<p></p>

Joey, I watched the 80 minutes of so of this video. I find he misdefines citizen and therefor his premises fail when he argues that the state argues that it does not have a duty to protect life or property as if that is the supposed idea of the other side of the contract between people and their government and therefor if the state does not protect life and property the contract is broken so contract exist and the citizen does not owe any allegiance. It is not and has never been the duty of the state to protect life, liberty or property. That idea is a close cousin but holds no water because it would impose a physical impossiblity. Government protects our rights to life and liberty and the rest by imposing the negative on those who violate them not by imposing a positive to keep them from violating our rights. It is a great misnomer to think governments purpose is to protect life, property or liberty by a positive act.

He does a wonderful job of showing how common law or natural and the premises of it imposed in our legal system which are created by the document he has no respect for the Constitution which gives force to his arguments.

The US. Constitution is a constructive contract and the modern legal term and what constitutes a legal contract is quite different than that which is the Constitution. The Constitution was a mutual interest contract entered into by the 13 states at the time. These political bodies did ratify the Contitution.

Marc Stevens has done some stellar work in regards to non crimes people are punished for such as traffic court and he is miles ahead of me on that, however I do not agree with his dismissing of the Constitution as a bonifed authority limiting government. He calls it a piece of paper and not a contract. I call it the document that established the Federal Government by authority of the states and through their reps.

Mike