You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: I posted a video that mentions an activist, in an email I told him "fuck you" 3 times. I want to apologize-A Life Series by Barry Cooper-Humanitarian/NeverGetBusted

in #barrycooperlifeseries8 years ago (edited)

Hi Barry. I think it's important to make the distinction that Marc makes between the methods he uses and the methods that the Freemen use, because they are very different. Freemen tend to use a lot of paperwork, get birth certificates and statements of live birth, and go through processes to try to separate themselves from the government. I don't know if people have success using that method, if they do, good luck to them. But Marc's method is very simple in comparison, and it just hinges around asking questions, questioning assumptions.

In regards to why these arguments sometimes fail in court, the fact is, magistrates and prosecutors do attempt to bully people into saying the wrong thing, and then taking advantage of that.

In my curiosity of these methods, I got a couple of tram fines in Melbourne, and send a bunch of letters to the department of transport and the prosecution, and ended up going to court. I won't say that everything the Freemen say or everything Marc says is true, but there is definitely something funny going on with the whole system. As I'm sure you know, even the court system as it exists today doesn't work according to how it should on paper.

As an examples of things that happened to me, one was that a magistrate kept insisting that I enter a plea, and when I said I didn't want to enter a plea, she said she would enter one for me, according to their process. I said no, don't do that, you can't do that. She said "I can do whatever I want." I said "You can't enter a plea for me without my consent." She'd done everything she could to make it seem like a plea was necessary, but sure enough the documents for the next court date stated clearly that no plea was entered.

There were a lot of things that happened where the magistrate or the prosecutor bamboozled me or used sneaky tactics to avoid answering my questions. It seems like they're aware that, if someone asks too many questions, they're probably not going to have answers for them, and the whole sham will be revealed. Of course, as you mentioned, it is a question of resources as well. If they think they can get money from you without a lot of work, they will. If they think you're going to cause work for them, they'll give up.

The thing is, if you can ask the right questions, and not get bamboozled by the judges and the prosecutors, what questions will make it too much work for them? Are there easy ways to make it too much work for them, even for drug cases? I suspect there might well be. However, to find that out can be a huge risk.

Have a good one Barry

Kurt

Sort:  

It's usually not the questions you has that causes too much work for them, it's filing a lot of motions that does it. There are almost an endless number of motions a defendant can file to cause the courts a headache. Thanks for taking your time to support me. Peace.! @churdtzu

I've found it's both the questions and the motions that win dismissals. More precisely, it's the totality of the perceived threat the defendant can appear to present. Q: The threat to what? After all, it's not the judge or prosecutor who risks prison or fines! A: The court's continued ability to steal from the innocent at the maximum rate. The more the court deals with traffic tickets, the more the court is set up to steal "the maximum amount of money" from innocent people. Why do I say this? Because everyone is always speeding, all the time, and certain counties punish people more than others:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/upshot/new-geography-of-prisons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=3

Marc knows this. Most bar-licensed attorneys do not know that the courts are lying when they claim to uphold common law precedent, and many naively think that the criminal common law is still being "generally followed." In fact, most bar-licensed attorneys are both idiots and/or sociopaths who could never make a living in a STEM profession, because their understanding of the nature of the law is superficial. This ill-prepares them to defend anyone from legalized theft.

Also: the courts do not want to hold jury trials. I had "6 months in jail"+"4 points against my license"+$400 fine" reduced slowly and incrementally down to "a $25 fine" only. This was solely because I demanded a jury trial, which I never would have done, had I not first memorized Stevens' lines of questioning. Kudos to Marc! I was very glad that he summarized years of arguing with sociopaths in his book "Adventures in Legal Land," so I didn't have to look for rare glimpses of radical libertarian logic in actual case files.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.16
TRX 0.24
JST 0.033
BTC 94350.83
ETH 2509.73
SBD 0.67