-41 votes

Are Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tom Woods, Barry Goldwater, and Justin Amash all duping you?

EDIT AND DISCLAIMER: The title of this thread is a rhetorical question. It is designed to stimulate discussion. I am a big fan of each of the persons mentioned and am in no way implying they've 'duped' anyone. I thought that would be obvious from this post.

_____________________________________________

That would seem like quite a stretch. This post is aimed at those who believe in "secret legal system" type theories, such as the whole sovereign citizen mythology, strawman stuff, redemption/ UCC protocols, etc.

All of these ethical, brilliant men, who are or were the leaders of the libertarian movement, have one thing in common: they never say anything about this stuff. Ever. None has ever said there is a straw man. None has ever said there is an secret legal system, or that we operate under "admiralty law" (rofl) or that one can file a UCC-1 and somehow take a security interest in one's self, magic word defenses, or any of the other (frankly) gibberish that get floated around this site regularly by a few posters.

Why is that? I'd like to know the explanation for this, from those few. Do you believe they are "in on it?" Are they "secret double agents" or is there some other supernatural explanation you have? If so, please do tell! I'm trying to understand your participation in a movement that doesn't really have anything to do with your ideas. Respond, and flame, away.

The poultry abides.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

blabbler

blibber blab blib blab blabber! Blabber!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Spoken like a true coward ...

... when confronted with a question he cannot answer, he turns to ridicule.

You working from the Saul Alinsky playbook?

How about this quote:

"By the era of the American Revolution trial by jury was probably the most common right in all the colonies. When Parliament imposed the Stamp Act of 1765, authorizing admiralty courts to enforce its provisions, John Adams voiced the American reaction: 'But the most grievous innovation of all, is the alarming extension of the power of courts of admiralty. In these courts, one judge presides alone! No juries have any concern there! The law and the fact are both to be decided by the same single judge.'

"Thus, the Stamp Act. Congress protested the denial of one of 'the most essential rights and liberties of the colonists,' and the Boston town meeting of 1772, which framed 'A List of Infringements and Violations of Rights,' included trial by jury, which it hailed as 'the grand bulwark and security of English property.'

"Colonists vehemently denounced admiralty courts because they worked without juries. Selectively quoting from Blackstone's Commentaries, the colonists praised his remarks to the effect that trial by jury was the 'sacred palladium' of English liberties that might be undermined by new or different methods of trial.

http://candst.tripod.com/doinotlaw.htm

Looks a lot like traffic court. And tax court. Not to mention FISA court. And ...

I seriously love the Declaration of Independence.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

Q-Under what authority was this done? What color of law? Is this so different than today?

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:"

Q-What jurisdiction was that? Do we have that same pretended legislation today?

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"

Q-By what authority? I know of plenty of people today that do not consent to taxation.

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:"

Q-No trial by jury! That isn't common law. Do we have that today?

"For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."

Q-By what authority did they pull that off?

"For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies"

Q-An arbitrary government? How? Is our current government arbitrary?

Let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Q-What exactly do the Laws Of Nature and of Nature's God entitle me to?

I must admit to still getting emotional when I read the Declaration.

so, because

the founders objected to the British expanding the use of admiralty law, that means that we are presently governed by it? I don't find that persuasive at all, sorry. But thank you for trying.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

stick around

that professed liar will give you more bad spell'n
and nonsense
isn't here for anything good,but is here to blabber crap
and say nothing,and mean just as much

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

bad spelling?

You're really going to criticize my spelling?

First of all, your spelling and grammar are hideous. Second, this is not a legal brief, it's an internet forum. If I post something I generally don't proof read it. If I'm using my ipad, all bets are off, it will autocomplete and auto punctuate until it barely makes sense.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

freeman distraction #101

1. claim that there is an injustice somewhere, that most people will agree with

2. jump to the conclusion that because there is injustice somewhere, your totally unrelated pet unicorn theory is valid

It's not even a good ruse - it won't fool anyone except those dim enough to believe your garbage in the first place.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I don't think you comprehend Admiralty Law.

Blabbering fool.

well to be fair

I don't have to comprehend it. It doesn't apply, and hasn't applied, in any case I've ever handled. Never been in admiralty court. I did get a case years ago where a guy was injured at sea, and referred him to a specialist in that area.

