The Freeman Movement and England

[D'rok]

Hi Rob,

You are right that not all "persons" (as that term is used in English law - I'm guessing the same is true in Canada) are human beings. However, all human beings are persons.

Bingo.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Yawn. I was hoping for something new with our newest FOTLer, but it looks like all we got was another one who thinks arguing by verbosity is going to get somewhere. Here is a hint: unless you actually provide EVIDENCE behind all those words, no amount of you typing is going to change the debunked status of FOTL.

I notice FreemanMenard has been asked directly for even one case where FOTL legal theory has been upheld in court. This shouldn't be hard to find if FOTL had any relationship to reality. But of course, no such cases could be offered. Which is less than I was expecting. There are some FOTL woo cases that have been "won" in the sense that the court, believing the FOTLer to be nuts/delusional, did not throw them in jail for a parking ticket like they could have when they started filing frivolous freeman forms and drawing on magical legal words. I thought you would at least cite those cases...but you didn't. Anyways, in those cases FOTL woos still failed to win based on legal merit, the judge just had mercy on them. There has been no case in any country where FOTL legal reasoning has been upheld on its merits.

It must be very handy for you to be able to label some perspective, idea, belief or argument as 'woo'. It means you do not have to address the concepts contained therein, let alone even treat the belief, idea or perspective as such. You get to label those as delusions and insanities without even looking at them and jump right to ridiculing the presenter of the opposing perspective. It is to me evidence that the one using such terminology sees opposing views as offensive and threatening and they act to see the ideas are suppressed, not examined properly and discarded if they fail to meet standards of logic and reason. I have read this thread, and have seen many people who use the same arguing tactic. It is akin to children who stick their fingers in their ears and yell “LALALALALALALALALALA” and when you leave because they are simply acting childishly, they claim victory in the argument.

This is a pretty standard woo argument, and by using it you show that you have not only failed to read this thread but that you have little defense for the woo you believe in. You believe in something that no actual relationship with reality, and woo is one possible descriptor for FOTL - there are others. Also, your abysmal understanding of what constitutes "evidence" is probably another reason you believe in the lies of FOTL.

This is a pretty standard FOTL arguing tactic. When you point out the basic legal flaws of the theory, which this thread has done over and over and over again, the woos stick their fingers in their heads and go "LALALALA YOU USED WOO LALALALALA!"

And of course, the only people who have left childishly claiming victory have been your fellow FOTL woos.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Let's examine your statement as to what is reality and see if it holds. You say "In reality we know there is no differnece between a person and a human being." Using logic and math, this leads to:
All persons are human beings. [P=HB]
And its corollary all human beings are persons. [HB=P]
However we know also that corporations are in law persons. [C=P]
But we also know that corporations are NOT human beings. [C CANNOT= HB]

Thus simple unarguable logic reveals the truth.
Not all persons are human beings as some are corporations.


Peace eh?
Rob

Unfortunately your examination of the facts had no relationship to reality, as all your statements thus far have not.

The law is not based on logic you make up - and really, it is made up logic. You cannot simply declare logical statements that have no relationship to the previous suppositions. But thank you for saying that human beings are not persons and then stating: And its corollary all human beings are persons.

And what does the law say about this?

(10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html

You have failed. Again.

Anyways, I had higher hopes for you Robert. Really I did. Oh well, guess I shouldn't expect that much from this sort of movement. I'm on vacation for the rest of this week and although debunking you truly is entertaining I won't physically have access to the internet. However, fear not! I know my fellow JREFers and our lawyer posters like LashL will have no problem continuing to debunk your lies. I will be happy to join back in when I return.

 

[sleahead]

I believe I said I was in the process of doing it. And I was. Had the paperwork all ready, and then due to time restrictions and travel opportunities, I did not get it done. I have yet to do it.

Yeah, paperwork can be a bummer, even if there is $10 million at the end of it.

I have my reasons for holding off. I realized I would be acting prematurely, and without all my pieces on the board so to speak.

Care to explain further?

You ask am I rich. I say yes I am. I am very rich. I feel very very blessed and enjoy much abundance. Have I claimed my security? Nope not yet. Do I still have the intent to do so? Absolutely.

Good. Regarding the process, would you recommend that anyone should buy stuff like this?

