Clown and Cop Brawl

20 Nov

English: "The Barnum & Bailey greatest sh...

English: “The Barnum & Bailey greatest show on earth (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hilarious.  This video seems to be a perfect illustration of just how stupid this country has become.

As I watched this video, a couple of thoughts came to mind:

Which is which? (Who’s the real clown?)

A recent police seminar on the Dangers of Sovereign Citizens has been changed to the Dangers of Clowns.

Barnum & Bailey won’t be coming to Milwaukee this year.

When squirt guns are outlawed, only clowns will have squirt guns.

Will the real clown stand up, please?

“The Greatest Shows On Earth” are now being held at our court houses rather than circus tents.

The clowns are restless.

Ain’t that America!




Posted by on November 20, 2012 in Humor



36 responses to “Clown and Cop Brawl

  1. shekinah419

    November 20, 2012 at 11:23 PM

    HOW did that reporter get through that with a straight face? LOL

  2. shekinah419

    November 20, 2012 at 11:24 PM

    Reblogged this on servehiminthewaiting.

  3. Rich

    November 21, 2012 at 9:39 AM

    I was being called a “sovereign citizen” while a clown/cop was beating me up. I was thrown in jail and charged with a felony. My crime… having a headlight out on my car. I live near Milwaukee.
    For the record, I am not a “sovereign citizen” and never claimed to be.

  4. Rich

    November 21, 2012 at 9:49 AM

    The idiot capturing the video is more of a clown than either the clown or cop. First off, he erroneously states that the clown was resisting. Even a blind fool can notice that the cop initiated the incident. Then he goes on to say that the cop had to do what he had to do. Ah no, he didn’t. Cops no longer have any Christian values/integrity. They only know force and threats. It isn’t just my opinion but fact. I have first hand experience in the matter. No, I wasn’t the clown.

    • pop de adam

      November 22, 2012 at 7:53 PM

      Stranger than a clown is a sovereign-citizen, they are mutually exclusive, you cannot be sovereign and a citizen at the same time. You are either the sovereign/king or the citizen/subject. In the Americas there are no kings and thus none are subjects. Control freaks, go freak yourselves.

      If your really place stock in kings and divine right. Are we not all the progeny and posterity of Adam or noah? Why listen to jackasses?

  5. James Barnes

    November 21, 2012 at 12:42 PM

    I saw the clown just standing there talking, anyone see anything different? Sovereign Citizen is such an oxymoron the cops just prove what ignorant retarded terrorists they are. Rich you ought to look up Carl Millers videos on YouTube might help you with their criminal fraud in your presumed felony and their real crimes on you.

  6. Jethro

    November 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM

    These days I presume cops are the unwarranted aggressors until proven otherwise. I was rooting for the clown.

  7. Anon4fun

    November 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

    Guttural-voiced female news reporter: “Mitch says he couldn’t believe what he was seeing. He thought quickly to get out his phone and press record.”

    Mitch couldn’t believe he was seeing a cop talk to a clown? This is all that is happening at the start of the video. He started recording BEFORE the fight started.

    Mitch: “A cop is beating up a clown. Like how can I not capture this on video and show it to all my friends? So I had to whip out my phone and catch it on video.”

    Hey Mitch, you, or whoever took this video, started recording BEFORE the fight started.

  8. Anon4fun

    November 21, 2012 at 9:34 PM

    The cop should have landed at least a few solid punches, because the clown not only resisted arrest but also committed criminal battery.

    At first, the cop and the clown are standing face-to-face, reasonably at ease and talking. It’s at this point that Mitch inexplicably decides there is something worth recording, despite the fact that he’s driving through busy downtown traffic. Next, the cop starts to walk around the clown, maybe to handcuff him. When the cop gets somewhat behind the clown, the clown suddenly turns and lunges at him. You can see the clown has his legs and arms positioned to maximize thrust against the cop’s chest, NFL lineman-style. Immediately, the cop is thrown back on one foot and is falling backwards. The cop lands on his side (a dangerous way to hit the pavement) with the clown on top of him, which is hardly the likely outcome of an attack by the cop. For the next several seconds, the clown can be seen to keep the cop in a hold or clench him by his clothes. The cop had every reason to be concerned by all this and probably should have used more force to defend himself.

