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

[dafydd]

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.

Bit of a cheek really considering that he can't understand a simple concept like corpus delicti.

 

[Ladewig]

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.

I claimed that the clear majority of FOTL sites do not follow your definition and are instead frauds and con artists seeking to escape debts and crimes. I can easily provide websites showing this to be the case. You have claimed it is only a small sect. Prove it. Please provide any sort of evidence that those FOTL are outnumbered by your FOTL.

Which means not all of FOTL is woo and no one here wants too accept that.

I am willing to accept that some FOTL are not frauds, but I have yet to be convinced that these FOTL are having any success working towards their goal. I would suggest starting a thread in USA Politics explaining that you are not one of the criminally-minded FOTL and begin by explaining your current goal and the methods you use to attain it.


This thread is pretty devoted to the other kind of FOTL.

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

And how do you know what I or anyone else here is doing? How do you know which politicians I vote for and which lobbying organizations I support?

 

[Sledge]

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

I know correlation isn't causation, but I can't help suspecting a link between those two facts.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

This is a problem of equivocation. When most people talk about FOTL, they are referring to the belief among many people that laws do not apply to them if they declare themselves sovereign by invoking some combination of "magic words" in a legal setting such as a courtroom. When you talk about FOTL, you are referring to your belief that people should be free to do things that don't hurt other people.

Can you see how those two things are different? Can you see how the confusion between these two meanings is preventing any productive discussion?

I think you will find that if you clearly define your terms, there will be a lot of people here who would be sympathetic with your opinion.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I claimed that the clear majority of FOTL sites do not follow your definition and are instead frauds and con artists seeking to escape debts and crimes. I can easily provide websites showing this to be the case. You have claimed it is only a small sect. Prove it. Please provide any sort of evidence that those FOTL are outnumbered by your FOTL.

This is exactly as if I entered a thread about Naziism and defended Nazis, saying they are all about love and tenderness and sunshine, then, when the abundant evidence to the contrary is revealed, claim that those are just the "bad" Nazis and you can't prove they're ALL like that.

ETA: Yeah, Godwin. I know.

 

[drkitten]

I think you will find that if you clearly define your terms, there will be a lot of people here who would be sympathetic with your opinion.

I suspect not. I suspect that he's simply trying the equivalent of the "I'm not a religious nutter, but how would you respond to ...." argument, or the pseudo-scientific approach of the cdesign proponentsists who want to focus on the common ground as a way of getting the camel's nose into the tent. Who would want to argue against "freedom" and the Declaration of Independence, after all?

 

[Cuddles]

Who would want to argue against... the Declaration of Independence, after all?

The British?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maybe 200 years ago

 

[Hans]

The main difficulty I have with BK623 arguement is that the Constitution and the actions of the US government and people at this period show no indication of the concept of individual consent. People knew what they were getting into, a republic, republics don't operate well as anarchy based self-government.

 

[D'rok]

Also, comparing FOTLers to the American founding fathers is beyond absurd. Mockery and derision are the only appropriate responses to that.

 

[Vorticity]

...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 mean... Freeman isn't free??

 

[Bluekush623]

I did:

But you didn't, apparently.

and you are ignoring what it takes for the fact to be proven.

and to prove the fact you need two things 1) specific injury 2) the criminal party.

 

[Bluekush623]

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

yes but drugs laws are only policy (mala prohibitium), that are not true crimes (mala in se).

thus they are only crimes if you consent too it being a crime.

 

[JimBenArm]

and you are ignoring what it takes for the fact to be proven.

and to prove the fact you need two things 1) specific injury 2) the criminal party.

Incorrect. Sorry. Vanna has a lovely parting gift, however.

Thanks for failing, I mean, playing.

 

[JimBenArm]

yes but drugs laws are only policy (mala prohibitium), that are not true crimes (mala in se).

thus they are only crimes if you consent too it being a crime.

Ah, anarchy. I love it. So, you get to pick and chose which laws you want to obey. How convenient!

"I like the drug laws, so I'll consent to those, but not the speed limits, so I can drive how I like. Nancy is the exact opposite, so if you see her driving and not me, go ahead and pull her ass over."

That'll make for a better society. You betcha!

 

[Bluekush623]

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

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

I have not said there is no agreement on FOTL, i said you guys mislabel the community as a whole.

No deciding how you are governed is not Anarchy, its called freedom.

And no one has too leave any land they are born on. as much as America likes too think they own this land, they dont, they have only set up imaginary/man made or policy boundaries.

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?

Still Irrelevant but i will take the bait and bite.

What you and your child consents too is none of my business. End of story. (that's why the land of the free was created).

Also stop calling FOTL magic words. Your founding fathers used those same magic words.

 

[Bluekush623]

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


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

and what you fail to understand is mala prohibitium (policy) and mala in se (true crime) are not the same

and that consent must be given for mala prohibitium too have any jurisdiction.

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

and your point is?

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

No this is just JREF's false interpretation.

 

[Toke]

Your founding fathers used those same magic words.

There are a lot of differences between those American rebels/traitors to the crown, and modern freemen.

The old ones knew that they were doing something illegal, but something that could be retroactively legalised. Providing they won.

The modern freemen are making completely inane claims about how the law works right here and now.