Examples of U.S. Soverign Citizen (Freeman on the Land) Failures

[Humanzee]

Sorry, you are saying there is no corpus delicti if you are caught possessing an illegal substance?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Nope your Wrong. for a criminal offense too take place you need a corpus delicti or a body of the crime.

there's no jurisdiction without a body of the crime in criminal cases. and there is no body of the crime when it comes too drug use/sell/possession and why the laws are 100% unconstitutional.

Once again its the attitude that skeptics dont wanna get butt raped for being right they would rather stay tucked into a corner for being wrong.

that makes absolutely no sense, your saying theres no way to prove drugs have been used, sold or possessed, and all of these can be easily proven, to say they cant be would be to imply you can never prove any crime has ever been committed, and thus no laws, not even the constitution itself, is constitutional

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Nope your Wrong. for a criminal offense too take place you need a corpus delicti or a body of the crime.

there's no jurisdiction without a body of the crime in criminal cases. and there is no body of the crime when it comes too drug use/sell/possession and why the laws are 100% unconstitutional.

Once again its the attitude that skeptics dont wanna get butt raped for being right they would rather stay tucked into a corner for being wrong.

Wow. You have no idea what corpus delicti means, apparently. I didn't, either, until you mentioned it, but in 30 seconds I seem to have understood the concept better you...

"Corpus delicti is a term from Western jurisprudence which refers to the principle that it must be proven that a crime has occurred before a person can be convicted of committing the crime."^WP

So, you believe that it's impossible to prove, say, possession of marijuana?

 

[Toke]

"Corpus delicti is a term from Western jurisprudence which refers to the principle that it must be proven that a crime has occurred before a person can be convicted of committing the crime."WP

Reading up on stuff is cheating.
You will never make a proper freeman.

 

[kerikiwi]

I was being sarcastic .

...
re read what it was in response too first, instead of running your mouth.

It makes absolutely no sense, even if you were attempting sarcasm.
Perhaps proof reading could help...

 

[Bluekush623]

I'll say this. You're 100% correct. It's all the big, evil people in charge, keeping us from enjoying our true freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. So, now what? Hmmm?

yea and what are you going to do about it? nothing!

you don't deserve the adequate freedoms you think are good enough.

 

[Bluekush623]

Sorry, you are saying there is no corpus delicti if you are caught possessing an illegal substance?

nope, as there is no damaged party (person/place/thing/etc).

 

[Bluekush623]

that makes absolutely no sense, your saying theres no way to prove drugs have been used, sold or possessed, and all of these can be easily proven, to say they cant be would be to imply you can never prove any crime has ever been committed, and thus no laws, not even the constitution itself, is constitutional

no, I'm saying there is no damaged party from drug use.

 

[Bluekush623]

Wow. You have no idea what corpus delicti means, apparently. I didn't, either, until you mentioned it, but in 30 seconds I seem to have understood the concept better you...

"Corpus delicti is a term from Western jurisprudence which refers to the principle that it must be proven that a crime has occurred before a person can be convicted of committing the crime."^WP

So, you believe that it's impossible to prove, say, possession of marijuana?

maybe you need to read more then the opening statement.

but as ive said it 2 times now i will repeat it again. There is no damaged party (person/place/thing/ etc) from drug use/sell or possession.

 

[Bluekush623]

It makes absolutely no sense, even if you were attempting sarcasm.
Perhaps proof reading could help...

jeez, how unintelligent they really are.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

no, I'm saying there is no damaged party from drug use.

but corpus delicti doesnt require a "damaged party"

it requires proof a crime has been committed, the possession itself is the crime, and thus fulfills the requirements of corpus delicti

 

[kerikiwi]

nope, as there is no damaged object (person/place/thing/etc).

What makes you think that is a requirement for something to(o) be a crime?
A crime is something which the law says it is, not something which you would like it to(o) be.
Corpus delicti applies whether or not you personally like the law it applies to(o).

 

[JimBenArm]

yea and what are you going to do about it? nothing!

you don't deserve the adequate freedoms you think are good enough.

I'm asking you what should we do if you're correct. Obviously, you don't know, other than to toss some more insult at people. How very mature of you.

And as far as deserving the freedoms I have, I served 14 years in the United States Navy on nuclear submarines. Think that entitles me to every bit of them. At least in a greater degree than someone who does nothing more than whine about how people won't GIVE him his freedoms. You'd think by now your butt would be numb from sitting on it so much.

 

[Humanzee]

..what defaultdotxbe said...

 

[kerikiwi]

or will the system established on freedom stop cock blocking humans from being free?

I have, in a roundabout way, been called unintelligent for being unable to make any sense of the above sentence.

I would greatly appreciate it if anyone is able to explain it to me, because try as I might, I cannot make anything of it.

 

[Sledge]

I'm asking you what should we do if you're correct. Obviously, you don't know, other than to toss some more insult at people. How very mature of you.

It's interesting how conspiracy theorists never have an answer to "Ok, let's say you're right. Now what?"

 

[Ladewig]

exactly so do we have too fight again?
or will the system established on freedom stop cock blocking humans from being free?

Try again, none of this makes any sense.

I can help. "exactly so do we have too fight again?" means, yes we already fought that war, we should not have to fight it again.

As for the second half, "cock blocking" is a slang expression meaning to prevent a couple from hooking up. In this case, Bluekush623, is using it to simply mean prevent something from happening. So, "will the system established on freedom stop cock blocking humans from being free?" means will this system, which was supposed to be established on freedom, ever stop preventing humans from being free.

 

[Ladewig]

The thing is you JREF'ers are so caught up in your own ego's and feeling special about being skeptics and debunking things that you blind your self from the real issues.

Of course one can not avoid debts or prosecution attempting too be a Freeman. This is Fraud. If you play the game you have too play by the rules.

You have too already be a Freeman too avoid being unwillingly indebted and prosecuted.

You guys just classify FOTL woo with one broad stroke without really examining what it is.

Basically you guys label the bad apples with the good apples and that is totally dishonest and wrong.

Now I understand your position. What I don't understand is why you are upset with us. The clear majority of FOTL websites make all sorts of claims for getting out of debts to banks, savings and loans, and credit unions. They also claim that FOTL philosophy is useful for getting out of traffic tickets, misdemeanors and felonies.

If we read all these websites and accurately classify them as nonsense, why are you upset at us. Those people really are freeloaders, con artists and frauds. You should be mad at them for perverting the principles that you hold so dear.


ETA: Large swaths of the JREF believe that victimless crimes should be expunged from the lawbooks. On the other hand, very few people here believe that laws that should be repealed can be ignored it with impunity.

 

[Sledge]

I can help. "exactly so do we have too fight again?" means, yes we already fought that war, we should not have to fight it again.

Ah, I see. I think the correct application of commas would have rendered the original far more intelligible, but then I'm guessing punctuation is also for nit-pickers in Bluekush's world.

As for the second half, "cock blocking" is a slang expression meaning to prevent a couple from hooking up. In this case, Bluekush623, is using it to simply mean prevent something from happening. So, "will the system established on freedom stop cock blocking humans from being free?" means will this system, which was supposed to be established on freedom, ever stop preventing humans from being free.

Ok, that makes sense. Now we just need Blue to explain how people aren't free.

Your second post rams home a very important point: everything here has been responding to claims made by FOTLers. If those claims are not in fact what FOTL is about, Blue needs to explain what FOTL is about and why he is qualified to decide what is and isn't FOTL.

ETA: And Blue, please try and respond with something other than telling people to read the Constitution and/or DoI.

 

[Hans]

First of all BK623 thanks for trying to answer questions on FOTL usually the people who believe in this theory are completely incoherent or just plan insane. I can understand most of what you are trying to say. Earlier I made these points which you seemed to have missed amongst the many replies. Could you address them now?

You do realize that the people in the new United States:

Didn't individually consent the concept of individual 'consent' has ever been present in our political system.

Congress started almost immediately to create statutes (gasp)

What in the startup of the US do you see a reflection of your version of FOTL.

As asked above the US system has never had a system of individual consent, not from day one, you might want to look at the historical event called the whiskey rebellion. So why do you now state that it did?

On drug selling, if I sell LSD to your 12 year old would you consider that okay?