Package #3. Master Level Package: Price $1,600.00. This package consist of The Redemption Book One, The Redemption Book CD, plus Your Redemption CD that holds 2.51 GB of information plus many other CD's packed with over 6.0 GB of information. Plus Get Out of Jail, Bonds and much more. For more information or to place an order CLICK HERE.

What do you think of the people who are selling stuff like this?

I hope you don't mind me deciding for myself what my actions will be, or when they will be, and I trust you are mature enough not to attempt to use dares or peer pressure to attempt to control or define my actions.

Wouldn't dream of it. Res ipsa loquitor is what I say.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Yawn. I was hoping for something new with our newest FOTLer, but it looks like all we got was another one who thinks arguing by verbosity is going to get somewhere. Here is a hint: unless you actually provide EVIDENCE behind all those words, no amount of you typing is going to change the debunked status of FOTL.

I notice FreemanMenard has been asked directly for even one case where FOTL legal theory has been upheld in court. This shouldn't be hard to find if FOTL had any relationship to reality. But of course, no such cases could be offered. Which is less than I was expecting. There are some FOTL woo cases that have been "won" in the sense that the court, believing the FOTLer to be nuts/delusional, did not throw them in jail for a parking ticket like they could have when they started filing frivolous freeman forms and drawing on magical legal words. I thought you would at least cite those cases...but you didn't. Anyways, in those cases FOTL woos still failed to win based on legal merit, the judge just had mercy on them. There has been no case in any country where FOTL legal reasoning has been upheld on its merits.



This is a pretty standard woo argument, and by using it you show that you have not only failed to read this thread but that you have little defense for the woo you believe in. You believe in something that no actual relationship with reality, and woo is one possible descriptor for FOTL - there are others. Also, your abysmal understanding of what constitutes "evidence" is probably another reason you believe in the lies of FOTL.

This is a pretty standard FOTL arguing tactic. When you point out the basic legal flaws of the theory, which this thread has done over and over and over again, the woos stick their fingers in their heads and go "LALALALA YOU USED WOO LALALALALA!"

And of course, the only people who have left childishly claiming victory have been your fellow FOTL woos.

So if someone spends time and energy and pens a reasoned and thoughtful reply, you judge them as having said too much and denigrate their efforts as verbosity. If not enough you would likely claim the opposite and demand MORE.

I have demanded proof repeatedly that anyone feels they are so superior that they can claim the right to govern their fellow man without the consent of their fellow man and no one has ever accepted that challenge. You ask for court proof, but this knowledge when used properly means you never go to court. So if that is the case, why would there be transcripts of something that was avoided and did not happen? So I have done my best to answer your questions without evasion even though they were clearly pointed. So now it is my turn.

Bear in mind that equality is paramount, and when abandoned you lose.
You say all humans are persons. However I have seen many definitions where the exact opposite is expressed. In Blacks 3rd it states "a human being is not a person because he is a human being but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him, specifically the person is that legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. But not all human beings are persons, as was the case in Olde England when there were slaves." So here we have a law dictionary clearly stating the opposite of your position, that being all human beings are persons. Now lets test it by examining it under the light of EQUALITY. Since the person is a result of rights and duties being ascribed to a human being, and we are equal, then who has the power to ascribe rights and duties to me to make me qualify as a person? You certainly do not, nor do your representatives. Logic will show that only we have the power to assign rights and duties, and although a group can agree on what those may be, that agreement does not affect those not a party to it. You may have agreed that the people in government and the courts have the power to define your rights. That is your right. I however do not allow others to ascribe rights and duties to me, for I do that myself. That too is my right. You don't like it too bad. Find someone, anyone willing to claim that they have the right to either govern me without my consent, or that their elected representatives may do so, or even that they have the power to provide adjudication services without consent. Or that they can punish me in any way for refusing to agree and accept their claim to authority. You will not find one in Canada. Additionally in the Criminal Code you will find that there are certain sections dealing with common law crimes such as murder where the term 'any one' is used and things like growing pot they use the term 'any person who'. If every one was a person automatically why the difference?

