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

[gtm]

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.

Agreed (to some extent) although Cocaine users are consuming product that's supplied by criminals whose savagery has in Mexico caused 1000's of deaths this year alone (& 20,000 since 2006) & made large areas a de facto war zone. The American or Western European Cocaine user can be regarded as contributing to this problems so they do in fact have victims.

 

[Bluekush623]

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

--
General - All corpus delicti requires at a minimum: 1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some criminal agency as the source of the injury. For example:

* Homicide - 1.) An individual has died; and 2.) By a criminal act.

* Larceny - 1.) Property missing; and 2.) Because it was stolen
--

There is no specific injury in drug cases. Thus it is not "really" criminal.

Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.
While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. This concept is a part of the value consensus model explanation of the origins of the criminal law. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute.

Statute is only Policy (Malum Prohibitum), these are not "real" crimes (Malum in Se) where even Freemen could be charged.

 

[kerikiwi]

--
General - All corpus delicti requires at a minimum: 1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some criminal agency as the source of the injury.

Incorrect. It requires that a crime has been committed, not that a specific injury has occurred.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

--
General - All corpus delicti requires at a minimum: 1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some criminal agency as the source of the injury. For example:

* Homicide - 1.) An individual has died; and 2.) By a criminal act.

* Larceny - 1.) Property missing; and 2.) Because it was stolen
--

There is no specific injury in drug cases. Thus it is not "really" criminal.

Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.
While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. This concept is a part of the value consensus model explanation of the origins of the criminal law. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute.

Statute is only Policy (Malum Prohibitum), these are not "real" crimes (Malum in Se) where even Freemen could be charged.

i would watch the Rule 4 violations, everything you just posted was copied from wikipedia

The victim in "victimless" is inherently controversial. Laws are generally intended to protect people, so a criminal act is likely to have some victim, however abstract. There are four distinct possible meanings for "victimless."

First, consensual crimes with (arguably) no material harm (such as sodomy laws in the United States, prior to Lawrence v. Texas).

Second, crimes in which the damage caused is overwhelmingly borne by the perpetrator, such as suicide or drug use. As the perpetrator has chosen to suffer the effects of these crimes, they are not a "victim" in the normal sense.

Third, crimes in which the cost is borne by an abstract society or group of people, without a clear, direct victim. This could be applied to driving without auto insurance (where mandated by law).

Fourth are crimes against non-"victims", non-human entities, like governments. These are victimless not because no harm occurs, but because the recipient of the harm is not properly considered a "victim." This is thus a question of the definition of victim, rather than a question of the effects of the crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime#Determining_a_victim

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

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?

Not having a system of consent does not mean one can not formally accept or decline.

Also consent in today's age is seen in the form of applications. Our Social Security Number (De Facto Federal Id), State ID/Driver's License are all forms of legal jurisdiction or "membership" cards.

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

Irrelevant.

 

[Bluekush623]

Agreed (to some extent) although Cocaine users are consuming product that's supplied by criminals whose savagery has in Mexico caused 1000's of deaths this year alone (& 20,000 since 2006) & made large areas a de facto war zone. The American or Western European Cocaine user can be regarded as contributing to this problems so they do in fact have victims.

If it were legal or not illegal there would not be a black market for the drug, thus solving the violence problem.

They are victims of guns and crazy men not the drug itself.

 

[Bluekush623]

Incorrect. It requires that a crime has been committed, not that a specific injury has occurred.

got any evidence to back up your claims?

 

[Bluekush623]

i would watch the Rule 4 violations, everything you just posted was copied from wikipedia

i didn't claim it to be mine.. links will be provided further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime#Determining_a_victim

and your point is?

 

[kerikiwi]

got any evidence to back up your claims?

Just the first definition I found.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

Like I said you cant bunch the bad with the good. The overall general consensus here is that FOTL is woo. However only a small sect of the FOTL is doing it out of bad/woo intention. Which means not all of FOTL is woo and no one here wants too accept that.

