Require a high level of proof. Are we supposed to just take your word for it? I know that a great deal of what you wrote is false simply because there is no "straw man" theory anywhere to be found in legal teachings or law books. Ergo, the idea that lawyers are buying into it is doubtful. In years of practice I have never known a lawyer buy this stuff because it is idiotic make believe non law. It is always a pro per litigant on their way to slowly losing who does the sov run mumbo jumbo defense. Always.
Other than the general ethical prohibition on making frivolous arguments simply to waste time and frustrate the court's functioning, attorneys have no limit on making jurisdictional arguments. It would not surprise me if in some states or jurisdictions they do seek to discipline a lawyer if that lawyer foments nonsensical arguments such as "I am not my person" or "I didn't commit the crime, my corporate personage did" or whatever. (As I've stated in other threads, you may disagree with my verbiage but I am not trying to master your "magic word" gibberish language as it serves no useful purpose other than causing idiots to lose in Court).
Whatever happened to the idea that if one is "innocent" then just arguing the facts? If one doesn't like the law, deal with the legislature on it! But don't show up in court and argue nonsense and say everyone is a "criminal" for enforcing the laws as they exist. First of all, it's a losing battle, and second of all, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of our government - which goes to the root of most sovrun gibberish theories, by the way.
I do believe the part about the state trying to appoint a pd to defend a guy who was rambling sov run gibberish. I am sure the guy lost, but we'll never know, and this story is coming from you- one who says he lost a case even though he won it, or how did you put it - that you "lost" even though you "destroyed their logic". (In your world one can apparently have a complete, 100% black and white victory and yet still lose in the eyes of the system).
There have been cases in the national news ( so not top secret at all) where, in jurisdictions that allow marijuana (or med marijuana) and police confiscate it, that police departments have been ordered to return it to people. But that has and never did have anything to do with sov run mumbo jumbo. It was merely return of property after it was determined there was no crime. Sure policemen might tamper with evidence and be corrupt and even steal pot - that is no big surprise to a libertarian. But none of that has anything to do with "jurisdiction" or with your sov citizen nonsense.
I suspect you however have nothing to do with any such cases and merely read about them in the news as I did.
You are just seeing what you want to see, even if the obvious answers are pretty clear. Instead of being enlightened and on some higher plane as you describe yourself, it's actually pathetic and you're just wrong.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators