This is NOT a way to interact within that place, and those "persons". If he is so "free", then why is he whinning like a little child? Just showing-up in your vessel presumes joinder. Lucky this guy was not manhandled by their private security. I think the "judge" was nice to this guy, despite of the baby tamtrums. That is why I think many "sovereign citizens" and "freemen" "movements" are getting more people into jail, than any special task force could on it's own. <<Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.>>
Summary judgement Max? Easy to come on here & make big boy statements without having to substantiate. What qualifies your opinion?? i did'nt show up in my vessel you fucking flute so stick your unqualified opinions up your arse, i was arrested & thrown in jail because i asked for the identity's of the men questioning me & wouldn't give details. that was my 7th appearance & 4th judge, at no time did i freely accept joinder, they skipped the plea & must have entered it while i was'nt there. I dont know it all, far from it but i will learn.I will take constructive criticism only from those who are aware of the facts.
maybe i seem reckless, definately i dont have all the answers BUT I do see whats wrong. At what point do we know we know enough? only at the point we are tested & so rather than sit on fb pontificating to others i will seek out my education at the school of hard knocks. This page has been a revelation to me & is changing the way i perceive, in my case i had been following the marc stevens approach & questioning the facts/blocking the jurisdiction which worked for a bit until they decided skip that bit. I've been a listener to dean clifford as well so i had filed my affidavit with the AG, i looked into the presumptions & definitions & removed myself from jurisdiction. I did'nt "believe" the judge could do what he did ....lol but he did (lesson learned TY) I've decided to let go much of what i "believed" i knew & realise what scott is trying to teach here, the dependency on others & presuming we understand what were talking about/ definitions of words we use. I am a humble student of this page, mistakes are ok as long as i learn.
Hum, should I start one of those "no-point-in-discussing-this-cyber-debate" response? But I can, for entertaintment purposes only, mention a few "facts". I want to start wih saying that I would be lying if I wished harm to anyone. That being said: fact #1; I dont need to know the "facts" to give my opinion that the behavior seen in the video is contrary to anyones interest (where is the love?)while in court, were there is people with guns, and other scary stuff. Fact #2; You were whinning, and you are STILL whinning (read your previous comments). Fact #3; without having to know the facts, this statement still remains a fact: "Just showing-up in your vessel presumes joinder." Fact #4; You wrote 2 paragraphs of absolutely nothing of substance. Fact #5; at 4:45pm AST, 51 people had seen this thead. Only 3 likes so far. Its still early in the west coast, though. Fact #6, taking "offense" of my opinion creates the presumption of authority... of me, over you! Think about it. Fact # 7, I sincerely wish you well, and hope you don't take offense of strangers opinions. Now if you all excuse me, I have to catch me some "freewomen".
fact #1; I dont need to know the "facts" to give my opinion, thank you max i need not read any further .....i wasn't angry just stating the fact ye fuckin flute!!
<<[44] The truth is that the system needs conflict, it demands controversy- it relishes and celebrates the belligerent litigant � as the poster character for supporting propaganda aligned at warning others, that such �anti-law�, �anti-establishment� and �anti-government� behavior will not be tolerated. Those that actively pursue the courts, sometimes with personal vendettas unfortunately created terrible injury against the law and the rest of society by enabling the system to re-set itself and parody genuine concerns as �extremists� and more recently as �paper terrorists�.>>
<<[59] It is how we behave, above all, that determines the success or failure to represent the law. The arrogant, the aggressive the vengeful litigant injures the law as much as the corrupt official. The weak, the frightened, the ignorant litigant injures the law and their own character by doubting themselves and failing to work on their competence and knowledge.>> http://blog.ucadia.com/2012/11/the-10-biggest-errors-most-people-make.html
<<Ad hominem attacks during discussions = loss of credibility + no increased awareness/learning
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance>>