User talk:Harleyborgais

Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

harleyborgais: Ok, I am figuring this all out as I go. Probably not doing it right yet. Tried once already to converse with you. You say I am posting 'Fringe Material'. Please define 'Fringe Material' (Or I will). Hope this is the correct place for this discussion. Have you checked a single one of my references? How can Supreme Court Citations be considered to have less 'weight' than 'majority views'? I do not wish to be blocked from editing. I have sworn: "To support and defend the Constitution for the United States of America", and "To improve the quality of life on Earth", which is what I am doing here, now. harleyborgais at gmail dat com

How do I enter my username like you? (Test 1): Harley Davidson Borgais | 16 April 2013 (Test 2): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Harleyborgais

Next I intend to move the sections I added below, under: "Related Facts", and to add that to the contents. Not sure how yet.

Ok, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe says: "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources."

That being the case, your statement is incorrect, and you must not have checked any of the citations. NONE of that is theoretical, ALL of that is supported by cited facts. Unless you have made an honest mistake (as it seems), than you are doing a TREMENDOUS dis-service to all Americans and Humanity as well (through cause-and-effect/causality).

Let us rationally discuss this issue. Be warned yourself, I am not the type of person to trifle with! I am the type that will fight for what is right, at all costs.

Ok, so, no response from you, and my edits were removed. Email said I would be blocked from editing if I did not visit the talk page (which I have done repeatedly). Now I am preparing to re-post the edits, but I am trying to get them into another section (in table of contents) titled: "Related Facts", but not sure how yet. About to repost...and if I get blocked, will pursue legal actions against 'OrangeMike'. Not sure which charges yet, will make list of all possible ones. Best if OrangMike responds here, ASAP.

Ok, editing the Table of Contents is SUPER Easy, so now I am posting these edits again. If I get blocked, or they are removed again for incorrect reason(s), I will pursue legal actions. Now, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! (Again, it is not my intent to offend, or be rude, but only to fight for what is right)

April 2013

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Sovereign citizen movement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Harleyborgais (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOW, I have just emailed both of you, and no one is actually discussing the issue here. Legal charges will follow if no one does discuss it. I will review your policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), before going any futher. At first thought, it seems you are simply wrong on this point. Not only will legal charges follow, but as many people as possible will be notified of your actions, if I can prove them to be wrong (which I am pretty sure I will be able to do, as I HAVE checked these facts).

Ok, 'Neutral Point of View' means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Well, I have used verifiable facts, so there is no question I comply with the "Verifiability" and "No original research" policies. So, perhaps one of the next questions might be if the other sources already in the article are 'reliable', or factual. Also, if/how I can make the wording of my statements more 'neutral'. This I will ponder for a while. First I must go back to the edit preview page, and read that version with this question in mind. Also I will be pondering the meaning of Fraud, which is basically deceiving another party for gain while harming that other party...and whether or not the current version of the wiki article in question is fraudulent...and what other legal charges can be brought against a party who willfully presents false and misleading legal information to the entire Human Population in this manner.

SO, IS ANYONE GOING TO ACTUALLY DISCUSS THIS HERE WITH ME OR NOT?

Dear Harleyborgais: Welcome to Wikipedia! The material you added to the article on the Sovereign citizen movement was full of so many errors that it was moved to the talk page for the article. I added explanations -- on the article's talk page -- as to just some of the problems with the material. The material included at least one fake quote, at least one real quote taken out of context, and at least one instance of citation to a court case where the the court case did not stand for the proposition being stated in the material. The material also included at least one erroneous interpretation of a provision of the United States Constitution.

By the way, as another editor has pointed out: Threatening legal action against Wikipedia or its editors is not allowed.