Now if I could share links here I would, and you would see a short report (a video document or affidavit if you) will, attesting to the fact that a man was exercising his right to travel, was stopped by the police, used knowledge (that which the ignorant here refer to as 'magic words') and when all was said and done went on his way without charges, and is now regularly traveling without permit or license. Not sure how to post the link though and was informed last time that I can't post a link until I post more replies first. But it is there. My channel is mrmitee and I have a response to the video I was referring to, and you can follow the link to hear the guy recount his story in the public arena. My response is titled humorously enough RESPONSE

There are many who demand proof and expect that since I believe in something, and share those beliefs with the world I have a duty to provide them with 'proof'. I don't see that. When you demand proof you are actually asking I educate you for free. I believe what I believe, and act upon what I believe in, and have no desire really to convince those who seem happy to reject this information and call it 'woo'. I believe what I believe because I invested tens of thousands of hours studying law and have found many truths that are often rejected outright by those who have never even read the Acts I refer to. Having read the Motor Vehicle Act I know there is nothing in there that removes the previously existing rights. But those who do have a license, but did not read the Act will claim I am at fault, cause everybody knows we all needs licenses to drive, and if you try to teach them to distinguish between the two, they call it word play. It is like telling someone there is a difference between the words 'their' and 'there' and they claim that pointing out the difference is 'word play'. It is not word play, it is law, and some wish to dismiss these concepts as word play or wishful thinking.

Well have a great day! Will answer more questions and duck barbs later.

Rob

 

[linusrichard]

This position is unreasonable, untenable and unsupported by logic. Let us examine it at the extreme. There is limited land on the planet. If all the land is governed as you say, then one would have to learn to fly or swim constantly. Here in Canada, the power exercised by say a government agent, is no greater then the source of that power, that being the people. Since there is no single human being in Canada who has the power to force me to leave merely because I refuse to contract with him or his representatives, what with EQUALITY BEING PARAMOUNT, and a group cannot claim authority that none possess

This is outright false. A group (the government) can and does claim authority that no individuals possess. This is true pretty much wherever you go. I bet even in Somalia, there are groups (gangs, etc.) who claim authority that no individual possesses. I may be wrong, but throughout the civilized world this is of course true.

individually, then your argument must fail. Who is gonna make me leave? No one has that power, and yet I do not consent to being governed by the statutes you believe are law. What can you or anyone else do about it? NOTHING is what.

Also obviously false. People every day, in Canada and every other civilized country, are punished without their consent for violating statutes.

Not a single human being in Canada has the right or power to force me or anyone else to leave for exercising my right of association.

True, but completely beside the point.

Can you show me anywhere anything to support this position, that physical presence implies consent and grants authority in a common law jurisdiction where equality is paramount?

I don't know Canadian law, but one example in the US is Burnham v Superior Court. I wouldn't be surprised if some English cases were cited in the opinion.

I know you want to believe it is the case,

Irrelevant even if true.

and for those with a high school clique mentality

Insults. Real classy.

it seems obvious, but who is going to kick me out? You? Your representatives, agents or employees? The courts? Who is going to remove me? I see no one, and so your position, that I have to leave, is way off the mark, because you simply can't enforce it regardless of if it is 'true' to you.

What's with this fixation with being kicked out? That's not how most countries punish most of their citizens. Although it's true that Canada won't kick you out for violating a statute, Canada (or your province) can and will punish you in other ways for violating statutes. With or without your consent.

Not I. And it is not like they would not like to spank me or that they have not tried either. And I know ALL the founders, and not a single one of us are presently imprisoned, facing charges or worried about them in the future.

Leading me to guess that they aren't smoking their own supply, so to speak.

That question is impossible to answer. How can I know how many across the globe are imprisoned, what their beliefs are or what they tried to use? How could anyone answer that question? It must have been rhetorical, right? However, if your argument is that people are in jail, they believe certain things, therefore they are in jail for those beliefs is simply faulty logic. I think it is called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. How many people in jail have previously voted, or are Christians, or did not try to use the Freeman knowledge at all? Weigh that number and you will see that statistically, it is those who do not use this information and have never heard of it that end up in jail.

Although I tend to agree that the question isn't a great one, the answer is even worse, a textbook example of the very post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy you describe.

Again, you ask questions that are simply not answerable without investing a lot of time and research. Do that yourself if you want to know.

The burden is generally on the person making extraordinary claims to provide the evidence.

Also to define victory by the past is to deny the power of claiming the future. I know in Canada, we have had numerous confirmations of these fundamental truths.

That kind of takes the air out of your "not answerable without investing a lot of time and research" dodge. So you have "numerous confirmations," but you are mysteriously unable to share them with us? Even if I didn't know you were wrong, this would make you look pretty suspicious.

