Randy updates his Cherokee County situation. M to Disqualify treated as M to Recuse. &c &c.
Bill Veith, fiat currency primer. In hour two, currency discussion turns to remedies.
Mark in Washington. 11A conflicting w/ Art II, Sec. 2 of Articles of Confederation. (Ability to sue the sovereign.) Randy explains why sovereign immunity is needed…but only, only within the bounds and scope of their or their agents’ authority. Exceptions: if sovereign is engaging in commerce, sovereign can be sued. The Thelka v US In Texas, agent using a state vehicle lose their cloak of sovereign immunity. Ex; threatening to have county clerk arrested for not filing documents.
Dr. Veith explains why gold and silver hold value.
Callers. Brian in Minnesota calls about ‘right to travel’ cases he found in MN. Eddie cautions against an RTT argument, calling it “fighting a grease fire with water.” Not a good idea. RTT is based on liberty right first, then property. Better argument is ‘I cannot be compelled to engage in commerce’ which is what transportation is. State argues transportation not travel, so best argument is challenging presumption of transport. Brian asks about automobile as ‘dangerous’ conveyance as MN tries to claim in order to control travel. Eddie answers.
Caller “Anonymous from North America”. Selling alcohol to underage person in a bust. Criminal law is all about mindset – no mens rea here – had no intention of selling alcohol to underage person. Fingerprinted guy on the spot, charged him, but did not take him straight to magistrate. Gerstein v Pugh (Florida) controlling case recognized that all arrests should be by warrant but that real life doesn’t work that way. Practical compromise allows arresting officer for on-site offense and hold SNM until safety of officer and SNM flight risk are secure. Thereafter, all holding rights evaporate. Randy says file criminal charges.
Randy updates his Cherokee County situation. M to Disqualify treated as M to Recuse. &c &c.
Bill Veith, fiat currency primer. In hour two, currency discussion turns to remedies.
Mark in Washington. 11A conflicting w/ Art II, Sec. 2 of Articles of Confederation. (Ability to sue the sovereign.) Randy explains why sovereign immunity is needed…but only, only within the bounds and scope of their or their agents’ authority. Exceptions: if sovereign is engaging in commerce, sovereign can be sued. The Thelka v US In Texas, agent using a state vehicle lose their cloak of sovereign immunity. Ex; threatening to have county clerk arrested for not filing documents.
Dr. Veith explains why gold and silver hold value.
Callers. Brian in Minnesota calls about ‘right to travel’ cases he found in MN. Eddie cautions against an RTT argument, calling it “fighting a grease fire with water.” Not a good idea. RTT is based on liberty right first, then property. Better argument is ‘I cannot be compelled to engage in commerce’ which is what transportation is. State argues transportation not travel, so best argument is challenging presumption of transport. Brian asks about automobile as ‘dangerous’ conveyance as MN tries to claim in order to control travel. Eddie answers.
Caller “Anonymous from North America”. Selling alcohol to underage person in a bust. Criminal law is all about mindset – no mens rea here – had no intention of selling alcohol to underage person. Fingerprinted guy on the spot, charged him, but did not take him straight to magistrate. Gerstein v Pugh (Florida) controlling case recognized that all arrests should be by warrant but that real life doesn’t work that way. Practical compromise allows arresting officer for on-site offense and hold SNM until safety of officer and SNM flight risk are secure. Thereafter, all holding rights evaporate. Randy says file criminal charges.