    • James Barnes

      November 22, 2012 at 1:01 PM

      If a public trustee (aka a cop) tries to arrest you without a lawful cause of action anyone has the absolute right to defend yourself from his in fact, criminal actions. Google false arrest, or resisting false arrest there are numerous court cites stating this point blank. Police do not own me, you, or the clown. They are hired and sworn under oath by we the people to protect and defend the Constitution of these united states of America. You are presuming way to much here Anon4fun. If this man was an activist and knows the law and the cops exceeding his jurisdiction tried to cuff him he had every right to attack him to stop that criminal action. Too many of the people somehow believe today the cops own command of their lives when in fact, they do not. Unless of course you really believe you are a slave. Spraying water around out of a flower or other instrument while maybe annoying harms no one unless you believe rain hurts you or your property a lot more info needs be produced on the matter to make a reasonable decision as to whom was at fault here. Because cops are proven liars, terrorists and extortionists and in fact have been given permission by the so called honorable courts to lie, terrorize and extort. I’ll always give the man being accosted the benefit of the doubt until the complainant proves his case with facts and evidence. Until that is done he is the criminal and aggressor in my eyes. Peace!

      • pop de adam

        November 22, 2012 at 9:41 PM

        I had read recently about some person pressing a “court” to disclose whether the “court” was either inquisitorial or adversarial, the repeated response was the “court” was administrative. What was interesting about this idea is if it administrative the peoples involved in some way have consented to the entire exchange. However, if one is introduced to this process with the phrases such as: “Anything you say or do will be used against you” establishes that it is inquisitorial and adversarial.

        Something I’ve considered: Nearly everthing you might say should probably be directed to the other party and not the judge, unless in objection to the statements made by other party. Unless complaints are administrative, address them to the faulting party first and then the referees. We know they are likely to cover for eachother, to keep up appearances address everything to either the complaintant or defendant.

        I don’t have a license to practice law, therefore I can’t

        2 cent Pop

    • Anon4fun

      November 22, 2012 at 4:03 PM

      A guy in a clown suit running around in traffic squirting people qualifies as someone the police need to talk to. Just because some cops are criminals does not deprive the people of Milwaukee of their right to police protection, any more than the misuse of guns by certain criminals deprives everyone of his right to bear arms. No doubt this clown had a neat little theory to justify his behavior before and after the cop showed up. If everyone who didn’t agree he should be arrested had a free pass to resist, society would quickly degenerate into chaos, and there would be no peace.

      • pop de adam

        November 22, 2012 at 6:56 PM


        “qualifies”. How? As a construct how can you answer?

        Society can not degenerate into chaos, it is just society. Control can degenerate into chaos. Is society control? Is government control?


      • James Barnes

        November 25, 2012 at 9:42 AM

        No one has any right to police protection, nor do the police have any duty or obligation to protect anyone, live with it as it is a fact. Google duty to protect over 200 years of court cites there Anon. Oh, and Luria V United States opines paraphrased, that a citizen is a member of a political society owing a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection, both being reciprocal obligation one in consideration of the other. 200 hundred years of cites saying they have no duty to protect. You do the reasoning if you can. Let the data speak what the data says. Your opinion is moot until the clown actually harmed someone or was actually about to imminently harm them or their property he absolutely had the right to resist. That is exactly what freedom is. We are not living in minority report here there is NO pre crime. This is the fraud and treason of all the courts across this country. Without an injured party or property there is no “cause of action” which is the entire basis of American and English Jurisprudence, unless of course you agree to something through a contract. Even if the man was committing a breach of the peace as running between cars would definitely be considered if he stopped before the cop got there or after being warned the cop has absolutely no cause to assault him. Just a bit of study of law will inform you of this Google Marc Stevens “standing cross reference” and read and learn for yourself. Court cites for every single fiction called the state in this group of mafia lords. “Standing” and “cause of action” are basically identical without standing to sue there is NO controversy for the court to decide. Courts provide services that have to be agreed to or you are forcing someone at gunpoint to an offer they can’t refuse, sound familiar? Mind you collective force is justified for real crime murder, rape, robbery and the average traffic cop spends most of his time doing exactly that forcing people to the side of the road under threat of violence and with the courts treasonous help extorting money from them. They and I have completely different definition of honorable, and it is only because of The peoples ignorance that they get away with it. No matter how you try to spin it, you cannot change the facts and the truth of the matter. Peace!

    • pop de adam

      November 22, 2012 at 7:02 PM

      Funny thing about the term “criminal”, it was once derived from the the term used to describe the nation/area of “Crimea”. Are the police nationalistic(nazis)? What policy are they enforcing?

  9. todreigus

    November 22, 2012 at 5:56 PM

    I DO NOT TRUST COPS OR THE GOVCO PERIOD!!! They are people, subject to the same jealousies & bigotries as we are. I believe our Military & Law enforcement personnel are under paid & that the requirements to join these services are way to lax. I believe that we should pay them good/fair for what they do & what’s expected of them. We should place very high standards for the requirements to join these services; not just requiring some law enforcement education (& be able to quote the Bill of Rights forwards & backwards) but require some Psych education in human behavior as well! We should require of them to have psych evaluations at lease once if not twice a year as well, & include lie detector test for fraudulent activities. BUT, BUT hold them accountable for every action they do!!!!! They are supposed to be setting a good example & be above all the petty crap that they’re here to protect us against. A bully club is ONLY for self defense &/or to subdue a suspect enough to get handcuff on them; the suspect doesn’t need to be unconscious to do so. Nor does someone need to be taser’d for stupid things, like peacefully telling the cops they’re mistaken or jerks (with-out resisting.) After we raise the requirements & pay for these service/positions, we should then, not only hold them accountable for all the laws they violate, but charge them with TREASON as well !!!

    1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
    2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
    3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

    Now the video above, tho it doesn’t truly clarify who started the scuffle, it doesn’t favor the clown!! I’m sorry, as much as I would like to support the clown, we can’t have some moron running around in the streets squirting water at/on cars passing by, taking a chance on freaking out some old lady & causing an accident. It’s a natural reaction to swerve when someone/thing comes darting out in the road, hello!!! Did he deserve to be arrested for squirting cars, no. But his actions did need to be addressed & his rationality questioned.

  10. Anon4fun

    November 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM

    pop de adam:

    He qualified as someone for the police to look at based on his obstruction of the motorway, creating a hazardous road condition, and harassing people with a squirt gun. The clown suit didn’t help any either. The cop may be a security guard for the city corporation, but he is also responsible for maintaining public safety under municipal ordinances passed by elected legislators. It seems he wears two hats, though these duties are probably unified somewhere in the city’s charter.

    >>Society can not degenerate into chaos, it is just society. Control can degenerate into chaos. Is society control? Is government control?<<

    Any ordered system that takes planning and effort to build and maintain can degenerate into chaos. Society is no exception.

    Society and government are both forms of control.

  11. Anon4fun

    November 23, 2012 at 9:48 PM

    This is how things appear to be rearranged, in descending order of earthly authority:

    1. The People in their collective capacity, i.e. the entity whose action elects representatives.

    2. The representatives elected by #1, the Congress.

    3. The creation of #2 for purposes of territorial administration, the private company (not essentially different from IBM or McDonald’s) posing as the de jure government.

    4. The People in their individual capacity, who are inherently #1 on this list, after each assuming an (all-caps designated) fiduciary character for #3.

    In this way, the original democratic Republic has been replaced by a Democracy which, in effect though not in law, overrules the People’s individual sovereignty.

  12. James Barnes

    November 25, 2012 at 9:56 AM

    If the STATE is coming after you in any court it is an utter and blatant treasonous fraud. It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious plaintiff in a fictitious action. Biblical it is “Strive not with a man whom has caused you no harm.” And Maxim of Laws state it as, “No action is given to one whom is not injured.” Standing to sue requires 2 elements the breach of a legal duty and actual harm or immediately imminent harm. How exactly do you harm “THE STATE”, which is an easily provable fiction. It only exists in your mind. Every single Constitution that I’ve read states in some form. “All power is inherent in the people.” That’s not a cop, not a judge, not a prosecutor, are you a people or a subject citizen? Learn a bit of law and defend your own rights, stop subrogating them to a fiction that steals the remedy you are owed and begin to live your life as you see fit. Not hard except for all the criminals with badges and guns, at least for us reasonable men and women. For the unreasonable there is the 2nd Amendment. Some of us don’t accept services at gunpoint, as it’s completely against the NAP we hold dear and live by. Peace!

    • Flatwood

      December 17, 2012 at 11:11 PM

      Re: > If the STATE is coming after you in any court it is an utter and blatant treasonous fraud.

      They have been doing this before you were born, still do it today, & will be doing it tomorrow.

      P.S. I have read the case of Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512, 7 (Seven) times now & cannot find >With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face. Are you sure this is the right case?

  13. Anon4fun

    November 25, 2012 at 12:54 PM

    >>If the STATE is coming after you in any court it is an utter and blatant treasonous fraud.

    The Constitution defines treason. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The state coming after you in court does not fit this definition. On the other hand, what anarchist agitation foundations are doing does.

    >>How exactly do you harm “THE STATE”, which is an easily provable fiction.

    The harm is not to the state. The harm, if that is the basis of the suit, is to whomever the state represents. Read the paperwork of any court case.

    >>Some of us don’t accept services at gunpoint

    This classic unintentionally funny talking point is yet another example of the puny mental horsepower behind the sales pitch for anarcho-capitalism. The sales pitch for communism at least had some thought put into it, to the extent of being able to con sections of academia. When a cop points his gun at you, the service he is providing is to the source of the law he is enforcing, not you.

  14. James Barnes

    November 26, 2012 at 3:41 AM

    What exactly is that source of the law he is enforcing there Anon. you’re very selective in what you choose to see, logs are hard to see by? A so called representative whom is representing you against your will? Some guy sitting in an office in the capital disobeying every single rule set by the rules of the government in “The United States of America” is in fact warring against it and in fact committing treason. Where substantive rights are concerned there can be no legislating or rule making abrogating them Miranda V Arizona. Isn’t legislating and stealing the fourth amendment right to due process and a valid lawful warrant based on probable cause with an attached affidavit showing a valid cause of action, when you in fact do NOT HAVE the authority to do so warring against the United States of America and in fact treason against We the People? If you are violating the rules set forth for YOU to act as an agent of the government as OUR public trustees and which you in fact, shall have a sworn oath to do, you are in fact a criminal and committing treason, breach of trust, breach of oath, breach of duty and extortion.

    >>If the STATE is coming after you in any court it is an utter and blatant treasonous fraud.
    Can you me or anyone else hurt Bugs Bunny there Anon? It’s not a man whom you injured coming after you, it’s a fiction. In order to have standing in the courts plaintiff must be personally injured and have a real interest in the outcome. Got some nerve talking about puny thinking there buddy as all I want is for you, me and everything I defended in good faith for 17 years of my life and was promised for 50 years to be honored, and certain statist, school indoctrinated, mind washed idiocy prevents some people from even seeing simple and easily verifiable truths. I don’t care about an ignorant retard with a badge and a guns opinion that he has the right to abduct me from the side of the road because in his mental midget opinion I cause his frail tiny ego harm. What I care about is facts and evidence that he has any rights to command my life whatsoever without MY consent, unless I have in fact caused someone real an injury or damage, barring that he can kiss me in the darkest part of my lily white rectum. Oh, and my puny so called anarcho capitalist attitude (which is actually just freed from my statist public schooled, mind screwing) has gotten me released 3x from idiots like this guy now, why? because it’s correct. Ever hear the saying, “The truth is revealed by the result.” If I or anyone else holds or attacks you without a valid and lawful cause it’s called abduction, assault or many other things and in fact with a gun adds to the crime and that includes an ignorant man with a badge and a gun, who hasn’t a clue of the source and limits of his authority. We the people pay these men whom live off our lives and blood to serve us and that doesn’t mean selected ones of us, but all of us, if they aren’t doing exactly that they deserve exactly what they get, like in the case of Matthew David Stewart in Ogden, Utah.
    There is no harm ever in a speeding ticket, no controversy plain, flat out extortion. There is no harm ever in a tax case, pure plain extortion. There is no harm ever in a lack of license or registration, plain flat out extortion. Where you have harmed no one nor agreed to a contract there is never ever a case and the corporate STATE is in fact a criminal, treasonous, extortionist. It’s not hard to see unless of course you profit off that extortion, then you can make up all kinds of lies and spin the truth 6000 ways to Sunday to justify your crimes just like the Nazis did. “I was just doing my job.” However it didn’t work too well for them as they still swung by the neck until dead. All 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto are firmly in place in America. It is in fact a fascist police state and I never pledged allegiance to that only a free republic with liberty and justice for all we were promised a Republic and they can take their Socialist Communist America and stick it because doing every single tiny step of it was in fact treason to me and every vet that ever served and especially those that died serving liberty and freedom. Take your fascist, police state somewhere else as I have NO obligation to honor or respect it in anyway. Neither does and real American whom exactly understands what has gone on in the so called free country since 1913. Watch these 3 and try to learn a bit about We the Peoples country. May surprise you to actually learn something. useful. Other than, of course, simply obeying your masters orders.
    US v Will, 449 US 200,216, 101 S Ct, 471, 66 LEd2nd 392, 406 (1980)
    Cohens V Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5LEd 257 (1821)
    “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”

