Merged Freeman on the Land in America/lawful rebellion/sovereign citizens

Are you acquainted with "The Emporer's New Clothes"? It's particularly relevant to the Freeman movement who, as far as I can see, have arguments so transparently false as to be of no meaningful purpose.

But really, feel free to ignore reality.
 
Here's an example of just how blatantly wrong a Freeman argument can be:


A Statute, like the Income Tax Act, cannot apply directly to a human
being because the Statute was created by man, and without agreement
or consent by another human, one man cannot have dominion over
another man. Therefore, a Statute (which is subservient to its
creator - man) cannot have dominion over another man, because the
created (the Statute) can never be greater than the creator (the men
who created the Statute).

So, let's get this straight. Laws, and statute, are passed by Parliament who are, in turn, elected by - wait for it - the people. But because each of the people didn't agree to that law on an individual basis, then it doesn't apply to them!

Great, isn't it?
 
he started to think :eek: confussed :confused: he wondered why do we cling to the rocks he could see around him many other unusual creatures when he was brave enough to peek out of his shell! but the other sea creatures would nudge him to cling tighter to the rocks..

If this is your idea of a parable, never mind a coherent argument, then I very much worry for you.

:rolleyes:

then after many eons of thinking these same thoughts and every now and then peeking out of his shell ... all of a sudden the unthinkable happened :blush:

A tax protester came out with a cogent point?
 
On you go - you can get to 10 posts and then have some links! Then we can really have a laugh!

In the meantime, let's have another side-splitting Freeman moment:
Government owns your children.

You are the Registered Keeper.

The Government wants
to vaccinate and drug your children.
Social Services can take THEIR children.


The Government owns your car.
You are the Registered Keeper.


You pay licences to drive, work, hunt, fish, watch TV,
park your car, blow your nose .........
YOU are a SLAVE.
 
I think you may be mistaking my taking the piss for some sort of support.
 
Are you planning to string this out all the way to 25? Or do you expect to get suspended before then?
 
Sorry, my sides just split laughing. Do you really believe all this guff?
 
Thought this was a site to discuss in a friendly and lively way?!

Edited for rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's an example of just how blatantly wrong a Freeman argument can be:




So, let's get this straight. Laws, and statute, are passed by Parliament who are, in turn, elected by - wait for it - the people. But because each of the people didn't agree to that law on an individual basis, then it doesn't apply to them!

Great, isn't it?

Hey, I'm going to find out where emmanation lives and take all his stuff. I never personally agreed to the laws against theft and robbery, so it doesn't apply to me! Besides, what is he going to do -- call the police? Those EVIL AGENTS of the government???
 
Well, make sure you only take the stuff from the basement. The rest belongs to his parents.
 
by the feeling he had not felt this ALIVE before.... he had been dead all those years clinging to the rocks!

I didn't know that getting paid under the table while getting sued by the IRS makes people FEEL ALIVE, but hey, to each his own.

By the way, no mention in this thread yet of the kooks' "nuclear option": the constant attempt to get higher courts to issue a writ of mandamus to reverse their convictions in tax court, district court, etc.

This is commonly known as the "writ of mandumbass" by the bemused observers of these kooks, since only folks who fit the latter category used it as a constantly failing anti-taxing strategy.
 
Last edited:
You worry? Hell, I jsut found a Scottish site citing all this guff. All they did was take out US references and put in UK ones. Badly. The legal bits are just made up, as an added humorous bonus.
 
Not quite. The common law applies to all people, anywhere, everywhere. It's the natural, universally accepted law. You cannot cause harm or loss or breach the peace or commit fraud in your contracts. It covers everything. Theft, murder, perjury, public nuisance, etc. Admiralty law (statutes, codes, regulations) are specifically restricted in their scope and applicability to the members of that society. A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society, given the force of law. A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine, and act for a common purpose. So, statutes are laws to people who have given their consent to be a part of the society. It's like if you have lived on a piece of land your entire life, and some organization came in, claiming to be the government of the land, and tried to get you to pay taxes and follow their policies. You'd tell them they had no jurisdiction, no authority. Because they don't. It's like saying marijuana is illegal in the United States and trying to enforce that in Amsterdam. Doesn't work. No jurisdiction. And it's not because it's a separate piece of land. The fundamental laws of the land provide that all men are created equal and that governments are instilled among men to protect inalienable rights, and that when government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the right of the people to alter/abolish it. You can declare sovereignty and there is nothing anyone can do about it without a gun to your head. :)



Actually, yes, I do. The number is generally on the back of the birth certificate and it is evidence of a bond created in your name. In America, for example... FDR created a trust in 1933 (and there is also a trust created by the Constitution) of which the people are the beneficiaries. The Secretary of Treasury is the fiduciary of this bond and it directs the funds in it to your local representative. I think it would be your state's Congress member, not entirely sure. In Canada it's your provincial representative in Parliament. You can send notice directing these funds for debt set-off. Several people have done this with their student loans, credit card debts, etc, and it has worked. The debt simply moves to zero.
I guarantee that if you attempt to live by the statements given you will have government support for a long time in a nice place with barred doors and windows. I will be supporting that since you either have no idea how law and government work or are trying as Wesley Snipes successfully and unfortunately did to plead abject ignorance/stupidity due to paying attention to , well, persons who are either truly incompetant fools OR people trying a huge rip-off. Either way, I would have no problem with them undergoing a cessation of existence due to the time the court and legal system waste on them.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, a bunch of people who see themselves as Heros in an Ayn Rand Novel.
Yes, it couldn't possibly be that any of these are people of deeply held principles who actually seek to live by the principles on which the country was founded. Couldn't possibly be that. They could only possibly be delusional whackos. I think the best approach in general toward people with whom we might disagree is to stick our fingers in our ears and say over and over "I can't hear you. I can't hear you." and to be dismissive and condescending.
 

Back
Top Bottom