But the idea that every court is an admiralty court, because of fringe or because England did something clever 300 years ago, or because some idiot is selling his faux legal education via youtube videos, is what I disagree with.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

It’s not hearsay.

There is a case in the Asheville Division of North Carolina, U.S. v 3039.375 Pounds of Copper, et al., case number 1:08cv230 also generally known as the Liberty Dollar case. It is a civil forfeiture action on the land.

The magistrate, in his order filed 08/21/2008, “... advised that while this court applies the common law in a number of civil diversity cases, common law pleading has been supplanted in civil forfeiture actions by both federal statutes and rules. (cites two 1990 Circuit Court cases). Specifically, this action was brought by the United States under 18, United States Code, Sections 98& 492, with the procedures mandated by Section 983 of that title, which require the parties and the court to follow not only the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and Asset Forfeiture Claims.

He continues, ... Put another way, the type of relief Mr. ****** seeks through detinue and delivery at common law must now be sought through claim and answer. Rule G(5)(a), of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and Asset Forfeiture Claims, specifies the requirements for the filing of an Answer to the Amended Complaint.

Although we know that “Admiralty” in not a “secret” jurisdiction, the founders sought to keep from extending it to the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county. This, I believe most of the people on this website feel is wrong, and Ron Paul even said that the seizure was wrong.

Detinue is a common law action for wrongful detainer. How and why was the common law supplanted to allow the Admiralty courts jurisdiction to extend to cases arising merely in the county?

http://www.powerpolitics.com
“If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.”

be happy to answer that

kindly link to the opinion in question and I'll get back to you.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

A really good way to go to

A really good way to go to jail is to use the UCC to game the system. The UCC is part of the Roman Civil Law that binds you in the first place under the 14th Amendment federal citizenship.

There are many jurisdictions, but two important ones for Americans:

1. There is, and always was, first the Commom Law jurisdiction of Natural Rights and God's Law that exists within the Nations in the American Union.

2. There is the Roman Civil Law jurisdiction of Civil Rights and privilages of federal citizenship created by 14th Amendment in which exists all the alphabet agencies, the income tax, socalled "Social Security," Obamacare, Medicare, as well as personal and professional licences.

To exist in any way within the latter is to have a foot in a bear trap. The jurisdiction of the latter will always trump the former because there is no presumption in law of your status in the former. You have to constantly prove you are not under fedreal jurisdiction because that's where they want you. That is where they control you. That is where you are their "human resource" for revinue purposes.

Playing with the UCC is dangerous business and ill advised, plus it is evidence of your voluntary subjugation to the wrong juristiction.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

gibberish

all of this is just wrong. Tellingly, you cite no authority for any of your fake law statements.

Good luck on "gaming the system" with the UCC or applying "roman law". That gave me, and a couple of other attorneys, a good laugh this morning. So, thank you for that!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

So, lets get this strait: You

So, lets get this strait:

You deny that the states of the union are countries in union the same way that France and Germany are countries in union?

You deny that the peoples of each State possessed the nationality of their country prior to the 14th Amendment?

You deny that there was no such thing as a US citizen before tbe 14th amendment?

You deny that the 14th Amendment created a wholly new juristic person foreign the the Common Laws of the States?

You deny that the constitution is a document founded upon international law?

You deny that the Union is an international organization of independant sovereign states?

You deny that the Federal Government is an internationally foreign government to that of each of the several States?

You deny that the jurisdiction the United States is foreign to the jurisdiction of each of the several States?

Which of these facts is wrong and why? Did you study law at Pappa Doc's Medical School, or are you a plant from the State Department? My friends and I are laughing well at your expence... and living free.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

I'll take them one at a time

You deny that the states of the union are countries in union the same way that France and Germany are countries in union?

A: Since the civil war amendments, that is untrue. Unfortunate, but reality is what reality is.

You deny that there was no such thing as a US citizen before tbe 14th amendment?

A: I believe that prior to the civil war/ reconstruction era amendments (including the 14th), one was considered primarily a state citizen. All citizens of all states were considered U.S. citizens as well, though the Constitution did not yet say that.

You deny that the peoples of each State possessed the nationality of their country prior to the 14th Amendment?

A: Yes, again, the civil war era amendments made that change. So we actually agree on this one.

You deny that the constitution is a document founded upon international law?

