Add new comment

Dear anonymous, I think we need to start with the spirit of the laws themselves. Legislators can dictate that it is unlawful to eat a peanut butter sandwich, but, we have to ask ourselves, is it "just"? I think it would be obvious to most that No, it is ridiculous. Our just laws come about from natural circumstances. Or perhaps more specifically God's laws, or the Ten Commandments. This is the basis for our Constitution given us back around 1776. ((The common law(judge created law based on common sense and fairness) was made part of our judicial process when we were founded.)) And as far as I can tell, nowhere in the Ten Commandments does it say that I have the privelege to travel, so long as the state permits me and grants me a license to do so. Your license is a contract. Don't contract with the State if you don't feel compelled. This would refute the DUI circumstance. Although we know that driving while under the influence is stupid, there is no Constitutional law prohibiting it. And until we have an injured party, there is no crime. The State doesn't qualify as an injured party. The State is a piece of paper. But in order for the State to have jurisdiction to adjudicate your "case", you have to be a piece of paper too. You, as a State created fiction, will be seen in paper form as ANONYMOUS. If you agree, or likewise, don't disagree, that you are that piece of paper, not a flesh and blood human, they will have jurisdiction to prosecute you. When the court asks you your name, or if they ask you to state your name for the record, and you give it, you are contracting with the court to give this piece of paper a flesh and blood basis. The State has no authority granted them from the Constitution to prosecute a man for traveling, whether by foot, boat, car, plane,... unless there is an injured party during the course of such travels. The same can be said of drug use. Who is the injured party? UCC 1-103.6 (Here I am citing the Uniform Commercial Code, because after all, the courts only jurisdiction is commercial law or contracts, and the UCC covers contract law.) Am I going to file a claim against myself for smoking a joint? Why would the State feel it had that right? Unless the State felt that I, the flesh and blood human, were damaging there property. In the eyes of the State that is what we are. We are State property as long as we agree to be(contract with), or with our acquiesence, do the same. Without asserting your rights, you in fact, waive your rights. UCC 1-207.9 My point to all this is, that these laws give the State a way to collect more tax revenue, through citations, fines, court costs, yada yada yada... I'm sorry, I forgot to mention domestic disputes. Same holds true. There are so many laws on the books that you can't get through a day without breaking at least one. There is alot more to the story, but I think this should give you a good idea of where to look for more info. In summary, it seems to me that you are absolutely correct in your argument that we would have alot less convictions for these crimes if we asserted our rights, but then again, I probably wouldn't send someone to jail for eating a peanut butter sandwich:)