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

[Marquis de Carabas]

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

If one's tacit consent to keep living here is meaningless, what of the United States' tacit consent to allow you to live here?

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

Yes it is an actual remedy, I would not mention it if it was not.

Essentially if a FOTL has declined consent to be governed by policy there is no "jurisdiction" for the courts to uphold any charges.

Being hauled off to jail is a bitter conclusion to either gross negligence or complete unawareness of the court system.

 

[D'rok]

The sad thing (well, one of the sad things) about this thread is that rules and rule following is at the heart of one of the most interesting and compelling debates in legal theory between positivists and their critics. Of course, that level of discourse is far, far above FOTLer capabilities. A short primer here of the two principal combatants - Hart and Dworkin:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=968657

Also, the tension between law and policy is another real and live issue, particularly within the discipline of critical legal studies. Once again, light years beyond the capabilities of FOTLers to understand. It's a shame. Both topics could have their own threads.

 

[volatile]

Yes it is an actual remedy, I would not mention it if it was not.

Essentially if a FOTL has declined consent to be governed by policy there is no "jurisdiction" for the courts to uphold any charges..

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. (even if this is in direct contradiction to other thing you've posted!).

Cite one case where a Freeman declining a policy has resulted in them being let free by the courts. Please.

 

[D'rok]

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

So when a cop pulls me over and tickets me for violating some section of the Highway Traffic Act, he's not enforcing a statute? What's he doing then?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

The sad thing (well, one of the said things) about this thread is that rules and rule following is at the heart of one of the most interesting and compelling debates in legal theory between positivists and their critics. Of course, that level of discourse is far, far above FOTLer capabilities. A short primer here of the two principal combatants - Hart and Dworkin:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=968657

Downloaded. Looks like a good read. Thanks.

 

[D'rok]

Yes it is an actual remedy, I would not mention it if it was not.

No it isn't.

Essentially if a FOTL has declined consent to be governed by policy there is no "jurisdiction" for the courts to uphold any charges.

Yes there is.

Being hauled off to jail is a bitter conclusion to either gross negligence or complete unawareness of the court system.

No.

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

Because they are only man made laws that need consent too be enforced.

You can not tell someone how to live their life if they live peacefully and do not enforce their will upon others.

It is really as simple as that.

 

[D'rok]

Downloaded. Looks like a good read. Thanks.

My pleasure!

 

[volatile]

You can not tell someone how to live their life if they live peacefully and do not enforce their will upon others.

.

Cannot or should not? It looks like you're getting confused again.

 

[Bluekush623]

So when a cop pulls me over and tickets me for violating some section of the Highway Traffic Act, he's not enforcing a statute? What's he doing then?

i was being sarcastic since you said Policy and Statute are not the same thing.

even if they are not technically the same thing (by your words), they both need consent to be enforced which makes them inherently connected.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I'm not entirely sure he knows why we keep asking the question. I don't think his reading comprehension skills are up to understanding the difference between is and ought.

"Pot makes you respond to 'Hey, stupid!' thirty seconds slower."
- a local billboard

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't think even he knows precisely if he's talking in actuals or in hypotheticals.

I'm not sure he believes there's a difference...

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

Are you using the legal definition of "remedy" or the more common definition?

 

[Bluekush623]

Cannot or should not? It looks like you're getting confused again.

it is can not. as we live in america.

its only you guys getting confused.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Because they are only man made laws that need consent too be enforced.

Fair enough. Now explain why reaping the benefits of living within a society should not constitute consent to be governed by its rules.

 

[volatile]

it is can not. as we live in america.

its only you guys getting confused.

So it is sincerely your opinion that no-one, not even the police, "can not tell someone how to live their life if they live peacefully and do not enforce their will upon others", if "living their life" includes breaking the law (say, for example, by smoking weed)? By can, you definitely do not mean should?

Really? You sticking with that?

(BTW - do you even understand the question? Do you understand why I'm asking you whether you mean "can" or "should"?)

 

[Bluekush623]

I'm not sure he believes there's a difference...

Are you using the legal definition of "remedy" or the more common definition?

remedy as in cure.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

remedy as in cure.

So how can you claim that FOTL is a cure for the current system while simultaneously claiming that it is already part of the current system?

Is this like Schrödinger's cat?

 

[volatile]

remedy as in cure.

How can it be a "cure" to the current system if, by your own claim, it already is the current system?

You do understand that you keep saying two contradictory things, right? Here you're back to arguing FOTL is an ought, but just one post ago you were saying it was an is. Here, you are suggesting that the FOTL ideas are a desirable cure to a broken system, but just a minute ago you were saying that "you can not tell someone how to live their life if they live peacefully and do not enforce their will upon others", as if the FOTL ideas are in play and active right now.

Can you please pick a coherent definition and stick with it?

 

[D'rok]

i was being sarcastic since you said Policy and Statute are not the same thing.

even if they are not technically the same thing (by your words), they both need consent to be enforced which makes them inherently connected.

Give me an example of policy in your understanding of the term.