Only Belligerents Have Rights
ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS
by Richard C. Donaldson and Alfred AdaskThe 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. It's 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 verdict's 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") isn't simply a function of cowardice or indifference; "apathyv" is a synonym for "ignorance".
What is it -- apathy or ignorance? "I don't know and I don't 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 citizen's Rights, government has a vested interest in the public's 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!
The Pro-Se Litigant Movement, a perspective
The United States is a Corporation
For Further Study:
Belligerent Claimant (different)
Dealing with Contempt of Court and much more...
Lawful Arrest, Search, Seizure, FAQ
See also,
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
Gerry Spence HOW TO ARGUE AND
WIN EVERY TIME
Gee, someone say, "contempt"?
Sue A Judge? Judicial Immunity? Visit caught.net
Get to Know The State of Texas
Annexation of Texas?
Ancillary information:
US CODE: Title 15, § 1127 Construction and definitions
F.Y.I.: Believe it or not, everybody's 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, I'm 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 they're on the defensive.
Responding to every argument can dilute the strength of your [closing] arguments. Don't 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.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Natural Rights and The Patriot Act
PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE
When you look around the web, you'll find a public servant questionnaire, but not like this one. I converted it to a single page so you can get a multi-part NCR form made up at Kinkos, Staples, Office Depot, etc.. Keep some by the door to your house and in your glove compartment to give to [any] law enforcement officers who want to ask you questions. Before answering theirs, I can make them answer mine. You'll find supporting law in 5 U.S.C. 552a. By Bob Hurt
Specialty Areas
All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence. | ||
 |
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