  15. James Barnes

    November 26, 2012 at 4:06 AM

    Just read this on LewRockwell though you people here might enjoy it for the knowledge it shares. Peace!

  16. James Barnes

    November 26, 2012 at 9:22 AM

    Here is another piece of law for you from the Supreme Court and after reading this you might actually study the documents called the Bill of Rights and The Constitution of the united States of America especially the one called the 4th amendment. The video as displayed shows two men, both clowns in their own right, standing talking on a public street corner. I didn’t see the colorful clown running through traffic accosting anyone, nor any of we the people, nor even a citizen standing there complaining to said officer trustee, nor do I see a warrant being served. I see the clown in blue attempt to grab the man in the colorful costume, him avoid that, and the badged and armed clown, attack the other and then start punching him in the head and face! I never see the colorful clown in fact strike the terrorist clown in blue at all. What exactly did you see? Without a sworn or affirmed complaint, or a blatant and ongoing breach of the peace in their prescense, there is no cause of action against the colorful clown nor any cause for the terrorist clown to attack the other. If the cop had attacked me like that without a real and justified cause and knowing the law as I do. I would have busted him up period! Cops are our employees. Whether they like it or not, as long as I pay them and their families bills then they serve, they do not dominate and if they do not in fact and action serve to protect the peace, then they will get exactly as they give. Serve peace, get peace and respect. Serve violence, ignorance and tyranny and they will get exactly what is coming to them from any reasonable American.

  17. Anon4fun

    November 26, 2012 at 12:28 PM

    >>A so called representative whom is representing you against your will?

    The representative that you hire yourself represents you individually. The representative that the People as a group (i.e. the electorate) hire (i.e. elect) represents them collectively. Legislators are of the latter type. These write the laws in this country, subordinate only to the provisions of a higher, God-given sovereignty held by the People in their individual capacity. If a candidate you didn’t vote for nevertheless wins the election, he still represents the will of the People as a group. The unanimous consent of all individuals in the group is not necessary. If this arrangement is unsatisfactory to you, you’re free to move somewhere with a political system more to your liking. Alternately, you could levying war against the United States or adhere to their enemies, and hope the next setup, perhaps a stateless utopia, is a better fit for you.

    >>Isn’t legislating and stealing the fourth amendment right to due process and a valid lawful warrant based on probable cause with an attached affidavit showing a valid cause of action, when you in fact do NOT HAVE the authority to do so warring against the United States of America and in fact treason against We the People?

    Obviously not, since there is no such thing as treason against We the People. I already quoted from the Constitution as to how treason is only against the States. For example: waging war against them, endeavoring to abolish them as a logically necessary step toward a stateless utopia, etc.

    Also, I already described what I see taking place in the video. See above. I don’t want you to get beat up by the cops or wrongfully arrested. But the alternative, a world in which arrest is voluntary depending on one’s legal theories, is not a world I want to live in. You don’t want to live there either, because a motorist delayed and squirted by this clown, in a world where arrest is voluntary depending on one’s legal theories, could feel free to shoot first and ask questions later. The sad result being one dead clown.

  18. James Barnes

    November 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM

    Theories, not sure where you live but in 6 years of the study and use of American law knowledge is not a theory. Arrest obligates a warrant or reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime committed, or a breach of the peace in progress while the officer is standing right there. If those do not exist there is no jurisdiction to arrest and the arrest is in fact false. I’m not sure what exact theories you are speaking of? Please elaborate.

    “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are
    truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects..
    with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow
    citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US)
    2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp. 471-472.

    “Government” is not “sovereignty.” “Government” is the machinery or expedient
    for expressing the will of the sovereign power. City of Bisbee v. Cochise
    County, 78 P.2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1.