There are travellers operating without license or permit. They have been stopped by the police and once identified as Freemen the police withdrew and went on their way, without attempting to enforce statutory obligations or restraints. People have successfully used their rights to have financial obligations discharged and bills paid. Thousands have successfully discharged their student loans. Police officers have be seen to act with respect to those who have claimed Freeman status and with acceptance of the limits of their authority to enforce statutes against said Freemen. But most importantly, many many people have been empowered to question authority and learn the law. Many I have spoken with were appreciative of being able to stand in court without the fear they would normally have experienced. From the perspective of enjoying greater control over ones life and acting without the burdens of fear, anger and shame, the Freeman knowledge is a grand and divine success.

What a wonderful story. Disappointingly lacking in citation to anything that could actually confirm it though.

I distinguish between travelling and driving, and these actions physically are identical to a third party observer. The difference is one is merely exercising a right and cannot engage in commerce by say delivering pizza, and the other has by way of application secured the privilege to drive or engage in commerce on the public roads. That concept requires one to be able to distinguish between two actions which although appear to be similar, are not. If one can't do that there is no need to try and further discuss this, as we would merely be wasting time. All elephants are grey, does not mean all grey things are elephants, and an action which is under one set of circumstances defined as driving is not defined the same under a different set of circumstances, and the difference here is whether the owner registered his auto and is engaging in commerce on the public roads. Insurance is a gambling scheme and defined as such

Of course not. Or do you have a cite?

, and although the truth is there is no requirement at law to gamble with insurance in order to exercise the right to t ravel, I do see it as prudent to have and have developed an idea that would address this issue. In Canada you can 'drive' without insurance and yes I refer to a registered motor vehicle. You do have to have proof of financial responsibility though.

I don't know enough about Canadian law to know if this is true or false, but if they can require you to have "proof of financial responsibility" then how is that any different from what we're talking about? That's a statute requiring you to do something that you might not want to do, right?

It must be very handy for you to be able to label some perspective, idea, belief or argument as 'woo'.

Labels are handy, yes. It's nice when the labels are accurate, and the labelling of FOTL as "woo" is accurate in this case.

It means you do not have to address the concepts contained therein, let alone even treat the belief, idea or perspective as such.

And yet we do.

You get to label those as delusions and insanities without even looking at them and jump right to ridiculing the presenter of the opposing perspective.

That's wrong and insulting to those of us here who do examine these beliefs. When we do ridicule, we mostly ridicule the beliefs, not the presenters of the beliefs.

It is to me evidence that the one using such terminology sees opposing views as offensive and threatening and they act to see the ideas are suppressed, not examined properly and discarded if they fail to meet standards of logic and reason.

Hmm, so what is it evidence of if the "freeman" accuses those with whom he disagrees of having a "high school clique mentality"? Using the same reasoning.

I have read this thread, and have seen many people

How about ignoring those people and addressing the people who are not doing this? It is a Rule of these Forums that you attack the argument, not the arguer. Most, if not all, in this thread do this. If you see someone breaking the Rules, feel free to report them. However, just because some are engaging in name-calling ("high school clique mentality"?) does not excuse you from addressing the rest of us, if you actually want to defend FOTL.

who use the same arguing tactic. It is akin to children who stick their fingers in their ears and yell “LALALALALALALALALALA” and when you leave because they are simply acting childishly, they claim victory in the argument.

It is an IS. It is truth and it does not care if you or others do not like the effect it has on your life or sense of well being. I have heard people reject these ideas because they do not like the effect. For instance people will argue against the right to travel without permit or license or insurance because they are scared of what might happen if it was the truth. They examine concepts and decide what is and is not the truth, or what should be the truth, based on the potential effect that perspective may have on their existence, and if negative, even the truth will be rejected.

Do you see anybody in this thread doing that? You can't defend FOTL by attacking other people who reject FOTL. If you're going to attack anyone's reasoning, attack the reasoning of folks in this thread. But that alone doesn't constitute evidence of the truth of FOTL, which is what you really ought to be presenting.

The truth simply does not care if you like it, if it has a positive or negative effect on your life, or if you agree with it.

I doubt you'll find anyone here who disagrees with that.

The truth is no man can govern me without my consent.

Plainly false.

I have the right and power to deny consent and be ungoverned.

Right? Debatable. Power? Probably not. Or, as the saying goes, "you and what army?" Literally, though.

Regardless of it you like that or not, it is the truth, and you not liking it, or saying I should leave because I do not agree with you, does not change the truth.

