Comment: The problem is ...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If the freemen... (see in situ)

The problem is ...

... that there are "freemen" and then there are "Freemen" and then there are "FREEMEN" and then there are fREEMEN," and then there are "sovereigns" and then there are "Sovereigns" and then there are ... you get the point.

There are many different theories from different people and they don't all agree.

I agree with you that many (most?) are complete bullshti. Some of it is made up. Some of it references religious doctrine and whatever else might get thrown into the mix.

But that does not change the fact that there is something wrong with the legal system. There is something that does not add up, and it has to do with usurpation of power, by the feds and the states, by the legislative, executive and judicial. It has been going on a long time.

If the Constitution says I cannot be compelled to be a witness against myself, and the common law principles say that I am free to travel without government approval on the public roads, and there are court cases that say the same and even say that this principle cannot be legislated away by the states, then how is it that I can be compelled to produce any particular paperwork by a roadside cop who has not witnessed, nor has any evidence, that I have committed a crime?

How does the "motor vehicle code" square with the 5th Amendment and Article 6 of the Constitution? How can a California cop, who wrote the ticket (and is therefore the only witness), also act as "prosecutor" for the state, and somehow not result in a conflict of interest and a violation of the common law principle of due process?

How can a statute define "drive" as one who is employed to carry passengers on the public roads morph into a different definition without repealing the act, when the state constitution says it must? And how can any such statute be enforced in courts when it conflicts with higher court decisions that say the opposite?

And how can it be that judges are rarely, if ever, held accountable in any meaningful way when they ignore laws they don't like, ignore evidence they don't like, and run roughshod over "rights" that they claim to uphold?

This is where the "freemen" are coming from (most of them), even if they have not found a way to articulate it, or even found the specific evidence that they suspect is out there.

If it weren't for some "crazy rantings" by a "freeman" a few years ago, I would never have learned a lot of the things I have within the liberty movement as a whole.

Although YOU seem to be a decent person and seem to handle these discussions with class (and I KNOW it is frustrating to deal with some seemingly lunatic rantings), I also have encountered FAR MORE people on your side of this debate in all of this who are complete a$$holes -- which is bad enough, but there is nothing worse than an a$$hole who thinks he knows what the debate is about when in fact he has no clue because he's too damn lazy and arrogant to take a moment to figure out what the argument really is.