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
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.
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®ion=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.
Upvoting this article does not mean you are taking my side and you are against Mr. Stevens.
Thanks for working so hard to build together instead of tear apart. When I first read the posts mentioned here, I was certainly disappointed. The go intercourse yourself comments did seem childish and counter-productive, but I really appreciate hearing your side of the story, your sincere apology, along with an explanation of your upbringing and natural use of language.
So many people are quick to judge the motives and intentions of others when they hear specific words (myself included). So few of us understand non-violent communication techniques and how they can help us all get along.
Thank you for fighting the good fight and being open to correction and dialogue. I hope you and Mr. Stevens work past this and are able to respect each other more in the future.
@lukestokes, The maturity, understanding and acceptance shines through in your words. Thanks for that. It means a lot to me when others grasp a full understanding of what I'm trying to communicate. This is probably one the favorite comments I've received on Steemit. Big love.
You do such a wonderful job putting us into your moments, thanks.
You have mischaracterized Marc's argument.
His method is sound, I used it in court to get out with no further fines or time on felony charges.
I do counsel that it is not for everybody, I have had time to be in law libraries, I was turned down at the court of criminal appeals three times on deadlines that I didn't find until after the fact.
On the day of trial the da said I could sign to misdemeanors and walk out, so I did.
I had failed to be properly prepared in the beginning, if I had I would have a ruling from the cca, but that is not Marc's fault, it is mine.
My chief complaint is in sending the sleeple to be eaten by the wolves, unless you got the method down pat you are taking your chances.
Even if you do make the right arguments, unless you know the deadlines for the appeals you are beat.
Preparing for any traffic ticket is preparing for any crime, they are the same.
Marc's method can monkey wrench the system, but only if enough people become proficient at forcing them to follow their own rules.
My question for your illustrious lawyers is how they 'prove' my identity without using hearsay.
I doubt the prosecution can put a witness to my birth on the stand, but the criminal judges and lawyers give themselves a pass on that burden of proof, and the people have no clue.
Have a perfectly peaceful day, Barry Cooper,...
"Marc's method can monkey wrench the system, but only if enough people become proficient at forcing them to follow their own rules."
...Marc doesn't claim his system "forces them to follow their own rules." He claims it exposes where they are not following their own rules, and leaves the problem for the appellate court, unless the lower court dismisses the case. Nothing can make thieving sociopaths follow any rules, as the recent trial of Ross Ulbricht showed.
I agree, exposing them is what forces their hand, not actual force, they have an overwhelming amount of dupes supporting them.
If people sat out the fines on their traffic tickets they would stop writing so many.
I think this is where Marc really contributes, he gives tools to stand up for one's self.
When the self is ready to revolt the body will follow.
Thanks for sharing your story with me. I'm really glad you were freed from the oppression and I'm glad Marc's method helped you. However, I must insist that I do fully understand his argument and I fully agree his argument is legitimate. My point is that it doesn't work for the reasons he states. I thought I made that clear in the article. I am glad this is being debated so some can use his method when it applies and others can avoid it when it's dangerous to use.@freebornangel,
...Marc actually admits that his tactics are primarily presenting the court with a harder target than otherwise, since they(the courts) don't follow any proper law or legal precedent. However, this is not all he is doing. Someone who simply files a large number of motions that have no relevance to any of the facts at hand is closer to what you allege Stevens is doing. ...But he's not advocating doing that. Worse, your assertion about the label for what he's doing misrepresents his core claims. For an example of what is commonly meant by "freeman's defense" do a youtube search or google search for "Robert Arthur Menard."
Stevens' suggested defense is not very similar to RAM's conventional "freemens" defense. Stevens simply uses questioning to expose the self-contradictory nature of modern courts that rely on bar-licensed attorneys' refusal to question the premises of the court. Thus, when you suggest hiring bar-licensed attorneys, you are getting at a real difference between your suggested tactics and Stevens' tactics.
That's the real meat of the issue, and an area where I believe Stevens' is "more right" than you, unless it's a complex civil case. (But this would make a good debate, especially if you produced a large number of documented acquittals from each of the attorneys you recommend, contrasted with Stevens' total record, as well as which strategies each one used for cases that won and didn't win.)
Note: "freeborn" is the title used by John "freeborn John" Lilburne, the English leveller. As such, he helped establish the English common law in the 1600s. The "common law system" being advocated by "free man on the land" movement has seemingly had more success in Canada and the commonwealth countries than it has had in the USA, where the courts have traditionally just ignored the common law, counting on "bar licensing" and "general ignorance" to let them get away with robbing the masses blind in the name of fighting a war on personal recreational drug preferences, "speeding citations," and IRS extortion. So, "freebornangel" is likely tipping their hand with respect to their overall world-view, a world-view which seemingly doesn't exactly mirror Marc Stevens' world-view, as I've already indicated.
