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

[drkitten]

Why would your Fire Protection providers allow it to spread?

Because they're underfunded and underequipped, because not enough people are supporting them.

How is denying PERSONAL fire protection endangering anyone else?

Because other people are endangered by your (house) being on fire, because we can't prevent the fire spreading.

The same reason that diseased people may be quarantined -- forcibly, against their will, if necessary. We may not be able to prevent the disease, but we hope to keep it from spreading.

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"

Perhaps, but history shows that many people will act childishly and immaturely, so our systems must be set up to deal with that.

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

Age doesn't matter. 18 years is only a "legal" construct and not lawful.

If one never get in bed with government or eventually denys consent there is no longer de-facto consent.

Territorial Jurisdiction only counts if you consent to it. There is no tacit consent about living in America because no one born here consented to be born here and you cant force someone to move.

 

[drkitten]

Age doesn't matter. 18 years is only a "legal" construct and not lawful.

Bluekush isn't "scared" of the state's authority, he's merely frightened by it.

Unfortunately, he's drawing a distinction without a difference. Legal and lawful are, in fact, synonyms.

 

[Bluekush623]

Because they're underfunded and underequipped, because not enough people are supporting them.

So current fire departments are underfunded/equipped?

Because other people are endangered by your (house) being on fire, because we can't prevent the fire spreading.

Why not? Did you choose not to purchase fire protection?

The same reason that diseased people may be quarantined -- forcibly, against their will, if necessary. We may not be able to prevent the disease, but we hope to keep it from spreading.

Quarantining people has nothing to do with buying insurance.

Perhaps, but history shows that many people will act childishly and immaturely, so our systems must be set up to deal with that.

what is your point? do the systems bend to the crybabies or do they tell the kids to grow up and take responsibility?

 

[Bluekush623]

Bluekush isn't "scared" of the state's authority, he's merely frightened by it.

Unfortunately, he's drawing a distinction without a difference. Legal and lawful are, in fact, synonyms.

Woh, Slow up. You have to provide evidence for both of those claims.

 

[drkitten]

Woh, Slow up. You have to provide evidence for both of those claims.

Check any reasonably complete dictionary.

MacMillan's is online and defines "lawful" as "not against the law", while defining "legal" as "allowed by the law." Dictionary.reference.com provides a very similar lack-of-difference.

Alternatively, find a single authoritative citation that describes a difference.

 

[Sledge]

Woh, Slow up. You have to provide evidence for both of those claims.

I don't think he does, at least not until you start providing evidence for your claims.

 

[Bluekush623]

Check any reasonably complete dictionary.

MacMillan's is online and defines "lawful" as "not against the law", while defining "legal" as "allowed by the law." Dictionary.reference.com provides a very similar lack-of-difference.

Alternatively, find a single authoritative citation that describes a difference.

Thank you for proving yourself wrong. Not Against, and Allowed By is totally different.

Lawful (mala in se) is essentially "Common Law" involving damage/theft against private property and contracts.

Legality (mala prohibitium) derives itself from "Contracts" and why it is "allowed" by the Law because it requires consent to become lawful.

 

[Hans]

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.

So lets see you are unable to provide any evidence that the founding fathers considered 'individual consent' as a valid system for government. So your contention that it was created during at period is so much sheep dip.

But nevertheless I expect you to keep making that claim as your ability to stay connected with reality is strained

Tax protestor? Why yes you put out those great comments, 'no income', 'no legal requirement to pay taxes'. Those are comments of tax protestors....but then we have already heard that you do pay your taxes like a nice sheeple.

So no revolutionary war start for FOTL, so what other crazy claims do you have?

 

[Naddig74]

Blue. Seriously.

You say you're not a FOTLer, that you have an income (and by inference you pay taxes) and you claim not to know about certain key parts of FOTL dogma (ie the birth bond).

Yet you come here to defend the freeloading position, repeatedly reassert the same old nonsense without evidence, and quite clearly get quite wound up when we don't just say, ''Oh, alright then.''

Why do you do it? If you aren't a FOTLer why do you expend so much energy and emotion defending their position?

