-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.

Btw...

Geo. as in King George of England.

Great

so you quote a statute book from England in the colonial era.

Or you cite to whole chapters from it.

What does that prove? Are we supposed to read your defective mind?

I can tell you what it doesn't prove: any of hte fake legal theories discussed in the original post.

that's what. not that that will ever stop you.

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

Are you brain dead?

The Declaration of Rights is one of many precursors to The Declaration of Independence, and was likewise written as a grievance to the king.

stipulated

there are a lot of other facts that aren't in dispute. For example:

Water is wet.

Still waiting for you to explain yourself.

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

The link to The Declaration of Rights(1774)-

Is in my first post.

We all agree the Declaration says what it says

how is that responsive to this thread?

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

Looks like you need to go back to law school.

Seriously.

ok

you provide no analysis, and no conclusion, you just quote some language. We're supposed to know what you're thinking and what your position is from that. Great. I suspect I know now why YOU didn't go to law school.,,

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

To quote you from your original post-

"This post is aimed at those who believe in "secret legal system" type theories"

"None has ever said there is an secret legal system, or that we operate under "admiralty law"

...Hey, those are YOUR words bud, now eat them!

I have provided proof of a "secret legal system" called Admiralty Law, and I did it using the Founding Documents of this Country, in our Founders own words, and there isn't even a shadow of a doubt now.

Maybe you'd like to ridicule the Founders for believing it now? If you'd like, I can point out in the Declaration Of Independence where they clearly believe in a "Conspiracy Theory" against these states; That ought to leave an opening for you to attack them.

Anyway, I could go on with proving the other things you've mentioned in your OP to be truthful, but I could care less to educate you any further.

"I have provided proof....

"....of a "secret legal system" called Admiralty Law"

No you haven't. You've provided proof that the British set up military courts that usurped the jurisdiction of colonial courts. Nothing secret about it, nothing mysterious about it, no esoteric interpretation of any law involved. Just an instance of something that has happened innumerable times through history: martial law. And you've completely failed to explain what this historical fact has to do with anything, how the existence of British military courts prior to the revolution corroborates any of your claims about the law today having an esoteric interpretation.

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

the craziness knows no bounds!

in his mind, the mere fact that there is such a thing as admiralty jurisdiction means it is used all the time.

Facts don't matter, we're on the internet!

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

*Noted* We are making progress.

At least you now admit to there, in fact, being such a thing as Admiralty Law, and Common Law, and that there's a big difference.

Now we just need to identify which Gov't laws fall under which.

What does that yellow fringe around the flag represent again?

That seems to be the "logic" of it...

"that there is such a thing as admiralty jurisdiction means it is used all the time."

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

You build pretty strawmen.

A murder case is treated differently than a parking ticket, yes?

The Uniform Commercial Code is not Common Law.

Seriously, stop being an idiot.

Et Tu, DebasedCurrency?

It looks to me as if DC just handed your little chicken butt to you on a platter.

How soon will it be until your typical snarky reply and insulting ad hominem show up in response to this comment, Chicken-man?

it looks to me

like a complete failure of fact and logic.

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

If the entire monetary system of the United States

is a source of political power, a counterfeit operation to convince people to believe a paper receipt is money, and half of every transaction involves using paper receipts then how can one believe any legal system based upon perpetuating a lie does not involve conspiring in secret?

The OP has put his crazy on full display if he thinks a legal system which fundamentally exists to protect a paper receipts revenue system is honest or transparent.

In addition the OP has confessed to more lies suggesting those brilliant men never comment on legal stuff because they have.

Ron Paul talking about IRS targeting political opponents ... how kooky is that?

Ron Paul in an interview where he mentions technically the 16th Amendment is not legit:

Ron Paul's interview with Aaron Russon where Ron is asked if he can cite a law that requires people to file a 1040:

I was also looking for an interview where Ron comments about Irwin Schiff where he essentially states these people are 100% right but the legal system goes after them anyway. Perhaps someone else can post it.

Ron has stated many times he has chosen a different path than focusing on the courts but Ron does not discount the people who do. He simply affirms that is not what he has chosen to do or an interest he has chosen to pursue and leaves it at that.

There exists a dishonest legal system to preserve a fraudulent monetary system which derives its power from convincing people paper receipts are money. Chickenpoop would have you believe the legal system which exists to perpetuate this fraud is not dishonest or does not employ mechanisms to perpetuate the fraud. Chickenpoop would have you believe anyone who mentions anything about the fraudulent legal system is peddling mythology.

BTW, intelligent people recognize sovereign citizen is an expression consisting of two terms which literally mean the opposite. Establishment shills who support a fraudulent, dishonest legal system use such contradicting terminologies to convince people to believe a lie is true.

Apple, Meet Orange

I am no fan of our monetary system, but you;re comparing apples and oranges.

For over a hundred years, we had a gold backed, non-fiat currency. Our Constitution was in effect then too. So I fail to see how favoring a return to our Constitution and founders intent is in any way not consistent with the use of asset-backed currency.

This is just another form of ad hominem, which you engage in because you have no plausible support for your quacked up fake legal theories. As a defense, you try to tie them to something that most people here agree with, which is Austrian economics.

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

Tales of mythology ...

Apple - Counterfeit monetary system.
Orange - Fraudulent legal system which preserves the counterfeit monetary system enforcing legal tender.

It must be a myth both are based on a lie.

the legal system

is certainly imperfect and protects all aspects of our system, not just the monetary part.

But that doens't mean any of your secret legal system hoax stuff is true, does it? No, it really doesn't. Good, now that we've got that out of the way, we can just say, you lose.

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

It is men who are imperfect

in that they don't understand how code vs common law is lawfully applied.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

go way out on a limb

here and guess that you don't know how anything anywhere is lawfully appied.

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

Tales of mythology

Apple - legal dictionaries prior to 1913 aren't true and can't be relied upon for any truth.
Orange - legal dictionaries after 1913 are not only true they are the only ones that are.

Next ...

crazy

no one is saying that is the case.

Are you saying you believe that?

You're not really communicating anything here, but whatever it is, you failed.

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

Is Ron Paul full of crap

when he said in that interview technically the 16th Amendment did not technically pass?

Is Ron full of crap when he said filing a 1040 is implied but he could not cite a law which requires one to file?

The argument against the legality of the 16th amendment...

...has absolutely nothing to do with any of the ideas you're promoting, nothing to do with strawmen, admirality law, etc. The argument is simply that it wasn't properly ratified.

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

What ideas am I promoting?

nt

Basically all of your ideas....

...are attempts to explain how people have unwittingly ceded their rights to the government, what you've called "registration" leading to a "capitis diminutio" of one degree or another - right? The plain language of various forms that a person signs have esoteric meanings which say that the applicant is agreeing to cede various rights to the government - right?

Well, the usual arguments for the illegality of the 16th amendment have nothing to do with that line of reasoning. So the fact that Ron Paul argues against the legality of the 16th amendment does not demonstrate that he shares any of your freemanite ideas about "registration" et al.

I've put together some of my thoughts on freemanism in general in a new thread, take a look.
http://www.dailypaul.com/303291/the-freeman-delusion

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

I wonder how Ron Paul feels about compelling health care

registration?

Ron Paul is arguing that Obamacare is unconstitutional...

...because it exceeds the powers expressly granted in Article I Section 8. And of course he's exactly right. He said absolutely nothing about any of the freemanite legal theories or ideas.

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