In my opinion, you have been doing a good job taking the necessary jabs at government, and usually coming out reasonably unscathed.

This one might prove to be a bit more challenging, but only time will tell. Most likely, they won't overreact to this. They'll probably try to verbally admonish you for non compliance, and then most likely just give you a slap on the wrist.

I doubt they'll make any concerted effort whatsoever to even bother coming after you, so I don't think you have to be looking over your shoulder every minute of every day. I would stay away from driving cars though (even if you don't have one). Traffic ticket stops is usually when they bag people.

Given that, a free state movement was a good choice

This set of argumentation was put to a friend who is a judge (relinquishing that post soon).

He said; those are "good" arguments. I have nothing else to say on the subject.

Read

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6358032/AntiGovernment-…

useful read by Pro Tyranny sources.

It is my estimation that

1. the "free state" movement is premature

2. A FREE COUNTY is what we need, and expand from there.

The first and second issue refer to whether or not a crime can be considered an offense without an injured party. In NH, it can, as stated in the opening pages of the NH rules of criminal procedure. It's a fun moral argument to make but the court doesn't want to hear moral arguments.

Part 3 refers to the essential elements of the charges against you needed to obtain a conviction. While what was stated above refers to a perfect complaint or the elements of the complaint sounds good, it's not the correct way to word the question. You would want to ask about the charges and what elements need to be present in order for those charges to apply. Example, if the complaint was for breach of contract, the 3 elements necessary would be 1)the existence of an enforceable contract, 2)acts of the defendant that constitute the breach and 3)damages to the plaintiff because of the breach. If the cop on the stand didn't know the elements to the cause of action they were bringing against you, it's possible you would succeed in impeaching the witness but ultimately the courts do what they want.

While point 4 makes sense, it likely won't happen either. I plan on making this argument when…you'll have to wait for the video:)

Again all of these points made in the above post are excellent for exposing the system for the extortion racket that our present court system is, and it's possible one could overturn a conviction on appeal if enough of their shenanigans are documented.

Then again, the appellate court is part of the same racket.

LPViper, read Adventures in Legal Land.

1. ask the officer:

* "who was injured?"

* "were you injured?"

2. If no injury is shown, then the judge is to be

informed that the officer does not have standing

to bring charges against the defendant.

3. If that fails; ask the (officer) revenuer:

* "did you write the complaint?"

* "was this complaint perfect?"

* "how many elements are there to a perfect

complaint?"

* at this point the prosecuting attorney will

object, as the revenuer is not an expert in

complaints;

* the defendant then impeaches the witness as

he is not an expert witness, and his

testimony is questionable

4. failing that:

* ask the judge: "who do you represent in these

proceedings?"

* he will indicate "the state"

* ask the judge: "If you represent the state, as

you have admitted, does that not make you

party to the complaint against the defendant?"

* The defendant then demands that the judge

recuse himself from the proceedings, as it is

highly improper for the judge to sit in

judgment on a case to which he is party.

IN THAT ORDER.