Second the OP has nothing to do with fraud or criminal intent. It involved a illegal drug user.

So you guys are not really pointing out the bad guys your only stroking egos.

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.

And i ask what are they doing to change this? Answer is nothing.

 

[Mojo]

maybe you need to read more then the opening statement.

I did:

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines "corpus delicti" as: "the fact of a crime having been actually committed."

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.

But you didn't, apparently.

 

[Mojo]

Second the OP has nothing to do with fraud or criminal intent. It involved a illegal drug user.

He didn't intend to use or possess the drugs?

 

[Hans]

Not having a system of consent does not mean one can not formally accept or decline.

Ah sorry BK623, actually it does it's called a nation state. 225+ years after the Constitution was written you can retrofit a function that was never in it. Nor in any previous constitution in any nation I'm aware of. The reason for that is it will not work. As you have noted yourself their is no agreement on what FOTL is. Individuals deciding what they like or don't like is a clear recipe for anarchy. You are allowed to leave and go somewhere else-which is the ultimate consent or decline

Also consent in today's age is seen in the form of applications. Our Social Security Number (De Facto Federal Id), State ID/Driver's License are all forms of legal jurisdiction or "membership" cards

That isn't accepting or declining that is bureaucracy - you can always leave the country and renounce your citizenship.

On drug selling, if I sell LSD to your 12 year old would you consider that okay?
Your answer was: Irrelevant.

Sorry completely relevant – how does your magical FOTL work in this matter? I’m the parent and I have been damage and my child is dead – at what age does consent begin BK623? Why that age?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

i didn't claim it to be mine.. links will be provided further.

you didnt put it in quotes or provide attribution, implying they were your words

and your point is?

you claim something like drug possession cant be a crime because theres no victim, what i quoted shows how the victim is defined in those cases

 

[defaultdotxbe]

And i ask what are they doing to change this? Answer is nothing.

and by what magic do you arrive at that answer? you might be eligible for the million dollars

 

[gtm]

If it were legal or not illegal there would not be a black market for the drug, thus solving the violence problem.

They are victims of guns and crazy men not the drug itself.

I agree drug prohibition has been an unmitigated disaster nonetheless recreational cocaine users are creating an unregulated black market run by utterly ruthless racketeers.

 

[gtm]

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.

What if I sell adulterated dope which injures / killer my customer - clearly in this instance there is a 'damaged party'. Surely this is an similar scenario as a filthy restaurant whose food gives people food poisoning?

 

[gtm]

And i ask what are they doing to change this? Answer is nothing.

Neither do Freemen. Standard FMOTL 'Modus Operandi' is to stage 'performances' in low level Courts & get into pointless (& inevitably unsucessful') confrontations with officialdom. Thats hardly going to change the status quo is it?

 

[Grimes]

(the ignorance is not worth the laughs)

This is the most unintelligent forum i have ever visited and this place is supposed too be about education or intelligence.

this is why this place is the most unintelligent forum on the net.

there's no point in debating with blind ignorance.

this is blind ignorance talking again.the problem is you guys think you know it all and you clearly don't.

let darknessinlight and others continue too post FOTL failures and stay in complete ignorance.

It's like no one learns from history.

In short: You people are just completely blind too how the real world works.

seriously the accumulated intelligence here is worse then a 6 grade classroom.

I know i dont know it all, the problem is you guys actually do think you know it all.

the complete ignorance you have. this doesn't even deserve a response.

but you guys over and over prove you know nothing or blindly wish too be ignorant.

And Im sorry but you and toke then have the cognitive abilities of a 5 year old.

jeez, how unintelligent they really are.

You seem really insecure when it comes to intelligence; lashing out at and projecting onto others. Have you considered seeing a therapist or even a councilor? It may help with other areas in your life as well.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

You seem really insecure when it comes to intelligence; lashing out at and projecting onto others. Have you considered seeing a therapist or even a councilor? It may help with other areas in your life as well.

as ignorant and unintelligent this place is, he sure posts here a lot