Quote:
|
Originally Posted by weishaupt1776
While I believe there is merit to the STRAWMAN/IBOE approach, there are issues that need to be reconciled.
Here's a scenario:- You are traveling from point A to point B as a productive member in society, not violating someone or endangering anyone, and on your way to be productive or help someone out.
Somebody in another car with a ram bar attached to the front of it accellerates behind your car, flashes emergency lights and tells you to pull over.
So, at this point, are they initiating this violent act on your STRAWMAN?
You're trying to be productive, not violating or endangering anyone in any way and this guy fully armed with radio access to a host of others like him, has this car with a ram bar which can severely damage your property & you.
IF more people had their cars w/cameras/audio with a networking system of other sovereigns who could be 3rd party witnesses on nextel short wave during traffic stops, we would see less violent acts.
I believe the UCC stuff comes in handy when after we've done all we can, then discharge the debt. However this does nothing for keeping violent imposing people accountable.
What about Amadu Diollo in New York who pulled his I.D. out to "honor" the cops who put 41 bullets in him? Was he being an irresponsible fiduciary who didn't have his UCC 1 and therefore became an underwriter?
|
A West African student no less and those cops got away with it!
They got a change of venue, to a more "sympathetic" area of New york!