Alright, so I read through it. Didn't get much of a grasp of it, but I'll try anyway. So what would sheriffs do? Enforce laws that legislatures write? Traffic? What would happen to local and state police? How are jails, houses of correction and work houses different? What is a work house anyway?
I also understand that capitalized letters have altered meanings (not getting into the all-caps corporate property thing here); you typed 'codes, statutes and regulations' both capitalized and all lowercase. How are they different?
Sheriffs protect the rights of their people in their counties. those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, first 10 amendments of the constitution. Sheriffs are supposed to interpose themselves between their people and any government servant entity, invaders, criminal banks, and criminal judges...........
Legislators write laws that are to regulate themselves, corporations..............NOT the people.
Traffic: we, the people have the right to travel; that should never be interfered with. They have no right to demand licenses, excise taxes and all the other crap they demand. Rules of the road are a little different because they impose some order on what could be very chaotic and highly dangerous. As far as traffic tickets are concerned, those are nothing but theft in illegitimate courts and money makers for the cops. Commercial travel might need some oversight but I haven't looked at it that much.
By rights, local and state police would be under the sheriff's purview, deputies---that we, the people have a say about. We have NO say about local and state cops and they do not answer to US.
Jails, houses of correction, work houses are all pretty similar concepts. Yes, we need places to put those who would harm others but that whole thing is way out of control with little to no due process and even less jurisdiction.
I did capitalize the first letters of some of the words but I attach no particular meaning except that they are important terms or for emphasis. Other than that, I am not addressing the all-caps issue. It's another discussion and is not at the heart of the matter.
Your comment concerning "American Constitutional Law" and British Common Law is interesting. Constitutional law is COMMON LAW. It always was and is still intended to be common law. Our founders, all the people of that time (compared to now) cherished common law, recognizing that people were very able to take care of their own disputes, injuries, and losses. Our common law was carried over from Britain; it was King George who was doing his best to subjugate the colonists and take away their common law rights. The onerous "justice" system that we suffer under now is not what we are supposed to have. That was criminally stolen from us in 1934 by The Enabling Act. As a people, we have become less and less educated about these things and so we have no awareness when we are being abused.
My understanding of your comment, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that sheriffs don't enforce state/local laws, but rather prevent local and state police from enforcing unconstitutional laws on us? Would be great if that was the case.
About legislators making laws to regulate themselves... that would kind of nullify all of the first laws, not necessarily any amendments written and passed after the Bill of Rights, that the Founders wrote and passed in to law. That would make the Whiskey Tax unconstitutional, as well as the sedition part of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Maybe even the alien part too, as that would insinuate that laws preventing the crossing of our southern border without going through customs is illegal.
This is about the biggest can of worms I could imagine. Not calling you an idiot; I feel the sovereign citizen movement has some legitimate grievances, even though I haven't researched it but have a general idea, but I feel that they should do some hard thinking about their positions, as well as bounce ideas off each other and people of different political beliefs.
Alright, so I read through it. Didn't get much of a grasp of it, but I'll try anyway. So what would sheriffs do? Enforce laws that legislatures write? Traffic? What would happen to local and state police? How are jails, houses of correction and work houses different? What is a work house anyway?
I also understand that capitalized letters have altered meanings (not getting into the all-caps corporate property thing here); you typed 'codes, statutes and regulations' both capitalized and all lowercase. How are they different?
Sheriffs protect the rights of their people in their counties. those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, first 10 amendments of the constitution. Sheriffs are supposed to interpose themselves between their people and any government servant entity, invaders, criminal banks, and criminal judges...........
Legislators write laws that are to regulate themselves, corporations..............NOT the people.
Traffic: we, the people have the right to travel; that should never be interfered with. They have no right to demand licenses, excise taxes and all the other crap they demand. Rules of the road are a little different because they impose some order on what could be very chaotic and highly dangerous. As far as traffic tickets are concerned, those are nothing but theft in illegitimate courts and money makers for the cops. Commercial travel might need some oversight but I haven't looked at it that much.
By rights, local and state police would be under the sheriff's purview, deputies---that we, the people have a say about. We have NO say about local and state cops and they do not answer to US.
Jails, houses of correction, work houses are all pretty similar concepts. Yes, we need places to put those who would harm others but that whole thing is way out of control with little to no due process and even less jurisdiction.
I did capitalize the first letters of some of the words but I attach no particular meaning except that they are important terms or for emphasis. Other than that, I am not addressing the all-caps issue. It's another discussion and is not at the heart of the matter.
Your comment concerning "American Constitutional Law" and British Common Law is interesting. Constitutional law is COMMON LAW. It always was and is still intended to be common law. Our founders, all the people of that time (compared to now) cherished common law, recognizing that people were very able to take care of their own disputes, injuries, and losses. Our common law was carried over from Britain; it was King George who was doing his best to subjugate the colonists and take away their common law rights. The onerous "justice" system that we suffer under now is not what we are supposed to have. That was criminally stolen from us in 1934 by The Enabling Act. As a people, we have become less and less educated about these things and so we have no awareness when we are being abused.
My understanding of your comment, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that sheriffs don't enforce state/local laws, but rather prevent local and state police from enforcing unconstitutional laws on us? Would be great if that was the case.
About legislators making laws to regulate themselves... that would kind of nullify all of the first laws, not necessarily any amendments written and passed after the Bill of Rights, that the Founders wrote and passed in to law. That would make the Whiskey Tax unconstitutional, as well as the sedition part of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Maybe even the alien part too, as that would insinuate that laws preventing the crossing of our southern border without going through customs is illegal.
This is about the biggest can of worms I could imagine. Not calling you an idiot; I feel the sovereign citizen movement has some legitimate grievances, even though I haven't researched it but have a general idea, but I feel that they should do some hard thinking about their positions, as well as bounce ideas off each other and people of different political beliefs.