The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Hmmm

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: From what I have abstracted (see in situ)


not sure if I am being trolled, the board being conned, or all of the above.

But I take it at face value. Good for you if you are searching for evidence. This myth/hoaz/con/fraud has been around for ages. Decades. Where is the proof that a straw man exists? I haven't seen it. What's more, I haven't even seen anything that one could infer that from. There is a complete lack of a basis for it. And, in many court cases, that is what has turned up - nothing to support it.

I find the conclusion that "of course" a judge wouldn't know something like the law somewhat amusing. Judges deal with jurisdictional challenges all the time. Cases over whether there is a straw man or whether one can be a sovereign have been litigated many times and there is a body of caselaw (common law, you know) which deals with it and it says there is no such thing.

But assuming (for the sake of argument) that there is a straw man and that a judge didn't know about it, you then have litigants and lawyers and evidence and courts of appeal. The information would be put out there. Many have alleged things to the effect it exists, none have provided proof. Not even a slight measure of proof. They've provided hearsay and supposition and downloads from the internet and misquoted passages and bad analysis.

Bad analysis pervades these videos. While they don't provide any evidence of a straw man they do demonstrate that the authors don;t know how to read the law. Where is the cite to the claim that the US went bankrupt in 1933? There is none! It is a common myth. And quite a whopper at that. Don;t think you'd be able to hide that one. And the idea that a person is now only a corporation under the law - which the first video says then contradicts - that is complete bunk. A corporation is considered a fictitious person under laws governing corporations, but that doesn't mean the same thing as "persons are now corporations." As a lawyer I can tell you there is no legal concept of person/corporate person that applies to all of us, that admiralty law does not rule in regular non-admiralty courts, and that most of the other representations about the law and legal system are just false.

If you can show where these nuts/cons get these theories, I'd be interested to know. Not because I suspect it is true (it isn't) but because I'd find the thought process interesting at least.

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