Is "searcher" a "Subject"?

[webhick]

I wish I knew how to drag that icon(?), beating a dead horse to some of my post

No dragging. Just click on it and the phrase "beatinghorse" will appear. Then, when you submit your post the image will be there.

[Pottapaug1938]

To Famspear,
Re: Ah, now I see what you mean. You mean "subject" as in "police talk."

I don't think the State Trooper would write or say, "I observed the Sovereign Citizen was traveling in excess of the speed limit."(:

Correct; but so what? You are still the "subject" of his/her report, not a "Subject" (like our friends in the UK are, in relation to HM The Queen).

[LPC]

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom ... Martin.htm

Judge Lynn Hughes does indeed make the "tax protester" comment as shown in the transcript of the December 19, 1996 hearing. It's obvious that he's trying to humor her. She's complaining because she's being called a "tax protester" in the negative sense, and Judge Hughes says that we should have more tax protesters (but not in the sense in which she's thinking).

The transcript is actually an interesting read, because the judge is fairly witty and has a surprisingly good grasp of history.

But you have to wonder why the judge spent 30+ pages in a duel of wits with an unarmed plaintiff.

[rogfulton]

It sounds like someone cannot distinguish between 'a subject' and 'the subject' if there is no article present.

Searcher may not use English as a first language or slept through English and Composition clases.

And no, in this case, English does not mean a nationality or citizenship description.

BTW, simply love the new Smilies layout although I miss the haveabeer.

[searcher]

OH MY !! Once again I left out a word that left my incomplete statement totally incomphren- sible & the word is, zone. I was doing 65 m.p.h.,in a POSTED 75 m.p.h.ZONE.I am so sorry for this humonguous, superduper error. Also, m.p.h. means, miles per hour. Nobody seems interested in saying if he/she thinks I am right as to whether this is unjust, being fined for "breaking the law" in a situation like this. I say it IS unjust. But I also see there is no use to respond to something that cannot be ridiculed. Right,Thule,pottapaug,burnaby,et.al. ?? OF COURSE !! You say I have revealed my true colors, so, I will reveal yours. How do you like dem apples SON ???

[searcher]

Re: webhick » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:09 pm
Thank you sincerely for your help. I hope you don't get rebuked, or worse, for trying to help me, from some of your so called friends.

[searcher]

pottapaug,
@ >Correct; but so what? You are still the "subject" of his/her report, not a "Subject" (like our friends in the UK are, in relation to HM The Queen).

I'm not to sure about that. You tell me then why I have many cases that say certain activities,etc., are basic absolute rights protected by both the State & Federal Constitutions,& LATER, years LATER,the Courts say those SAME once basic absolute rights are NOT rights but are privileges granted by the State? Beginning to sound like 1 of M R sovrunts ain't I ?? Oh yes, I'm sure I'll get some response to that last question,but certainly not to the first question. I do not want anything to do with the "sovrun" approaches I have seen, but I still do not understand what has happened to make something that once was a right, & not a privilege, to now, today, being only a privilege, & not a basic fundamental right.

The following is an excerpt from a State Supreme Court in the U.S.A. & are my feelings & thoughts EXACTLY !! What follows ARE my true colors.

"We feel like galley slaves chained to our oars by a power from which we cannot free ourselves, but like slaves of old we think we must cry out when we can see the boat heading into the maelstrom directly ahead of us; and by doing so, we hope the master of the craft will heed the call and avert the dangers which confront us all. But by raising our voices in protest we, like the galley slaves of old, expect to be lashed for doing so. We are confident that we will not be struck by 90 per cent of the people of this Nation who long for the return to the days when the Constitution was a document plain enough to be understood by all who read it, the meaning of which was set firmly like a jewel in the matrix of common sense and wise judicial decisions. We shall not complain if those who berate us belong to that small group who refuse to take an oath that they will not overthrow this government by force. When we bare our legal backs to receive the verbal lashes, we will try to be brave; and should the great court of these United States decide that in our thinking we have committed error, then we shall indeed feel honored, for we will then be placed on an equal footing with all those great justices who at this late date are also said to have been in error for so many years. In addition to what we have said about the meaning of the Federal Constitution, we are disturbed in the attitude of the criminal element in our society since the federal courts have arrogated unto themselves the powers and duties which rightfully belong to the state courts. It is a daily occurrence when some known burglar or thief flouts a police officer and threatens to “get his badge,” and threatens the trial judge with having him taken before the judge of the federal court."

