Anyone who has ever read THE ACTUAL BILL OF RIGHTS will know the actual text of the Fifth Amendment is:
The bit about silence and getting a lawyer provided if you can’t afford one are based on a US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1996 and did not exist prior to that time. Watching TV does not constitute and education or research.
But we already knew you were ignorant. I’m not expecting you to accept the facts, they are provided for those in the audience who might be interested in reality and actual history.
Miranda was in '66, but I can’t imagine it’ll matter to marc either way.
As a side note, I’m willing to entertain the possibility that his nonsense isn’t willful.
And on top of that, when the child protection service people come to take a kid away from a lousy parent the agent is pictured with a SS Nazi arm band.
I call Godwin, and since I found the cartoon source for his ideas, there is no need for more input from me here, see you guys and **marcmcroy **in the pit.
In any event, folks, what we’re seeing here is a classic example of a person constructing arguments through definition, rather than thought. You see this all the time, really, but rarely constructed this high. It’s very common for people to create definitional arguments, little mini ontological proofs, by grabbing a definition from somewhere and running with it,
“You can’t be racist against Arabs because Arabic isn’t a race, it’s a language,” stuff like that.
The “Freeman” thing is just using HUNDREDS of these things to construct a worldview that quite literally defies an honest observation of how the world works. It’s much easier to live in a fantasy world where you’ve found the Magic Words that mean you don’t have to pay a vehicle registration free than it is to deal with the complex, chaotic world we really live in.
Yep. Cartoons are generally produced for their entertainment value, not for providing any information. And we are clearly past the utter nonsense on that cartoon.
I note, for example, that the cartoon stupidly claims that “registration” comes from the Latin ablative regis, “of the king,” when the actual etymology derives from re + gerere, to pile up or to create a list.
I also note, with amusement, that they tried to sneak in a little subliminal claim that the Masons are behind all this terrible oppression.
I’m also a lawyer, and I call bullshit on that video too.
Marcmcroy, if you want the straight dope on what you’re asking about, here it is: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. Justice Rooke not only tears down all the FOTL/OPCA/SovCit arguments (including the “legal strawman” argument) brick by brick, but he then proceeds to stomp on the bricks until they are dust. Then he blows away the dust.
Well, it’s easier right up until the Real World grinds right over your fantasy world like a steamroller over a cardboard box. Then things can get kind of unpleasant.
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, here’s the only sentence that matters:
“The story and process of a OPCA scheme (e.g. Freeman-on-the-Land and other such ideas) is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer.”
I certainly hope we’re all past it because it’s a steaming pile of crap. That is weapons grade stupid right there. It invents false etymology out of thin air and piles lie on top of lie to build a fantasy version of reality that is beyond ridiculous. It’s absurd that anyone with a pulse could put faith in that snake-oil.
Do you understand actually means do you stand under?! Less than 60 seconds in and the stupid will make your ears bleed
I doubt somehow that our OP will bother to read the entire decision. First, it is long (what? 185 pages or so?). Second, to fully get it, it is necessary to read the links to supporting decisions (in total, it took me two weeks to fully read Meads and the supporting decisions, and I know how to read decisions); and lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Meads does not support his argument. He will dismiss it out of hand. There are plenty of YouTube videos made by OPCA gurus explaining why Meads is faulty somehow, why Rooke is wrong in his decision, and so on.
I won’t say that the gurus are deluding themselves, but they are certainly deluding the people–like the OP–who buy this crap literally, and who buy it for good cash money. At best, the gurus are fraudsters and scamsters, and the OP would do well to avoid them. Their YouTube videos are wrong, their documents are wrong, their assertions as to how to get out of debt are wrong, and anybody who pays money to these “gurus,” is being ripped off.
marcmcroy, look what you have done: Two lawyers are in complete agreement. No equivocating. No weasel words. No drawn out “Welllll,” followed by some legal gibberish. Just flat out “That’s bullshit,” and “Yup. Sure is.”
I hope you are proud of yourself.
That’s absolutely hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.
Even if this had any basis, since you as an actual person will be treated by real-world exactly as if you were identical to your “strawman” it makes no real difference, does it?
