Redemption Theory: All Stocked Up.

 Posted on September 21, 2011 in Uncategorized

Bernard Weckmann ("Bernard: WeckMann") posted this comment to my post on Redemption Theory vs. Reality:

Sovereignty is a fact! It does work!!!My wife and I have closed down the local court FOUR times. Visit my site and above all click on the link to listen to the audio recording of her court appearance.http://runnymede1215.wordpress.comI have not got my car back but without my consent there is no jurisdiction and without jurisdiction they are check-mated!They only got themselves deeply into shit.CheersBernardAnd then have the chutzpah to tell me you know anything about the law!Bernard

Here's the audio recording to which Weckmann refers:

"I am called Edith! I am called Edith!"

By "closing down the court" Mr. Weckmann apparently means that they walked out without the court doing anything to them.

It's unfortunate that we can't hear how the court is responding to Edith. Unless the authorities decided that the charge wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with the Weckmanns (a decision that would be in keeping with the rules for dealing with crazy), there is still a pending criminal charge against her.

Mr. Weckmann contends that "everything applies equally in other countries that have Common Law jurisdiction." I don't know how Australia operates, but in Texas if someone walks out of court before her case is resolved or reset and does not come back, the judge will issue a capias for her arrest. The next time she has contact with the police, she gets taken into custody. If that were to happen to Edith, Mr. Weckmann might have to choose between letting his wife sit in jail and making bail. If he makes bail, is he consenting to the jurisdiction of the court? Since his theory is that "carrying out any orders they may give" confers jurisdiction on the court, voluntarily making bail must do likewise. (Did he make bail when she was first charged? Did she sign to acknowledge receipt of a citation?)

In short, there's no indication that Edith's case is over. Mr. Weckmann's contacts with the Australian judicial system seem to have begun last November; it's too early to say whether he is succeeding or not. Maybe Edith has no further contact with the police, and lives the rest of her life without hearing anything else about it. Or maybe she has contact with some government official who for some reason checks her for warrants, and she winds up in jail, then back in court. She tries the same thing again. Perhaps she gets held in contempt this time, or perhaps she successfully walks out again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Mr. Weckmann may see it as some sort of victory, but he's not the one going to jail for a chickenshit petty charge that, with competent counsel, could have been dismissed last February.

And, seven months later (the magistrate wanted to impound it for three, but Mr. Weckmann "denied him jurisdiction and again walked out") he still doesn't have his car back.

While it is true that the thieves have not yet returned our property it is also true that they did NOT achieve what they were after – to fine and/or imprison us, to forfeit the car to the government, and to make this dog-and-pony show look like justice is being done! Without our consent they do not have jurisdiction and without jurisdiction they cannot lawfully take away our property. We are still the rightful owners of the vehicle. They are nothing but frigging thieves!

Mr. Weckmann sees it as a victory that the magistrate was not able to impound his car for three months, but as a result of Mr. Weckmann's handling of the case he has now been without it for seven. Nobody will ever punish the "frigging thieves," nor compensate Mr. Weckmann for the lost use. This is a strange sort of victory.

Never fear, though: Mr. Weckmann has filed commercial liens against

The officer who carried out the unlawful arrest, one Robert Edwards of the Toowoomba Police... for his criminal conduct, to wit: ASSAULT occasioning bodily harm[; t]he other officer, one Jason McLeod Burrows also of the Toowoomba Police... for his criminal activity, to wit: ROBBERY (i.e. theft accompanied by threats of violence to people and property!)...[;] one H Stjernquist of the Toowoomba Magistrates Court, and... the thugs in high places that are aiding and abetting his crime: The Dishonourable Paul Lucas MP, QLD Attorney-General and Deputy Premier and The Dishonourable Neil Roberts MP, QLD Minister for Police.

Again, IANAAL, but in Texas this would be little more than a hassle for the officers and magistrates: they could, without notice to the false creditor, get a judge to review the lien and remove it, or they could demand that the false creditor remove the liens; his failure to do so within twenty-one days would be a class A misdemeanor under Section 32.49 of the Texas Penal Code. The false creditor could have greater problems than a Class A misdemeanor, though: he can be prosecuted for felony retaliation under Section 36.06 of the Texas Penal Code.

Once a redemption theorist is in felony territory, it's much less likely that the authorities will think of him as a harmless crank and pay him no mind.

Folks like Mr. Weckmann think they've swallowed the red pill and discovered some mystical source ("common law," Magna Carta, UCC) of the law that really governs us, despite what the judges and the police and the legislators say. (They are inconsistent on whether they think that the lawyers and the judges know about the law that really governs us-"the lower levels of the judiciary do not necessarily know the law". Fnord.)

But political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. This is not a statement about how the world should be, but of how the world is. The police have the guns, and they enforce the laws that the legislators make unless the judges tell them otherwise. Juries have great power: they can disregard the law, and should when the law is wrong, but Personal-Sovereignty arguments don't create a whole lot of sympathy in people who haven't drunk the same kool-aid, and people who have drunk that kool-aid are not likely to be allowed on a jury by prosecutors and judges.

So if someone follows Mr. Weckmann's advice, files fraudulent liens against cops, and then acts like the criminal court has no jurisdiction over him, he is likely to wind up pro se facing a jury that thinks he broke a law that is not wrong, and the jury will convict him. Then the jury will have no choice but to sentence him to prison (because he will not, on the theory that it would confer jurisdiction, have filed a motion for probation). If he continues behaving as though the criminal court has no jurisdiction over him, he will be taken to prison. If, in the spirit of self-help, he tries to escape, he may be killed.

The judges don't have guns (well, not officially), but they can give orders to the guys with guns. Mr. Weckmann says, "We do NOT shy away from interupting – rudely if it must be[;] We raise our voice – if necessary to shout the magistrate/judge down"; a judge has the power to hold him in contempt for this, and to have the police jail him. Again, if he tries to escape the men with guns may kill him.

This is the practical truth of the matter: aside from jury nullification, the law is what the government says it is. For all practical purposes, if shouting down a judge is likely to get you thrown in jail, then shouting down a judge is against the law. We may not like it; we may not recognize it as legitimate; but if we're going to have any interactions with the government, we have to recognize it.

"Personal sovereignty" and "redemption theory" would work great if you could avoid having anything to do with the government. Avoiding interaction with the government is challenging; few of us are equipped to go off the grid. Even Mr. Weckmann, when he was wronged by the police, complained to the authorities.

So why do I even bother to respond to the obvious loons? Mr. Weckmann is free to make costly mistakes in dealing with the government. If he loses his car or Edith goes to jail or he goes to prison, that's not my problem. He has clearly made up his mind.

But people say things, and people who haven't made up their minds listen, and then act. When people follow the advice of people like Mr. Weckmann, they harm themselves and their families. Occasionally someone will contact me to tell me that they have come to Defending People because of a search for CPNs, or redemption theory, or personal sovereignty, and that I have saved them from a costly mistake.

It's not for Mr. Weckmann, but for those who haven't made up their minds that I bother to respond.