[Deleted]
[Empty6]
8 years ago in #barrycooperlifeseries by barrycooper (68)
$253.22
- Past Payouts $253.22, 0.00 TRX
- - Author $237.00, 0.00 TRX
- - Curators $16.22, 0.00 TRX
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.
"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