-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.

Comment viewing options

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

These people in DC do not

These people in DC do not talk about a "secret" law, or Admeralty Law, or Mercantile Law, or "the strawman" because they are not relevant subjects to the matter of freedom, at least not as far as Americans are concerned. American citizens have only themselves to blame for the crazy lawforms they find themselves subject. They have volunteered, offered themselves up to be under the direct jurisdiction of congress, and all the alphabet agencies created by its extra constitutional law making power which it employs in circumstances that do not involve the Union, in which the constitution applies.

The one thing that does unite them with the rest of congress, however, is their lack of discussion about the 14 Amendment. It is the 14th Amendment that provides the jurisdiction for these extra constitutional law forms as they apply to people. The reason that these congressmen do not talk about this issue is be cause they are "maintainers." Their job is to provide a conduit for anger and frustration while keeping those that listen to them fron leaving the system without providing any knowledge or understand of the true cause of the people's enslavement. These congressmen are here to keep us in the fold as subjects of Congress instead of free men and women for whom Congress is but their servants.

Now ther are no excuses. you know the answer. Read the Red Amendment. Learn that all your participation in the activities of the federal government is evidence of your support for it and your voluntary acceptance of its rule over you.

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

GTFO JIDF

.

Perhaps the wise Chickenator can enlighten us.

Please pray tell, exactly how can a flesh & blood, free-born man, or woman, become subject to jurisdiction of Admiralty Law?

engage in maritime activities

it's that simple. Commit a tort on the open seas, or be the victim of one. Breach a contract that falls under maritime law. That's how to do it.

That's what admiralty or maritime law is for. That's when it applies.

I've litigated for 20 years and I've never been under admiralty jurisdiction once.

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

I was curious to read a coherent response

Instead found no one addressing the core question of the OP and instead posting what they always post.

My guess if I go through the rest of the pages, I'm not going to find one person addressing the question.

Why do XYZ liberty activist not seem to care about your law theories?

That's all anyone wants to hear you respond to, so get to it!

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

SC butterfly, posted a direct contradiction to your statement.

I suggest you check out the post about Michael Badnarek below, and yes he was the 2004 Libertarian Party Nominee.

He openly discusses the topic.

Common Law vs Civil Law

The definition of common law, is law that is not sanction by a legislative body. Common law developed in England and was brought to America. Common law existed before the constitution and before the articles of confederation. It doesn't need a central government, only that it is accepted by the community. It is based on case law, not 'law' that originates from legislatures (statutes). Our common law courts have been hijacked and converted to civil law, which puts more power in the judge (no jury) and its law originates from legislatures. The constitutional government and state governments are based on civil law. So originally the government had its courts (civil), and the people had their courts (common law). The government courts were intended to create 'laws' i.e. statues to limit the power of government. The statues didn't apply to the people and their common law courts, but to government employees, to keep them in check. Since we are all government employees now (those who get employee benefits like SS) there's no need for common law courts run by the people anymore; although criminal courts are still based on common law, only now run by the government rather than the people. The two courts have merged.

Tom W.

common law as codified

actually can work to the advantage of freedom. For example, if the elements of a crime, as codified, do not exist, the defendant gets to go free. If we stuck strictly to common law, that would give a court more flexibility to apply a legal concept, or to stretch it, to fit a circumstance. So it isn't always that bad. It forces the govt to at least formulate their ideas in writing in order to charge you. The laws may sometimes be poorly written (I understate) but there is taht.

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

I actually get to upvote you for once.

I am shocked.

If you are going to ride on turnip wagons

hold on tight

Admiralty Law Defined

If you want to know about Admiralty Law, go here to start: http://thelawdictionary.org/admiralty/
After that, go here to see what is in American Law to start on that subject. http://thelawdictionary.org/in-american-law/ When you are done, you will have a starting point to do your own research, then you can learn.
I get that you are giving a hard tome to people that are into conspiracy theories and the like, however, they are theories if there has been no proof presented. Now, this does not mean that the theory is not valid, just that it has not been proven or dis-proven. Science and Math have a lot of theories that are in the same boat, and these theories can be accepted or not by the peers in those groups until proven or dis-proved. There is a theory right now that a lot of physicists are going along with (that electrons live in several dimensions at the same time) but it has not been proven nor dis-proven.
So, I say, quit getting on people rear ends on things that do not matter in the big scheme of things or maybe you should dis-prove them yourself. Bickering back and forth on this subject does not do anything for our fight for Liberty.

admiralty law deals with maritime activities

just as I've been saying. Like sea turtles. I kid.

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

For goodness sake....

surely you are far enough along in your life experience to recognize that some folks "play(ed) the game" (Ron Paul), are "mid-line fence sitters" (Tom Woods) or are "Katy bar the door" (Michael Badnarik) in their approaches? And by no means are any of these three necessarily "wrong" or necessarily "right" in their approach but are who they are and we're grateful for their gifts? Perhaps you've never had a chance to listen to someone who was without fear or meekness, able to lay out the truth in total, because they had less to lose comparatively than others in "higher", more threatening arenas?

Will you consider Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Presidential Nominee regarding "juristic person"? "BAR"/"Title of Nobility Amendment"? Or "Types of Law"? Badnarik is by no means unauthentic or "kooky" Here:

"juristic person" & "14th amendment":

http://youtu.be/MOla3o-OoLA

"BAR"/"Title of Nobility Amendment":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emZATMbPy4o&t=3m44s

And "Types Of Law" & "Rights vs Privileges":
Constitution Class
20 of 43: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Rv8kHava4
21 of 43: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN5NvIHowFY
22 of 43: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xye19SUKSjo
23 of 43: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvnqa4tavhY
24 of 23: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px6egpcIoTo

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Badnarik

First of all, I'm a big fan of Badnarik. I've listened to most of his class videos previously, and I watched the ones you linked.

They do not anywhere support any of the questionable concepts discussed in this thread. They do raise a lot of interesting issues. He's a solid guy.

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

Wha?????

You do know how to put 2+2 together? You do know that Michael Badnarik does not have a driver's license? and still drives anyway? And according to him, has backed out of a lot (if not all) government documentation of his "person"? I mean, must I post his entire body of work? Within the videos I posted he speaks to: "UCC 1-207", "All Rights Reserved", "Without Prejudice", "MCO", "Forfeiture of Rights through fraudulent and invalid contracts", etc (furthermore these issues are also addressed in Badnarik's book Good to Be King, which I have sitting right in front of me.)...I think it's safe to say Badnarik's in support of not supporting "the illusion" (especially in not using FRN's as this makes a voluntary participant aka "contractee" in the system).

~Only under contract can you compel performance~ Michael Badnarik

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

just post what is relevant

you don't have to post his "entire body of work". But do post what's relevant, or link or cite to it at least.

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

define "know"

I can't say I know anything about Michael Badnarik's personal habits.

It is entirely possible to not have a drivers license. One can ride a bike, ride the bus, take a helicopter, etc. Taxis. Live in New York, or San Francisco maybe. All kinds of ways that can be done.

I do NOT believe he is driving around with no license and registration. And I suggest that you don't "know" that either. What is your proof that has happened or is still happening?

Most of the things you put in quotes are things that exist. There IS a UCC 1-207. I took not one but two UCC courses in law school and know the UCC well. It doesn't say what you want it to is the problem. Chapter two of the UCC applies ONLY to contracts for sales of goods between merchants. That's it.

The other things you put in quotes are legal concepts, but they don't support any of your mumbo jumbo fake law theories. That doesn't mean that there isn't some kook out there mis-using the terms. But Badnarik did not.

You quote him out of context for saying "only under contract can you compel performance." I would like to know what context you got that from. Clearly, when the police wanted to arrest Adam Kokesh, they "compelled" him without a contract to take up residency at the graybar motel. So I suspect you are using a quote out of context, and trying to apply it is an absolute to all circumstances, when it clearly isn't and probably wasn't intended to be that way. Quote mining is very deceptive.

If everyone who uses FRNs or pays taxes is evil then we're all doomed, you too.

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

Okay now I find you suspect and purposefully obstinate

You obviously did not watch the videos or you would not still be asking the same questions that have already been addressed within the videos.

For the love of God, everybody knows Badnarik doesn't have a driver's license and drives anyway, he's been pulled over numerous times but never cited. It's on record, out of his own mouth...YOU do your own due diligence...no one can force the obstinate to learn or for that matter cause them to "accept" what they consider wildly outside their paradigms.

"Only under contract can you compel performance" was stated within the videos. Sorry I am not making you a transcript and giving you page numbers to a book you have no intention to research. Do your own due diligence or remain in willful ignorance. Numerous folks have tried to show you (and what to many is of obvious historic and legal record with only a smidgen of research), you refuse to acknowledge....THIS IS WHY RON PAUL, TOM WOODS et al WILL NOT WALK THIS PLANK...because of the general public's strongly held paradigms.

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

You don;t have to make a transcript

Tell me which video and I'll watch it or listen to it tonight and then answer your question, relevant to "cannot compel performance except by contract" that is.

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

You've indicated you are a lawyer or thereabouts correct?

Let's put an end to this bickering then okay because I cannot adequately convince you alone but may have something that will. These many theories that "we've all been duped" appear "esoteric" but only so because of the web of deceit we've lived our entire lives in, yet many of us have long had a "pit of the stomach" feeling that these theories held merit but were rather unprovable due to the wickedly clever nature of the deceivers. Michael Badnarik recommends everyone read this document (below) that I think you will really be interested in because it's mainly "legalese", historical citings, legal and lawful citings, etc etc. I believe it will point you toward the truth you seek and due to its lengthy and well researched and cited content, help you to understand the complexity of that which you stubbornly and ?unwittingly? seek answered in the simple, here:

USA the Republic
Is the House that No One Lives In
By Lee Brobst
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34670480/U-S-a-The-House-That-No-O...

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

read it

or about half of it. I couldn't finish it because the author is overly verbose and bores the hell out of me. That and he yammers on and on in a pontificating manner about simple concepts, and then sneaks in gibberish now and then. It's really not impressive in the least, though the author was clearly impressed with himself.

I didn't see anywhere where he validated or proved any of the theories that I've criticized here. I'm sorry but I just didn't see it. Do you have a quote about what you think was significant? Yes, he discusses the constitution, and governments, and liberty, and admiralty law, but nowhere does he validate any of the fake legal theories that I've said don't have any validity.

If your point is just that our system is messed up, yeah, ok, agreed.

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

ok, thanks for trying

I'll read it tonight and give it due consideration.

You guys keep giving platitudes, engaging in name calling, changing the subject, anything but giving any kind of a responsive answer, then when you do post something it is a series of 6 videos and you say "go fish." That's bullshit. If you have a basis to believe in your mumbo jumbo, show it.

I interpret your post as you think this document, if I read it, will have the answers. We'll see. I'm to busy today.

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

The BAR video I set to the exact moment he begins to talk about

it. The 14th amendment video is in its entirety a needful view. I cannot help that the videos on the different types of law was many.

It seems you want to be spoon fed something that is extremely complex and played out over years and years (100's perhaps). Not trying to be ugly but the info is out there and yes, I think this one document will help you especially if you are "litigious" as you've indicated 20 years in court. I suppose there is a chance you will reject this offering too as you have all in this post but it's the best I can cram in. If you don't have an esoteric leaning toward these theories, it will be a long haul but you'll get the light bulb moment. Good luck to you.

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

you;ve got it backwards

I've already studied this subject in greater depth than you ever will. If you are making a specific claim that a certain (kook) legal argument is valid, then show why. If you can't, then you're the lazy one, and you shouldn't expect anyone to believe your unicorn exists without proof. A picture, or some unicorn dna, at least.

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

You are acting like an eleven year old

I have been more than kind to you, did not call you names nor denigrate you yet here you come with your side accusations that I'm unfit, kooky for my offering of "here consider this". I never asked you to fully put stock in the theories but "consider" them. By stating you've done more research on this than I ever have, I'm surprised then since you like Badnarik so much, you haven't run across his theories on these theories. Or even said to yourself "Hmmm wonder what ole Badnarik thinks of this?"

Just a minute ago it was "thanks, I'll look into it", now you're back to trying to make yourself bigger than everyone else. It's not lazy to not summarize for you, by citation, a 58 page document. Read it for yourself, you may be surprised and moved however I suspect you enjoy your paradigms more than possible enlightenment. -Done-

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

I'll read what you provide

but again, I suspect your proof of the unicorn turns up a grainy photo of a tree stump, at best.

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

surely you are far enough in life

to know that some people are sentient, coherent, and educated, and

OTHERS, well, let's just say they are NUUUUUUUTTTS

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

Fine - don't research the info provided to at least "consider"

-stay untested and unaware-

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

...and your point

is.....?

Sea turtles

well, they're big and green, and I don't much like greenish things. And, they're under admiralty jurisdiction, per King George, dontcha know?

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