Originally posted by kozmo[It is obvious from your post that you are unfamiliar with the movement. One must FIRST gain administrative rights over their strawman and then extricate themselves lawfully from the contracts by which they are bound. Once done, the defense is perfected.

Actually, I was initially intrigued by this freeman thing ( I do so live to rebel and stick it to the man, especially sweet is using his rules against him) - so I have done quite a bit of research on the issue; however, in my research I have found the evidence that this works to be full of holes the size of dump trucks and about as consistent as the electricity at my compound in Afghanistan.

I actually think it fitting to use the AMWAY example when I talk to people I have met around my house because that is the most apt one word analogy I can think of when it comes to the freeman movement. Seems like a big smoke a mirror thing to me.

Try to look some concrete information up on what how to write the declaration of your freeman status and you'll get a bunch of crap - in short no real answers.

"It's different for everyone" you see "You have to do the research yourself for it to work but it works see" (points out crappy video of dude pissing off a judge so bad he leaves the room) are the most likely answer and common information you will find in most cases.

If it was a locked tight defense - it would give the equally locked tight example of how to write ones declaration; the steps to take in which order to defeat any prosecution attempt etc... Also, the results would be predictable, constant and consistent not a crap shoot.

Instead you hear about how cool it is to be free; "you are a slave if you don't see it" and "you need to wake-up and see the truth", "this works" etc...but again no how to book...

Again never any real concrete effective wording or steps to declare such a status and how to use it with consistent and effective results throughout the US various territories.

So like I said AMWAY sounds great everyone talks about how financial freedom is within your grasp but they "the successful" will not just come out as tell you how to do it. Which is the tell tale sign of a scam in their case and a sign of a BS argument in the case of the freeman issue.

Originally posted by kozmo[The reasons most lawyers do not do this is that they make money by having people trapped in the system. They are masters of Uniform Commercial Code manipulation and recognize that Common Law does not require the services of an attorney.

Again evidently common law does require the services of a lawyer or attorney because no one gets it therefore they could make a killing practicing the same. If it were so easy the methods or defense would be well known and the outcomes of cases would be predictable, constant and consistent not a crap shoot.

I recognize the validity; however, that at some point the well would dry up and agree that in a sense this would be sort of like putting themselves out of work but here's where I draw a question.

Lawyers and Attorneys are a slippery lot and usually bottom feeding liars of the first order and moreover usually passive aggressive type people. Most judges were once lawyers as well and the media so loves to create a villain especially say a conservatively elected one. They love a good corruption scandal too - the live for them in fact.

Why is it then that the same slippery lying conniving individuals don’t regularly use this defense in their own legal issues? Certainly, any lawyer worth his salt would avoid the licensing fees and costs associated with the system of revenue generation however small they may be in comparison to his income just for the pleasure of being right and beating the system - lawyers live for that crap!

Half of them would sell their mothers for a dollar - yet we are supposed to believe they know a way to have no license plates or a driver’s license and consent to it anyway knowing that they give up their rights in so doing?

I for one do not buy that for one instant.

Also, they would argue any license to practice law or marry or whatever suspicious nefarious revenue generators were unconstitutional the minute one had to face divorce or a malpractice suit.

They would argue they didn't consent and defeat their straw man to get out of any obligations in a heartbeat as would most people. Why don’t we hear about them doing it?

If they are doing it, where are the undercover reporters with video of corrupt lawyers and judges using a dual system of law all their own - you honestly believe this is a secret they could keep in this society?

This would be too juicy of a scandal for any reporter to pass up.

To disrupt the and expose the fallacy of the entire legal system of the dreaded USA would be the Pulitzer of the millennium for not only our American reporters but foreign agents and governments of all types who wish us ill.

Yet what do we hear? Crickets that's what.

If there were a remedy or get out of jail free card to the imposition of illegal and unconstitutional fees and revenue the lid on the way to do it would have been blown long ago....

Um, back to the original post...

Can someone explain to me how driving a car is some sort of right? And what about aircraft?

The main problem facing police officers these days is our perception of them (of which they do nothing to attempt to change)

To a large percentage of the population see the police as a representation of repression and taxation (I know I think of them as just another tax collector) Also, I disagree with the concept that police are the only force to protect us from those who want to break the law. I always hear, don't take the law in your own hands, just hide / call police and hope they get there in time. People should have the right to defend themselves (and one can list many an occasion that a person defended themselves and ended up having to go to court.) Does anyone wonder why so many parts of the inner cities are becoming abandoned - crime elements move in and the people have to move out because they are helpless to do anything.

People believe the criminal has more rights then the citizen. People are sick that the rich and powerful get an easy ride - corrupt judges and government officials - who should be arrested.


Until some of these issues are addressed, people will continue to distrust the police.

OP, I have only read your post (not the entire thread yet as I always do) and am truly respectful and appreciative of this discourse.

As an old, teargas sucking, Kent State saddened activist I learned that our police are human and that we frightened them. A lot of us realized this, when we thought we were using our right to peaceful protest we were actually triggering fear in them and our nation. Some, like the Weatherman, Radical Education League, etc thought that was cool. We did not.

After Kent State we noticed that most PDs nationwide stopped the whole riot thing. We had a sit in and the police came with no riot gear...it was truly amazing for everyone. They took a totally different demeanor and just encircled protesters, but did not react. There was a mutual respect. "You have to do what you have to do and I have to do what I have to do." This did coincide with the Anti-War Veteran Movement (of which I was apart) and the PDs respected the soldiers coming by back from Nam. Nonetheless, it happened across the board.

The protesters who were real worked through the system, collected signatures and brought legislation to the floor of their respective State Congresses and it did not pass our notice that the PDs differentiated us from the violent parties of the times.

the term 'police officer' means a corporate policy enforcer, and; police officers who ask for identification are not acting under their oath of office and therefore are not acting lawfully