Marc has never claimed his arguments force the court to do anything legitimate. He does claim his arguments force the court to either: contradict themselves or threaten/use force. This is true, his arguments do accomplish this. ...And, often, the higher courts don't wish to be exposed, so they dismiss cases rather than address Marc's arguments and expose themselves.
That's the only reason Marc has any successes at all, much less the frequent ones he has.
Hi @barrycooper, I just wanted to say I have finally spent the time and read all of your life series articles, which I've been meaning to do for some time now. Really great work, I enjoy reading your story very much, I hope you post more of it here :) As for the freeman defense, to be bluntly honest, looking from the other side I feel like if someone made a video stating that the way I go about things is "crazy" I would probably get offended, and maybe over react, not realizing it wasn't really meant to be the way it might be taken. I do think you are right however. I've watched and read a lot of info about the freeman defense and despite whatever legalities may be backing it up, the reality is that many judges have the ability to get you thrown in prison, despite the legality or morality of it, and they will do that if you give them a reason. Whether the freeman thing is real or not I am not sure, but it's obscure and misunderstood enough that any judge could simply cast it aside as conspiracy theory, and that would never be questioned, and that would probably land you in prison. I think you are right to tell folks to be cautious about it.
Thanks for you analysis @dexter-k...it was fair and I can tell you are coming from a good place. You are right about the "crazy" in the title. I should have used another term. I'm going to do eventually do some re editing or a follow up video to explain some things I've learned through this. In the video, I'm going to give Mr. Stevens even more credit than in my first. Peace and thanks for reading all my stories. Really! I appreciate it.
You might want to note that Marc Stevens' suggested defenses are not "freemens' defenses," as you incorrectly imply here, and as Barry Cooper incorrectly stated and implied. The very fact that you are just believing what Barry initially said without any investigation of your own is exactly why Stevens responded the way he did.
Additionally, you're right that calling Stevens' work "crazy" is also an ad hominem that's unlikely to ever lead to constructive "collaboration." That Barry then defends your comment here could be taken as implying that Barry still thinks Stevens' work amounts to a "freeman" defense (which it is not).
To ever be taken at one's word, one must first stop mischaracterizing one's opponents' beliefs. Until that clearly happens, it won't surprise me if Stevens avoids Barry and takes an adversarial approach to responding to him.
It saddens me to say this, because I think they both have legitimate things to offer the freedom movement, and to specific defendants trying to avoid unjust punishment.
Thank you it was a very good read. I was always intrigued by the freeman on the land stuff and you put it in a very clear manner. Keep up the good work! I'll most probably contact you on the chat. I feel like talking with you further. See you!
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
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®ion=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.
My favorite line:
Thanks for working so hard to build together instead of tear apart. When I first read the posts mentioned here, I was certainly disappointed. The go intercourse yourself comments did seem childish and counter-productive, but I really appreciate hearing your side of the story, your sincere apology, along with an explanation of your upbringing and natural use of language.
So many people are quick to judge the motives and intentions of others when they hear specific words (myself included). So few of us understand non-violent communication techniques and how they can help us all get along.
Thank you for fighting the good fight and being open to correction and dialogue. I hope you and Mr. Stevens work past this and are able to respect each other more in the future.
@lukestokes, The maturity, understanding and acceptance shines through in your words. Thanks for that. It means a lot to me when others grasp a full understanding of what I'm trying to communicate. This is probably one the favorite comments I've received on Steemit. Big love.
You do such a wonderful job putting us into your moments, thanks.
You have mischaracterized Marc's argument.
His method is sound, I used it in court to get out with no further fines or time on felony charges.
I do counsel that it is not for everybody, I have had time to be in law libraries, I was turned down at the court of criminal appeals three times on deadlines that I didn't find until after the fact.
On the day of trial the da said I could sign to misdemeanors and walk out, so I did.
I had failed to be properly prepared in the beginning, if I had I would have a ruling from the cca, but that is not Marc's fault, it is mine.
My chief complaint is in sending the sleeple to be eaten by the wolves, unless you got the method down pat you are taking your chances.
Even if you do make the right arguments, unless you know the deadlines for the appeals you are beat.
Preparing for any traffic ticket is preparing for any crime, they are the same.
Marc's method can monkey wrench the system, but only if enough people become proficient at forcing them to follow their own rules.
My question for your illustrious lawyers is how they 'prove' my identity without using hearsay.
I doubt the prosecution can put a witness to my birth on the stand, but the criminal judges and lawyers give themselves a pass on that burden of proof, and the people have no clue.
Have a perfectly peaceful day, Barry Cooper,...
I agree, exposing them is what forces their hand, not actual force, they have an overwhelming amount of dupes supporting them.
If people sat out the fines on their traffic tickets they would stop writing so many.
I think this is where Marc really contributes, he gives tools to stand up for one's self.
When the self is ready to revolt the body will follow.
