Free Pete Eyre!


Suverans2's picture

Pay attention, you two members of the STATE who gave this story a one-star rating. While you two are probably hacking at the branches, or more likely doing nothing at all, these young people are testing their cage, and they found a crack.

"Afterward, when Burke [the man in the black dress] had finally entered the courtroom, he called the LEGAL NAME I despise, and appreciate silence regarding, so I informed him that he could call me slave, which he called nonsense. ... During my trial, I was declared...guilty for refusal to process, but with time served, there was no further statist retribution for peaceful actions."

"he could call me" is not the same as giving a them a name, and "time served" is their cover-up for what actually took place in that COURT, so, hopefully, the other "monkeys", watching or reading, don't figure it out.

"Pete, as he’s not identifying, probably won’t receive mail."

That is correct, he won't, in fact, he won't be able to get any "benefits" until he gives that so-called COURT a "LEGAL NAME", and he's being held in solitary confinement if that man wearing the black dress knows what he's doing.

Do you two "one-voters" know why Pete must acknowledge himself as a "LEGAL PERSON" before that so-called JUDGE can proceed?

And, further, I predict that if Pete does not acknowledge himself as a "LEGAL PERSON" he will be released sometime during his 3rd day of incarceration, probably with the same "time served" excuse.

We need to encourage these young freedom fighters. I give them a big TEN-STAR RATING for actually doing something.

tzo's picture

I respect anyone who stands up for what is right, as has Pete. Why did he do it? Is it a strategy? Has he considered the risk/reward? Or is he simply doing what he feels he needs to do?

I worry for his safety, because I do not share the faith that you have in the system following any set of rules. A video on this website cites a case of another individual who refused to identify himself and was held for almost 60 days. Perhaps the judge will follow the "law," or perhaps not.

And now that the entire world is a battlefield in the war on terrorism, officially, what might the police state make of an individual who refuses to identify himself as being one of the "good guy" citizens? Perhaps he isn't. Perhaps he's a furriner. Perhaps he's a terrorist. Perhaps he really has no "rights," as he is not willing to claim them.

Dangerous stuff.

Suverans2's picture

G'day tzo,

You asked, “Why did he do it? Is it a strategy? Has he considered the risk/reward? Or is he simply doing what he feels he needs to do?”

Perhaps ”THIS” will answer your questions.

I'm not certain whether Pete was, in this instance, standing up for “what is right”, or not, my friend, but I do like to see young people [my nativity was reportedly in the Winter of '48] peacefully challenging the status quo, looking for chinks in Goliath's “legal armor”. And, for your information, a man can “identify” himself without identifying himself as a person[1], i.e. a consenting member of your, or any other, man-made fictitious political community. I have already written to these young people about that very thing, giving them a general overview of how to go about it, since your government, in recent years, has begun charging individuals with “FAILURE TO IDENTIFY”.

You wrote: “Perhaps he really has no "rights," as he is not willing to claim them.”

What on Earth prompted you to pull that rabbit out of the hat? Do you have evidence that Pete is not willing to claim his natural rights?

My “faith” in your government following any set of fundamental rules is based on my own personal experience as an individual secessionist over the last eleven years, but, as I have written elsewhere on this alternative news site, I have no delusions that this will continue forever. However, when those desiring dominion over their fellow man no longer “allow” a peaceful, lawful remedy for individuals who do not wish to be dominated by them, it will mark the beginning of a very unpeaceful one.

Yes, my friend, the “animating contest for freedom”, actually doing something besides just talking about it, can be “Dangerous stuff”, just ask the ”56 signers of the American Declaration of Independence”.

[1] Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis--Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. ~ Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), page 2136

“This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.
A moment's reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.” ~ American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910 [Emphasis added]

tzo's picture

"Perhaps he isn't. Perhaps he's a furriner. Perhaps he's a terrorist. Perhaps he really has no "rights," as he is not willing to claim them."

I meant these to be the thoughts crawling through the brains of the captors. Rights are what they grant citizens, and if he isn't a citizen, then he has no rights. Government logic. And this government, while dangerous even to its citizens, is essentially merciless to non-citizens.

And for the record, I will label him brave because he is certainly not naive. He knows exactly what he has stepped into. One of these actions will eventually be a spark that ignites the unpeaceful times, and that is good. And bad. And inevitable.

Suverans2's picture

Thanks for the clarifications, tzo, much appreciated.

"Rights are what they grant citizens[1], and if he isn't a citizen, then he has no rights"....ACCORDING TO THE CAPTORS, (as you indicate above), because if they did "recognize" a man's Natural Rights[2] they would, as a consequence, be negating all of their de facto authority. (De jure authority can only be delegated by the author.)

[1] Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.
[2]In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. ~ Wikipedia [Emphasis added]

“...the primal rights [natural rights] pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently [prior] to their recognition by positive law.” ~ A Dictionary of Law (c.1891), page 1044
Note: “primal rights” are first rights, and an human being's first rights are his natural rights, because they are inherent, i.e.implanted by nature” at the time of his creation.

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

Pete and Adam (Ademo on FB) are making a serious and needed point. They've had much "questioning" from people who either (1) are of an older generation that did not suffer the kind of government monster and its impact on the economy and one's job prospects (including the taint of the war on drug freedom) and (2) younger people who don't realize that the "conventional" methods are no longer working because a high percentage of the American public has no conscience or is simply numb from the government machine. These two are heroic. Get the word out. I plan to write more on this in the future, but I'm under the gun on a project now. Please encourage the other large freedom websites to mention them. I notice the dearth in far too many of them!

