Sun. 12/07/01 14:55 EDT
.post #192
This post is partly in response to the OP’s question, and partly in response to Clayton, who has posted about some results of his research of the topic in Thoughts on de facto liberty.
Here’s another book (in PDF) I recently discovered that may have some relevance to this thread’s topic.
How I Clobbered Every Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known To Man
Mary-Elizabeth Croft’s tactic is to ask the judge if giving her name constitutes entering into a contract with him. That tactic might be discussed in this book:
I found that book in this archive of books.
At 07:20 in this video:
Mary-Elizabeth: Croft - Natural Man vs. Artificial Person, Law, Money & Banking P2S2
the interviewer connects Croft’s use of the word “suretyship” with marine or admiralty law, for no other apparent reason than that the suffix “ship,” which means “condition” or “character,” is homophonous with the noun “ship,” which means “marine-going vessel.” Ms. Croft, at 07:54, enthusiastically agrees with this error, then offers her “favorite example,” of the word “birth”:
“Ships are birthed; baby’s are born.”
But ships are not “birthed”; they are berthed. The words “birth” and “berth,” while identical in pronunciation, are completely different in meaning.
Then she claims to have “looked up” the word “Canada” and found that what it said was “for greater understanding.” I don’t know what she means by this.