    “Sovereignty” is the right to govern. In Europe the sovereignty is generally
    ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people. There the sovereign
    actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance. Our
    governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation
    to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereign. Their
    princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences. Our rulers have
    none but official, nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any
    other capacity than as private citizens. Chisholm v. State of Georga, Ga., 2.
    U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471, 1 L. Ed. 440.

    Statutes employing the word “person” are ordinarily construed to exclude the
    sovereign. 56 L.Ed. 2d. 895 — Def. of “person”

    “We the people” are sovereign and created the government by our consent. Withdraw consent and if any one tries to govern me or anyone else whom understands that the United States corporate government is the biggest terrorist on the planet

    California Government Code – Chapter 9 – Meetings

    The people of the State do not yield their sovereignty to
    the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating
    authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide
    what is good for the people to know and what is not good for
    them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that
    they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
    (Added Stats. 1953, c. 1588, p.3270, sec. 1.)

    Ok, there is no slavery nor involuntary servitude those were outlawed over 180 years ago. Correct?

    free·dom [free-duh m] noun
    1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
    2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
    3. the power to determine action without restraint.
    4. political or national independence.
    5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

    slave [sleyv] noun, verb, slaved, slav·ing noun
    1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
    2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
    3. a drudge: a housekeeping slave.
    4. a slave ant.
    5. Photography . a subsidiary flash lamp actuated through its photoelectric cell when the principal flash lamp is discharged.

    There are rules for a lawful arrest. If those rules are not followed and WE ALL have to obey some so called officers every single arbitrary command, that fits the exact definition of slavery. Not sure about you but I do not pay for my own enslavement there Anon. Being educated in the Constitution and the meanings of the founding documents I have no obligation to obey some ignorant retards arbitrary capricious commands, even if he has a badge and a gun, when he is in fact, acting criminally and as a terrorist, period. You can try to spin the truth with your words all you want espousing theories which are in reality a fact.
    “I don’t want you to get beat up by the cops or wrongfully arrested.” You obviously don’t believe this, because you either don’t understand or haven’t studied the rules and laws of arrest in America or think we are all owned by the arbitrary dictates of a guy we pay to “protect the peace” not to act as a terrorist. So I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree but you need a lot more study of law before trying to use your theories to deceive me or anyone whom has studied these things for years including the history and court cites backing all my so called theories. Well I’m done here as you are obviously still mentally entrapped in the belief that someone has the “right” to arbitrarily command your life against your will and sorry but, that is not an Americans state of mind and definitely not what I defended for 17 years in good faith in the service to this “free” country. “Strive not with a man who has done you no harm.” and every single man being held liable for “their” actions personally would solve everything and unfortunately police today believe themselves masters of the people when they are actually retarded, brain washed thugs. I for one, won’t put up with it any longer, nor is any peaceful wo/man obliged to put up with the racketeering mafia organizations known as the police and the various courts in collusion with them who exist only to extort as much money as possible from their ignorant victims as they possibly can without causing a revolt of the people who p[ay for them to live and pay for the crimes they commit. Good luck with curing your problem, it took me some serious research and soul searching before I woke up to my enslavement, however, as hard core thoroughly brain washed and patriotic as I was. If I can awake anyone can try it out it’ll change your life for the better. Later.

    • Flatwood

      December 18, 2012 at 1:04 AM

      James, I’m sure you will agree that if our country went to war & lost, the “winning side” would set things up “its way” & all these court cases you bring up would make no difference. Well this IS what has happened. There was a war. It is called the “civil war.” Things changed THEN. BUT !! It has been a slow insidious process to being like it is NOW. “The “appropriate legislation” power clause has reversed the way things once were. A lot of things remained the same,for a while,& your court cases would have been valid. Take the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. A wonderful case. Look what happened to it later & because of the creeping slow insidious process at work.

  19. James Barnes

    November 27, 2012 at 11:07 AM

    Cop arrests clown drags him to a court against his will on his legal theories of his discretion to arrest anyone, anytime he feels like it. For instance the cop arresting the clown, they get into court, and the clown says where is the injured party? Were you injured by my actions there mr terrorist officer man, well no of course not. Well I don’t see anyone else here claiming I’ve injured them so where exactly is your standing to complain? Well I’m a doofus I don’t even know what standing is because I’ve never learned a single shred of anything to do with law, I just obey my master like a monkey.
    There are thousands of court cites all over the country in every state, that state exactly as the below ones do. It not my legal theories it’s their well documented and published words. Unless of course that log in your eye is blinding you to see the truth.

