarren]

Why would one want to call the sovereignty prosecuting the case to the stand? What are they going to testify too, even if they were a flesh and blood being? They are not the plaintiff, they are not a witness, they were not there.

However when the plaintiff (injured party) is a fictitious corporate entity, how do you call them to the stand to cross-examine them? They don't exist in the real world, therefore how can you infringe upon their life, liberty, or property?

Either you have the right to confront your accuser under the 6th and 14th Amendments or you don't. Constitutional/Common law says you do. There is only one other jurisdiction (using several names) that I know of that allows them to toss out the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If you are referring to a corporate entity they are represented by their corporate officers which can be questioned/cross-examined.

[Chant]

If you are referring to a corporate entity they are represented by their corporate officers which can be questioned/cross-examined.

Ok. Using the traffic court rolling through a stop sign example again.

When I call "THE CITY OF ____" (which is the plaintiff listed in the court papers) to the stand, who will show up? The Mayor? The Chief of Police? The dog catcher?

None of them were present at the scene, what are they going to testify to? None of them personally had their life, liberty, or property trespassed on.
They may have a police officer's report, but the only thing they can do is read it. Its somebody else's words that they are repeating so its hearsay.
The police officer them-self is only a witness, not the injured party.

[dtwarren]

Ok. Using the traffic court rolling through a stop sign example again.

When I call "THE CITY OF ____" (which is the plaintiff listed in the court papers) to the stand, who will show up? The Mayor? The Chief of Police? The dog catcher?

None of them were present at the scene, what are they going to testify to? None of them personally had their life, liberty, or property trespassed on.
They may have a police officer's report, but the only thing they can do is read it. Its somebody else's words that they are repeating so its hearsay.
The police officer them-self is only a witness, not the injured party.

So now you are back to calling the sovereignty prosecuting the offense as a witness which I just explained that you cannot. Confronting the officer that cited you and any witness the the prosecution calls to support its case against is all you get.

[dtwarren]

If you are trying to say traffic violations are a victimless crime and should not be prosecuted. I disagree. Traffic violations are an offense against society as a whole. It has been long recognized that a person who operates an automobile on a highway in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Laws is a menace to the public. He exhibits no regard for the safety of his fellow man.

[Chant]

So now you are back to calling the sovereignty prosecuting the offense as a witness which I just explained that you cannot. Confronting the officer that cited you and any witness the the prosecution calls to support its case against is all you get.

In what way did I call them a witness? I asked, "what are they, the prosecuting sovereignty, going to testify to?"

You do know what the difference between a "witness" and a "plaintiff" is, correct?

The Bill of Rights gives you the right to confront your accuser in court, yes or no?

If your accuser (the plaintiff) is a fictitious corporate entity and does not exist in the real world as you do as a flesh and blood human being, how can you face them in court to exercise your right to confront them as the accuser?

The answer is... you can't. So in what way is your 6th and 14th Amendment rights being protected in this process?

The original question to Sam the Man was, if what I stated before is all just imaginary, how do the courts get away with skirting the Bill of Rights protections time after time?

The question is very simple: Do you have rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Yes or No?

If you say, "yes", then there is a problem here with the system.

If you say, "No", then rejoice, because you are getting exactly want you expect.

If you say "Sometimes"... then you just might be on the verge of catching onto the scam.

[Chant]

If you are trying to say traffic violations are a victimless crime and should not be prosecuted. I disagree. Traffic violations are an offense against society as a whole. It has been long recognized that a person who operates an automobile on a highway in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Laws is a menace to the public. He exhibits no regard for the safety of his fellow man.

Ok. Then whom is the injured party?

Show where there is a loss of life, liberty, or property.

This all leads back to the same debate.
Unless you have a living human soul as a injured party, traffic violations are just a violation of corporate statute.
Just for giggles - can anyone point out where corporations have protected rights in the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights?

[sharky]

permits shouldn't be needed to simply possess a handgun
it's a BS unconstitutional law, especially when considering it takes over 1 year in Erie County to get the permit

that said, this is why it's important for spouses or children to also get a permit and co-register the guns even if they're not that interested in guns themselves. In the case of them not wanting the guns after the primary owner dies having them on their own permit at least gives them time to sell them for fair value instead of having to immediately get rid of them

[dtwarren]

Ok. Then whom is the injured party?

Show where there is a loss of life, liberty, or property.

This all leads back to the same debate.
Unless you have a living human soul as a injured party, traffic violations are just a violation of corporate statute.
Just for giggles - can anyone point out where corporations have protected rights in the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights?

Now you are just going in circles.

[Chant]

Now you are just going in circles.

That is only because you are not grasping the difference between Constitutional/Common Law and Contract Law (Admiralty/Maritime/Corporate/Statutory Jurisdiction)

In one, the Constitution and Bill of Rights exist (and are supposedly protected), and it the other they do not exist.

In the traffic law court you would so happily uphold, you give up all your rights in favor of a contract. There is no middle-ground, no compromise, no you still have this right just not that one... they are gone, period. The "law" is now the terms of the contract, and guess what? You are not going to know what those terms are. Only the courts will know what all the terms are.

So that's why you hire a lawyer? Great! However, know what you actually did was admit to the court that you can't handle your own affairs when you do, and by doing so you now become a ward of the court.
People like our buddy Sam make their living, not by "defending you" as they so jokingly call it, but by negotiating your contract (that in most cases you are not even aware you entered into) for you. If they were really "defending you", don't you think they would inform you about the contract? That the contract is a unilateral one? Or that you have given up your rights by consenting to it? (Bet you didn't know you consented... but you did.)

