You do such a wonderful job putting us into your moments, thanks.
You have mischaracterized Marc's argument.
His method is sound, I used it in court to get out with no further fines or time on felony charges.
I do counsel that it is not for everybody, I have had time to be in law libraries, I was turned down at the court of criminal appeals three times on deadlines that I didn't find until after the fact.
On the day of trial the da said I could sign to misdemeanors and walk out, so I did.
I had failed to be properly prepared in the beginning, if I had I would have a ruling from the cca, but that is not Marc's fault, it is mine.
My chief complaint is in sending the sleeple to be eaten by the wolves, unless you got the method down pat you are taking your chances.
Even if you do make the right arguments, unless you know the deadlines for the appeals you are beat.
Preparing for any traffic ticket is preparing for any crime, they are the same.
Marc's method can monkey wrench the system, but only if enough people become proficient at forcing them to follow their own rules.
My question for your illustrious lawyers is how they 'prove' my identity without using hearsay.
I doubt the prosecution can put a witness to my birth on the stand, but the criminal judges and lawyers give themselves a pass on that burden of proof, and the people have no clue.
Have a perfectly peaceful day, Barry Cooper,...
I agree, exposing them is what forces their hand, not actual force, they have an overwhelming amount of dupes supporting them.
If people sat out the fines on their traffic tickets they would stop writing so many.
I think this is where Marc really contributes, he gives tools to stand up for one's self.
When the self is ready to revolt the body will follow.
@freebornangel,
Thanks for sharing your story with me. I'm really glad you were freed from the oppression and I'm glad Marc's method helped you. However, I must insist that I do fully understand his argument and I fully agree his argument is legitimate. My point is that it doesn't work for the reasons he states. I thought I made that clear in the article. I am glad this is being debated so some can use his method when it applies and others can avoid it when it's dangerous to use.
...Marc actually admits that his tactics are primarily presenting the court with a harder target than otherwise, since they(the courts) don't follow any proper law or legal precedent. However, this is not all he is doing. Someone who simply files a large number of motions that have no relevance to any of the facts at hand is closer to what you allege Stevens is doing. ...But he's not advocating doing that. Worse, your assertion about the label for what he's doing misrepresents his core claims. For an example of what is commonly meant by "freeman's defense" do a youtube search or google search for "Robert Arthur Menard."
Stevens' suggested defense is not very similar to RAM's conventional "freemens" defense. Stevens simply uses questioning to expose the self-contradictory nature of modern courts that rely on bar-licensed attorneys' refusal to question the premises of the court. Thus, when you suggest hiring bar-licensed attorneys, you are getting at a real difference between your suggested tactics and Stevens' tactics.
That's the real meat of the issue, and an area where I believe Stevens' is "more right" than you, unless it's a complex civil case. (But this would make a good debate, especially if you produced a large number of documented acquittals from each of the attorneys you recommend, contrasted with Stevens' total record, as well as which strategies each one used for cases that won and didn't win.)
Note: "freeborn" is the title used by John "freeborn John" Lilburne, the English leveller. As such, he helped establish the English common law in the 1600s. The "common law system" being advocated by "free man on the land" movement has seemingly had more success in Canada and the commonwealth countries than it has had in the USA, where the courts have traditionally just ignored the common law, counting on "bar licensing" and "general ignorance" to let them get away with robbing the masses blind in the name of fighting a war on personal recreational drug preferences, "speeding citations," and IRS extortion. So, "freebornangel" is likely tipping their hand with respect to their overall world-view, a world-view which seemingly doesn't exactly mirror Marc Stevens' world-view, as I've already indicated.
Marc has never claimed his arguments force the court to do anything legitimate. He does claim his arguments force the court to either: contradict themselves or threaten/use force. This is true, his arguments do accomplish this. ...And, often, the higher courts don't wish to be exposed, so they dismiss cases rather than address Marc's arguments and expose themselves.
That's the only reason Marc has any successes at all, much less the frequent ones he has.