Talk:Jural Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) I'm going to try to add to this entry over the next couple days. - Jaysus Chris 01:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a member of the Jural Society but I have no idea who this James D. Brailey is, I've never heard of him.
But I see that this allegedly occurred on February 10, 2004, before I started going. So I have e-mailed a member who has been going there since the 80s or early 90s and asked him about it. (I'll let you know when I hear back from him)
According to the article "James D. Brailey, 44, pleaded guilty to illegal possession of several guns, including a fully automatic submachine gun, an assault rifle, handguns and ammunition." That looks really stupid though, because the only thing illegal about everything they mentioned is the full auto firearm (at that time the assult rifle might have been banned too...I'm not sure) and if he was a member of the Jural society he would surely have had access to legal documents which would have totally cleared him of any of those laws.
It is true that most of the members of the Jural society drive without licenses, insurance, seat belts, etc... But before you go condemning them as outlaws you should take a look at the success they have had in court. One particular man whom I have talked to there (Lloyd Smith) has been in court because the drivers license issue over 30 times so far and he has WON every single case.
I’m sure your asking how he does it…well, I could explain all of that and show you law to back it up, but I doubt anyone would listen…the point is that he is staying within the law because he admits he drives without a license in court but he still wins the cases legally...maybe we should make a category on wikipedia for constitutional arguments! 4.242.159.5 06:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just heard back from my friend; he said that James Brailey used to be chairman. However, the charges which have been mentioned here came long after he left the Jural Society; so that section of the article ought to be removed as it is not relevant. 4.242.159.210 04:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jural Society is a legal term, not the name of a Christian Identity group

Although the Washington State Jural Society is one jural society, "Jural Society" is a legal term meaning a political body founded on the authority of the people (de jure). A Jural Society is an organized political body synonymous with nation, state, or republic. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. government, as per law, is not a duly organized political body but is in fact a defacto martial power that has none of the characteristics of a lawful government (i.e., consent of the governed, a legal impossibility in a "democracy.")

As done in this wiki article, defining the term "Jural Society" as synonymous with the Washington State Jural Society is an error akin to defining "government" as "The State of Washington," completely neglecting the fact that Washington state is *a* government but by no means the definition of government.

This article also quotes spurious charges brought by the defacto martial power against a *former* member, by innuendo implicating the Washington State Jural Society or any lawful jural society in acts of terrorism and poisoning the minds of readers against this concept so well-understood and applied by America's Founders. This is basically libel and should not be tolerated in any serious or scholarly work.

I can properly and tersely define "jural society" but I leave it up to you all to discuss how this excuse for an article got here in the first place. On its face it appears an unconscious attempt to misinform people by someone with an un-factual bias.

GuerillaVille

GuerillaVille 08:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)