What to do if you know people who may get duped

[Dezcad]

I started to delete the PD gibberish, until I saw all the answers he received.

Either we're enforcing rules or we aren't. The last dozen posts on this thread are wildly off-topic. Since he can no longer start threads, PD is going to do his best to derail ongoing ones. I will be glad to see to it that this doesn't happen, BUT I CAN'T WHEN OTHERS ANSWER HIM.

Unless I delete their posts too. Should I?

My apologies - feel free to delete my response too.

[arayder]

Forfeiture should be an action of debt. Debt begins in Admiralty whether on land or navigable waters. United States v. $5,372.85, 283 F.Supp. 904 (1968).

You clearly haven't read that case because that is not stated in the case at all, neither as a holding or in dicta.

Likewise some folks struggle to understand precedent. To them the older a case is the more debate value it has. I suspect these folks have learned this foolishness from the patriot/sov sites they use as a law library.

Unable to learn, these folks are again and again presented with the need to Shepardize cases (the first thing a pre-law student learns) and each time deny that the law works the way it works.

So clearly we should not expect these wondering pilgrims to understand non-binding dicta.

[Pottapaug1938]

I started to delete the PD gibberish, until I saw all the answers he received.

Either we're enforcing rules or we aren't. The last dozen posts on this thread are wildly off-topic. Since he can no longer start threads, PD is going to do his best to derail ongoing ones. I will be glad to see to it that this doesn't happen, BUT I CAN'T WHEN OTHERS ANSWER HIM.

Unless I delete their posts too. Should I?

My apologies - feel free to delete my response too.

And mine.

[AndyK]

I apologize to the posters of the well-reasoned and factual responses to the troll.

However, he went off topic -- way off topic -- and the responses encouraged him.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

[Hyrion]

Unless I delete their posts too. Should I?

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand:

• Absolutely, it went so far off-tangent to the original purpose of the thread that PD's response on the bottom of page 2, and all responses since, should be wiped!

On the other hand:

• As sad as it is, PD's responses can provide a clear example of an extreme position of what DavidS might end up facing with regards his friend. When his friend is no longer choosing between the paths and has decided to go based on faith as PD appears to have done - he'll know he's failed and there's nothing else he can do until his friend wants to come back to reality.

[littleFred]

It's not just sovereigns, no can change someone else's beliefs, including the dont question the government crowd.

This is a constant SovCit theme:

"All people who understand and explain government also unquestioningly support it."

"All people who understand and explain laws also unquestioningly support them."

"All people who understand and explain court procedures also unquestioningly support them."

This is clearly nonsense. By understanding government or law or whatever, we are in a better position to question it, criticise it and change it. When we don't understand, all we can do is rant.

But SovCit gurus don't want their flock to understand. Gurus peddle their junk most easily when their flock don't understand. So the gurus peddle the myth that anyone who understands is necessarily an unquestioning supporter. This biases the flock to distrust people who know what they are talking about.

What to do if you know people who may get duped

If they only may get duped, it's not too late. Point them to Quatloos and other places that cite constant failures. But once they have bought into the myth, the guru explains failure are caused by court corruption, and anyone who can actually read court cases and explain the failures must necessarily support TPTB and can't be trusted or believed.

There is a balancing factor. How does a guru who doesn't understand government distinguish between on the one hand someone who does understand, or on the other hand another guru who doesn't understand but pretends he does? The answer: he can't! Thus gurus knock each other, accusing each other of being trolls or shills, for exactly the same reasons as they disparage people who do understand.

[Pottapaug1938]

They are also incapable of performing proper legal research. They simply cast about for a quote which can be taken out of context and used to buttress their contentions; and it doesn't matter if the quote is mere dicta or is from a case which has been overturned or superseded.

[davids]

I think that this has turned into a very good thread, and by unwittingly coming along to role play the typical "sovrun shyster salesman/dupe" - PD has even demonstrated the futility of reasoning with them.

Initially, I really wanted to know what some others have done in those circumstances, but the way the thread developed is still useful.

[notorial dissent]

Attempted thread hijack
and
off topic discussion and responses
DELETED!

MOD-ND