A: "International law" is too vague a term to have any meaning. What international law?

You deny that the Union is an international organization of independant sovereign states?

A: If you are talking about the United States prior to the reconstruction era amendments, yes, that was an organization of independent sovereign states, though under our federalist system, and given the privileges and immunities clause, do not consider them international with reference to one another. Perhaps semantics and splitting hairs.

You deny that the Federal Government is an internationally foreign government to that of each of the several States?

A: I do not agree that the US Federal Government is considered, under our Constitutional concepts of sovereignty or federalism, a foreign government. It is a separate governmental entity and a separate sovereign since the reconstruction era.

You deny that the Federal Government is an internationally foreign government to that of each of the several States?

A: Same answer.

None of my responses should surprise someone who actually studied law anywhere. That obviously doesn't include you. But I will add, that some of your questions are so screwball that either a yes or no could be explained to be conceptually correct. I'll let you figure out what that means.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Well established!

So now the issue is Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment: What changed and how.
In 1861 Congress officially stated that the Civil War was NOT a war of conquest, but one of preserving the Union. The war ended in 1865 and the declaration of peace was signed in 1866, I believe. somewhere in there the 13th Amendment was ratified. In order for the Southern States to have partcipated in the ratification of the 13th Amendment they had to have regained their status as State in the Union. Curious, however, was the declaration by Congress that they were reduced to federal teritories in 1867 and militarily occupied by federal forces acording to the Liber Code. This was a military overthrowing of legitimately elected governments of the peoples of the Southern States.
Then came the ratification of the 14th Amendment where came another decree from Congress that the only people who could vote for or against ratification were US citizens who resided in the given State. Only upon ratification of the 14th Amendment would Congress permit the Southern States seats in Congress.

The Southern states were then either fully vested States in the Union with the ability to ratify a Constitutional Amendment and therefore Congress had no power to deny them seats in Congress, or they were federal teritories without such rights, and thus could not ratify any amendments, the 13th or the 14th. Each scenario is mutually exclusive of the other, but the history we are tought in public schools has it both ways. something is amiss.

In addition, that Congress would make such pronouncements about the condition of statehood BEFORE ratification of the 14th Amendment is further troubling, but suggests that the coup had already taken place.

Regardless of the former, any change in the constitutional organization of the Union, or the status of the States with regard to their place in the Union, were completed without the consent of the peoples of the States because they had to voluntarilly accept US federal citizenship in order to participate. As a consequence they abdicated their State Nationality.

State Nationalities still exist. One may not think so because there are so few people who have claimed it. See the North Carolina Republic as an example.
http://www.ncrepublic.org/index.php

So there are two lawforms, two (general) states of existance within the territories of the States: one with voting rights and one without. One under the direct control of congress through the 14th amendment, and one without that control by Congress, State Nationals.

What changed? The state of the population through the 14th Amendment. I know of no other document but that, that has altered the nature of the union, not by declaring a new structure, but by reassigning the status of the people so that their existed juridictionally without the territory of the Union, and thus exist without natural rights protected by the State Constitutions.

I mean you no ill will, nor do I wish to stoop, as I did in my last comment, to ridicule or name calling. Please discontinue the the same.

regards.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

all beside the point

none of this validates any of the questionable legal theories I criticize in the original post.

so, what's your point then?

So far it seems to be:

1. You dislike the reconstruction era amendments

2. Therefore any and all bad legal theories must be valid.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

So, these guys also do not talk about...

Evolution, Dinosaurs, Patents & Copyrights, and a whole host of topics.

While I have not gone down that rabbit hole of sovereign citizen, i do push the idea that all humans, even fetus ones, are "fully sovereign", ie they all have their natural individual rights to life, liberty and property. AND, many people I know do not want to go down that individual rights rabbit hole.... and frankly, I don't blame them. We all have to manage our time and attention the best we see fit.

But lets leave the DP dynamic and a full on Free Speech Zone, ie as a place where anything, including UFO believers and No One landed on the Moon, and "Evolution is a Myth" can be said and CHALLENGED. I like that. And while I find "Gawd exists" believers, "Evolution is a Myth" believers, and "Nobody walked on the Moon" believers to be "misinformed, sophomoric & ridiculous", I still like to see who/what/and why some people hold such views.