Suverans2's picture

Here is some of the dialogue we are in at the moment.

Suverans2 26. Jan, 2011 at 2:23 pm #

However, that COURTROOM is their “house”, and it should be treated like anyone else’s “house”. If you VOLUNTARILY enter into that house you should, according to the natural law, obey the “house rules”. If you know the rules to that “house”, and don’t like those rules, do not VOLUNTARILY enter that house; or if, after entering, you discover the rules, after VOLUNTARILY entering, secede [withdraw peacefully] from that “house”, if you choose not to consent to those rules.
Alice Lillie 28. Jan, 2011 at 3:03 am #

This “house” is public. Therefore he had every right to wear the hat.

If courts were privatized, they could enforce no-hat or other rules. But this is a dilemma when you have public property. Nobody owns it, so nobody has the right to make rules.

So, Pete was right.
Suverans2 28. Jan, 2011 at 11:49 am #

G’day Alice Lillie,

Thanks for the reply.

First let me say, as an individual secessionist, I appreciate very much what Mike, Ademo, Pete, you, and everyone else involved in the struggle for freedom, are doing, so keep in mind I am only trying to give constructive criticisms, which of course you all are free to ignore, at your own peril.

The language of their so-called law is called “legalese”, it is Legal Pig Latin (LPL), an artificial language designed to fool us.

This word “public”, and the phrase “public property” are not exceptions.

The word “public”, as in “public property”, can mean, in LPL (Legal Pig Latin), “Pertaining to the state, nation or whole community…” That’s from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1227. Note that first one, “pertaining to the state”.

Now, “public property”, from this same dictionary, can mean, in LPL, “those things which are publici juris (q.v.), [of public right] and therefore considered as being owned by “the public,” the entire state or community and not restricted to the dominion of a private person. It may also apply to the any subject of property owned by the state, nation, or municipal corporation as such. See also State property, below.” Now the LPL definition of “State property” my shock you, so we’ll save that for another day.

Suffice to say that COURTHOUSE is “public property”, defined as “property owned by the state", which makes it “their house”, as I was trying to explain to our freedom fighting friends.

You should also note the phrase “corporation as such” in that definition of “public property”. Corporations are artificial persons, which makes their law “private law”, that is to say it only applies to members of the corporation, and “citizens” are members of the corporation.

2Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you…

Hope this will help to un-muddy the waters.

tzo's picture

Yes, I think it is an important first step to get people to realize that the USG claims to own every square inch of its domain. There is no public or private property, only government property.

Step two, which must logically follow, is for people to realize that no human being has any rights under such an ownership assumption. Everyone here is a USG houseguest, and if you do not follow the rules, you must leave.

Step three is that people realize that every square inch of the planet is government property, and so no human being has the right to anything on the planet. There is only existence by permission.

Step four is the action taken by people who do not go along with the government ownership assumption. Ideally, this action spreads far and wide and takes as its primary form the ignoring of government rules, and not as violent retaliation.

And so to sort of answer a question you posed earlier, the short answer is that education is the key to this change. That is not to say that action such as this civil disobedience is not important, because it is essential, but civil disobedience presented to a populace that has a government mindset will never work. Lose the government mindset, and civil disobedience will become rampant quite naturally. Positive feedback loop.

And I see that you agree with the importance of education, as you are placing the above CD actions in proper context for the people who have observed and commented on it. Alice views the actions taken against Pete as unjust, but she is viewing everything through her government goggles, and the end result is that she is wishing for the government to relent and give people permission to wear hats in court.

It is "our" public property and "they" the government should let us do what "we" want but it is "our" government and so "we" have decided to not allow hats. "We" should change this but apparently, "we" don't want to. "We" are so confused.

Public property reduces directly down to government property. So does private property.

You can have either government or private property, but you cannot have both. If you choose government, you forego private property and hence forego having rights.

Suverans2's picture

G'day tzo,

You didn't really think I would let this go unanswered, now did you? ;)

“And so to sort of answer a question you posed earlier, the short answer is that education is the key to this change. … Lose the government mindset, and civil disobedience will become rampant quite naturally.” ~ tzo

So, if I am understanding you correctly, you truly believe that through “education”, (of which, of course, the State has virtually total control of via schools, the mainstream media, entertainment industry, and perhaps soon, even the internet), we can convince a meaningful number of “a populace that has a government mindset” to be rampantly civilly disobedient, “quite naturally”? Good luck on that one, mon frère .

“You can have either government or private property, but you cannot have both. If you choose government, you forego private property and hence forego having rights.” ~ tzo

So, once again, if I am not misreading you, what you are saying is that because there has never been a government that was, in truth, “instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, and whose sole duty was strictly limited to protecting its voluntary members natural rights, there never can be? And, please, my friend, don't hold up the United States as your example of one that failed, because we both know that that was not ever, “in truth”, its purpose.

Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States, from the preamble on, do we read anything about that government securing to each and every consenting member, his natural/inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and property, the last item of which was intentionally omitted[1] even from their formal notice of secession, popularly called The Declaration of Independence. The omission of the Foundational Stone, the natural right ["just claim"] to individual property, was not some mere oversight by these 56 men (twenty four, of which, were lawyers and jurists), they knew all too well that the other two were impossible without it; the entire "Philosophy of Liberty" is based on the principle of self-ownership, property in the form of one's body and soul.[2]

[1] Thomas Jefferson ranked John Locke, along with John’s compatriot Algernon Sidney, as the most important thinkers on liberty.

John Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” He continues: “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.” ~ "John Locke Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property"

[2]soul NOUN: The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.