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

[Bluekush623]

Psst, that's not the Constitution.

Yes I made an error.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It doesn't necessarily end government corruption but if you stop supporting the abusive relationship you will no longer be abused (at your consent).

"**** you, Jim! I don't consent to your punches to my face!"
"Well... crap... Guess that's that."

Seriously. If it's such an abusive relationship, what makes you think the abuser will leave you alone just because you want them to?

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

If he was worried about people reading those posts, he wouldn't have provided a link the source for all to read.

Yes I made an error.

Seems kind of an unforgivable error for someone in your position (claiming to know more about the foundations of this country than anyone arguing against you).

 

[jsfisher]

Yes I made an error.

Fair enough.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

Consent of the Governed!

The government is not some autonomous institution. It is created by 2 or more people under consent. No matter what group it is or how big it is, everyone must consent to lawfully become responsible.

Again for the infinite time it is not about cherry picking laws, it is about distinguishing between law and legality. Me having to repeat this on every page is a testament to the ignorance.

And to claim I'm just phrasing tax protestor stuff is a erroneous claim with no evidence.

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

I said forced over you.Meaning without your consent.

This law of the land you speak of is really only the law of the mind.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

A punch and and having the wrong cards is a physical occurrence.

However the knowledge of a Judge and Jury (and legislators for the sake of the argument) is biased and immaterial. There is exact no right or wrong, winner/loser in this field and why consent is such a major issue and why it is the founding idea under a sovereign government.

 

[Bluekush623]

So you do pay your taxes.I thought so.

Stop assuming because you don't know this answer.

(not to mention this is ANOTHER one liner you posted that has no relevance)

 

[Bluekush623]

Bluekush623,

May I ask: Do you subscribe to this whole "birth bond" theory? If so, can you please tell me the size of the bond, where it comes from, and who holds the money for it?

Never heard of it and dont care too.

 

[Bluekush623]

"**** you, Jim! I don't consent to your punches to my face!"
"Well... crap... Guess that's that."

Yep and the puncher will have to deal with the lawful authorities.

Seriously. If it's such an abusive relationship, what makes you think the abuser will leave you alone just because you want them to?

I have already spoke on this and i said dont expect them to. However this doesn't mean you don't fight back and stay curled up in a corner.

Seems kind of an unforgivable error for someone in your position (claiming to know more about the foundations of this country than anyone arguing against you).

I hope this is sarcasm.

 

[LightinDarkness]

All Freeman do is distinguish what is LAW (mala in se) and what is LEGAL (mala prohibitium) and in distinguishing the Law and Legality they understand that Legality needs your consent for it to have any jurisdiction, just living in a area of land is not consent of the governed.

I am going to try this one last time. I know its going to go no where because self-styled Sovereign Citizens like bluekush don't actually care what the truth is: they just want to be able to get out of the laws they don't like. I know this is a simple concept to understand because I teach it every year to freshmen in Public Policy 101, but we are dealing with Sovereigns here - so let me know if the example is not clear:

You are yet again making a false dichotomy as if all the things in the world can be classified into mala in se/mala prohibitium and that you have some sort of innate right to follow one category but not the other. Here is the problem:

Freeman and Sovereign Citizens claim they don't have to pay taxes because they decline consent to be governed. So what happens in your Sovereign utopia when the rest of us agree to pay taxes for a fire department, and you do not - and your house catches on fire? Now we can't put out that fire because you didn't pay for fire protection. In your dream world, this is fine because you made that decision - but we have a problem - fire spreads. And so it begins to spread to your neighbors, damaging their property and even killing them. Under your delusional idea of what you think common law is, all of this is perfectly fine and we can't do anything about it except wait until the fire spreads and make you pay for the damages and people you kill.

And this is why your woo fails: Externalities. Negative third party consequences, even if unintended, will occur if we let you do what you want. The decisions we make in this world impact others, and no amount of you declaring yourself sovereign will change the fact that society exists to limit you from engaging in this type of behavior. By choosing what laws you want to abide by (mala in se, you think) you can and will engage in activity that causes physical damage and may in fact kill people, as in the case of fire protection. Society exists in order to ensure collective protection - you will pay fire insurance even if you don't want to, and even if you weasel your way out of it we still have to put the fire out and pay money for your stupidity.

In order to remain intellectually consistent, you must now answer the following question: Based on the scenario above, what would you do? If you do nothing but wait until the fire spreads you will kill people because you failed to abide by society laws designed around mala prohibitum.

 

[Bluekush623]

Freeman and Sovereign Citizens claim they don't have to pay taxes because they decline consent to be governed. So what happens in your Sovereign utopia when the rest of us agree to pay taxes for a fire department, and you do not - and your house catches on fire? Now we can't put out that fire because you didn't pay for fire protection. In your dream world, this is fine because you made that decision - but we have a problem - fire spreads. And so it begins to spread to your neighbors, damaging their property and even killing them. Under your delusional idea of what you think common law is, all of this is perfectly fine and we can't do anything about it except wait until the fire spreads and make you pay for the damages and people you kill.

And this is why your woo fails: Externalities. Negative third party consequences, even if unintended, will occur if we let you do what you want. The decisions we make in this world impact others, and no amount of you declaring yourself sovereign will change the fact that society exists to limit you from engaging in this type of behavior. By choosing what laws you want to abide by (mala in se, you think) you can and will engage in activity that causes physical damage and may in fact kill people, as in the case of fire protection. Society exists in order to ensure collective protection - you will pay fire insurance even if you don't want to, and even if you weasel your way out of it we still have to put the fire out and pay money for your stupidity.

In order to remain intellectually consistent, you must now answer the following question: Based on the scenario above, what would you do? If you do nothing but wait until the fire spreads you will kill people because you failed to abide by society laws designed around mala prohibitum.

First of all, as stated you can not claim all freeman to be frauds, this is a fallacy.

Second of all before I answer your question, I have presented to you a question previously yet consistently ignored and I ask it again. Why does everyone have to pay "taxes" publicly for services? why cant we just "buy" the service privately? As fighter fighters were private companies/volunteers for the first 75 years of this government/"collective protection".

It is perfectly reasonable for anyone to deny a service, of any kind, its called consent as we don't live in some dictatorship.

Now to your question, who says fireman cant put the fire out? especially if it begins to spread beyond the non serviced area? Don't the firemen have a duty to protect a paying customers property?

Saying firefighters wont do their job because someone is a freeman is a pretty hefty and erroneous claim to make. Which seems derived only from your doom and gloom scenario with sovereignty.

Fires burn all the time from random nature, just because nature didn't pay for protection doesn't mean the firefighters don't put out the fire and protect their designated area.

 

[kerikiwi]

Now to your question, who says fireman cant put the fire out? especially if it begins to spread beyond the non serviced area? Don't the firemen have a duty to protect a paying customers property?

The point was that people such as you are not paying customers, yet you endanger others. The fire can certainly be tackled when it spreads to paying customers' properties.
It should not be your right to deny a service if by doing so you harm others.

 

[LightinDarkness]

First of all, as stated you can not claim all freeman to be frauds, this is a fallacy.

Actually we can: I can say without reservation that anyone who follows Freeman on the Land is seeking to engage in fraud to get out of some legitimately owed obligation, since that is what the entire system is about.

Second of all before I answer your question, I have presented to you a question previously yet consistently ignored and I ask it again. Why does everyone have to pay "taxes" publicly for services? why cant we just "buy" the service privately? As fighter fighters were private companies/volunteers for the first 75 years of this government/"collective protection".

Do you know anything about WHY fire fighters are now a government service? Because when they were private corporations they caused things like the Great fire of London and caused large portions of Rome to burn down quite a few times. That is because fire tends to spread, even to people who paid for fire protection. In fact, the entire reason why fire protection is now a universally accepted PUBLIC GOOD is because when they were private companies they did a terrible job at stopping fires - even from paying customers homes.

The nature of public goods is that they provide services that cannot be materially divided for private payment. That is why we pay taxes for them, because it is impossible to have a private fire service and not have the city burn down eventually. We give up a little bit of freedom (the freedom to let my house burn down) to protect everyone. You don't get to decide you don't want to pay taxes and don't want fire protection - you get it, because we as a society have evolved and learned from numerous cities burning down due to people like you.

It is perfectly reasonable for anyone to deny a service, of any kind, its called consent as we don't live in some dictatorship.

Wrong, because you don't exist in a vacuum. The decisions you make impact others. We've just been over this.

Now to your question, who says fireman cant put the fire out? especially if it begins to spread beyond the non serviced area? Don't the firemen have a duty to protect a paying customers property?

The scenario is you living in your paradise common law Freemanville, where you decided not to pay for fire protection because you are a Sovereign Citizen. By the time fire spreads, its already caused damage - have you ever tried to control a fire? Its not easy. We can't just sit there and let it burn down your home because it will spread in an uncontrollable manner.

Saying firefighters wont do their job because someone is a freeman is a pretty hefty and erroneous claim to make. Which seems derived only from your doom and gloom scenario with sovereignty.

This shows again you don't actually read any of these posts.

Fires burn all the time from random nature, just because nature didn't pay for protection doesn't mean the firefighters don't put out the fire and protect their designated area.

Psst - we put out fires in nature because they endanger our (society) homes. Thanks for showing us yet again why paying taxes for things like fire service is good.

You still didn't answer the question. I'm waiting. Fire spreads, we can't control where it spreads. By the time it spreads, its already caused damage - and possibly killed people.

 

[gtm]

Elizabeth1 you should revel in your once awesome powers being an ex notary

The 'magical' powers of the humble notary is a crucial (but seemingly inexplicable) part of FMOTL mythology. Judges, Magistrates, Police Officers are nothing but the notary is a sort of legal superman. It's all tosh of course.

Here in England & Wales notaries just witness / validate documents for foreign jurisdictions. So if you want for example a Spanish property transfer witnessed or a Lebanese passport application validated you go & see a notary. simple as that.They're for the most part solicitors who speak a foreign language, do a little course & then make a bit of extra pocket money witnessing documents of foreign origin.

 

[BobHaulk]

Never heard of it and dont care too.

Off course you've heard of it, you're lying by saying you've not. The reason you're trying to deny it is cause it's absurd. It's a main feature of those liars and fraudsters who are trying to lure in the gullible with promises of riches and you know it.
Personally i think you've some kind of vested interest in selling the freemen woo or you wouldnae bother. Give it up, no one is buying, even at the icke site only a couple of the loons there believe it.
The irony is while we all walk around free, enjoying our lives, you freemen are hiding in your council houses feeling oppressed cause you have to have car insurance or you've got a parking ticket or you've been taken to court for not paying your council tax. It's pathetic.
Freemen on the land are just folk on the dole pretending they are on a journey to the heart of the sun but in reality they're a bunch of stoners with nothing useful to offer anyone.

 

[Bluekush623]

Actually we can: I can say without reservation that anyone who follows Freeman on the Land is seeking to engage in fraud to get out of some legitimately owed obligation, since that is what the entire system is about.

This is completely wrong and nullifies your credibility. The OP was about a kid trying to drop a illegal substance charge. This is not fraud but someone in a struggle for his freedom.

Do you know anything about WHY fire fighters are now a government service? Because when they were private corporations they caused things like the Great fire of London and caused large portions of Rome to burn down quite a few times. That is because fire tends to spread, even to people who paid for fire protection. In fact, the entire reason why fire protection is now a universally accepted PUBLIC GOOD is because when they were private companies they did a terrible job at stopping fires - even from paying customers homes.

It still doesnt mean one cant privately pay for a service that is public to others.

Fire departments did not have to become a government institution. they became a government institution because it was a cut throat ruthless insurance business and money was put ahead of actually firefighting, which in turn lead to poor performance. The businesses just needed to follow the law or the laws needed to be enforced to put the company service back as priority. However in the end it became government ran.

The nature of public goods is that they provide services that cannot be materially divided for private payment. That is why we pay taxes for them, because it is impossible to have a private fire service and not have the city burn down eventually. We give up a little bit of freedom (the freedom to let my house burn down) to protect everyone. You don't get to decide you don't want to pay taxes and don't want fire protection - you get it, because we as a society have evolved and learned from numerous cities burning down due to people like you.

Well what you think is public is really private.

To say that any government service cant maintain privately is not only false it is a disgrace to it citizens (who are not frauds that give private business a bad rap).

The Government any way you look at it it is a Private Business/Corporation, it just has physical punishment for its rules. It is NOT an autonomous entity to everyone, it was created 235 years ago and can be ended at any moment. this "society"/"we" you talk about needs your consent to become apart of it. No matter how you cut it, just being alive in a certain area does not "subject" you lawfully to any group of people or institution. We were born free and remain free until we sign it away.

Government services are not "rights" they are privileges and should be treated as so.

Wrong, because you don't exist in a vacuum. The decisions you make impact others. We've just been over this.

So any "public" aka "private goods" can be rejected.

The scenario is you living in your paradise common law Freemanville, where you decided not to pay for fire protection because you are a Sovereign Citizen. By the time fire spreads, its already caused damage - have you ever tried to control a fire? Its not easy. We can't just sit there and let it burn down your home because it will spread in an uncontrollable manner.

"By the time it spreads" is just ridiculous, during any fire the fire department would show up if they have paying customers in the area.

As you dodged my questions I will re ask them.

"Who says fireman cant/wont put the fire out? especially if it begins to spread beyond the non serviced (payed for) area? Don't the firemen have a duty to protect a paying customers property?"

Psst - we put out fires in nature because they endanger our (society) homes. Thanks for showing us yet again why paying taxes for things like fire service is good.

So what is the difference between a lightning bolt and a human being? They are both "nature". If you paid for fire protection your bill should be honored, if not that it between you and your fire protection provider, not the source of the fire.

Like I said earlier being alive does NOT subject you to any society.

You still didn't answer the question. I'm waiting. Fire spreads, we can't control where it spreads. By the time it spreads, its already caused damage - and possibly killed people.

Yes I did, I posed them in the form of a question to challenge your "opinion".

I will repeat them again.

"Who says fireman cant put the fire out? especially if it begins to spread beyond the non serviced (payed for) area? Don't the firemen have a duty to protect a paying customers property?"

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Elizabeth1 you should revel in your once awesome powers being an ex notary

The 'magical' powers of the humble notary is a crucial (but seemingly inexplicable) part of FMOTL mythology. Judges, Magistrates, Police Officers are nothing but the notary is a sort of legal superman. It's all tosh of course.

Here in England & Wales notaries just witness / validate documents for foreign jurisdictions. So if you want for example a Spanish property transfer witnessed or a Lebanese passport application validated you go & see a notary. simple as that.They're for the most part solicitors who speak a foreign language, do a little course & then make a bit of extra pocket money witnessing documents of foreign origin.

Here in the US, notaries needn't have skills in a foreign language. They are, essentially, court-appointed witnesses with a cool stamp to certify that you have proven to them that you are who you say you are and that you signed where you say you signed.

That said...



Blue: I feel this point has not been properly addressed (and using "you" in a general sense)

The problem with your assertion regarding "consent to be governed" is this:

By remaining in the territory claimed by the US Government, you have de facto (see, I can throw latin terms in there too) consented to being governed by that entity. In full, and according to the statutes of that entity.

Your argument in reply is that you do not automatically consent - this is true. Under the age of 18, you are not automatically considered to be able to make that distinction and are granted, some, leeway when it comes to legal proceedings.

Are you over 18 years of age?

 

[Stacey Grove]

And for the infinite time, Freeman do not pick and choose what laws to abide by.

That is untrue. Even the great Robert Menard says he can pick and choose which statutes he consents to and those he does not.
It normally works out that it depends which way the money is going. If it's going to cost the fotl money, he does not consent. However, if he is to gain financially, he does consent.

 

[Bluekush623]

The point was that people such as you are not paying customers, yet you endanger others.

Fires are going to happen no matter what, paying for fire protection does not prevent fires.

Also stating that the freeman is responsible for the fire is jumping ahead and erroneous.

The fire can certainly be tackled when it spreads to paying customers' properties.

Why would your Fire Protection providers allow it to spread?

It should not be your right to deny a service if by doing so you harm others.

How is denying PERSONAL fire protection endangering anyone else?

Seriously your and LID stance sounds like a childish/immature argument:

"You (freeman) didnt pay for fire protection, so we (american citizen) wont put the fire out because you may save money by us doing so"

EVEN THOUGH it will damage our own property, that is some sick mentality where you damage yourself to try and prove a point.

However if the situation was turned with your (american citizen) house burning down and that catches your neighbors (freeman) house on fire, it wouldn't matter because hey he didn't pay for fire protection. So he gets what he deserves.

 

[Bluekush623]

Off course you've heard of it, you're lying by saying you've not. The reason you're trying to deny it is cause it's absurd. It's a main feature of those liars and fraudsters who are trying to lure in the gullible with promises of riches and you know it.
Personally i think you've some kind of vested interest in selling the freemen woo or you wouldnae bother. Give it up, no one is buying, even at the icke site only a couple of the loons there believe it.
The irony is while we all walk around free, enjoying our lives, you freemen are hiding in your council houses feeling oppressed cause you have to have car insurance or you've got a parking ticket or you've been taken to court for not paying your council tax. It's pathetic.
Freemen on the land are just folk on the dole pretending they are on a journey to the heart of the sun but in reality they're a bunch of stoners with nothing useful to offer anyone.

Pure speculation about me that is not true.

Everything else is redundant propaganda.