I am hoping the Steemit audience will watch my video and Mr. Marc Stevens' rebuttal video. I sincerely need help making sense of the argument and want to insure I am not wrong.
Anarchist/Activist Marc Stevens and I have more similarities than differences. In fact, we are both a lot alike. Despite our kinship, we have one gigantic and significant obstacle that has recently caused a riff between us. I am hoping this post will act as a catalyst to repair the disparity. I realize I am walking a tightrope but I am confident we are both smart enough to work something out.
The dispute between us does not pose a threat to my finances, popularity, or credibility so I am coming from a sincere place of selflessness and diplomacy. I do not want to cause harm to Mr. Stevens in any way and want to be considered his friend.
Mr. Stevens is a passionate anarchist/activist whom I respect very much. He tirelessly fights the government with an undeniable passion for justice. I have always considered Mr. Stevens a coequal peer because we share similar occupations. We are both non-lawyers who work with citizens in the hopes our expertise will result in our client prevailing in U.S. court proceedings.
There are only a few differences in terms of our day-to-day duties. Although we both sometimes step outside of our genres, I primarily work drug cases while Mr. Stevens primarily works traffic offenses. While I collaborate with my client and their lawyer, Mr. Stevens works primarily with "Pro se," clients who are acting as their own attorney.
Our problem begins with an obligation I feel to warn the public it is dangerous to use his defense strategy in certain cases. While I support, promote and recommend using his method in traffic court and certain civil cases, I strongly caution my fans to never use his strategy in drug cases and other more serious criminal proceedings.
The specific defense strategy I am referring to is known as the Common Law or Freeman Defense. Believers in this court tactic promote the idea a defendant will win if he or she demands the judge to dismiss the case claiming the law doesn't apply to them and therefore the court does not have jurisdiction to prosecute the case.
The theory is derived from the belief that since the defendants never entered into a contract with the United States of America, none of the laws apply to them therefore they are not subject to the court's authority. It's taught the method can be used to get any case dismissed but unfortunately it is not true.
Mr. Stevens calls what he does "The Socratic Method" and refers to it as a legal theory or legal defense. The Socratic Method is a form of argumentation and is not a legal theory or defense. The Socratic Method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals. It is based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It's considered one of the most effective forms of argumentation a person can use.
I agree Mr. Stevens could be correct about his jurisdictional argument in terms of historical understandings and written law but I am positive applying these truths to defend serious crime will not work. There are many examples of being correct in theory but wrong in reality.
For instance, there is a law protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizure. No matter how eloquently a person argues their marijuana case should be dismissed because it violates the Fourth Amendment, American judges ignore the “truth” and unlawfully throw the accused in jail.
Mr. Stevens' teaching is harmful because he promotes using the method in cases other than traffic court and civil tax suits. Judges view his method as a challenge to their authority and often throw the defendant who uses the method in jail. I personally know at least six people who became my clients after attempting the jurisdictional argument and spending a few days in jail for Contempt of Court.
There is a Super Lawyer section on the front page of my website, NeverGetBusted.com. Each lawyer featured in that section is a personal friend of mine with whom I have worked many cases. I personally know scores of attorneys and have worked with hundreds more throughout the years. They all state the jurisdictional argument is dangerous and none of them will work with clients who want to use the method. Neither will I.
Each lawyer I have discussed the jurisdictional theory with states the reason the argument sometimes works when defending a traffic ticket is because it overwhelms the court. Instead of fighting the defendant who is usually very passionate and files piles of motions, it's less costly to simply dismiss the case.
The defendant wrongly assumes the judge dismissed the case because the prosecutor could not prove jurisdiction. Many lawyers and I have personally heard judges and prosecutors reticule the defense and admit they dismissed the case because it was too big of a headache to prosecute.
For eleven years, I have been arguing individually with well meaning proponents of this strategy. I have noticed an increased interest in Mr. Steven's method trending in the anarchist community. I have been asked dozens of times for my opinion so instead of repeating myself over and over, I published a video on Youtube titled,
I absolutely never believed the video would offend Mr. Stevens. I specifically remember a comment I made the day we shot the clip. I explained to the NeverGetBusted videographer, L-Dixon, I was going to make my point without trashing anyone.
In the video, I give Mr. Stevens props and congratulate him on his many successes. Since I knew he has often and unfairly criticized for working mostly in traffic court, I explained regardless of the level of offense, a person should never belittle a win. Sadly and according to Mr. Stevens’s rebuttal video, he interpreted my words as calling him a fraud.
Mr. Stevens, I publicly apologize my video hurt you. I sincerely believed I was being polite and respectful. In the future, I will look for other ways to get my point across. Many who have viewed the video advised I do not owe
Mr. Stevens an apology. For me, if I'm not sure, I will always lean toward the side of building a bridge instead of burning one.
When I published "Beware, The Freeman, Sovereign, Common Law Defense is CRAZY," I never expected to hear from Mr. Stevens and I never did. Approximately two months after posting the video, I noticed he published an article on Steemit.com titled,
I was excited when I read the title because I am always looking for a new way to help my clients avoid lengthy prison sentences and I was happy Mr. Stevens' strategy finally worked for an offense more serious than a traffic ticket. My excitement quickly waned after I read the post. I could not find proof the drug case was dismissed because the prosecution could not prove jurisdiction.
I considered the title he used in the article misleading so I sent him a polite email that turned into a fight. I asked Mr. Stevens for proof the case was dismissed for the reason he claimed on Steemit.com. He stated he did not have proof and offered an assumption. When I explained assumptions were logical fallacies, he became offended and his tone changed.
I felt misunderstood and disrespected so in my final reply, I told him "fuck you" three times. I am known for the bad habit of telling people "fuck off" and "fuck you" and am constantly working to correct the distasteful behavior.
I was raised in Texas around some of the roughest people in the world and using the word "fuck" is just as normal as a kid saying "mother." I probably use the word over a hundred times a day but no more the ten when I'm asleep.
This does not excuse my bad mannerism of telling people to "fuck off" and I have struggled my entire life to break the habit. I promise to continue working on that.
Mr. Stevens, I am positive I owe you an apology for saying that to you. I should have taken a step back before flaring up and typing those words. I am sorry. Please forgive me.
In the email, I mentioned the video I published to Mr. Stevens which triggered a rebuttal video he published titled, "Debunking Barry Cooper’s Hit Piece – Logical Fallacies, Misrepresentations and Ad Hominen." He refers to this email a lot during his rant so for full disclosure, I am sharing it here.
There is no proof Joe in Hawaii won because the prosecutor couldn't prove jurisdiction. In fact, I have only seen one case where the Socratic Method was used and the judge actually wrote, "Dismissed because of ...jurisdiction." It's the dismissal of a speeding ticket Mr. Stevens refers to in the email above. Here it is:
The other case he references in the email contains no court records that state the case was dismissed because the prosecution could not prove jurisdiction. Mr. Stevens titled the article , Motion to Dismiss Granted Again – Jeffrey M. Shock Cannot Prove Jurisdiction but the court record provided in the article says no such thing. Here it is for the readers review:
As I stated in the email, there are many reasons a judge can dismiss a case for jurisdictional reasons. The only way to prove these two cases were dismissed because the prosecutor could not prove jurisdiction is to review the court transcripts, which Mr. Stevens refuses to provide.
Since the claim is the Socratic Method is effective, there must be an excuse why the majority of persons who try it do not win. The big escape goat for using his method and losing accusing the defeated of "not practicing enough" or "there is something you didn't say right."
To help prove I am not out to assassinate, discredit or harm Mr. Stevens, I will share a recent incident that happened after the email fight.
In a private chat a Steemit member coincidentally mentioned he supported Marc Stevens and asked if I had ever connected with him. This person knew nothing about the riff or the video I published. This was my exact reply:
"Marc and I disagree on some major court issues so we have trouble getting along. I mentioned him in a video I produced and although I made it a point to give him props, he took it as an attack. That stated, continue to support him because he is a sincere freedom fighter who fights the government passionately. I'm glad you are supporting him. I really appreciate your passion for supporting the cause by upvoted people like Marc and I."
A NeverGetBusted policy I have strictly obeyed is that I do not publicly speak negatively about other activists. One can check my eleven year online record of activism and will not find a single instance where I have called out or trashed another freedom fighter.
Years ago, when NORML, LEAP, FlexYourRights and other activist organizations were slandered me during media interviews, I defended against the comments they made and never said anything bad about them again. I realized we are all in the same game and trash talking each other was foolish and harmful to the cause.
