Topic: New Hampshire bill would restrict police deadly force (Read 303 times)

Never does Karl (at least that I have heard) suggest holding court without a government court building or a government magistrate. So, it is a claim suit to do it in common law.

However, you could hold court in any fashion you want. Get your own jury. Get your own magistrate from non-government people. Use somebody's old barn for the court. But if the wrongdoer doesn't appear, and you try to send the sheriff after him, or you get a summary judgment, I don't think that much of anything would happen or be upheld. If you tried to force it, you'd probably lose when government and law enforcement stepped into your completely private trial proceedings.

However, you have good points. Perhaps as private membership associations grow, and they think about doing these things, they just might be able to successfully hold court over their own members, completely outside of any formal government court operation, yet in very similar ways to government courts.



EDIT: I looked up the titles of the videos that Craig Lynch made of Karls talks, and the only two of them that had "suit" in them were 480 and 481, which were probably extensions of the same talk. https://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos

I think you mean a claim. A suit is filed under the civil code/maritime law. You know Karl so you know words mean things.

Yes, it is your court, if you bring suit, and if it is common law where the judge/magistrate is simply a referee so that there is order in the court.

In a Federal District Court trial, if the magistrate steps out of his position of referee, he can be charged with contempt by any tribunal member. But, be careful if you are doing this, contempt charge of a judge. Judges usually aren't imbeciles. If you aren't careful, it can backfire on you.

It is your court* 

Won't happen until people start taking cops to court this way:
1. Federal District Court, not U.S. District Court;
2. Corpus Juris Secundum vol 25 section 334:3. The tribunal is made up of a) you the wronged person; b) the man/woman who wronged you; c) the jury;
4. Take the man who was acting as a cop to court, and his bond, and any official who did authorizing of theft of your property in your case;
5. If more than one man or woman (cops, etc.) are wrongdoers, a separate suit and case for each one;
6. Check to see if he has a duly administered Oath of Office on file, and add this to your lawsuit if he doesn't;
7. Require harm or damage be shown;
8. Don't use an attorney, and don't let the cop use an attorney.
9. First thing, be sworn in and require all others be sworn in.

It's your case when you file this way.

Study Karl Lentz's methods https://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos.



EDIT:

----------

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

----------

In suits at common law (the kind of suit we are talking about above)...according to the rules of the common law (no matter which court they are tried in. Use of Federal District Court assures the case starts out as common law.). Once common law has been established regarding a case, that case and reexaminations of it can only be done in common law, no matter the court or court building:
All federal courts are Article III courts under the Constitution (common law)
All federal courts are courts of record (common law)
All state courts are common law courts (common law)

If we could end the drug war and civil asset forfeiture that would start happening by market forces alone.

police didn't exist until, what, 1850 or so?   somehow the world managed to lift itself out of the longest dark age in recorded history without them, maybe we don't need them.   Certainly we don't need to be taxed to fund them.

its more likely that they will create a society where no one wants to be a policemen anymore and the entire society fragments into small pieces with their privated gated communities.

trump recently blamed the jews for not having their own guardians at their synagogue. then with everyone having their own guardians, there will be fragmentations and conflicts again.

regards

But that is part of the point! When you are harmed by anyone, even police, the courts should decide upon your reimbursement for damages done. When people learn how to fight properly in court, taxes will be used to pay off the $millions that court judgments dictate. Then, the people in general will force government to control the police. It's happening right now at various times... people getting $hundreds-of-thousands per case for police brutality, and government keeping the police in line.

well the population in the US behaves much different than german one too.

continuously fucking off the police will help only criminals in the usa.

united states might end up becoming a tribal society this way.

everyone will then be forced to protect his stuff on his own,

there will be then not just no police but also no, legislation, no law enforcement, etc.

it seems like open carry is good for general deterrance in an area...or generating discussion, especially if you're publicizing it yourself.  google new hampshire open carry litter pickup.
concealed carry is probably better for maintaining surprise in an actual fight that someone starts with you.  each has its place.

It's easy to disagree on this point. Why? Because it isn't in practice large scale anywhere except Switzerland.

Bonnie and Clyde would have been dead right away if more people had been better armed.

It's still difficult for IRS agents to get into the Tennessee and Kentucky back-woods hill country.

I disagree with you regarding the outcome. I don't think that open carry can ONLY result in respect. But I do think that we need to dramatically reverse the thinking that only the police / government can protect you.  I think a key culprit in this are the prosecutors who go after people who obviously were trying to protect themselves or who made a simple (non-criminal) error.

If everybody were forced by law to wear at least a .38 when off his residence property, in a few years there would be so much respect of all people by all people, that things like this wouldn't happen. We don't jump into laws like this in one day. We do it over 5 years, with proper training for everyone.

Dead people have been judged. With all the people wearing guns, everybody will take it to court, or will be dead. Crime will essentially be gone.

What about cases such as shown in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3HkIyekLpM&t=192s

Would you consider that a justified killing?

Any time you have numbers, the police tend to be a little more polite. Especially in an open carry state when you are exercising your rights... I wonder why that is?

Also there's the good old fashioned peacable protest.   as they say, if police were not afraid of simple first amendment demonstrations, they would not react so hysterically to them on so many occasions.

I agree there that bringing their actions out into the light is probably actually one of the most effective ways to limit their abuse. The problem is not everyone is as brave or well informed in their rights as you are. Also I imagine in your locality you have built up quite a reputation among most of the local PD forces, and they know better than to try to cut corners in your presence. In a lot of peoples cases it ends with a "that's illegal", a phone snatch, and a delete button, and maybe an arrest. Though, none of this is an excuse not to try... just be aware of what you may be in for.

nah there are many ways to limit police.  Filming them is the obvious one, in more or less everyone's power in the West.  If it were ineffective, why do they react so negatively to it in so many cases?

But I do "tech"nically agree with tec... passing laws is a questionable way to fix problems.  If someone does submit a bill, you can sometimes  use it as an opportunity to generate debate.  Or, in our case, remind people that there is a liberty struggle going on in new hampshire and that they are invited to move here and join it.  

I agree. The only way to slow police down other than getting rid of them altogether is, attack them in Federal District Court, as a man/woman, in a common law claim trial. And make a claim against their bond, as well. If they lose, no bondsman will ever bond them again. They won't be able to be active cops.

The first step is to find out if they have an oath of office on file, one that was duly executed within 10 days of their taking the cop job. It's a felony for most (if not all) government workers who interact with the public to not have a properly executed oath of office on file.

I like the spirit and direction of the law, but at the end of the day the police still police themselves with little public oversight, and this law will be no different than the rest in the face of selective enforcement. I do think it is well written though and can not see any counterproductive side effects of having such a law.

With U.S. police killing about 1,000 people a year
compared to German police who kill about four
I can appreciate the spirit of this bill.

https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB218/id/1833526

Some of the Stockholm syndromers online are upset that the bill comes from "liberty Republicans."  In New Hampshire, Republicans are more  libertarian than in most places and really do want to limit the govt.