Your initial post and comments did not sit well with me.
It appears to me that you are working from idealized definition of words that do not necessarily translate to the daily use and abuse of law.
I will give some feedback on this one comment (above) so that maybe you can see what doesn't fit well with me.
You are running with my words and taking them in an adversarial direction. That can be seen as an attempted emotional undermining.
I am trying to suggest that at least some "correct" interpretation of laws are fantasy in that the laws were created in fantasy and are unlawful laws (I'm sure you can wrap your brain around either side of "unlawful laws", so please don't bother).
You also are overstating your own prediction regarding future prevails of the argued theories.
Your prediction can be easily disproved through simply finding a single case where a self proclaimed freeman won his/her way in a court of law.
Admittedly, I only know hearsay regarding freeman actions and theories (including anything said in this post and it's comments) and can only say that I've heard of freemen having numerous victories in the court room. I'm not going to bother researching/pursuing this further, yet if you find anything, I would love to know.
Being one who is not well informed regarding the specifics of freeman legal assertions as well as other proposedly "correct" alternative legal stances, I am leary of your last suggestion/assertion in that it has two parts which I judge differently; firstly being the idea of relying on "correct" interpretations (which I take to mean, interpretations "other" that those freeman theories deemed "incorrect"), and secondly your contrast between "correct" and freeman theories.
Starting with that suggestions/assertion can be likened to starting a complete search with blinders on; with regard to freemen legal stances/theories.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: