https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCZB-k4jKBc

...wish more people knew something about the law and their rights. This guy is awesome.

Yeah I definitely agree. First time I saw this video I was so intrigued about learning all of my unalienable rights. I had lived in ignorance for so many years but I have finally woken up to what is going on in our world.

Knowledge is power.

Sarcasm, right?

I love when police are shocked to silence like that.

"Where's your green card?"

This guy was very lucky that he didnt meet the wrong people in blue uniform.
I was almost sure they would kick his ass and then smash his phone
What i am saying that its good to stand up and everyone should but in theese days you have to be prepared to get bet beeten as well.

I have to say I think he takes it a bit far, I highly doubt it that anything he said would hold water in front of a judge. There are tons of goofy old laws that are still written a certain way that need revision or dumping all together, though would never fly in court. This guy is probably baiting them looking for a fight.

It's amazing to me how some people hate all cops but what happens when they need one.

I love in a town where police corruption is rampant, but I'm glad they are here, because if not the criminals would run completely rampant.

I agree with ntknowing. Some things he did say were wrong and mean to say.

It was fantastic that he knew so much about the law and was able to rightfully retrieve his child because of that though.

Thanks so much for sharing Jamie!

"I love in a town where police corruption is rampant, but I'm glad they are here, because if not the criminals would run completely rampant."

How ironic.

"This guy is probably baiting them looking for a fight."

They have his little kid detained in the back seat of their car..and you think by his actions he is just "looking for a fight"? At what point do you think it is is beyond just people looking for a fight when people stand up to the police when it invovles something as important as their young children?

"Some things he did say were wrong and mean to say"

I dont think anything he said was mean or wrong in the slightest. They tried to abduct his child.

All I'm saying is we dont know the whole story. What age is the kid? Was he lost or frightened maybe? They might have just been trying to actually help. Maybe there was a need to positively ID the man as the father of the child before releasing him into the custody of the man, I'm sure there is some sort of protocol to protect the liability of the officers because people woud tear them apart for a mix up like that.

Yes the system is corrupt, hate the game not the players.

This man obviously has planned for some sort of altercation with authority. Nothing he said would hold any weight in court as far as I can tell.

This guy just seems a bit off to me and well, I dont really know that I trust him from the footage alone. He seems to know what hes talking about but I certainly cant comment on any of it that as Ive never heard it but there is a good possibility it is taken out of context. I didnt see any evidence the officers did anything wrong.

It must really be hard for the decent police officers who get into it for the right reasons, when most people still just scoff at you and call you pig. Ive been harrassed by my fair share of a hole cops but I have had plenty treat me with respect too so ya I just dont know for sure.

Maybe he was just hurt and studied hard so he could lash out when he got a chance, still I just think he could have handled that more responsibly and less attackfully.

I think its great that this guy knows his rights, i think we all need to be aware to avoid being mistreated by the authorities.

But I've also watched videos of this same guy, or guys like him that seem to have nothing better to do but walk around video taping police and 'legally' intimidate law enforcement.

For instance, in one video he was verbally abusing people walking down the street, i mean, those people were minding their own business and didn't want to hear him telling them they should know their rights. I mean, I wouldn't want some crazy hippy with a video camera telling me what to do, I'd rather know it for myself.

I mean, I think he's got balls for doing that. Even though he is simply provoking them, better do that then just sit around docile waiting for them to abuse their power.

But I think intimidating the law enforcement with the simple fact that you know your own rights is NOT the way to go about it, better to use them to your advantage to avoid dealing with the police at all.

I have nothing to say about this particular video, I don't know the circumstances behind it if they really had his kid in the car or whatever, im just speaking generally of youtube videos of people videotaping cops

So he somehow used nonsense to make 5 cops back off. It's like he confused them back into their vehicles.

Anyways, I think that the concept of "inalienable rights" is absurd. Morality is defined by whoever has the most power at any given time. Otherwise nature, being the most powerful being, will create or destroy with no regard for the rights that we hold self-evident. The universe gives and takes away in whatever way brings it closer to equilibrium. Who are we to claim that we deserve life, liberty, and happiness? The only right that we have is the right to obey the laws of nature.

EDIT: So I guess I agree with Dioxippus that video is a powerful tool in countering abuse of power by police. At the same time, the police in this video were not abusing power. If anything, it seemed to me that they were not using their power enough. I don't understand why they stood around with their tails between their legs. If their intention is to protect a child that they think may be in harm, then they have nothing to be ashamed of. Perhaps they were acting much differently before he pulled out the camera.

The world needs more people like him to hold law enforcement accountable. Police are now forced to handle things differently because video evidence doesn't lie. I've seen so much police brutality that was caught on tape it's sickening. They need to be held accountable for their actions just like every other citizen.

I think they knew they weren't justified in holding the child, and because of this mans knowledge of the law and video camera, they backed off. How would it have been handled if it was an uneducated person with no video witness? Differently. Possibly very differently. Also the fact that he wasn't a white man, and he also said something about his religion. They don't want this man showing up in court with video evidence of how he and his child were mistreated.

There are too many police who abuse their power and are allowed to go unpunished. I applaud people like this for forcing them to reevaluate how they treat others.

"So he somehow used nonsense to make 5 cops back off"

It is not nonsense if you have a real understand of law, and where maritime law comes from and how it actaully works. I am sure these polie officers have no idea what this guy is talking about though, becasue they are not taught about natural persons or why maritime law "agreements" are not always applicable. My sister is a law degree and was not even taught this, but it is not nonsense and there are many lawyers and people with law degrees who can all back this up. The problem is people speak before they look into anything and claim things are nonsense they dont understand.

But you DO understand it, I guess. Perhaps you can tell me where in the law it states that U.S. citizens are required to have a green card, since you researched everything this guy said before claiming it to be true.

Also, it's not legal for a U.S. citizen not to have a name, but "you need a legal name on a birth certificate or social security card to obtain a driver's license or passport, open a bank account and get a job." I highly doubt that he does not technically have a name. More likely, he is just lying to the police.

EDIT: oh crap; I actually meant to say "it's not illegal...". Anyways, it doesn't change that we disagree on the whole maritime law thing.

"But you DO understand it, I guess"

To a degree, yes.

"Also, it's not legal for a U.S. citizen not to have a name"

If that "name" is printed in all capital letters as it is on most offical documents than this depends on how one presents onself in court and how versed the lawyer they hire is in Civil Law as well as Maritime Law. You are required to have a name as a natural person but only the first letter of your first and last name will be in caps. When your name is on offical documents in all capital letters you are not reguarded as a person but property of the queen of England whos propery belongs to the Pope. I am not making this up this is just how our legal system in both Canada and the USA works. Why do you think it is call Maritime law? Have you even looked into any of this? Maritime law was put in place the moment english settlers stepped onto a ship and was immediatly applied to america. America was/is viewed as a vessel owned by the queen. Maritime law was put into place on all english ships and colonies and does not work like civil law at all due to obvious threats of mutany etc that can take place in isolated colonies. Reguardless of where we are now Maritime law still stands in america(reguardless of it being canada or the US) and it can be challenged legally in court in favor of civil law if a person fully understands how all of it works.

In a court room you immediatly enter into maritime law contracts based on what you answer to, how you answer to them etc. This is why people who want to challenge maritime law in a court room either are extremely well versed in both maritime and natural persons civil law or they find a lawyer who is..If you want to defend yourself as a natural person as opposed to property of the queen you have to know exactly what to say and when to say nothing etc..otherwise you will loose becasue you will enter into martitime law contracts and then will not be legally sound in your defence..and yes there are people who win in court. I have personally met people who have done this and won though they are extremely rare.

This is such a complex topic that too many people seem to just laugh at and pass off right off the bat as if they know or something. You would have to go study this yourself and spend a few hours getting familiar with any of it to understand how rooted our legal system is in the strange idea that we are still living on a ship owned by the queen.

So, here are some sites I found that advocate/explain this "maritime law" (a.k.a. FOTL) claim:

http://reality-bytes.hub...-Live-Under-Maritime-Law
http://www.bibliotecaple...lantean_conspiracy36.htm
http://nexusilluminati.b...-explained-real-you.html

though none of them give law-based evidence of their claims.
This advocating source was perhaps the most in-depth that I found:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html

Otherwise, the consensus is that FOTL claims are bogus. The most obvious starting point for this view is Wikipedia (note the list court cases in which Freeman claims are deemed false).

From an English judiciary newspaper (source [1] of the Wiki page):


The overly-snarky RationalWiki also has a page on it.

In summary of my current opinion of FOTL claims, an excerpt from a 185-page court decision of Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke on what he calls "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments" (OPCA):

I literally did not hear him assert one legally-valid claim.

Let's really use the law: he would likely get 12(b)(6)'ed (i.e., Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) if he brought a complaint to a court.

He sounds like one of those "experts" that uncritically watches a bunch of YouTube videos and then mouths off like a dick know-it-all.

Everything he said is nonsense. That is the problem. I had read this thread a long time ago, but I refrained from commenting because I knew I could not be properly positive in my response; however, your persistent cheerleading for this marlarky got to be a bit too much.

Honestly, I find it somewhat reckless--let alone supremely ironic--to allege that others are ignorant about the law, while you have demonstrated such ignorance by (1) promoting this trash, and then (2) defending him from common-sense criticism.

Don't let anti-authoritarian enthusiasm overrun intellectual caution.