As far as I can tell, you have made about three edits to Wikipedia articles so far. I would suggest that you calm down, take a deep breath, and study the Wikipedia rules and guidelines -- especially those on Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research. Famspear (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent legal threat

Regarding the legal threat you recently emailed to me, apparently growing out of this revert, I suggest that you read WP:THREAT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

harleyborgais: Ok, I will. And I will look for the legal definition of 'Threat' as well, since I considered it a 'warning', and not a 'threat' (for which there is a fine line between). Clearly, this is an issue that gets me worked up, since after 13 years studying law, it has become evident that most people dont understand it properly, and nearly all our police and judges are applying it so grossly inappropriately as to make many of them actually guilty of 'treason' and 'terrorism' by definition.

And this is the content of my intended edit, so we can debate whether it is accurate factually, as well as if and how it violates your neutral point of view policy...

-Related Facts-

"Sovereignty" is defined as: "The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and Its administration"[8]. In America, the people are sovereigns, not the government[9][10]. To further reiterate this fact, the Declaration of Independence says, "government is subject to the consent of the governed."[11].

In 1913, sovereignty and allodial title[12] appear to have been unlawfully taken from the American people by the Privately Owned[13] 'Federal Reserve Bank' via 'hypothecation'[14][15] the 'Federal Reserve Act'[16][17][18].

Fortunately however, all unconstitutional legislation is null and 'void of law', and it is a crime for any member of Americas government to enforce such legislation[19][20][21][22].

Furthermore, any member of government convicted of even a misdemeanor shall be removed from office[23].

All Americans have equal rights[24] to cite, arrest, and prosecute any person, party, or member of government or military which they can prove with verifiable facts has committed a crime. This also means that Americans have the right to self-defense against an unlawful arrest, and to protect others from unlawful arrest, even when that other is consenting to such[25][26][27][28][29] .

Additionally, the federal government has no authority or jurisdiction over the people in the United States of America except for in the District of Columbia and other territories owned by The United States of America[30]. Note that there is a 'Federal Corporation' with the name of 'United States' which causes great confusion among people who think that 'The United States of America' (The physical land and people) has been replaced by or changed into a corporation, which is not lawfully possible under the 'Supreme Law of the Land' (The Constitution for the United States of America, circa 1787)[31].

harleyborgais: Ok, I see that I may be blocked from posting 'legal threats', which I dont want. If someone had/would actually DISCUSS this matter here with me I would not feel the need to do that. Clearly it upsets me to see people not only spreading foolishness such as is on the Wikipedia article in question here, and even more-so when all attempts to present real, verifiable facts are thwarted.

"Law" is not a question of opinion or 'majority viewpoints', it is mathematical in nature. The purpose of law is to 'promote the general welfare' of the people governed, and what is best is what causes the least 'Harm'. Harm=Injury, loss, or detriment. These matters are completely calculable, and not subjective, but objective. There IS a CORRECT answer to the questions on this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement), and it seems kind of silly to give 'equal weight' to opinions and 'majority views' on matters of 'Law'.

So what have you to say on that? Harleyborgais (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no "foolishness" in the article on the sovereign citizen movement as it currently exists in Wikipedia. The material that you posted, however, was full of errors, as I noted on the talk page for the article. Much of what you posted is the same old repetitive gibberish that has been posted in Wikipedia and in a thousand other places on the internet over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

No, secular law (in the ordinary, every day sense of the "body of principles, standards and rules promulgated by government") is not "mathematical" in nature. We're not talking about the laws of physics here.

No, as a general proposition, police and judges are not applying the law "so grossly inappropriately" as to make "many" of them "actually guilty of 'treason' and 'terrorism' by definition." Sure, there are bad apples in every barrel, but you are overstating your case. I understand that you get "worked up," as you have put it.

Law cannot be learned in the way that you apparently have been studying it for the past thirteen plus years, as you put it. Had you been studying law properly, you would not have made the numerous mistakes -- and especially the kinds of mistakes -- you made in your post in the article on the sovereign citizen movement.

