-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.

That is because you do not understand the question,

nor do you have any respect for me.

according to YOU, there is no basis for our law. it is a hodge podge of different things. is that correct oh wise one?

Mebbe you need to understand the word "Law" we do have them in my business too you know. or did that go over your head?

No one can disagree with you...

...if you're not saying anything. In other words, incomprehensible statements cannot be refuted. The debating style of the freemen relies heavily on this insight. ;-)

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I DID say something.

in fact, I made a statement.

closer to being accurate

yes, it is a hodge podge of different things. There are different areas of law.

Despite what you may have heard from a guru, contract law doesn't help you at all in criminal court. Tort law doesn't help you at all in criminal court. There are even states today that still separate "money damages" (called the remedy at law) from "nonmonetary damages" (or equitable relief) because in England, and in early America, courts of equity and courts of law were separate.

I do believe there are laws in every industry including yours, but you clearly don't know them. That's not intended to be disrespectful, but when you come here with your dick out trying to tell me that we are under admiralty law, then deny saying it, then try to say that "two lawyers told you" that all of our laws are derived from admiralty law, you're just sounding quite crazy.

You can verify this by going to a law bookstore and getting a book on the history of American jurisprudence.

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

the words I used were "basis and based on"

and you have still avoided both.

you are not very bright. and neither is your sockpuppet!

sock puppet

rofl. Every lawyer who knows American law is my sock puppet.

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

You are not trying to make the claim ...

... that because a particular person never talks about Topic X that it proves Topic X is not true, are you?

Naw ... didn't think so.

As for libertarianism, it is all about liberty, which means freedom to act, which means that one is free to talk about a particular topic or not.

I was a libertarian long before I even heard of any of these concepts. So, there you go. Many people have never heard of these concepts and the vast majority of those who have, have never seriously researched the topics.

I sure haven't. Most of them seem to be off base in one way or another. And yet, there is also no doubt that what we are told the "law" is, is in fact something far different from what we see practiced. Something is fishy. And it seems that "something" has to do with secretly changing the "law" (or what people -- including lawyers and judges -- are taught about the "law") over the years. Yes, a conspiracy. Absolutely. No doubt about it. Trying to unravel it is the hard part, and why so many people have so many theories about it.

How can anybody be aware of the NDAA and not conclude that it is unconstitutional? Yet, there it is.

So, having said that, and since you are probably a lawyer or law student, and you obviously do not agree with some of these non-mainstream theories (or, in some cases they are facts, not theories), I would like to challenge you to a debate.

What is your position on driving without a driver's license? Legal or illegal? What about traveling in your car on the public highways without a driver's license? Legal or illegal? Any distinction between "driving" and "traveling?"

What say you?

That's exactly what I'm saying

when no one who has the knowledge requisite to say whether something is true or not will say it is true, then you have a good indicator that it's false.

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

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence ...

... but it's a nice little straw man ya got there,

Provide evidence that the people you cited have knowledge of any kind about the topics you cited.

since they are experts on the subject

of the laws and the Constitution and libertarianism, I think that if it existed, they would know about it and would have talked about it sometime. I also consider them stand up guys, who would talk about this issue if it existed, as it's right up their alley. A reasonable inference, from the lack of such discussion by any qualified scholar in the libertarian movement, is that these things are hoaxes, they don't exist. Follow the logic, its easy now. I know you're not used to logic, but it can be useful. Start by reading s l o w ly

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

Non-responsive ...

... objection is sustained.

These guys most likely learned about the "law" the same way the average lawyer or judge did -- and that means they have NO CLUE about any of these arguments.

I would say again to provide evidence that they know anything about THESE topics, but we both know you can't do it. We both know you created a straw man to knock down.

Way to go, Don Quixote! Way to go!

I just hope you can do better than that in a courtroom.

and the way You "learned" the "law" is what?

you were bored from jerking off to porn, and watched some youtube videos? What?

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

Explanation for this?

It's simply summed up:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Just because none of these people have said anything about these topics does not mean they have said anything against the topics in question.

The reason why could be anything, but until they say anything we can't logically assume anything to be true. Go ask them yourself. In private - I doubt any of them would want to give Big Media the rope to hang themselves over something like this though.

so now George Bush'es faulty logic is good to you?

how'd that work out in the Iraq war?

Even if "absence of evidence ISN"t evidence of absence" it isn't the opposite either. It isn't proof that something exists. Which of course, you don't have, do you?

