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

[kerikiwi]

Look stop saying "They", everyone does not have the same opinion/knowledge. This is a major flaw from the community here.

This broad generalization of the FOTL people, is just as bad as the broad generalization of the topics discussed.

Not to mention everyone here continues to be stuck on the bad apples. As this does nothing but give everyone here a false sense superiority and correctness.

Broad generalisations are only a flaw when others use them. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Bluekush623]

An unconstitutional law is one that would be overturned on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Court.
Liquor prohibition laws are not unconstitutional: there are still "dry counties" and "dry municipalities" in which one cannot legally buy an alcoholic drink.

Key word: Legally not lawfully

The laws are still unconstitutional whether or not they are upheld in some areas, as the laws do not promote the general welfare of the people.

 

[Bluekush623]

Only an absolute moron would think this. This is absolute proof that the system is not rigged. Ordinary citizens declined to convict another citizen of crimes brought by the prosecutor, who represents the state.

Again, FOTL shows how stupid it is.

First of all it is a joke, however it is an example that money is the final deciding factor of who is right or wrong in this system and why the system is rigged.

 

[Bluekush623]

If the judges don't know the truth who does? How far up the chain do we have to go before we find somebody who does?

I clearly said the judges could be ignorant of the fact or lying.

I don't know how far you have to go to get answers. that is your own personal journey.

i have found the answers by reading history of law. something everyone else should do.

But, if the judges lie anyway the fotl are stuffed.

Exactly, and why i don't understand why everyone claims that when a FOTL loses in court that it is the final conclusion FOTL is woo.

 

[Bluekush623]

Really?
I can't be bothered trawling back through the entire thread, so will just ask you whether you have commented on taxes thus far?
And whether you have or not, why could you not just say whether or not you agree with paying taxes?

I like this. instead of being burdened with 15 minutes of reading to find answers you just want them given to you. (this is everyones problem to begin with)

Second paying taxes has nothing to do with becoming sovereign and why the question was ignored.

 

[Bluekush623]

Broad generalisations are only a flaw when others use them. Am I understanding you correctly?

however my generalizations actually have validity.

 

[kerikiwi]

I like this. instead of being burdened with 15 minutes of reading to find answers you just want them given to you. (this is everyones problem to begin with)
.

Not a case of just wanting answers given to me. I was prepared to take you at your word as to whether or not you had discussed taxation. It would have saved me the 15 minutes, which I could have better spent gazing out the window wishing the rain would stop so I could go out and set fire to the piles of logs which need burning this winter, and would have taken you less time than the little lecture you gave me.
It would have been polite to simply answer... oh wait, you don't hold with politeness do you? Other than when others enter your conversation uninvited...

 

[Bluekush623]

Not a case of just wanting answers given to me. I was prepared to take you at your word as to whether or not you had discussed taxation. It would have saved me the 15 minutes, which I could have better spent gazing out the window wishing the rain would stop so I could go out and set fire to the piles of logs which need burning this winter, and would have taken you less time than the little lecture you gave me.
It would have been polite to simply answer... oh wait, you don't hold with politeness do you? Other than when others enter your conversation uninvited...

I just used you as an example in the first sentence, it was nothing personal and why your question was answered in the next sentence.

 

[TjW]

Key word: Legally not lawfully

The laws are still unconstitutional whether or not they are upheld in some areas, as the laws do not promote the general welfare of the people.

No. The text of the 21st amendment, repealing the 18th, is as follows:

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The enforcement of liquor laws is expressly written into the Constitution via this amendment.
Since the amendment was, in fact, ratified, by definition, their enforcement is constitutional.

If you want to say that amendments don't count, you will also have to give up the first ten.

 

[tsig]

So where does your income come from? And how do you justify paying no taxes if you have an income?



It's kinda fun though

He might be indulging in the "alternate economy" His username might be a clue.

 

[tsig]

Look stop saying "They", everyone does not have the same opinion/knowledge. This is a major flaw from the community here.

This broad generalization of the FOTL people, is just as bad as the broad generalization of the topics discussed.

Not to mention everyone here continues to be stuck on the bad apples. As this does nothing but give everyone here a false sense superiority and correctness.

So you're not a FOTL you just agree with them and defend them beyond all reason?

 

[Elizabeth I]

No. The text of the 21st amendment, repealing the 18th, is as follows:

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The enforcement of liquor laws is expressly written into the Constitution via this amendment.
Since the amendment was, in fact, ratified, by definition, their enforcement is constitutional.

If you want to say that amendments don't count, you will also have to give up the first ten.

I'm sure you're going to have to explain that to you-know-who. He doesn't seem to believe that things that are in the Constitution are, in fact, constitutional.

 

[tsig]

I'm sure you're going to have to explain that to you-know-who. He doesn't seem to believe that things that are in the Constitution are, in fact, constitutional.

Also that many things that aren't in the constitution are constitutional such as individual sovereignty and no need to pay taxes.

 

[kerikiwi]

...no need to pay taxes.

He says that taxes are irrelevant (see post 700)

 

[elbe]

He says that taxes are irrelevant (see post 700)

Well, the Constitution is unconstitutional, right?

 

[kerikiwi]

Well, the Constitution is unconstitutional, right?

Don't ask me: I'm just the messenger!

 

[Bluekush623]

Well, the Constitution is unconstitutional, right?

I didnt follow the link however if it is forced over you then yes it is.

Did anyone catch the recent headline in the news with the constitution where the term subjects was replaced by the word citizen?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/03/declaration-of-independen_n_634803.html

Of course this has no relevance though and was only a Freudian slip according to this community.

 

[kerikiwi]

I didnt follow the link however if it is forced over you then yes it is.

Now this is just getting silly: the constitution is unconstitutional.
I know you want me to search back through the thread, but save me the time:
have you or have you not been arguing that certain things are unconstitutional and therefore bad?

 

[Sledge]

Does anyone else find it amusing that Bluekush is not only ignorant of the law but also of FOTL? Also, why is Blue posting in this thread? The FOTL he is supporting isn't that which is put forward by any other FOTLer. Perhaps Blue could start another thread in which to discuss his ideas.

 

[Aitch]

Throwing out Latin legal maxims is like speaking gibberish and it has the same impact in any legal argument: they mean nothing.

Has anyone considered the possibility that spewing out random collections of latin legal maxims is an (unconscious?) attempt at some form of word/rune magic? That, deep down, they believe that if they get the right combination of maxims, Voldemorte the Government will disappear and all will be sweetness and light?

Just a thought.