I believe in this principle so much, I posted this to Facebook so others might adopt the same good habit:
I walk so carefully to not be wrong, I won't even step on a beetle. After eleven years of challenges, I still have not been shown proof a case has been dismissed because a judge agreed the prosecutor could not prove jurisdiction. This is why I recently offered Mr. Stevens the opportunity to have a friendly and lighthearted debate at the upcoming Anarchapulco Conference in February 2017.
Last night I posted this message under his video, Joe's video and Mr. Steven's articles on his website and Steemit:
"Mr. Stevens, If you are attending Anarchapulco this year, we should have a friendly debate about the video I posted. I'm sure the debate will attract a sizable audience. We can film the debate and post it on Youtube. Are you up for the challenge? I am offering you first chance and if you can't, Joe get's the second. If he can't then this offer extends to any of the commenters under this video."
I promise to be respectful, fun and polite and will not ever say "fuck you" to Mr. Stevens again. I do not want to harm Mr. Steven's reputation in any way and sincerely desire to have peace and friendship with him.
I am hoping the Steemit audience will watch my video and Mr. Stevens rebuttal video and help me make sense of the argument. Please comment your findings here or email me at [email protected].
Upvoting this article does not mean you are taking my side and you are against Mr. Stevens. Although each person should develop their own opinion on who is right, I don't want any Steemit member to be against either of us.
I want your upvote if this publishing: 1. Taught you something. 2. You feel I deserve the upvote for spending hours writing it. 3. I am trying to repair a feud between two sincere and hard working activists.
If any of these three apply to you, Upvote now please.
Vote for this witness tdv.witness by Click here and place your vote for tdv.witness Scroll down and find "tdv.witness." Now click the arrow next to it. Two personal friends who are both geniuses and have a deep passion to see Steemit dominate the market operate this witness. This witness also funds SteemTrail.
Photo of Mr. Stevens credit: Mr. Stevens Youtube Channel
Photo of "I am Sorry" hands credit: Freshmorningquotes
Youtube video of Joe's rant against Barry: CopWatch Hawaii Youtube Channel
Hi Barry. I think it's important to make the distinction that Marc makes between the methods he uses and the methods that the Freemen use, because they are very different. Freemen tend to use a lot of paperwork, get birth certificates and statements of live birth, and go through processes to try to separate themselves from the government. I don't know if people have success using that method, if they do, good luck to them. But Marc's method is very simple in comparison, and it just hinges around asking questions, questioning assumptions.
In regards to why these arguments sometimes fail in court, the fact is, magistrates and prosecutors do attempt to bully people into saying the wrong thing, and then taking advantage of that.
In my curiosity of these methods, I got a couple of tram fines in Melbourne, and send a bunch of letters to the department of transport and the prosecution, and ended up going to court. I won't say that everything the Freemen say or everything Marc says is true, but there is definitely something funny going on with the whole system. As I'm sure you know, even the court system as it exists today doesn't work according to how it should on paper.
As an examples of things that happened to me, one was that a magistrate kept insisting that I enter a plea, and when I said I didn't want to enter a plea, she said she would enter one for me, according to their process. I said no, don't do that, you can't do that. She said "I can do whatever I want." I said "You can't enter a plea for me without my consent." She'd done everything she could to make it seem like a plea was necessary, but sure enough the documents for the next court date stated clearly that no plea was entered.
There were a lot of things that happened where the magistrate or the prosecutor bamboozled me or used sneaky tactics to avoid answering my questions. It seems like they're aware that, if someone asks too many questions, they're probably not going to have answers for them, and the whole sham will be revealed. Of course, as you mentioned, it is a question of resources as well. If they think they can get money from you without a lot of work, they will. If they think you're going to cause work for them, they'll give up.
The thing is, if you can ask the right questions, and not get bamboozled by the judges and the prosecutors, what questions will make it too much work for them? Are there easy ways to make it too much work for them, even for drug cases? I suspect there might well be. However, to find that out can be a huge risk.
Have a good one Barry
Kurt
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's usually not the questions you has that causes too much work for them, it's filing a lot of motions that does it. There are almost an endless number of motions a defendant can file to cause the courts a headache. Thanks for taking your time to support me. Peace.! @churdtzu
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I've found it's both the questions and the motions that win dismissals. More precisely, it's the totality of the perceived threat the defendant can appear to present. Q: The threat to what? After all, it's not the judge or prosecutor who risks prison or fines! A: The court's continued ability to steal from the innocent at the maximum rate. The more the court deals with traffic tickets, the more the court is set up to steal "the maximum amount of money" from innocent people. Why do I say this? Because everyone is always speeding, all the time, and certain counties punish people more than others:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/upshot/new-geography-of-prisons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=3
Marc knows this. Most bar-licensed attorneys do not know that the courts are lying when they claim to uphold common law precedent, and many naively think that the criminal common law is still being "generally followed." In fact, most bar-licensed attorneys are both idiots and/or sociopaths who could never make a living in a STEM profession, because their understanding of the nature of the law is superficial. This ill-prepares them to defend anyone from legalized theft.
