-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.

you're just wrong

anyone who has ever learned the rule of hearsay knows you are wrong.

hearing someone else say something firsthand does not make it "not hearsay" if you try to testify to it.

And, the fact that a govt official said it, means nothing. There is no recognized exception to the hearsay rule for statements made by govt officials or even things on official govt documents. This is why police reports almost never come into evidence, as they include multiple levels of hearsay in them - a fact which surprises most people when they go to court. Sorry, the law just isn't what you think it is, HAM.

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

@1:31

And if you could, would you describe to the jury what you heard ...

@2:18 did you hear any more noises ...

sorry, you fail evidence class for tonight

One is of course competent to testify to hearing a 'noise'.

That is different to testifying that someone said something, when not under oath, and that therefore the thing they said is true. That is called hearsay.

So, testifying that "I heard a big thud" is not hearsay.

Testifying that "a government worker told me xyz", when one is trying to prove xyz - is hearsay.

There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, but none involve someone being a govt worker.

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

Obviously you didn't listen to the testimony ...

especially the part where the witness testifies to words that were spoken.

RE: "Testifying that "a government worker told me xyz", when one is trying to prove xyz - is hearsay."

See previous post where I already addressed this point regarding your kooky sovereign person strawsay theories.

I went to where you directed me

you said to go to a certain point in the video and then quoted a certain part of the testimony. I'll go listen to some more if that wasn't what you wanted me to review.

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

One example

@4:20 and then you heard voices and you heard help ...

I object your honor, any spoken words the witness heard are hearsay. (provide a transcript where you have made such an absurd potential objection ...)

that isn't hearsay

hearsay defined.

an out of court statement, not under oath, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

She overheard someone say "help." It was being offered into evidence to prove that she heard someone say help. It is not hearsay. It is not being offered into evidence to prove "help" and indeed that makes no sense.

This is different from saying "a govt worker said xyz" in order to prove that xyz is true.

Once again, there is a reason why people spend countless hours in law school.

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

Again ..

"This is different from saying "a govt worker said xyz" in order to prove that xyz is true."

Refer to the previous post where I already addressed kooky sovereign person strawsay theories. It is utterly amazing how much you presume. Now you are presuming a matter asserted.

If a government official utters xyz while performing an official duty and I incur damages because I relied upon xyz in good faith then any first hand knowledge hearing xyz uttered by a government official is not hearsay.

Nope

The matter asserted element refers to the words spoken that are quoted and not the intent of a lawyer , or in this case, wannabe. So again, it's not hearsay in that video. Not even if you reply again. I think Wikipedia has a good explanation of this very distinction, if you have the inkling to verify what I'm telling you. But it's been real, and I gotta go...

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

Hearsay Evidence or Not?

I did study Law in college and my interpretation of this is as follows: If it is asked of a witness if they know what a person said and they replied "The person said this to me directly..." then it is not hearsay, it is direct knowledge of what was said. If the witness said, "This good friend of mine told me the person in question said this..." then it is hearsay.

"Hearsay testimony is secondhand evidence; it is not what the witness knows personally, but what someone else told him or her. Scuttlebutt is an example of hearsay. In general, hearsay may not be admitted in evidence, but there are exceptions. For instance, if the accused is charged with uttering certain words, a witness is permitted to testify that he or she heard the accused speak them." -Integrated Publishing

http://www.tpub.com/maa/38.htm

you "studied law in college"

is kind of like saying you studied being an astronaut. Anything other than law school is not rigorous enough to teach one how to interpret the law or to apply it. I took a law class in college, too. It was easy. I've taught paralegal courses. They are easy. It's not the same thing.

