Re: FREEDOM VIDEO


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Dan DePriest on May 25, 1997 at 20:41:17:

In Reply to: FREEDOM VIDEO posted by RODERICK USHER on April 21, 1997 at 05:57:20:

: I AM PRODUCING A VIDEO FOR "THE COMMON MAN"; YOU KNOW, THE HEALTHY HARD-WORKING PERSON WHO FEARS THE GOV'T. I AM A TV AND FILM WRITER / PRODUCER (UCLA FILMSCHOOL, MOVIES OF THE WEEK, FEATURES, AND ALL THAT), BUT AM TAKING THIS TIME TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. I WISH TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE LAYPERSON THAT HIS FREEDOM(!!) CAN BE RE-ATTAINED. I HAVE RESEARCHED SOVEREIGNTY AND FREEDOM TECHNOLOGY AND COOKING VULTURES AND HAVE YET TO DISCOVER A STRAIGHT-FORWARD METHOD OF "SETTING ONE'S SELF FREE". I WANT TO MAKE THIS VIDEO SO OTHERS CAN BECOME AWARE OF THE "MOVEMENT" BUT THIS MOVEMENT IS CONFUSING. I NEED TWO THINGS: 1. CLEAR-CUT METHODOLOGY TO FREEDOM, 2. PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE. EMAIL ME.
What a great thing you're trying to do. Spare no
effort to get it right and you might manage to
help coelece all the growing number of differing
groups passionately screaming for attention in
this Chinese fire drill we call the patriot or
freedom movement. There are numerous
fundamental differences of opinion we must get
settled before we can be confident in our
"big guns" aimed at the heart of tyrrany.
For example:
1. There are several sides to the question of what
kind of "law" operates in the courts today: admiralty/maritime,
martial/military, commercial, international, Roman
civil, Lieber code, a Law-Equity hybrid, or a
mix of some or all of these.
2. Some document the legitimate use of citizen
"common law" courts. Others, like the California
Jural Society and The Patrick Henry Foundation For
Common Law Studies, say there is no such thing as a
common law court only courts at common law which
they lawfully and painstakingly set up through
jural societies. Still others claim there is no
common law to be appealed to any more since Eire
Railroad vs. Thompkins combined common law with
equity in 1938. These like the Restoring America
people claim that our only access to common
law principles now is through the Constitution,
particularly the petition, free association
clauses and most especially the article I contract
liberties. However Jeff Ganoposki (Church of The
Living Word, Atlanta) claims in his books that the
Constitution was set up to govern the people of
the UNITED STATES not the people of the united
States of America, i.e. since it's a contract and
only signitaries and their ensigns can be affected,
the Constitution was drafted to ensure certain
rights to citizens who gave up their sovereignty
in order to become "We the people"who entered
public service or registered to vote
(see Article II, Articles of Cofederation).
Wacky sounding,I know, but He does make the most
convincing argument I've read on the pro side of
what I believe to be potentially the most divisive
issue in the whole freedom movement. Most, it seems,
believe that the "sovereignty" retained to the
people means individual status at law. Others,
like the jural societies who have the best arguments
for the opposition, are adamant that individual
sovereignty means anarchy, and that sovereignty is
collective in the free and lawful citizens. Still
other controversy exists in how or where this
sovereignty, wherever it resides, has it's force
and effect, i.e. passively in our protected rights,
or actively in court, or petition, or the voting
booth. As you can see there's as much disagreement
on strategy and some principle among freemen as
there is among Christians regarding orthodoxy and
orthopraxy. Both spheres can expect progress
towards unity in confession and cooperation
in practice,I think, if we remember that there is
only one true Sovereign. Whatever our status at
law regarding sovereignty, we must regard it as
endowed to us by our creator. It is only a derived
sovereignty. Otherwise we may hear Him laughing
(Proverbs 1).
If you like, e-mail me and I'll return the URLs
and references for the most competent resorces
among the various camps I've found.




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]