    Trinity Medical Center v. North Dakota Board of Nursing, 399 N.W. 2d, 835, “To have standing to bring action, plaintiff must have suffered some threatened or actual injury resulting from putatively illegal action, asserted harm must not be specialized grievances shared by all or large classes of citizens.”

    Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, inc, 108 P3d 917, “To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury.”

    Failure to establish injury leaves the Court without a means to effectuate a remedy and certainly without a basis to allow Defendants to lose their property interest by means of foreclosure. See DeCastro v. Wellston City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 94 Ohio St. 3d 197;761 N.E.2d 612 (2002), (finding that a breach of contract claim without allegation and evidence of actual damage does not provide a means for judicial relief and wastes the Defendant’s and Court’s time and resources).

    damnum et injuria. Loss and wrong the two elements which must exist in combination as essentials of a cause of action. 1 Am J2d, Actions. Sec.70 Ballentines Law Dict 3rd Ed.

    With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face.. Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512
    As the Court knows, damages must be proven by evidence entered on the record. Proof of, or assessment of, damages upon petition claiming damages, it is error to pronounce judgment without hearing proof or assessing damages. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Lambert, 31 Okla. 300, 121 P. 654, Ann.Cas.1913E, 329 (1912); City of Guthrie v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co., 5 Okla. 774, 50 P. 84 (1897).

    Oh that last one, WITH NO INJURED PARTY, A COMPLAINT IS INVALID ON ITS FACE. Those are not my legal theories those are the so called venerable and honorable courts words. Whaaaaa Whaaaa I’m whining cause this clown wouldn’t obey my commands like an unthinking idiot because I said so. Well officer how exactly were you injured by this clown or was anyone else in fact injured by what this clown actually did? Well I wasn’t except for my infantile ego of course, nor was anyone else harmed, but that’s damage isn’t it my giant ego is a fragile thing after all. It’s all so arbitrary and horse manure it’s laughable and ludicrous on its face.

    Sorry I ranted so much on this Al but a guy not getting it kinda miffs me when he supports the actions of a criminal acting as a protector of the peace, obviously hasn’t studied law and spins to try and defend the crimes of the real aggressor. I’ll be quiet now. Freedom and Peace.

    • Adask

      November 27, 2012 at 12:11 PM

      Nothing to apologize for. You make strong contributions backed by authorities moreso that mere opinion. That doesn’t mean that your comments are necessarily always right. But it does mean that you are making the kinds of comments and arguments that I hope to see on this blog.


  20. Anon4fun

    November 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM

    James Barnes:

    Simply pasting an avalanche of quotes and then reiterating your conclusion does not constitute an argument. This tactic is more characteristic of a snow job. A logically sound case is invariably concise. Anyone with a little time on their hands can take up vast space on a page with unfounded assertions, unintegrated citations, and rambling.

    “Cop arrests clown drags him to a court against his will on his legal theories of his discretion to arrest anyone, anytime he feels like it.”

    That’s another of your theories. You weren’t there, so you don’t know what the officer knew or saw. He was talking to the clown in the first place because the clown was running around in traffic and harassing people. This we have from third-party witnesses. The clown probably needed to go to jail on that basis alone. Given this behavior and his next act, criminal battery, it is likely the clown was irrational during the talking phase of their interaction. More reason to make an arrest, for the public safety which the people of Milwaukee pay their police to maintain. For him to let the clown loose to cause even more hazards and botheration, because the clown has a legal theory, would be a breach of trust.

    • Flatwood

      December 17, 2012 at 11:21 PM


      Re: > With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face,Gibson v. Boyle

      I left a comment for James Barnes informing him that I have read the Gibson/Boyle case 7 times trying to find what he says the case says in pertinent part. I cannot find it. IF you do, & I don’t think you will, please let me know. It’s apparent from what he,James says, the he has had some “encounters” with the Executive branch, but not much “court experience.” With wins, that is.

  21. todreigus

    November 27, 2012 at 11:08 PM

    I was trying to place this in the Humor section, I believe everyone will enjoy it; Mr. Adask can you do so, or feel free to delete it if you find it inappropriate. >

    It’s rare now a days to find a good wholesome joke, especially one that you can tell in church; I just ran across this one & thought I would share it with everyone. >

    An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that evolution had created.

