by Frederick Mann

In a discussion on the Free World Order list, I wrote:

>It seems to me that it could be a major
>error to say that you understand words
>like "carrying," "concealed," "weapon,"
>etc. I think it would be more effective
>to say, "I don't understand the word as
>used in the context of the charge against
>me. I also don't understand the legal
>meaning of the word. I know that many
>words have special legal meanings and
>that these meanings can change from law
>to law. I've even heard that sometimes a
>word is used with different meanings in
>different parts of the same law."

Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@rarebird.net> responded:

>I once heard that the average Harvard
>graduate knows and understands only
>about 5% of the English language. I'm
>not lucky enough to be a Harvard
>graduate. I probably know less than 5%,
>but more than 4%. I agree with your
>assessment above. I had a twinge when I
>read that these words were understood,
>but did not feel competent to remedy
>the situation by anything I could post.
>Maybe we should start a game, and
>award points for scoring. Players "call"
>any use of "Slavespeak"(tm) by posting
>the word CALL followed by a direct
>quotation of the words being called,
>and a reasoned explanation for their
>call, which specifies the points they
>want to be awarded for it. Any
>identification of Slavespeak(tm) gets 1
>point. Identified assumptions and
>presumptions each get an additional
>point, and use of a "street" definition
>for a legal term gets 3 points each
>occurrence. You get the idea. Sporting
>purposes and all that... you know what
>I mean by "sporting purposes", right?

I don't think such a game is appropriate for the FWO list.

Depending on the context, it's often necessary and appropriate to use Slavespeak. See #TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak.

A topic to be addressed is what to say and what not to say to a pretended "judge" in a pretended "court." An important principle is to not become a "fixed target." The pretended "judge" tries to trap his victim and "pin him down" by asking if he understands the words contained in the pretended "charge." As soon as the victim says "yes" he becomes a "fixed target."

The "fixed target" principle is very important in dealing with terrocrats. For example if a taxtortionist sends me a letter asking why I didn't file a 1040, I could reply that "I'm not a taxpayer." Now I've made myself a fixed target to some extent.

However, if I respond, "Who are you to ask me such a question?; What business is it of yours?; Where's your authority?; Where's the law that applies to me personally that says I have to file?; etc., then I don't become a fixed target.

The fixed target principle is related to "Demurrer Vs. Traverse."

Feedback: What did you think of this article? We'd like to hear your thoughts. (Please mention the name of the article to which you are responding.)