Again, no one here is arguing based on what we like or don't like. We are as interested in the truth as you claim to be.

I believe I said I was in the process of doing it. And I was. Had the paperwork all ready, and then due to time restrictions and travel opportunities, I did not get it done. I have yet to do it. I have my reasons for holding off. I realized I would be acting prematurely, and without all my pieces on the board so to speak. Also I am not motivated by money, though I too have obligations. You ask am I rich. I say yes I am. I am very rich. I feel very very blessed and enjoy much abundance. Have I claimed my security? Nope not yet. Do I still have the intent to do so? Absolutely. I hope you don't mind me deciding for myself what my actions will be, or when they will be, and I trust you are mature enough not to attempt to use dares or peer pressure to attempt to control or define my actions.

And I hope you understand that when someone claims they have a foolproof method of getting millions of dollars, but that they just haven't gotten around to it yet, that that strikes a normal person as being less than credible.

Well, I have much to do, chief of which presently is eating some tasty thanksgiving leftovers! Have a great day everybody!
Rob

Yum! Happy Thanksgiving! Ours is next month - so good!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

FreemanMenard,

Any documentation anywhere for a Canadian claiming and getting his/her $10 million?

I'd really like to know because a friend of mine said his brother-in-law heard from his dentist that this was not possible.

 

[Paul]

You say all humans are persons. However I have seen many definitions where the exact opposite is expressed. In Blacks 3rd it states...

You mean the one from 1933? What does it say in the 9^th edition?

A current reference gives this:

legal person A natural person (i.e. a human being) or a juristic person .

natural person A human being. Compare juristic person

juristic person (artificial person) An entity, such as a corporation , that is recognized as having legal personality, i.e. it is capable of enjoying and being subject to legal rights and duties. It is contrasted with a human being, who is referred to as a natural person.

A Dictionary of Law. by Jonathan Law and Elizabeth A. Martin. Oxford University Press 2009 Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I asked your brother-in-freemanry this and got a lot of tapdancing and sidestepping as a reply. I would appreciate it if you would give a straightforward answer to it:

Let me lay out a hypothetical scenario for you. There will be a question at the end, which I hope you will be honest and brave enough to answer.

Here's the scenario:

1. You receive your property tax statement, or your income tax form, or whatever document the statute-givers [I'm sorry, I don't know your term for those who pass statutes and the people who work for them, so I hope you will understand my using this phrase in this context] use to communicate with you that they believe you owe them money.
   
   
2. You demand that they present an itemized invoice of services for which you are paying.
   
   
3. Being evil persons operating under Admiralty law instead of common law, the statute-givers refuse your quite reasonable demand.
   
   
4. Because you have been given no explanation of the benefits you will receive in return for your tax payment, you refuse to pay.
   
   
5. Being evil persons with all the force of the police and the military behind them, the statute-givers come to your house, and, despite your explanations that you are subject to common law, not statute, you are arrested, handcuffed, and taken off to jail. The statute-givers have the guns, you see.
   
   
6. After some time in jail, you are brought to trial. You refuse to answer to your name, you refuse to "stand under" Admiralty law, you take every step the Freeman philosophy prescribes for how a Freeman should behave under these circumstances.
   
   
7. However, the judge is an evil person, an occult Jesuit Mason Knight of Columbus Jew who answers only to Her Royal Majesty Elizabeth Windsor, the Queen of England, and the Pope in Rome; and the jury (if there is one) is composed of brainwashed sheep who don't understand that statute is not the same as common law. So you are found guilty of tax evasion, even though you have spoken all the correct words, you have refused to submit to the corrupt Admiralty court, and, again, you have followed every step in the Freeman guidebook. You are sentenced to a term in prison.
   
   
8. The statute-givers and their corrupt police still have the guns, so you are taken to prison. You, again, say all the correct phrases, you announce that you are not subject to statute but only to common law, you explain that you declined to enter into a contract to pay taxes.
   
   
9. None of it works, because you are in the clutches of a corrupt system (or maybe just well-intentioned but uninformed people who haven't had the whole thing completely explained to them.)
   
   
10. So, in spite of the fact that you have done everything you believe you should have done, here you are in prison for an extended stay.

That was the scenario.

Here's the question: what do you do now? What is the next step under the Freeman plan? To whom do you appeal?

 

[D'rok]

You ask for court proof, but this knowledge when used properly means you never go to court.

