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

[dafydd]

So are you saying you only act responsible and polite in private and that in a public forum you act disruptive and inappropriate? How childish.

Your semantics are really annoying. You have about 10-15 posts in this thread and they are all one liners.

You already lost any credibility you had with me a long time ago. So every time you think you have one upped me you are just making a fool of yourself.

You guys can keep thinking you know it all, you are only hampering your intelligence in the end.

A lot of the one liners were questions that you are unable or unwilling to answer.

 

[dafydd]

no one consented to be born in America so no one has to be forced to move.

That is the funniest thing you have said so far.

 

[dafydd]

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.

It's called reality.

 

[dafydd]

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?

You are expecting consistency from a Freeloader?

 

[Mojo]

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.

No, he definitely approves of the "Right of the People" to "alter or abolish" the laws of a country. Remember the bit of the Declaration of Independence that he tried to grandfather into the Constitution?

I'm still waiting for him to find a document that allows the FOTLers to ignore any existing law that they don't want to comply with, rather than getting it altered or abolished.

 

[Stacey Grove]

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.

If the fotl legal arguments are in fact correct and those in authority really secretly know they are correct, why is it when one of those in authority happens themself to face criminal charges they never run a fotl style defence? A politician or judge when in the dock does not claim he is exempt from statute law, does he? It would be a get out of jail free card wouldn't it?
So why don't they of all people do it?

 

[gtm]

the judge is most likely just ignorant, or he very well could know the truth and lie. who knows.

only thing we do know is he is not on the side of freedom.

I'm a lawyer, I earn my living by sorting out my clients legal problems. I also like winning cases. If I'm bad at my job they won't come back or pass on a recommendation. If I thought for one second FMOTL theories actually had any chance of success I'd advise my clients & run their cases in accordance with FMOTL jurisprudence. I've seen not one iota of evidence that any of this works. What I have seen is a bunch of so called 'freemen' who are completely focused on dodging paying taxes, getting their greedy paws on the mythical 'birth bond' payout (they'd do better to look for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow) & getting a house for free with ludicrous attempts to redeem mortgages.

You never see 'freemen' articulate any ideas about dealing with societies problems (ie crime, family breakdown, child neglect etc). At least the current legal system trys to deal with these things. Why? As far as I can see freemen are fundamentally selfish, greedy individuals who are obsessed with the bottom line. They don't care about anyone else but themselves & the contents of their wallets.

 

[dafydd]

I'm a lawyer, I earn my living by sorting out my clients legal problems. I also like winning cases. If I'm bad at my job they won't come back or pass on a recommendation. If I thought for one second FMOTL theories actually had any chance of success I'd advise my clients & run their cases in accordance with FMOTL jurisprudence. I've seen not one iota of evidence that any of this works. What I have seen is a bunch of so called 'freemen' who are completely focused on dodging paying taxes, getting their greedy paws on the mythical 'birth bond' payout (they'd do better to look for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow) & getting a house for free with ludicrous attempts to redeem mortgages.

You never see 'freemen' articulate any ideas about dealing with societies problems (ie crime, family breakdown, child neglect etc). At least the current legal system trys to deal with these things. Why? As far as I can see freemen are fundamentally selfish, greedy individuals who are obsessed with the bottom line. They don't care about anyone else but themselves & the contents of their wallets.

There you are Blue,a real lawyer talking.Take notice.

 

[gtm]

There you are Blue,a real lawyer talking.Take notice.

He won't (they never do)!

I've been brain washed, I'm corrupt, I had a chip inserted into my brain at law school, I'm a jewish reptilian etc, etc

Incidentally, what was your screen name on Icke?

 

[dafydd]

He won't (they never do)!

I've been brain washed, I'm corrupt, I had a chip inserted into my brain at law school, I'm a jewish reptilian etc, etc

Incidentally, what was your screen name on Icke?

Why is it that the less Woos know about a subject,the more convinced they become that they are right? I've been banned at the Icke forum under two handles,sygyt and zyzygy.

 

[jsfisher]

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.

Psst, that's not the Constitution.

 

[TjW]

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.

The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.

ETA:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Mojo]

The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.

You need to use Bluekush623's special definitions. Since Bluekush623's definition of "unconstitutional" is "anything that Bluekush623 doesn't like", then any document that says something that Bluekush623 approves of can be considered to be part of the Constitution.

And remember:

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

 

[Hans]

But just because it has been forgotten/ignored/disbanded in America (After being the founding ideal) within the last 200 years it does not mean the theory/practice is some false illusion/snake oil.

Actually can you point to the relevant part of the Constitution or the discussion in the Federalist papers that supports the idea of individual consent is needed to form a government and an individual has the right to not consent to any law?

Now if you have it why was it not implimented and why is their no mention of this consent by the founding fathers? There should be a long discussion of this in the pre-revolutionary debate that occurred between the committee's of correspondence. Could you point us to this?

LID I think you are completely right

To the others, BK has used phrasing taken from tax protestors. I think this may all be an elaborate fantasy to get out of paying taxes.

 

[Elizabeth I]

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

Wait, what? If the law of the land is enforced that automatically means it's no longer the law of the land?

Where did you learn American history, government and civics? Not to mention English and basic logic?

 

[elbe]

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

Oh, well it was a really simple website - it just prints the entire constitution. You have just declared the constitution unconstitutional, I applaud you.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

That is the problem with ct'ers in general. Where the scientific community seeks to find out facts and come to a conclusion that all scientists can agree on ( within reason, of course there will never be 100% agreement.) Ct'ers are encouraged to add their own twists and facts to the ct, thereby creating a hydra for any skeptic to fight. You may show bluekush to be 100% wrong, but there is no guarantee that this will even apply to the next FOTL that comes in here.

Their style of coming to a conclusion is much more akin to fiction writing than science or logic.

 

[sadhatter]

It's called reality.

Yeah i don't understand when a ufc fighter gets knocked out , that is suddenly evidence he has lost.

Or when i leave a casino with none of my money, all of the sudden i have lost.

The world is really weird like that.

 

[Wildy]

Wait, what? If the law of the land is enforced that automatically means it's no longer the law of the land?

Well how else are they going to be able to justify stealing other people's property?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm a lawyer, I earn my living by sorting out my clients legal problems. I also like winning cases. If I'm bad at my job they won't come back or pass on a recommendation. If I thought for one second FMOTL theories actually had any chance of success I'd advise my clients & run their cases in accordance with FMOTL jurisprudence. I've seen not one iota of evidence that any of this works. What I have seen is a bunch of so called 'freemen' who are completely focused on dodging paying taxes, getting their greedy paws on the mythical 'birth bond' payout (they'd do better to look for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow) & getting a house for free with ludicrous attempts to redeem mortgages.

You never see 'freemen' articulate any ideas about dealing with societies problems (ie crime, family breakdown, child neglect etc). At least the current legal system trys to deal with these things. Why? As far as I can see freemen are fundamentally selfish, greedy individuals who are obsessed with the bottom line. They don't care about anyone else but themselves & the contents of their wallets.

ive never heard of a "birth bond" so i looked it up on google, the first result is indicative of everything the freeman movements is about, heres what the first result lists as the requirements to obtain become "bonded" (bolding mine):

you need:
Full “Certified copy of an entry” or “Birth Certificate”
An EIN number from the IRS in the states
You will need to file a UCC1 at some point
And you need to purchase a “Winston Shrout” DVD (he supplies the template for the “Bond Order etc.. in one of the DVD’s in whatever set you buy)

http://www.tpuc.org/node/408

i have no further comment, ill let the quote speak for itself