Also: the courts do not want to hold jury trials. I had "6 months in jail"+"4 points against my license"+$400 fine" reduced slowly and incrementally down to "a $25 fine" only. This was solely because I demanded a jury trial, which I never would have done, had I not first memorized Stevens' lines of questioning. Kudos to Marc! I was very glad that he summarized years of arguing with sociopaths in his book "Adventures in Legal Land," so I didn't have to look for rare glimpses of radical libertarian logic in actual case files.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My favorite line:
Thanks for working so hard to build together instead of tear apart. When I first read the posts mentioned here, I was certainly disappointed. The go intercourse yourself comments did seem childish and counter-productive, but I really appreciate hearing your side of the story, your sincere apology, along with an explanation of your upbringing and natural use of language.
So many people are quick to judge the motives and intentions of others when they hear specific words (myself included). So few of us understand non-violent communication techniques and how they can help us all get along.
Thank you for fighting the good fight and being open to correction and dialogue. I hope you and Mr. Stevens work past this and are able to respect each other more in the future.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@lukestokes, The maturity, understanding and acceptance shines through in your words. Thanks for that. It means a lot to me when others grasp a full understanding of what I'm trying to communicate. This is probably one the favorite comments I've received on Steemit. Big love.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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,...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
...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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"I am sorry. Please forgive me."
If you'd ended this article right there, it likely would have been a lot more successful.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm happy with it's success and I said everything that needed to be said. @the-ntf. Peace!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi @barrycooper, I just wanted to say I have finally spent the time and read all of your life series articles, which I've been meaning to do for some time now. Really great work, I enjoy reading your story very much, I hope you post more of it here :) As for the freeman defense, to be bluntly honest, looking from the other side I feel like if someone made a video stating that the way I go about things is "crazy" I would probably get offended, and maybe over react, not realizing it wasn't really meant to be the way it might be taken. I do think you are right however. I've watched and read a lot of info about the freeman defense and despite whatever legalities may be backing it up, the reality is that many judges have the ability to get you thrown in prison, despite the legality or morality of it, and they will do that if you give them a reason. Whether the freeman thing is real or not I am not sure, but it's obscure and misunderstood enough that any judge could simply cast it aside as conspiracy theory, and that would never be questioned, and that would probably land you in prison. I think you are right to tell folks to be cautious about it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for you analysis @dexter-k...it was fair and I can tell you are coming from a good place. You are right about the "crazy" in the title. I should have used another term. I'm going to do eventually do some re editing or a follow up video to explain some things I've learned through this. In the video, I'm going to give Mr. Stevens even more credit than in my first. Peace and thanks for reading all my stories. Really! I appreciate it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You might want to note that Marc Stevens' suggested defenses are not "freemens' defenses," as you incorrectly imply here, and as Barry Cooper incorrectly stated and implied. The very fact that you are just believing what Barry initially said without any investigation of your own is exactly why Stevens responded the way he did.
Additionally, you're right that calling Stevens' work "crazy" is also an ad hominem that's unlikely to ever lead to constructive "collaboration." That Barry then defends your comment here could be taken as implying that Barry still thinks Stevens' work amounts to a "freeman" defense (which it is not).
To ever be taken at one's word, one must first stop mischaracterizing one's opponents' beliefs. Until that clearly happens, it won't surprise me if Stevens avoids Barry and takes an adversarial approach to responding to him.
It saddens me to say this, because I think they both have legitimate things to offer the freedom movement, and to specific defendants trying to avoid unjust punishment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you @barrycooper! I'll read this one later!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Beautiful. Let me know what you think.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you it was a very good read. I was always intrigued by the freeman on the land stuff and you put it in a very clear manner. Keep up the good work! I'll most probably contact you on the chat. I feel like talking with you further. See you!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about linkback bot v0.4. Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise.
Built by @ontofractal
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit