BT,
Hmmm.. I think you're missing the point....
Truth is beauty... and beauty, truth...
Truth is simple in it's complexity, and complex in it's simplicity...
Truth is often easily recognized by it's pure & pristine nature.
This is a highly refined and perfected common law arguement, representing over 25 years of work and experience.
It doesn't deal with the fraud, the presumptions of men, or their perversions. It is a thing of beauty unto itself. Complete within its own realm (common law).
Sadly, there was a time, not to long ago (15 years?), when this was all you needed to prevail in court.
The fact that you think it is inadaquate today, is not testimony against this arguement, as much as it is testmony in acknowledgement of the corruption of men, courts and (statuatory) law we witness today.
It is still a very powerful tool. To bring it up to date, we only need anticipate the assumptions, and presumptions of the court, and accomidate those presumptions, to maintain a winning arguement.
I presented this arguement, (my very first post at Sui Juris) as a "dialog of what to say in court"..... originally authored by Carl Miller a Counselor at Law, with an, as mentioned, 99% success rate. From what I can gather, he retired, in the late 80's, when the court was still "mindfull of the law" and you could still get a 'reasonable' trial.
You should also be aware, that this was posted before the redemptionists, and everyone else, began to "make the swing" back to using "law based arguements" as their leverage in court.
Counselor Miller had been driving for years with no license or plate on his car and repeatedly used this arguement to get himself and others out of harms way.
I took the liberty of manually typing 6 hours of dialog from his video tape, combining the different Constitutional arguements he taught, into a common layout, to show what might be considered an appropriate approach, and how it can be modified to fit different "common law" circumstances. Only the initail arguements are Counselor Miller's, the rest is from my own reasearch.
There is no conflict presented, because that is the idea of this approach. He is not out to attack the Judge, the court, or the prosecutor. He is not using his knowledge to intimidate, frustrate, or otherwise, aggravate the court. He is not targeting the fraud, or even noting dualistic citizenship. Why should he? They are of little concern to him. He knows who he is. He is saying exactly the same thing, you & I say today, in a nonadversarial, unconfrontational way, without the need of additional documents to negate the presumptions of men. His arguements are not based on these things, nor does he spend half his time saying who he is not... but do not presume for a second that he doesn't know how to defend himself.
On the contrary, he was a major advocate, of being totally respectful of all parties involved, and treating them so.
He advocated knowing the Constitution, inside and out, 14,400 words... his appraoch is simple and direct, and guarantees his impunity.
As to your 5 "objections"
In maximâ potentiâ minima licentia. In the greater power is included the smaller license. Hob. 159.
The defendant has stated "I am an unenfranchised common law freeman.". It is up to the prosecution to show otherwise, and although, that is easily presumed, it is a monumental task to prove.
He does tactfully address the fraud here, but not so the average person would know it...
"I'm not a participant in any tontine schemes, of limited liability on a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest requiring me to participate in these illegal corporate ponzi schemes."
Shapiro v. Thompson clearly establishes a right of travel.
Mur**** v. Penn, says the state CAN NOT CONVERT A CONSTUTIONALLY SECURED LIBERTY INTO A PRIVILEDGE AND ISSUE A LICENSE AND FEE FOR IT. It is prosecution duty to show he was "traveling in commerce" and getting paid, which can only be done by producing the contract, or providing a competent 3rd party witness that can testify, first hand, that the defendant was paid....
oh... never mind....... I'm not going to go thru this right now.... ugh..
(BT, With all due respect dude... seriously...
This is the 3rd time in as many weeks.. I have had to rebutt your posts, because you are not reading them criticallly... I humbly suggest you go back and read the arguement, one more time... slowly.... please... It IS important to me that you understand this..)
Since we know statute law isn't law... once we are able to effectively argue that point, then this common law arguement is all we should need...
In fact, per KT's arguement in the "Evidence of Law" thread.. once we have made the tribunal a court, and the magistrate a judge, by forcing the judge to take judicial notice of his Oath of Office... again... this arguement should be all we need to defend ANY of the 30+ rights listed in this thread.
(This is an old post. The only reason it has made it to the first page of the travel threads is because I, only now, updated the link to a proper copy of the arguement in the downloads section...
)
Please excuse any percieved lack of patience, diplomacy or tact... my reserves are a bit low at the moment.
For HIS Glory,
Akira