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

Another asinine post bent on distracting nonsense

As I glanced at your history I was at a loss to find any relevant posts or comments. It's dumbas- crap like this that pisses me off.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

well

if it pisses you off, that tells me what I need to know about you.

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

He's a dyed in the wool GOP'r here to

distract! We (meaning me and others who think like me) affectionately call him the Establishment Whore!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

You're a know nothing kook

who likes to call people names without contributing substance.

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

Look in the mirror much

?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

bleeaah

i know you are but what am I. Moooommmmy!

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

If they believed it

they would state it, IMO. They do not strike me as the type to "keep their mouths shut" when they perceive an injustice. They probably believe as I do.. the government is full of incompetent, money hungry fools that can crash the economy, but not necessarily in an orchestrated manner. They crash the economy because they think they can manage it. Most of the time I really believe they want what is best for Americans, they just have the wrong prescription. A very wrong prescription.

-Matthew Good

All legal systems either establish by or promoted by heroes.

Ron Paul is a modern day and someone I would consider a hero. When quoting heroes of the past he tends to focus on their positive statements or actions. If it is somehow discovered that Dr. Ron Paul does not live up to his legend, what difference does it make? Are people to worship heroes? Or are people to focus on the positive teachings of the hero and become better for it?
grant

you are missing the point

but thanks for the post.

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

No

These guys are not duping us all because they are all focused and deal with the legislative branch of government. They don’t know. But I’m not sure if your are trying to dupe us all or just not unaware of the nature of the Judicial branch of government.

There is such a thing as a “strawman”, it’s called a “front”. You should know that because it’s in the Black’s Law dictionary. I wonder if an attorney could be classified as one?

When I inquired at the Federal District Court in North Carolina about filing a common law writ of Replevin, the Magistrate told me that they don’t do the common law anymore and that they use the “admiralty process.” So do ‘we‘ operate under the “admiralty law”? Maybe the magistrate wasn’t aware of “the whole sovereign citizen mythology.”

I actually like this “‘magic word defenses” concept you put out there, but it doesn’t work as a defense. The “magic word” is used in the complaint by prosecutors where they use a word that has a general meaning to the public, but a specific meaning under the legal process, like driving, vehicle, income, and dollar.

Just like magic, a right that is unrestricted under the common law, magically becomes a privilege under the commerce clause and is restricted and regulated!

So like I said, those guys don’t know so they are not trying to dupe us all. What about you?

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.”

in case you missed the obvious

I was stating an implausibility, to get people thinking. I do not think that Dr. Paul et al are duping anyone. I thought that was obvious.

I don't believe that anyone told you they operated a non admiralty court under admiralty jurisdiction.

First of all, it isn't true, secondly, you are providing us unverifiable hearsay.

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

It is not hearsay

if one can testify under oath or affirmation to first hand knowledge derived from something seen or heard such as hearing something spoken by a government official.

Facts are relied upon precisely because someone testifies under oath or affirmation to first hand knowledge of something observed.

how so?

We don't have access to an authenticated recording, you are not in court and it is not under oath. So, yes, what you said is hearsay. That you don;t know the legal definition of hearsay is not my problem, it's yours.

There is no hearsay exception for claiming something was told to you by a government official. What law book did you get that out of? Oh, that's right, none, just like your usual source.

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

That is not what I said.

I said if whomever posted it can testify under oath or affirmation to first hand knowledge of something seen or heard it would not be hearsay.

Go back to law school because an authenticated recording or appearance in court is not required to produce a notarized sworn affidavit under the penalties of oath or affirmation of first hand knowledge of something seen or heard. Nor is an authenticated recording or appearance in court necessary to go one step further and record a notarized affidavit in a certified public record.

You're still actually wrong

there can be multiple layers of hearsay.

if "whomever posted it" testifies, under oath even, that they heard someone else say something, that still is hearsay. Sorry. You fail. As usual. You're really aiming for 100% on the failing thing, eh?

You have several layers of hearsay here. Figure it out. Or not. I predict not.

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

A fundamental aspect of what people refer to as reality

is that things are observed.

There is no other evidence which exists that is not based upon what someone has observed.

First hand knowledge of an observation is not hearsay.

When that first hand knowledge is testified to under oath or affirmation it becomes a fact that can be relied upon that something was said.

You are trying to argue whether what was said is true using some kooky sovereign person strawsay argument which has nothing to do with whether something was actually spoken by a person operating in an official government capacity.

If it should not have been spoken by a person operating in an official government capacity because it is an untrue statement that is not the problem of whomever testified the words were uttered by the person who spoke them.