    “What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!”, he said to himself. As he was walking along the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. When he turned to see what the cause was, he saw a 7-foot grizzly charging right towards him, so he ran as fast as he could. But when he looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in, He ran even faster, crying in fear. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pounding and he tried to run even faster, but tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up, but saw the bear was almost on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

    At that moment, the Atheist cried out “Oh my God!….” Suddenly, Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest went silent. Even the river stopped flowing.

    As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, “You deny my existence for all of these years; teaching others I don’t exist; and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you now expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to accept you as a believer?”

    The atheist looked directly into the light & said “It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?” “Very well” said the voice.

    The light went out. The river again flowed. And the sounds of the forest resumed.

    And then the bear dropped his right paw ….. bringing both paws together…bowed his head and spoke: “Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful.”

  22. mvg-avg

    November 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM

    Speaking of clowns,I heard sherriff Mack on Brent Johnson’s Global Freedom Report .These guys has no concept of “this state”, as so intelligently explained on “this site”.They dont really have any concept of that which is covered on this site .Anyone hear the program I’m talking about or heard of Richard Mack??Al, they are way off the mark.

    • Adask

      November 28, 2012 at 2:55 PM

      I suspect it’s hard for anyone who’s worked within the “system” for any length of time to accept the hypothesis of “this state”. If “this state” is real, the people working for “this state” have either pissed their lives away supporting a system they might otherwise claim to hate–or they’re just a bunch crooks and treasonous whores who don’t really give a damn about justice and care only for themselves. These aren’t easy admissions for anyone to make or face.

      I talked to Sheriff Mack personally about 3 years ago. A friend of mine gave Sheriff Mack a ride to the airport. I rode along. Mack was tired and grumpy. We only talked briefly. I (as per my obsession) tried to explain the “man or other animals” idea to Sheriff Mack. He didn’t believe me. He asked, “How come I’ve never seen this before?” In other words, as a sheriff who’d been enforcing the drug laws for many years, he could not believe that the laws only applied to animals and presumed the people to be animals. He couldn’t believe that he’d never really read and understood the drug laws. He didn’t say so, but he seemed to write me off as just another patriot nut case.

      I took no offense. It wouldn’t have been the first time somebody thought I was a little nutty. The “this state” and “man or other animals” hypotheses are hard to understand and even harder to believe. But if it turns out that I’m not just another “patriot nut case,” and the “this state” and/or “man or other animals” drug definition theories are roughly correct, then people like Sheriff Mack (who really want to to the right thing and regard themselves as “good guys”) may be forced to admit that they’ve dedicated much of their lives to committing crimes and even acts of genocide against the American people.

      The vast majority of us need to think of ourselves as “good guys”. It is human nature for most people to do whatever they can to deny facing and admitting that they are not “good guys” and have, instead, been “bad guys”. It won’t be easy for people like Sheriff Mack–who I believe to be well-meaning–to face and admit his complicity in “this state” and the enforcement of laws that treat the people as animals. If I were in his situation, it wouldn’t be easy for me, either.

      I think think they are “way off the mark”. They think I am “way off the mark”.

      Time will tell.

      • mvg-avg

        December 11, 2012 at 4:52 PM

        Speaking of way off the mark.Have you any recollection of The Pembina Nation sovereign nation movement?I friend of mine was a member and had all of his papers and tags and registration for his vehicles ,he got around quite well and without any harrassment .I became a member but did not do that which he did .We havent been in contact for years so i dont know whats up on his end . O n my end ,this outfit seems to have disappeared,like poof ! There isn’t anything out there on their current status . Are you familiar with these guys, al ?

      • Adask

        December 11, 2012 at 5:43 PM

        In the late 1990s & early 2000’s I had superficial knowledge of the Pembina Nation movement. I haven’t heard anything about it in several (5?) years. In fact, I had little confidence in the Pembina “movement,” but it may have worked pretty well for this reason: If I claim to be part of the Pembina Nation (even if that claim is ludicrous), the gov-co may not want to refute my claim since, in doing so, they might have to show what they believe me to be part of: “this state”. It may not be enough to simply declare that I am not what I claim to be. It may also be necessary to prove what the gov-co claims me to be. If that were true, it might be possible for a very shaky theory to nevertheless produce some surprisingly solid results.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s