Thanks for sharing your story with me. I'm really glad you were freed from the oppression and I'm glad Marc's method helped you. However, I must insist that I do fully understand his argument and I fully agree his argument is legitimate. My point is that it doesn't work for the reasons he states. I thought I made that clear in the article. I am glad this is being debated so some can use his method when it applies and others can avoid it when it's dangerous to use.@freebornangel,
...Marc actually admits that his tactics are primarily presenting the court with a harder target than otherwise, since they(the courts) don't follow any proper law or legal precedent. However, this is not all he is doing. Someone who simply files a large number of motions that have no relevance to any of the facts at hand is closer to what you allege Stevens is doing. ...But he's not advocating doing that. Worse, your assertion about the label for what he's doing misrepresents his core claims. For an example of what is commonly meant by "freeman's defense" do a youtube search or google search for "Robert Arthur Menard."
Stevens' suggested defense is not very similar to RAM's conventional "freemens" defense. Stevens simply uses questioning to expose the self-contradictory nature of modern courts that rely on bar-licensed attorneys' refusal to question the premises of the court. Thus, when you suggest hiring bar-licensed attorneys, you are getting at a real difference between your suggested tactics and Stevens' tactics.
That's the real meat of the issue, and an area where I believe Stevens' is "more right" than you, unless it's a complex civil case. (But this would make a good debate, especially if you produced a large number of documented acquittals from each of the attorneys you recommend, contrasted with Stevens' total record, as well as which strategies each one used for cases that won and didn't win.)
Note: "freeborn" is the title used by John "freeborn John" Lilburne, the English leveller. As such, he helped establish the English common law in the 1600s. The "common law system" being advocated by "free man on the land" movement has seemingly had more success in Canada and the commonwealth countries than it has had in the USA, where the courts have traditionally just ignored the common law, counting on "bar licensing" and "general ignorance" to let them get away with robbing the masses blind in the name of fighting a war on personal recreational drug preferences, "speeding citations," and IRS extortion. So, "freebornangel" is likely tipping their hand with respect to their overall world-view, a world-view which seemingly doesn't exactly mirror Marc Stevens' world-view, as I've already indicated.
Marc has never claimed his arguments force the court to do anything legitimate. He does claim his arguments force the court to either: contradict themselves or threaten/use force. This is true, his arguments do accomplish this. ...And, often, the higher courts don't wish to be exposed, so they dismiss cases rather than address Marc's arguments and expose themselves.
That's the only reason Marc has any successes at all, much less the frequent ones he has.
"I am sorry. Please forgive me."
If you'd ended this article right there, it likely would have been a lot more successful.
I'm happy with it's success and I said everything that needed to be said. @the-ntf. Peace!
Hi @barrycooper, I just wanted to say I have finally spent the time and read all of your life series articles, which I've been meaning to do for some time now. Really great work, I enjoy reading your story very much, I hope you post more of it here :) As for the freeman defense, to be bluntly honest, looking from the other side I feel like if someone made a video stating that the way I go about things is "crazy" I would probably get offended, and maybe over react, not realizing it wasn't really meant to be the way it might be taken. I do think you are right however. I've watched and read a lot of info about the freeman defense and despite whatever legalities may be backing it up, the reality is that many judges have the ability to get you thrown in prison, despite the legality or morality of it, and they will do that if you give them a reason. Whether the freeman thing is real or not I am not sure, but it's obscure and misunderstood enough that any judge could simply cast it aside as conspiracy theory, and that would never be questioned, and that would probably land you in prison. I think you are right to tell folks to be cautious about it.
Thanks for you analysis @dexter-k...it was fair and I can tell you are coming from a good place. You are right about the "crazy" in the title. I should have used another term. I'm going to do eventually do some re editing or a follow up video to explain some things I've learned through this. In the video, I'm going to give Mr. Stevens even more credit than in my first. Peace and thanks for reading all my stories. Really! I appreciate it.
You might want to note that Marc Stevens' suggested defenses are not "freemens' defenses," as you incorrectly imply here, and as Barry Cooper incorrectly stated and implied. The very fact that you are just believing what Barry initially said without any investigation of your own is exactly why Stevens responded the way he did.
Additionally, you're right that calling Stevens' work "crazy" is also an ad hominem that's unlikely to ever lead to constructive "collaboration." That Barry then defends your comment here could be taken as implying that Barry still thinks Stevens' work amounts to a "freeman" defense (which it is not).
To ever be taken at one's word, one must first stop mischaracterizing one's opponents' beliefs. Until that clearly happens, it won't surprise me if Stevens avoids Barry and takes an adversarial approach to responding to him.
It saddens me to say this, because I think they both have legitimate things to offer the freedom movement, and to specific defendants trying to avoid unjust punishment.
Thank you @barrycooper! I'll read this one later!
Beautiful. Let me know what you think.
Thank you it was a very good read. I was always intrigued by the freeman on the land stuff and you put it in a very clear manner. Keep up the good work! I'll most probably contact you on the chat. I feel like talking with you further. See you!
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about linkback bot v0.4. Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise.
Built by @ontofractal