posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:52 AM
I know this is a tad old now; but I just found it
I originally became interested in the "freeman" argument some years ago, and every source I have found claiming to have the solution has always
fallen flat. I've read pretty much all of them, and they all turn shady at some point, or base their argument on some technicality.
I am now four hours in to his presentation, and i gotta say - I am blown away. If we can revive this thread, I think what it needs is the perspective
of some lawyers and LEO's.
What Mr Miller has done here, is not some scam requiring you to file some obscure paperwork, or some shady argument that merely looks good on paper.
What he has done here, is to form a legal argument for assertion of rights based on the US constitution and supreme court cases.
What he makes clear is that almost 100% of the time, is that when you *do* exert your rights, you *will* find yourself in court. But thats the thing -
you *want* to find yourself in court, and you *will* represent yourself - so that when you win, which it seems you will so long as you possess the
testicular fortitude to represent yourself boldly and with fact; that you will end the day by collecting your fees from the court.
When you hear him call your case you get off your tail feather and you run right up there as quickly as you can without knocking anybody down and you
say “Ready your honor” You state your appearance...” I‟m so and so, here before this honorable court. I‟m standing as my own counsel, I‟ve
appointed myself my own attorney and I‟m ready to proceed with my administrative and procedural matters, and at this time your honor may it please
the court I motion for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted.
The crux of his argument seems to revolve around the following, where you insert your own details and asserted rights where needed:
From Am Jur vol. 16, constitutional law section, sec. 97...”That a constitution should
receive a liberal interpretation in favor of the citizen is especially true with respect to those provisions
which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the citizen in regard to both person and
property. (see note 31, Bryer’s v United States 273 U.S. 28. In other words it's supposed to be
liberally enforced in favor of the citizen for the protections of their rights and property. Any
constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the
clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Dejammer v hoskill of Albany
Murdock v Pennsylvania says no state may convert a secured right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. AND IF THEY DO...Shuttlesworth
V Birmingham Alabama says I can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity. That means you can‟t punish me. Since I‟ve relied on
previous decisions of the U S Supreme Court and on constitutional defenses I have a perfect defense for willfulness...I am immune to the prosecution,
therefore the prosecution does not have a cause of action for which relief can be granted. I motion for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state
a claim of action for which relief can be granted, and I would like to collect my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case.”
At the risk of sounding cliché ....Seems Legit