"We have spoken in the hope that the Supreme Court of the United States may retreat from some of its recent decisions affecting the rights of a sovereign state to determine for its self what is proper procedure in its own courts as it affects its own citizens. However, we realize that because of that Court’s superior power, we must pay homage to it even though we disagree with it...."

[wserra]

The following is an excerpt from a State Supreme Court in the U.S.A. & are my feelings & thoughts EXACTLY !! What follows ARE my true colors.

"The following" is a lengthy quote from the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Utah in Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266 (1968). Dyett had pleaded guilty to passing bad checks in Utah state court - a felony - without a lawyer. While incarcerated as a result of his plea, he brought a federal writ over the issue of pleading to a felony without representation. The District Court, after examining the record, decided that it did not permit the conclusion that Dyett had waived his right to counsel as a matter of law, and remanded the issue to the Utah state courts for a determination on that issue.

In that context, the Utah Supreme Court essentially threw a legal hissy fit over the idea that some fed'rul interlopers might actually be able to interpret the United States Constitution for the people of Utah. Moreover, the decision is about as wrongheaded as any decided since the days of Dred Scott and slavery. You appear to be complaining about the overreaching of the federal government. In fact, the Dyett decision portrays a paternalistic view of government that I had thought gone from the legal scene by the late 1960s.

For many years Utah has been at the very head of our states in the Union in the matter of rehabilitation of prisoners. Our efforts have been directed toward teaching the wayfaring man to cease to do evil and to learn to do good.
...
The prime prerequisite toward a good relationship between a prisoner and his rehabiliation is his acknowledgment and acceptance of the fact that he has done wrong and a realization on his part that society is his benefactor trying to improve his lot so that he can become a useful citizen.
...
The time was when a lawyer could counsel his client to plead guilty and receive supervision and training, so that he might be a better citizen when he had paid his debt to society. Such advice came from honest lawyers who thought more of the future of the defendant than they did of getting a guilty man off.

Those were the days, right? If you're charged with a serious crime in the Great State of Utah, well, we know what's best for you. Innocent? As your lawyer will tell you, best to plead guilty and receive supervision and training, so that you might be a better citizen. An "honest lawyer" will decide for himself (how many women lawyers do you think there were in Utah in 1969?) that you are guilty and "advise" you accordingly. It really doesn't make much difference if you agree, does it? After all,

It has been intimated that a rich man can hire a loophole lawyer, and it is, therefore, a denial of due process to fail to furnish a poor man a loophole lawyer also.

Those "loophole lawyers" are always making trouble, aren't they? The good people of Utah would be better off without them. And, in any event,

The defendant who commits a crime is entitled to have counsel, but he is not entitled to a free ride at the expense of the public upon whom he has just been preying.

So we'll decide ahead of time whether you are "preying" on the public, we then know what's best for you, and we sure as hell know who's paying for it.

Nice case.

searcher, you have from time to time intimated that people here treat you unfairly. You would be treated with more respect if you actually made an effort to read and understand what you write about.

[Pottapaug1938]

pottapaug,
@ >Correct; but so what? You are still the "subject" of his/her report, not a "Subject" (like our friends in the UK are, in relation to HM The Queen).

I'm not to sure about that. You tell me then why I have many cases that say certain activities,etc., are basic absolute rights protected by both the State & Federal Constitutions,& LATER, years LATER,the Courts say those SAME once basic absolute rights are NOT rights but are privileges granted by the State?

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not you do indeed have those cases -- which, I doubt, prove the point you are trying to make -- you are evading the point which I am making, with something totally irrelevant. Even IF your assertion is correct, the fact that you were referred to as a "subject" in a police report does not make you a "subject" or "Subject" of our government.

Could it possibly be that you are asserting one of the classic sovrun premises -- that people have an absolute right to travel, so that any attempt to require licenses of people who operate motor vehicles, or any attempt to force them to register those motor vehicles, are invalid? Could it be that, while you assert your right to travel, you forget that the rest of us have a right to be protected from unsafe drivers and vehicles as WE exercise our right to travel?

[searcher]

roguefulltun
@ >Searcher may not use English as a first language.
And,most of your responses are Greek to me.

[searcher]

To Famspear,
Re: Ah, now I see what you mean. You mean "subject" as in "police talk."

No, dear heart, I mean "Subject" as in INFERIOR to the "sovereign immunity holders" a.k.a. FrankenSTATE Superiors. I must get their permission to do certain things that my forefathers had an unalienable right to do. I do not have these unalienable rights as my great grandparents did. Those rights are now privileges, granted by the "Superior Authorities" & I am subject to their requirements to be granted the privileges they offer. I think I am getting close to understanding what has happened to reverse the original order of things. I believe the S.S.N. has a lot to do with it.BUT, there is more to the story. There must be. This is what I am searching for. I want to see the "Big Picture."

[Pottapaug1938]

To Famspear,
Re: Ah, now I see what you mean. You mean "subject" as in "police talk."

No, dear heart, I mean "Subject" as in INFERIOR to the "sovereign immunity holders" a.k.a. FrankenSTATE Superiors. I must get their permission to do certain things that my forefathers had an unalienable right to do. I do not have these unalienable rights as my great grandparents did. Those rights are now privileges, granted by the "Superior Authorities" & I am subject to their requirements to be granted the privileges they offer. I think I am getting close to understanding what has happened to reverse the original order of things. I believe the S.S.N. has a lot to do with it.BUT, there is more to the story. There must be. This is what I am searching for. I want to see the "Big Picture."

Well, that's not how the rest of us define "subject/Subject"; and it's not how it was defined in relation to your traffic stop. You also haven't addressed, with any specificity, which unalienable rights you are trying to discuss (and as I said before, I suspect that the "right to travel" is involved).

[Famspear]

Ah, now I see what you mean. You mean "subject" as in "police talk."

No, dear heart, I mean "Subject" as in INFERIOR to the "sovereign immunity holders" a.k.a. FrankenSTATE Superiors. I must get their permission to do certain things that my forefathers had an unalienable right to do. I do not have these unalienable rights as my great grandparents did. Those rights are now privileges, granted by the "Superior Authorities" & I am subject to their requirements to be granted the privileges they offer. I think I am getting close to understanding what has happened to reverse the original order of things. I believe the S.S.N. has a lot to do with it.BUT, there is more to the story. There must be. This is what I am searching for. I want to see the "Big Picture."

No, you do not need to get "permission" to do things that your forefathers had an unalienable right to do. You have the same unalienable rights as your grandparents did.

Based on the repetitive, vague rhetoric you have been posting in the Quatloos forum so far, I suspect that you've reached certain conclusions about certain things -- erroneous conclusions, probably -- and you're searching for information that you believe will support those conclusions.

The fact that you continue to be so vague -- and in particular the fact that you used the word "searcher" as your name in setting up your account here -- is telling......

In every utterance a speaker or writer unknowingly tells us a great deal about himself of which he is entirely unaware.

--Walter C. Langer

[searcher]

Hi wserra,
@ >Nice case. < Huh? after what you said about it? Do you mean it's another "nice case" to ridicule? If so, I'm sure ALL the "Dyett" Justices would have indeed felt honored.

@ > "searcher, you have from time to time intimated that people here treat you unfairly. You would be treated with more respect if you actually made an effort to read and understand what you write about."
weserra, I am not & never have been the Supreme Court of Utah. You are saying that I should read and understand what "I" write about??? I am sure, however, if you had been present when the "Dyett" Court made their unanimous unlearned frontier gibberish remarks & you had put them on notice that they need to read and understand what they write about, & explained why, as you,wserra,have respectfully explained to me, the Dyett Court, I'm sure would have apologized & thanked you for showing them the error of their ways & would have reversed their decision. Also, I said that SOME people at Quatloos respond with curt, belittling, etc., answers. You,wserra have not done that YET. Your answers so far, have been considerate, thoughtful, etc., & I thank you for being that way. Maybe you will be scolded, etc., for being that way, I hope not.
After I submit this,I will see my typos,etc. Why is that?

[searcher]

pottapaug,
@ >(and as I said before, I suspect that the "right to travel" is involved).

Oh I still have the right to travel. I can,e.g., walk, trot, run, hop,& rollerskate. However,I do think I would need a license to ride a bicycle, at least in California. However, if rollerskating was the only "mode of conveyance" we had to travel, I'm sure, today, there would be a skate-trooper somewhere behind a tree "observing traffic" & who knows, he might be skating after you & demanding to see your skating license. It's another way to raise revenue. I have asked several "Law enFORCEment Officers what was the most important thing they learned in/at the academy. All responses were the same. "I was taught how to get names, kick ass, get convictions & raise revenue for the STATE." IF I commit a crime, what difference does it make what my name is? It must be important to "them." And, I am "searching" for the reason. I'm searching for a lot of other things too.

[webhick]

After I submit this,I will see my typos,etc. Why is that?

You can always use the Preview button to see what your post will look like when you submit it. This way, you can see and correct your typos before you submit your post. Just remember to hit that submit button when you're done or else your post will never make it to the forum.

[Pottapaug1938]

pottapaug,
@ >(and as I said before, I suspect that the "right to travel" is involved).

Oh I still have the right to travel. I can,e.g., walk, trot, run, hop,& rollerskate. However,I do think I would need a license to ride a bicycle, at least in California. However, if rollerskating was the only "mode of conveyance" we had to travel, I'm sure, today, there would be a skate-trooper somewhere behind a tree "observing traffic" & who knows, he might be skating after you & demanding to see your skating license. It's another way to raise revenue. I have asked several "Law enFORCEment Officers what was the most important thing they learned in/at the academy. All responses were the same. "I was taught how to get names, kick ass, get convictions & raise revenue for the STATE." IF I commit a crime, what difference does it make what my name is? It must be important to "them." And, I am "searching" for the reason. I'm searching for a lot of other things too.

You are still evading a direct question which I have asked more than once; and if you find my posts "belittling" it's because of those evasions. Well, I have all the answers I need or want from you, so that's the end of that.

[Famspear]

....Oh I still have the right to travel. I can,e.g., walk, trot, run, hop,& rollerskate. However,I do think I would need a license to ride a bicycle, at least in California. However, if rollerskating was the only "mode of conveyance" we had to travel, I'm sure, today, there would be a skate-trooper somewhere behind a tree "observing traffic" & who knows, he might be skating after you & demanding to see your skating license......

I'm hearing a lot of whining.



You know, I got a speeding ticket on Monday for driving 42 in 30 mile per hour zone.

I was actually doing about 42 in a 35 mile per hour zone, and I wasn't paying attention. The posted speed changed from 35 down to 30, and I didn't notice.

I saw the cop too late. I got a ticket. The cop had placed himself in just the right spot, where he knew that a certain percentage of drivers would not notice that the speed limit had changed downward, from 35 to 30. It was obviously a revenue-generating enterprise for the government.

And you know what? I felt no need to whine about it. I've developed something, it's, maybe, I don't know, I think it's called maturity. I'll pay the fine online and take a defensive driving course online, and thereby not have my insurance premium go up. I'm too old and too busy, "searcher," and I have too many responsibilities to cry and whine about every little unfairness that is a part of life.

Oh, and in one post, you cited Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266 (1968):

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?q ... 89&scilh=0

What a surprise! Gee, where have we seen that case cited before?

There are certain court cases that are cited by people with axes to grind -- cases cited over and over and over and over. If only, "searcher," you knew how much people here in this forum can tell about you just by looking at the court cases you cite.

Stop reading the garbage you've been reading. Make an effort to understand yourself, and in particular make an effort to understand why you have been having these feelings you have.

[grixit]

My Van Meter hit 8 and yawned. It's heard much better and much more creative self pitying whining before.

[webhick]

searcher, after re-reading your posts it seems to me that the only things you are searching for is a group of people who will give you the answers you want to hear and people who buy into the same theories you do. Unfortunately for you, we tend to operate on common sense, case law and facts, not unprovable hidden meanings of things.

If you're not willing to listen to reason, unwilling to debate your point of view properly and wish to continue to throw out random and unfounded accusations of mistreatment, then I would suggest you find another site - one which is willing to put up with such nonsense.