I didn't ask for court proof; I asked for documentation. Where is it? Has no one ever video-taped an encounter with the police where your strategy succeeds? Is all you have really post-hoc anecdotes? C'mon. This is a sceptics' site. We require more than that to be convinced.

I also asked you to elaborate on your interpretation of s. 15 of the Criminal Code. Can you do that?

So if that is the case, why would there be transcripts of something that was avoided and did not happen? So I have done my best to answer your questions without evasion even though they were clearly pointed. So now it is my turn.

I'm guessing that you don't want to talk about Canadian court cases because you know they have been complete failures. For example, you tried but failed to use FOTL arguments to get intervenor status in United States of America v. Emery, et al.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2005/2005bcsc1192/2005bcsc1192.html

And the Sponagles from Nova Scotia, in Jabez Financial Services Inc. v. Sponagle, failed utterly with their attempt to respond to a discovery order with a FOTL "Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right". Doing this caused the judge to strike their defence, granting default judgement to the plaintiffs. One wonders where they got their FOTL legal documents, eh? They didn't purchase them from you by chance, did they?

http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2008/2008nssc112/2008nssc112.html

Now if I could share links here I would, and you would see a short report (a video document or affidavit if you) will, attesting to the fact that a man was exercising his right to travel, was stopped by the police, used knowledge (that which the ignorant here refer to as 'magic words') and when all was said and done went on his way without charges, and is now regularly traveling without permit or license.

Another anecdote? How underwhelming. Document this actually happening and you might have something interesting to talk about. It's not that hard in this day and age of ubiquitous cellphone cameras.

There are many who demand proof and expect that since I believe in something, and share those beliefs with the world I have a duty to provide them with 'proof'. I don't see that. When you demand proof you are actually asking I educate you for free.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to cut into your income from your fraudulent legal advice, now would we?

http://www.thinkfree.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=30

 

[Brian-M]

You say all humans are persons. However I have seen many definitions where the exact opposite is expressed. In Blacks 3rd it states "a human being is not a person because he is a human being but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him, specifically the person is that legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. But not all human beings are persons, as was the case in Olde England when there were slaves."

Ha Ha Hee Hee Ha Ha Hee Hee Ha Ha Ha! By bringing up this outdated definition, you win your point but lose your rights.

Let's assume this definition still applies, then in that case a human being is not necessarily a person, as in the case of slavery.

On the other hand, according to this quote, if a human being is not a person, he has no rights (or duties).

So if a Freeman On The Land is successful in freeing himself from being defined as a person in order to escape from his duties (paying tax, etc) then that means they also have no rights.

So if Freemen On The Land choose to lose their status as persons, I say let them. That means we'll be able to kidnap them, beat them up, steal their wallets, sell them into slavery, and anything else we want to because, if they are no longer legally persons, then they have no rights.

 

[RHolmes]

I have demanded proof repeatedly that anyone feels they are so superior that they can claim the right to govern their fellow man without the consent of their fellow man and no one has ever accepted that challenge.

Possibly because that is not what critics of the FOTL movement are claiming? What is claimed is that, as a community, we have the power to determine what rules govern us and to insist that, if you live in our community and enjoy its benefits, you play by its rules.

Rather, it is you who is claiming that the preferences of an individual should override the will of the many.

You ask for court proof, but this knowledge when used properly means you never go to court.

But many FOTLers do end up in court, and it goes badly for them . I know, I know, they didn't do the drill right. Unfortunately, that argument is the same as this: "The rain dance always makes the rain come. If the rain didn't come, you did the dance wrong". Do you find that convincing?

More generally...

Does it not strike you as odd that people who have spent "tens of thousands of hours" studying and practising law disagree with you? That generations of academic legal and constitutional experts have somehow failed to unearth what you have? What is your explanation of this? That they are simply stupid? That they part of a conspiracy? Does it never, ever cross your mind that you might be the one who's got the wrong end of the stick?

I just find the hubris staggering. Suppose I, a non-physicist, were to start studying quantum mechanics and came to conclusions that professional physicists constantly told me were wrong. I may not like the blow to my ego, but I couldn't - without making up some fantastic and disparaging story about physicists - maintain my stance. And I like to think that good old Occam's razor would lead me to at least consider that it was I who was in the wrong.

 

[Brainache]

Ha Ha Hee Hee Ha Ha Hee Hee Ha Ha Ha! By bringing up this outdated definition, you win your point but lose your rights.

