Talk:Montana Freemen/Archive 1

quotes

I added the quote by C. Wayne Maxwell as I knew him personally and I am using an (several proxy)annon url/IPs so if it doesn't meet with your approval in this privacy invation information age, live with it. I have a copy of one of their certified cheques on my wall of articles. I asked Wayne on several occassions over several years and the story never changed and the information checks out in the materials I have and have listened to. He released a tax lien with a 'cheque' and sold property and the transaction held but the 'state of OHio never sent him a check back for the difference of the check and when confronted or telling the story he always maintained "my fraud is as good as their fraud" as the justification for doing this as a christian. Wayne was one of many to travel to Montana in the few years that the freemen were up and running to take classes in how to "lein up" the traitors that were "stealing property" using the so called debt fiat money - credit system. It has never been openly reported what happened to all the law books and research material that the FBI/BATF trucked out in a Rider Truck just like OKC's bomb truck (a psyop?) of the Freeman's "Compound". Switzer, and others of the group considered members, maintained their research was sound and the materials supported their actions. ***There is not alot of NPOV articles and material online to cite. The Pat Shannon booklet is a inexpensive choice for a non-mainstream telling of the story or viewpoint that dosn't directly advocate the freeman's methods with much how to details.

You say you knew this man. The onus of proof is on you. Document his quotes, and the rumors about chest x-rays and the like.(two different guys switzer; maxwell) Find a tape. Find a webpages where you can document this. Wikipedia is not, as the mainstream media makes it to be, a platform for political views, and as such original, unverifiable research such as this is simply not acceptable. Therefore, I am reverting your changes.

Oh, and using an IP is worse than using a username, privacy-wise. Attakmint 05:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• • there seems to be no consistancies between "editors" on what constitutes a useable link; I have used multiple URL's and posted various informative additions to several articals giving bothsides of a particular issue only to have them butchered and or removed and derided. If "weekpedia" as a project wants articals expanded and added to then some folks need to back off a bit.

Because from my perspective there is no pleasing anybody on here: post links to non-original research ...they get deleted. Post information which you have acual physical proof in your hand and a refereced book on the topic and that aint good enuff either. I have a signed copy of the paperback Pat Shannon wrote on the Freeman; Should I put up a webpage with portions of it scanned in to cite? Or should I set up a foundation to fund another not for profit front organisation to do research and cite that? If I had a printing press for federal reserve scrip, what truth do you want to create???

• • BTW I called - in on the "Dave Hincson" show that the freemen were interviewed not knowing that was in the works later in the hour so; I have it on tape; the CNN "archives" do not list this event. But they shure did a number on deriding shortwave listeners in the process of the report; which only served to peek some folks interest (a psyop?); shortwave radio sales probably were not hurt at all. This stub does not even begin to mention both sides or a NPOV. It might as well say: "The Freemen of Montana were the Freeman of Montana and the authorities arrested them after a standoff. See also CNN"

Why not be consise?

What's the ISBN of the Pat Shannon book? Or who's the publisher? Year of publication? Until you can give us that info, it's far too close to original research to be posted. I'm holding off on reverting your changes.Attakmint 00:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you feel like responding to my statements, please do so outside of my original post. I ask this so we can read this section more easily.Attakmint 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Work needed

I just found this article, and my immediate reaction was to tag it with Template:cleanup and Template:sources. Having read the preceding discussion, I'll hold off for a while.

Here's a few things we probably should add, listed in no particular order:

• mention Randy Weaver's offer to help negotiate[1] and visit[2]
• link to Uniform Commercial Code
• If we can find appropriate sources, we should discuss the Freemen's beliefs about the UCC. (Wikipedia does mention the related beliefs of the Christian Patriot movement, but only briefly, near the end of the "Legal Theories" section.)
• Quote people about the FBI's change of tactics after Ruby Ridge and Waco. For example:

• [Bo] Gritz said that this "was a kinder, gentler FBI than four years ago at Ruby Ridge."[3]
• "We tried a fundamentally different approach," said Freeh, noting the criticism the FBI heard for the deadly shootout at Ruby Ridge, Idaho three years ago.[4]
• Freeh acknowledged criticisms of his "go slow" approach to ending the standoff, but said he believed that approach was the "prudent" way to avoid bloodshed.[5]

• Since people from all over the world use this encyclopedia, we'd better say why using a Yellow Rider truck was ironic.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The negotiations details are somewhat on the cnn link but there is alot that is curiously not in their archives like the shortwave call ins due to the Freemen haveing a older radiotelephone that could not be blocked. The "culture" of "weeki"pedia is what I have a problem with. The guide pages talk about how to treat contributors especially those new to contribute, I have to say it seems those are largely ignored by what I would call the NPOV trolls. Instead of "tag and run";correct the spelling of the UCC link and make a note that you did such just as one example. Look back through the history and you will see where the irony of the Ryder truck's paint job was mentioned but slashed out. et c...

Unsourced commentary

I chopped this section as it appears to be unsourced commentary:

The peaceful resolution of this standoff seemed to reflect the lessons that federal law enforcement authorities learned from the disasters at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Another view is that the peaceful resolution reflects that the federal government was afraid that another massacre would produce another terrorist attack like the one in Oklahoma City in 1995.

Yet another perspective is; the Freemen had found valid arguments, or provisions in the codes by which current administrative law venues operate commercially; in short, "my fraud is as good as your fraud";(a regular quote from at least one graduate of freeman sessions that was never arrested, "C. Wayne Maxwell" {died 05/06} of Dayton OH and Elliotville Kentucky). To be brief, the Freeman threatened the "power monopoly" of the defacto state. All of the materials and reference books in the Freeman's library were taken by federal agents ,ironically, in the same type of Ryder truck used in the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing even after the company had done extensive marketing of their new look after repainting, apparently, all but a few of their for-hire lorries.

Ashmoo 04:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problem

The second paragraph of this article seems to be written by a Freeman supporter/sympathizer, and, therefore, is not exactly neutral. Also, it needs to be re-written in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.217.175 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(I moved this comment here and added the heading.)

I agree about the POV problem. I think this article should be greatly expanded (see above) but don't have time myself at present. Any volunteers? Please?

CWC(talk) 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Curious GoodGuyThe tone of the article seems to be rather anti-freeman in nature, as it is FAR from concise and barely informational. Needs an ~incredible~ amount of information and work put into it.

Start a general clean up

Dear readers: I have tried to clean up some of this, toning down the POV and adding some citation tags. I tried not to change the meaning of the verbiage, but that's difficult. From a legal standpoint, what the Montana Freemen were trying to do was nonsensical. Hopefully the changes in the description will provide some clarification, although I haven't added anything to the article about why their actions (filing "liens," etc.) had no real legal effect.

Many people, including lawyers, use the phrase "filing a lien" -- however, that phrase is colloquial and not technically legally precise. A "lien" is not something you "file." A lien is a "claim or charge on property for payment of some debt, obligation or duty" (Black's Law Dictionary, p. 832 (5th ed. 1979)). In a strict, technical sense, you cannot "file" a "lien" - a lien either exists, or it doesn't exist, quite apart from whether you have "filed" something.

What you "file" -- in some office such as a county or state office -- is a document, often called a "notice of lien." A key point is that merely filing such a piece of paper does not itself create a lien. Further, falsely filing a notice of lien is a criminal offense in some places.

Of course, as I said, in a loose, broad sense, many lawyers (myself included) often use verbal shorthand to say that someone "filed a lien" -- where what we really mean is that someone filed a document called a notice of lien.

For an illustrative discussion of an example of (1) the creation of a lien, and (2) the separate legal effect of the filing of a notice of lien, see the article Tax lien. Yours, Famspear 05:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Graffity problem

I just reverted the page to get rid of some fairly juvenile graffiti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwnf (talk • contribs) 05:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding a section

If this section should be added, please provide a source. Nsaa (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)