Here's a quote from the wikipedia page that you were too lazy to look at:

"For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town" as the witness's evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. Since the witness does not offer in this statement the personal knowledge of the fact, this witness statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. Only when Susan testifies herself in the current judicial proceeding that she saw Tom in town, that Susan's testimony becomes admissible evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. However, a witness statement "Susan told me Tom was in town" can be admissible as evidence in the case against Susan when she is accused of spreading defamatory rumors about Tom, because now the witness has personal knowledge of the fact that Susan said (i.e., pronounced the defamatory words) "Tom was in town" in the presence of the witness and it is an opposing party’s statement that constitutes a verbal act.["

I'm sure you'll bury your head in the sand, pretend you're right, and a couple of people with high school diplomas will upvote you for being a hard dude. :rolleyes: You;d still lose in court on this point.

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

You Prove My Point, Thank You

Your post shows that you agree with what I said, but you cut me down because I did not go on to Law School? I was not professing to be an attorney and your remarks show that you argue just to argue. I have been told that arguing with someone like you is like arguing with a wall. You are now just making a fool of yourself. You show that you know nothing about law.
On another note, you say you have taught paralegal classes and you accept Wikipedia as a good source? That is funny! No class I ever took allowed Wikipedia as a source. You show that you probably have never gone to college with a statement like that.

wikipedia is a good source, usually

although I have corrected a few things on their legal pages before.

It isn't the ultimate authoritative source, but if I directed you to wikipedia, it was because we were discussing a subject I was knowledgeable of, and wikipedia happened to have an accurate entry which discussed it. Usually wikipedia entries are footnoted.

Law students spend a lot of time on hearsay. It is the number one way to trip up an opponent at trial. Take Orly Taitz, who actually IS a lawyer, but who has most of her evidence disallowed because of hearsay grounds. But that aside, most lawyers, and law students beyond first year, have studied the crap out of hearsay and know this subject well. If you haven't done that, you haven't got the background, and you;re approaching a minefield of tricky rules and exceptions and near exceptions (dozens of each) that you are completely unfamiliar with. You may find it offensive, but yes, the fact that I am a lawyer means I know more than you do in this subject.

You know, if you were discussing physics or medicine, I wouldn't point out that I am a lawyer. The point isn't to one-up you and it's really a cheap and disingenuous shot to claim that. The more likely motivation, and the accurate one, is to point out that I have studied the law and do know what I'm talking about. I know there's a belief among persons int he conspiracy movement that a normal legal education doesn't cover these things, but it does, really, and more.

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

Good post.

The real magic is in the words, where obfuscation and subterfuge reign supreme.

Now we know why the Founders sought to establish the original 13th amendment, forbidding those who held titles of nobility from attaining office. After all, lawyers, or "esquires", are granted a title of nobility from the BAR.

13th Amendment

Yes, it is too bad that it was not ratified.

Why did you write BAR in all caps?

Do you think that has some significance?

Other freemen have claimed that BAR is an acronym for something or other, which they use as an argument for something or other (can't recall, as it was incomprehensible gibberish as far as I could tell).

Is that your position?

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

B.A.R.- British Accreditation Regency

You could have looked it up yourself.

whatever the history of that word

I sure don't see any evidence of any rights of nobility attached to being a bar member. But we are rather noble.

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

Put away the darn pepper shaker for a little while

accusing Phreedom of "gibberish", calling Jill a "sucker", emasculating AntiFed, calling proudAmerican a "fake scammer", calling my comment "soul-less". The aforementioned occurances are known as ad hominem attacks and do nothing to strengthen your argument with classically trained thinkers. Calling out others on ad hominem attacks, yet refusing to see when you commit the same error could be indicitive of some deeper issue.

With me: I ask why you don't use your expertise to do something positive on this site, you expand the scope of my question from specific to general to include your day to day life and then proceed to argue against a statement that I did not make. The aforementioned is known as a "strawman" argument. Once again, those who are trained to spot logical fallacies will quickly see them and disregard your argument.

