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

[defaultdotxbe]

ugh this was not the point of the argument.

it was frankly about whether or not policy is good or bad.

and its already been pointed out that many JREFers feel that the drug laws are uneccessary, the question here is whether you can break those laws without consequence simply because you feel they are unecessary

if you want a discussion about whether the drug policy of the US is good or bad feel free to start another thread in politics about it

 

[volatile]

ugh this was not the point of the argument.
.

Yes it was.

If you want to start a thread about the merits of drug decriminalisation, be our guest. This thread is about whether Freemen on the Land is real or not.

 

[Bluekush623]

By what authority do you think you should be able to remain living in a society, receiving its benefits, but not being accountable to its rules?

the problem lies in JREF's broad generalization of rules.

 

[Bluekush623]

You're not "answering the same". Sometimes, you seem to be talking about a situation you think currently exists. Other times, you seem to be talking about a situation you would like to exist.

Which is it? Pick one, and stick to it!

Again, same answer. FOTL is a remedy to the current system.

 

[Bluekush623]

and its already been pointed out that many JREFers feel that the drug laws are uneccessary, the question here is whether you can break those laws without consequence simply because you feel they are unecessary

if you want a discussion about whether the drug policy of the US is good or bad feel free to start another thread in politics about it

and the answer is yes you can lawfully break the policy rules if you have not consented to them.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

the problem lies in JREF's broad generalization of rules.

Answer the question: why do you get to live and benefit from society without adhering to its rules? Why should you get something for nothing?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

and the answer is yes you can lawfully break the policy rules if you have not consented to them.

And the answer is you have consented to them by living in a society and deriving the benefits of that living.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

the problem lies in JREF's broad generalization of rules.

ok, se lets define "rules" as any law on the books at the federal, state or municipal level that applies to citizens and residents of the united states

heres a start:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/ascii.shtml

now can you answer the marqis's question?

Answer the question: why do you get to live and benefit from society without adhering to its rules? Why should you get something for nothing?

 

[D'rok]

Just a quick reality interlude:

Policy and statutory law are not the same thing. Statutes are, in fact, laws. Policy is something else entirely, and is usually not very compelling when used in a legal argument.

But what would I know? I merely have a legal education, therefore I am ignorant.

Aren't we lucky to have a real live FOTL legal scholar here to teach us?

Carry on Blue.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

My bold.

Just saying, I like how you skipped the part about giving actual consent too be governed before you give consent to a representative.

Oh, sorry. I was only responding to the part of you post pertaining, in the United States of America, to some kind of government legislation. My bad.

 

[volatile]

Again, same answer. FOTL is a remedy to the current system.

That's still not clear. You've not answered the question. Is that an actual remedy, or a desirable one?

Let's not talk about Amsterdam, where drugs are legal. Let's talk about the USA, where drugs are illegal. How does the "policy status" of FOTL effectively help someone convicted of marijuana possession in the USA? I'm interested in facts - in the is. If that's the definition you're sticking to, let's not hear about whether or not people should be locked up. Let's talk about what you think happens when someone declaring themselves a freeman is arrested for drug possession. If "you can lawfully break the policy rules if you have not consented to them", explain what happens when you break these "policy rules" and the cops haul you off to gaol, despite your refusal to consent.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

But what would I know? I merely have a legal education, therefore I am ignorant.

But Freemen don't have to worry about legal, only lawful, which are two entirely different things that bear not even the flimsiest of resemblances to each other.

 

[volatile]

and the answer is yes you can lawfully break the policy rules if you have not consented to them.

You can, or you should be able to? We really need to get this clear.

 

[D'rok]

But Freemen don't have to worry about legal, only lawful, which are two entirely different things that bear not even the flimsiest of resemblances to each other.

I know. That's why I'm so glad Blue is here to tell us what the law really is. Gosh, I could have saved myself a lot of tuition cash if I had known about all this before going to law legal school.

 

[Bluekush623]

Answer the question: why do you get to live and benefit from society without adhering to its rules? Why should you get something for nothing?

you must define rules or laws.

and i have already done that for you guys. there is mala prohibitium and mala in se.

Mala Prohibitium is Phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute and consent.

Mala in Se: The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct or consent.

 

[Bluekush623]

And the answer is you have consented to them by living in a society and deriving the benefits of that living.

no one born in america has consented to live here. your tacit consent holds no water.

 

[volatile]

Mala in Se: The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct or consent.

Assessed as inherently wrong by nature? What do you think that means?!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Mala Prohibitium is Phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute and consent.

No, by statute, not statute and consent. Whether that "consent" belongs there is the issue under discussion. You don't get to just drop it in as a premise.

So, fine, narrowing the discussion to only mala prohibita, why should you not have to abide by the rules of the society you live in and benefit from?

 

[D'rok]

Assessed as inherently wrong by nature? What do you think that means?!

It always all boils down to natural law. That's the one consistent thing with all of these jackasses.

 

[Bluekush623]

Just a quick reality interlude:

Policy and statutory law are not the same thing. Statutes are, in fact, laws. Policy is something else entirely, and is usually not very compelling when used in a legal argument.

But what would I know? I merely have a legal education, therefore I am ignorant.

Aren't we lucky to have a real live FOTL legal scholar here to teach us?

Carry on Blue.

Because Peace Officers who are now Policy men or Police, don't enforce statutes.