Then get Adventures in Legal Land by Marc Stevens, read it, understand it, and then apply it, by doing something small, like driving without a license plate or parking in a no parking zone, get a ticket, and use what you have learned to fight it. If it works, then do more, like starting a business without a license. Then stop paying taxes.
Stop paying taxes? I think it’s hard to be free in jail.
Have you read Adventures in Legal Land?
it’s obvious he didn’t and neither did I. Just explain in more detail if you know about it.
His strategy is to get the beureaucrats to commit to a position. For example, in traffic cases, when he gets the cop on the stand, he will make objections because questions made by the prosecutor call for legal conclusions. The judge will always overrule. Then when it is his turn, he will ask questions that call for legal conclusions (he explains in the book the questions) as well. The prosecutor will object since it calls for a legal conclusion. The judge will always sustain those objections. He then appeals the case, because the judge is being inconsistent. Can the cop answer questions that call for legal conclusions or not? He submits this in his appeal. There are a lot of other questions he asks or that you can ask to help expose the injustice.
spidey, check out Robert Arthur:Menard as well. He’s got a few presentations on Google video.
Marc Stevens is great, I need to get his book.
Oh you have got to get the book. I thought you already had it.
Do you know the channel name for Robert? I get a bunch of results when I do the search.
Oh… now I remember Marc Stevens, just looked on YouTube… Yeah. he is pretty cool guy, eh mocks judges and doesnt afraid of anything.
There was also an old video with Stef and him, that’s where I saw this guy for the first time. Then I saw his another video where he is debating some congressman about “voluntary” taxation. (apparently I don’t find this vid in my favs, even though I remember adding it).
So yeah.
Exploiting the system’s stupidity is not freedom. When the system fears you, that’s freedom.
When the system fears you, that’s freedom.
What you’re saying sounds cool, but I disagree. That would insinuate that such a system is antecedent to freedom.
– edit –
Oops. Freedom is antecedent to such a system. Sorry. 
“The judge will always sustain those objections. He then appeals the case, because the judge is being inconsistent. Can the cop answer questions that call for legal conclusions or not? He submits this in his appeal. There are a lot of other questions he asks or that you can ask to help expose the injustice.”
I didn’t understand any of that…can you break it down in more simple terms?
Anything with him speaking is good. He wears a black hat. There is also http://thinkfree.ca/.
Thanks Caley.
Prosecutor asks cop a question that calls for a legal conclusion.
Marc objects because question calls for a legal conclusion.
Judge overrules objection
Marc asks cop a question that calls for a legal conclusion.
Prosecutor objects because question calls for a legal conclusion
Judge sustains the objection
The judge is being inconsistent. Either the cop can or the cop cannot answer questions that call for legal conclusions. It is obvious he is objecting or sustaining based on who is asking the questions. It obviously helps the prosecution and hurts the defense, because he sustains or overrules based on who is asking the questions.
Marc will appeal the decision, if the decision is guilty, based partially on this. He will also appeal on the basis that they won’t provide the facts of jurisdiction, standing, and other things. Really, you just need to read the book to understand. It will open your mind like never before.
I want to live FOR free
I think opening a business and not asking for the government’s permission is a good start.
To offer an example, many modern (amateur and pro’s) musicians earn money using only PayPal. I am considering doing the same in the future too
“Prosecutor asks cop a question that calls for a legal conclusion.”
what do you mean by legal conclusion?
For example, how many elements are there in a contract? That is a question that calls for a legal conclusion.