You stated that your motivation in obsessing over this issue and your demand to aggrevate others with differing opinions was "self-entertainment" and education respectively. I take issue with you using others for your own entertainment. Furthermore, I take issue with your attempts to "educate" others by using questionable teaching methods on those who have not signed up for your course. For issue 1, I recommend learning about and attempting to apply the non-aggression principle. For issue 2, I recommend a course in pedagogy. Your efforts to entertain yourself at the expense of others are stopping real debate and conversation.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

it's simple

all they have to do is post something responsive, logical, that references fact, and that explains why they believe in their personal pet unicorn theory.

If they can't do that, they're just hoaxers, conmen, or fraudsters. You may find nothing wrong with that, but I do.

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

More on Admiralty Law and how it is used

Go to this link for more info: http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/admiralty/

"The framers of the U.S. Constitution, for example, included aspects of admiralty in this fundamental document. In Article III (regarding the judicial branch of the government), the Constitution decrees that the judicial powers described:

"Shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction."

This section of the Constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction over admiralty laws and disputes. In addition, the U.S. Congress regulates admiralty in part through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution."

admiralty law exists

but it doesn't govern things which are not subject to it. The claim of the kooks is that "everything" is governed by admiralty law. Tisn't so.

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

I provided 100% proof positive of Admiralty in my post below.

And I used real historical documents from the founding of this country to do so.

Now, admit that Admiralty Law is real, and that the law of the sea has crept back upon these shores to subdue the people of this nation once again.

What did you prove exactly?

The document you cited explains that the British were using military courts in the colonies at first only to handle tax cases, and then extended the jurisdiction of those courts to other cases over which colonial courts had previously had jurisdiction. Yes. But so what?

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

in bizarro world

because the British used military courts for tax cases, that means that 250 years later, the USA must be using admiralty courts for ordinary civil and criminal cases. Why, that makes perfect sense! Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Thanks for calling these fools on their nonsense. It's like they live for gibberish, it's their food.

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

Pretty soon your strawmen will start doing gymnastics.

I'm certain that you're doing these little verbal obfuscations on purpose, and I'm also certain that you know damn well that Codes & Statues are not Common Law.

So, now let's figure out what falls under Admiralty, and what falls under Common Law.

Yes, there are different types of Law, and they are handled in different types of manners; For instance, you will not get a jury of your peers for a traffic ticket.

Why don't you stop being a prick, and tell the readers here exactly what covers what, and where the authority for each comes from.

I want you to come clean.

He won't because his revealed

He won't because his revealed purpose is not to engage in debate but, to ridicule and feed his own ego.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

From The Declaration of Independence(1776)-

"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"

"Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html

What was this unwarrantable jurisdiction they mention?

The Declaration of Rights(1774)-

"In Congress, at Philadelphia, October 14, 1774

Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute, all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of COURTS OF ADMIRALTY, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county."

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/DeclRights1774.html

What exactly does that yellow fringe around the U.S. flag represent?

Here's a very interesting read for anyone who wants to explore this topic a bit more:https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImTXVBWEpJb2I4V1E

Is this the kind of information that secret societies would like to keep unknown, except for those whom they select as rulers?

Eat your heart out Chickenator!

From The Declaration of Rights(1774)-

The several acts of 4 Geo. 3. ch. 15, and ch. 34.--5 Geo. 3. ch. 25.--6 Geo. 3. ch. 52.--7 Geo. 3. ch. 41, and ch. 46.--8 Geo. 3. ch. 22, which impose duties for the purpose of raising a revenue in America, extend the powers of the admiralty court beyond their ancient limits, deprive the American subject of trial by jury, authorize the judges' certificate to indemnify the prosecutor from damages, that he might otherwise be liable to, requiring oppressive security from a claimant of ships and goods seized, before he shall be allowed to defend his property, and are subversive of American rights

"Geo"?

what the F___ is "Geo"? Some ancient English text is my guess. why not quote it here, or provide a link to an online source of the text.

And again, explain what this has to do with the original post.

I'm waiting.

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