Let's assume this definition still applies, then in that case a human being is not necessarily a person, as in the case of slavery.

On the other hand, according to this quote, if a human being is not a person, he has no rights (or duties).

So if a Freeman On The Land is successful in freeing himself from being defined as a person in order to escape from his duties (paying tax, etc) then that means they also have no rights.

So if Freemen On The Land choose to lose their status as persons, I say let them. That means we'll be able to kidnap them, beat them up, steal their wallets, sell them into slavery, and anything else we want to because, if they are no longer legally persons, then they have no rights.

Wouldn't that be cruelty to animals?

 

[Mojo]

And the Sponagles from Nova Scotia, in Jabez Financial Services Inc. v. Sponagle, failed utterly with their attempt to respond to a discovery order with a FOTL "Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right". Doing this caused the judge to strike their defence, granting default judgement to the plaintiffs. One wonders where they got their FOTL legal documents, eh? They didn't purchase them from you by chance, did they?

http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2008/2008nssc112/2008nssc112.html

I like the quotation marks the judge puts around the Sponagles' "representations" and "position".

 

[RHolmes]

In Blacks 3rd it states "a human being is not a person because he is a human being but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him, specifically the person is that legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. But not all human beings are persons, as was the case in Olde England when there were slaves."

Thanks for giving us that quotation. As another poster has said, it's outdated but - as someone nerdishly interested in legal history - I find it useful. Nice use of the word "olde". Always makes me smile.

That said, I would point out that the definition you cite says that a human being is a "person" because legal rights and duties are ascribed to him. That is very different from saying that a human being has a person that is endowed with those rights and duties - which is the position I have heard FOTLers take, in order to distance themselves from their duties under the law.

Incidentally, it's worth remembering that although the definitions in a good legal dictionary will come from legal authorities, legal dictionaries are not themselves legal authorities.

Additionally in the Criminal Code you will find that there are certain sections dealing with common law crimes such as murder where the term 'any one' is used and things like growing pot they use the term 'any person who'. If every one was a person automatically why the difference?

Because the former offence applies only to human beings, whereas the latter applies to all "persons"? I'm not a Canadian lawyer, but just a guess.

 

[Mojo]

The FOTLers are clearly "persons" as defined by section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the case of Evans v Ewels [1972] 1 WLR 671.

 

[RHolmes]

The FOTLers are clearly "persons" as defined by section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the case of Evans v Ewels [1972] 1 WLR 671.

You are a very naughty individual, Mojo. And you made me LOL in an open plan office.

 

[D'rok]

Ha Ha Hee Hee Ha Ha Hee Hee Ha Ha Ha! By bringing up this outdated definition, you win your point but lose your rights.

Let's assume this definition still applies, then in that case a human being is not necessarily a person, as in the case of slavery.

On the other hand, according to this quote, if a human being is not a person, he has no rights (or duties).

So if a Freeman On The Land is successful in freeing himself from being defined as a person in order to escape from his duties (paying tax, etc) then that means they also have no rights.

So if Freemen On The Land choose to lose their status as persons, I say let them. That means we'll be able to kidnap them, beat them up, steal their wallets, sell them into slavery, and anything else we want to because, if they are no longer legally persons, then they have no rights.

It's worse than that. He is denigrating the struggle for women's rights in Canada. Women were not considered legal persons in Canada until 1929. It took 5 determined women and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England (Canada's highest court of appeal at the time) to get that changed and to get women recognized as equal under the law. This is known as the Persons case:

http://www.abheritage.ca/famous5/achievements/persons_case.html

So, our friend Bob here is pointing to the fact that there used to be a time when not all humans were persons, but in addition to highlighting his own ignorance, he is really just highlighting the fact through great struggle, all now are.

 

[D'rok]

Hmm...just noticed the link to the first case in my post above is broken. Here it is fixed:

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2005/2005bcsc1192/2005bcsc1192.html

 

[D'rok]

I like the quotation marks the judge puts around the Sponagles' "representations" and "position".

That was a nice touch. I also like the "WTF?" from the judge in the case where Rob was involved:

"[FONT=&quot][/FONT]I mean no disrespect when I say that the position of the applicant for intervenor status is not altogether clear."

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2005/2005bcsc1192/2005bcsc1192.html

A little bit subtler, but just as funny in a "my learned friend is full of crap" kind of way.