Most of all, lets not "follow" these men you name, lets LEAD, its they who will follow our little R3VOLution as long as we keep the flame burning hot....

Speaking of burning hot, may I suggest SOMEONE out there put together a grand "Liberty & Equality Conference", ie a meeting of libertarians and progressives? I would so love to attend such an event. I would like to see speaker vs speaker, idea vs idea, and author vs author. Most of all, I would like to "meet the other side personally". Sure, 11 months out of the year, we libertarians are pulling on the political rope one way, and the progressives are pulling on the political rope the other way, but lets put down the rope to come together and really get to the meat of the issues at least one time per year.

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

yes you make the important distinction

there is a difference between what we may "feel" is right in our bones and hearts, and the way the law actually is administered today. Not saying that is good, but it "is."

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

To address whether Ron Paul has addressed this issue...

Absolutely EVERYTHING the man has EVER said, and the very message of liberty that he champions, signifies that he is indirectly addressing the manner, and state of our governance, and if he knows anything whatsoever about the intent of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the other founding documents, such as The Declaration of Rights of 1774, of which he most certainly does have intimate knowledge of, then he would be acutely aware of the issue of our system of laws.

Common Law is in harmony with Liberty, but when a free people need permission slips from daddy Gov't, and are subjected to arbitrary uses of power, then you know there is tyranny just like in the days before the Revolution. Admiralty, or by whatever other name you'd like to call it, whether it be dictates, codes, or statutes, is the basis for this tyranny.

Now, to my knowledge Ron Paul has never directly stated it, probably because nobody has actually asked him, but he has indirectly stated it on so many multiple occasions that it is mind-blowing for you to not have picked it up. Perhaps Ron Paul knows the people are not ready for that kind of radical talk, and in consideration of the general ignorance of law by the population, thanks in large part to our wonderful indoctrination camps known as public schools, he skirts around it by speaking directly to the message of liberty.

If you so desire, I can start churning out quotes by the man himself that will directly reinforce my assertion that he has a very strong aversion to what amounts to dictates from the king.

Ok, then disabuse me

I am willing to admit I can be wrong. Pretend I am a judge and you are a lawyer in my courtroom. Tell me why I should believe that Ron Paul said this, or implied it, even.

I'm 90% sure you can't. But I will allow you oral argument based on the 10% chance.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

It permeates through every single speech that he gives.

For instance, today on the front page of the Daily Paul there is a Ron Paul interview with The Blaze.

If you care to watch the interview in its entirety, please do, but in particular-3:00-3:41.

link please

not going to go fish the internet for it, thank you.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

WOW...

Quite the egotistical mental midget you are... So it's his job to fish the internet for you? First this is your post he's replying to and he's giving you an example just like you asked. Do you need us to hold your hand as well? A simple scroll down the front page of THIS website would provide you with the video he mentioned. Grow up...

LIVE FREE OR DIE

LOL

It's literally on the front page of this website you lazy bum!

OK fine here it is: Ron Paul: 'I Say It's Time For A Second Party'
http://youtu.be/wPzXCacwPBY

ok dickbrain

I'll listen to it tonight, but I can guarantee you in advance it doesn't support any kook legal theory. How do I know? Because I know ron paul doesn't ever say anything in support of kook legal theories, that's how.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

It's a whole 41 seconds long. ADD?

Anyway, again with the strawman argument. I'm not saying Ron Paul supports "kook legal theory."

The video demands an answer to this question: If the kind of society that he advocates for were to be in existence today, what laws would be discarded? ..I can gaurantee you that Common Law would stay.

*sigh* If only the Gov't had stayed within the confines for which it had been established, to protect life, liberty, and property.

then you lose

Ron Paul has never said he believes in any of the crackpot theories that I am critical of. In fact, if asked, he would probably agree that he hasn't seen evidence that any of them are correct. I'm totally on the same page with Ron Paul, sorry if that offends you.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Cout de tat.

And now I will place you in the same boat that you have attempted to place everyone else in, you arrogant bastard. Provide evidence of your claim. Oh right, you can't.

Use your brain. How would what Ron Paul advocates for effect our laws?

my claim?

you mean my claim that fake legal theories are fake?

Sure, my evidence can be found by reading any leading con law hornbook. I suggest Tribe. It's fascinating.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein