• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Bluekush623 said:
Please actually read what i write instead of jumping to conclusions.

I said if people adopted a new principle, keeping the old system would be irrelevant.

I said nothing about "my new amazing system". As "a new principle" is completely hypothetical.
Click to expand...

I can't jump to conclusions,you haven't said anything yet.What is this hypothetical new principle.
 
Bluekush623 said:
Oh please, stop with the semantics.
Click to expand...
Using words in accord with their commonly accepted definitions is essential to clear communication. If I insist that "purple" actually means "gravity" and then type "purple" every time I mean "gravity," I have no business whining when people don't understand a word I say.

Drugs laws are the same as prohibition, and prohibition was found constitutionally unjust/lawful.
Click to expand...
Nope, prohibition couldn't have been unconstitutional because it was actually part of the Constitution (the 18th Amendment.) Prohibition was repealed by another constitutional amendment, the 21st, because it was found to be impractical and unenforceable.

I would imagine there have been several constitutional challenges to existing drug laws, and the fact that those laws are, in fact, existing, shows that the challenges have failed. Maybe some of the lawyers in the forum can comment.

California is about to butt heads with the federal government over the state's legalization of marijuana for recreational use, and I expect we will learn a great deal from their experiment.
 
Besides the Anita Ikonen travesty, I have never seen JREFers willing to talk so long with someone who has so little to say of actual substance. Blue is a perennial troll here - it comes back to update us with the latest Freeman propaganda but the main points never change. Its almost so predictable its like its a bot. Nothing you can say will ever reason with it, because it is not using reason nor logic to come to its conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Bluekush623 said:
I only read the first 5 posts in that thread, but i most ask LID why do you not acknowledge the fact that atleast the first 3 responses told him that what he was doing was not right and equal to fraud?

I'm guessing (aka know) it just does not fit into your propaganda of FOTL.
Click to expand...

Fail troll is fail. The first three posts saying it was wrong was from someone who is NOT a freeman on the land, and believes that its complete trash. The people supporting welfare fraud are the self-proclaimed freeman.

Somehow, I am not surprised at your lack of understanding.
 
Last edited:
LightinDarkness said:
Besides the Anita Ikonen travesty, I have never seen JREFers willing to talk so long with someone who has so little to say of actual substance. Blue is a perennial troll here - it comes back to update us with the latest Freeman propaganda but the main points never change. Its almost so predictable its like its a bot.
Click to expand...

Because terminologies such as Consent of Governed, Mala in Se/Mala Prohibitium are propaganda?

The only propaganda here is from you and everyone else denouncing FOTL before studying law.

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has provided ONE law reference in this thread besides me.

Everything you guys have posted is your opinion and nothing more.
 
Bluekush623 said:
the only reason i get flack here is because there is nothing in my argument to critique so you must resort to my grammar errors.
Click to expand...
You really do need to critique your own writing.
The highlighte phrase is one of the best Freudian slips ever.

(If a 'd' is ever missing from my posts, it is because the 'd' key is faulty. I o my best, but sometimes my best is not good enough.)
 
Bluekush623 said:
Because terminologies such as Consent of Governed, Mala in Se/Mala Prohibitium are propaganda?

The only propaganda here is from you and everyone else denouncing FOTL before studying law.

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has provided ONE law reference in this thread besides me.

Everything you guys have posted is your opinion and nothing more.
Click to expand...

That is a long way from the reality of the situation.We'll just take it that you have no answers.Thread over?
 
Bluekush623 said:
Because terminologies such as Consent of Governed, Mala in Se/Mala Prohibitium are propaganda?

The only propaganda here is from you and everyone else denouncing FOTL before studying law.

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has provided ONE law reference in this thread besides me.

Everything you guys have posted is your opinion and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Again, repeated programmed propaganda. You have demonstrated you have no actual knowledge of what consent, mala in se, etc. actually means. You have shown you have never studied the law, and have no idea what you are talking about. We have had at least 3 different lawyers debunk you.

Actually, the law references are every where - but as with most posts, you ignore them when you disagree with them. Here are simply a handful of cases that all slapped down Freeman propaganda. These all deal with different areas of tax law and the federal reserve, where soverign citizens FAILED:
1. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397 F.2d 124 (8th Cir. 1968)
2. United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1973)
3. Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974)
4. United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1975)
5. United States v. Gardiner, 531 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1976)
6. United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1976)
7. United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1976)
8. United States v. Schmitz, 542 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1976)
9. United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976)
10. United States v. Hurd, 549 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1977)
11. Mathes v. Commissioner, 576 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1978)
12. United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (8th Cir. 1978)
13. United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d 369 (10th Cir. 1978)
14. United States v. Benson, 592 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1979)
15. Nyhus v. Commissioner, 594 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir. 1979)
16. United States v. Hori, 470 F.Supp. 1209 (C.D.Cal. 1979)
17. United States v. Tissi, 601 F.2d 372 (8th Cir. 1979)
18. United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979)
19. United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th Cir. 1980)
20. United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980)
21. Birkenstock v. Commissioner, 646 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1981)
22. Lary v. Commissioner, 842 F.2d 296 (11th Cir. 1988).

Now, where is your 1 legal citation that gives us a court case where 1 FMOTL argument of any kind worked? I'm waiting.
 
Last edited:
Bluekush623 said:
It may not be constitutional but it is the founding idea to this current system.

If one wants to disregard the DOI you mine as well disregard the Constitution with it.
Click to expand...


Whether it's constitutional or not, it doesn't support the FOTLer position.
 
Elizabeth I said:
Nope, prohibition couldn't have been unconstitutional because it was actually part of the Constitution (the 18th Amendment.) Prohibition was repealed by another constitutional amendment, the 21st, because it was found to be impractical and unenforceable.

I would imagine there have been several constitutional challenges to existing drug laws, and the fact that those laws are, in fact, existing, shows that the challenges have failed. Maybe some of the lawyers in the forum can comment.

California is about to butt heads with the federal government over the state's legalization of marijuana for recreational use, and I expect we will learn a great deal from their experiment.
Click to expand...

It was ratified in and it was ratified out, doesn't matter the reason. it was a failed experiment. at the end of the day it was unconstitutional and will never be attempted again because it was unconstitutional.

Like I said though it doesn't matter what the law says because the law can be rigged/corrupted (as shown with prohibition).

The point of the matter is the current laws are unjust and unconstitutional.
 
but the law all the same.......
Its not about what you would LIKE it to be ,its how it IS that counts.

Asky/JB
 
Bluekush623 said:
It was ratified in and it was ratified out, doesn't matter the reason. it was a failed experiment. at the end of the day it was unconstitutional and will never be attempted again because it was unconstitutional.

Like I said though it doesn't matter what the law says because the law can be rigged/corrupted (as shown with prohibition).

The point of the matter is the current laws are unjust and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Which laws?
 
LightinDarkness said:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123032

The "Freeman on the land" discussing how to commit government welfare fraud. So interesting that they decline to consent to every possible tax or regulation, but vehemently defend their right to take cash benefits from the government through every illegal means they can think of. The explanation, of course, is that obviously theres a massive conspiracy to keep down the unemployed, and so what better way to stick it to THE SYSTEM than to commit fraud and claim benefits that you are no longer entitled to?

Freeman on the Dole
Click to expand...

If they keep publishing their crimes they will become Freemen on the Lam.

Or Fleemen on the Land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom