...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.