By the way, for purposes of Wikipedia. your "warnings" about legal action against Wikipedia editors are indeed "threats", and they're not allowed -- regardless of the terminology you use. Famspear (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, I don't have the time or the topic-centric interest to discuss details of the material I removed from the Sovereign citizen movement article in this revert. I became aware of your edit which I reverted while patrolling for vandalism using WP:Huggle. A quick read of the material you were adding led me to the conclusion that you were arguing a position rather than presenting information in a neutral manner. It also looked like you were relying on your own analysis of primary source material to draw conclusions based upon such sources. In WP articles, analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources is called original research, and is not allowed (see WP:OR).

I see at Special:Contributions/Harleyborgais that your list of edits is very short. I suggest that you take a look at WP:POLICY, WP:E, and WP:HOW to take some of the trial-and-error out of getting started.

Finally, since you now have some serious warnings on this talk page, I suggest that you read WP:OWNTALK. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make it explicit now that you have no intention of taking legal action

or of encouraging anyone else to do so. This has been explained to you but you haven't yet withdrawn your statements. If you don't do so explicitly and before continuing to edit I will block you as policy requires. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being I will promise not to attempt any legal actions against anyone on this issue, even though I disagree with you. For now I will carefully ponder all of your comments and as soon as I have the time to return to this issue I will respond to all of your comments here. I will present evidence to support all of my claims, and withdrawal any that I feel you have proven me wrong on.

As I sat considering which charges I would bring, the only ones that came up were severe: Crime against humanity (for spreading false info that cause harm [injury, loss, or detriment], treason [if in the US, for giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution], and potentially fraud [though I cannot see a gain on your part, unless you have interests which I find difficult to believe considering the inherent righteousness of what you actually do here]. It was never my intention to press charges that severe, as the harm does not seem severe enough to warrant the punishments these bring.

Anyways, until I have more time and am able to respond to everything, I will take NO legal actions against anyone on this issue.

Thank you for actually responding so far, and sorry for my harsh manner thus far.

 One last thing for now...

I will bet that none of you are aware of the degree to which our natural (God given, self evident, inalienable) rights have been eroded. Here are some brief examples:

Americans do not require 'drivers' licenses to use public roads (Slusher V Safety Coach, and dozens of other cases)...ONLY 'commercial' drivers do. 'Driver' means one who is hired to transport people or property, and 'motor vehicle' specifically means a commercial automobile.

Taxes on labor are illegal, and not one penny of them go to our public services. All go to pay off a debt to entities guilty of insurrection against our Constitutional govt.. Congress has taxed 'profit' and 'gain', NOT 'compensation' for 'salaries' or 'wages', which are 'fair exchanges'. There are dozens of cases on this too. I will add more citations when I return.

All foreclosures on homes were ruled illegal, null, and void, not because of the nature of 'foreclosure', but because all banks in the world almost use the 'fractional reserve system' which allows them to loan out 10x the currency they actually have (Jerome Daly V Wisconsin, 1969..and see 43 Trillion dollar spire law group case). The 'federal reserve notes' are not even 'legal tender' or 'United States Dollars' under the Constitution (which allows only silver and gold coin from US Mint to be 'legal tender')...and the only law Ron Paul could find for the definition of the 'Dollar' is 0.85 Oz of Silver.

So, our most basic right of keeping what we earn (the most basic of all properties) has been taken...our basic right to 'free travel' has been turned to a privilege, and 90 percent of the money the banks loan us does not even exist, making more than that amount which we pay them back stolen (larceny, fraud, conversion, and in some cases extortion, according to the ruling in the cited case).

These are just the most severe ones that most directly effect us all, and which I have researched enough to prove absolutely to be true. I will provide more references/citations to any upon request: harleyborgais at gmail dat com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harleyborgais (talk • contribs) 10:05, 17 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

This does not look like a withdrawal to me but a statement that you may still take legal action in the future.. I could block you immediately but instead have raised the issue at WP:ANI#Is this withdrawal of a legal threat sufficient?. You need to respond there now and withdraw any intention of making legal threats. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious agenda editing and for making legal threats (of an outrageously ridiculous nature). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]