No, they will not. They don't have any more obligation to inform you than the courts do. (Plus it hurts their pocket books) In fact they view it as you are already suppose to know what jurisdiction the court is operating under when you walk into the court room.
The phrase, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," that they like to toss around... this is what it actually refers to.
If you do not claim your rights at the very start, the courts see it as you do not care about your rights, and that it's your permission to go ahead and try you under statutory jurisdiction... which is what? Contract Law.

And in this way, my friend... is how they get around the Constitution and Bill of Rights to try you for violations of corporate statute. It is the only venue where a fictitious corporate entity (that doesn't exist in the real world) can be the injured party against a flesh and blood human being.
It totally flies in the face of what the Founders had set up. Its the system they left behind in Britain and wanted to get away from (BTW - ask Sam what B.A.R. stands for). Its one of the things they fought a war for freedom against.

And hey... they sneaked it (Admiralty Law) back on to land in the US around 1841, by about 1933 it replaced Constitutional/Common Law (some judges will conveniently not consider case law before 1933 now because of that), and somewhere in the 1950's the flag of National Colors replaced the American Flag in courtrooms to symbolize what jurisdiction the courts were now operating under.

Oh yes... Sam is probably jumping up and down now, and he'll of course come back with what he probably thinks is a witty remark about how ridiculous all that is. But the thing is, Sam made/makes his living off this system 'legally' defrauding people, just like every other person within that system... so of course he's going to deny it all.
Think I'm wrong? Then try this little experiment...

The next time you are in your beloved traffic court (or any court for that matter), after you admit to your name being "DT WARREN", just mention your rights to the judge and see how fast that judge threatens you with a contempt charge if you mention them again.
Then ask yourself what's wrong with this picture?

But hey, its your right to give up your rights in favor of a contract if that is your wish. Because nobody can force you into a contract you do not want, correct? Oh wait... but first you have to know about or be aware of the contract to exercise your right to consent or not of your own free will.
Huge bummer when they don't tell you, and take it as blind fact that you know, and by their own rules take your lack of protest as acceptance.
And in that lays the scam of this huge money making machine that is the modern justice system.

[TheDude]

Now you are just going in circles.

This guy is into some wacky conspiracy theories, you should probably save the keystrokes.

[Chant]

This guy is into some wacky conspiracy theories, you should probably save the keystrokes.

Oh, really?

Perhaps you, in your grand wisdom, can explain how Constitutional rights can be ignored in modern courts then?

I await your 'enlightenment'. ;-)

[TheDude]

Oh, really?

Perhaps you, in your grand wisdom, can explain how Constitutional rights can be ignored in modern courts then?

I await your 'enlightenment'. ;-)

You are right, sorry random guy on the internet, you are much more well versed than 200 years of jurisprudence. Also, that was sarcasm because I am pretty sure you don't understand that either.

[Save Us]

I guess I will have to say this again because most citizens are clueless with regard to the importance of the second amendment..

albeit a slight bent from the specific discussion, but


My concern is that the second amendment puts parity between the citizens of the nation and the government with regard to defensive firearms. The second amendment did not say that the Government shall have rifles and the the citizens are allowed to have edged weapons or slings etc. Obviously with the increase and implementation of technology ie. sat com, apv s etc only so much is possible, but one should be mindful of the intent of the second amendment. Only a fool, or one ignorant of millenia of human history would think that situations like wounded knee, japanese internment, tuskegee experimentation, or any false flag. etc etc. are no longer possible with our government or any government. The passage of the patriot act is especially disturbing. This is how these things drift....mission creep.

The increasing power and reach of our central government was exactly the thing that our founding fathers warned against. I would also say this applies to state government. The second amendment ensures that the citizenry has the ability to thwart these cycles which history shows happen time and time again across all countries and civilizations.

Now to add.....It should be clear to anyone that a government can make it onerous and cumbersome to procure a firearm. The question is just how arduous should it be for somebody to exercise that right?

Gun laws seem to limit the freedom of law abiding citizens. Who among you can tell me that a criminal is going to be affected by any of these measures.

Some of the worst gun violence are in areas that have the strictest laws.. do criminals care? Hell no.

[Save Us]

You are right, sorry random guy on the internet, you are much more well versed than 200 years of jurisprudence. Also, that was sarcasm because I am pretty sure you don't understand that either.

Funny you should bring up 200 years of jurisprudence..Do a little research and see just how far we have drifted in the last 200 years. A good question is are we finally done in 15 thousand plus years of these types of cycles where government builds up is taken down and built up again? Obviously not because the engine behind government ie. Human nature never changes.

People would be wise to study and pay attention to history.

[Chant]

Funny you should bring up 200 years of jurisprudence..Do a little research and see just how far we have drifted in the last 200 years. A good question is are we finally done in 15 thousand plus years of these types of cycles where government builds up is taken down and built up again? Obviously not because the engine behind government ie. Human nature never changes.

People would be wise to study and pay attention to history.

I was going to reply to this, but really no need now thanks to Save Us.

It constantly amazes me how most people for themselves cannot add up 1+1+1 and get 3, because the powers-that-be tell them its 4 during the week but on weekends its 2.
The history is there & its open for anyone who wants it, the acts of infringements are as plain as day and happening on a daily basis, you see on TV, hear it on the radio, and read about it in the newspaper... and almost nobody questions it. They just blindly accept.

I've grown to accept the fact that the human ego is fragile, and that most people cannot admit to themselves that they have been so thoroughly taken for a sucker, and scammed for so long... and they will deny it till their dying breath.

It sucks that politicians, judges, and lawyers laugh their heads off at the rest of society all the way to the bank... but when your education tells you something that's fact, and what you are seeing happening time and time again doesn't jive with the way you know how it should be... and you don't question it, you don't investigate it, you don't protest it...
Then you deserve to be taken for that ride and suckered I suppose.