 

[Hans]

There seem to be several different 'colours' of FOTL. No one doctrine is agreed to by those who hold to it.

 

[Bluekush623]

So lets see you are unable to provide any evidence that the founding fathers considered 'individual consent' as a valid system for government. So your contention that it was created during at period is so much sheep dip.

But nevertheless I expect you to keep making that claim as your ability to stay connected with reality is strained.

They never said anything about "group" consent either. Becoming a sovereign group or individual has no difference. If they can do it anyone proceeding them should be able to.

Tax protestor? Why yes you put out those great comments, 'no income', 'no legal requirement to pay taxes'. Those are comments of tax protestors....but then we have already heard that you do pay your taxes like a nice sheeple.

So no revolutionary war start for FOTL, so what other crazy claims do you have?

They are? i didn't know that. But hey when its not illegal to not work its not illegal to not pay taxes if you don't have an income. its just truth and not some crackpot theory.

I have also never stated my income or tax status. So dont assume.

 

[Mojo]

Ignoring a immaterial mental construct is essentially Altering or Abolishing it.

Nope. I think you'll find that all those laws that the FOTLers have ignored are still on the statute book, unabolished and unaltered.

 

[Bluekush623]

Blue. Seriously.

You say you're not a FOTLer, that you have an income (and by inference you pay taxes) and you claim not to know about certain key parts of FOTL dogma (ie the birth bond).

Yet you come here to defend the freeloading position, repeatedly reassert the same old nonsense without evidence, and quite clearly get quite wound up when we don't just say, ''Oh, alright then.''

Why do you do it? If you aren't a FOTLer why do you expend so much energy and emotion defending their position?

Never stated my income status. And i dont know about this "birth bond" theory.

I dont come here to defend freeloaders, I am here in defense of the law.

 

[drkitten]

Thank you for proving yourself wrong. Not Against, and Allowed By is totally different.[?QUOTE]

Wrong.

Lawful (mala in se) is essentially "Common Law" involving damage/theft against private property and contracts.

Nope. Mala in se refers to acts which are illegal/unlawful because they are immoral and as such need not be explicitly prohibited by statute.
You can read up on more of this when you take Theory of Torts.

An act that is malum in se is illegal regardless of whether or not statute prohibits it (and can be punished as such); an act that is malum prohibitum has a statute prohibiting it. Many acts are both.

Your legal knowledge is utterly without foundation. If you think otherwise, provide a reference. Your silly ramblings wouldn't be convincing even if they were right. Not that there's much risk of that. There's a reason I cited sources....

If you want a more authoritative source for exactly how and why your analysis is wrong, I suggest this paper that discusses exactly this difference. It actually addresses -- and rejects -- the argument you just made :

"At first thought, it might appear that the two classifications of crime could be differentiated on the basis of whether or not the original designation of criminal nature was statutory. This
interpretation was suggested in a Harvurd Law Review article (1929: 118n),yet this view cannot withstand critical examination. Many of the crimes which were proscribed by statute had long been recognized as morally wrong under common law. Within the rubric of statutory law, therefore, a distinction must be made between statutes which merely “declared” the criminal nature of the particular activities and those which “created” a new criminal designation (Columbia Law Review, 1930: 77)."

 

[Bluekush623]

Nope. I think you'll find that all those laws that the FOTLers have ignored are still on the statute book, unabolished and unaltered.

But they don't have jurisdiction over the freeman so it really doesnt matter if they are still alive they are abolished from his life.

It is also the mature/responsible thing to do instead of fighting to physically alter and abolish (which may not happen) when they can just be ignored. (Kind of what parents do when kids want to be stubborn)

 

[Naddig74]

Never stated my income status. And i dont know about this "birth bond" theory.

I dont come here to defend freeloaders, I am here in defense of the law.

I didn't ask what you were doing...I asked you WHY you do it. Can you give me a straight answer?

 

[Hans]

They never said anything about "group" consent either. Becoming a sovereign group or individual has no difference. If they can do it anyone proceeding them should be able to.

Oh really? Ever heard of a 'group' called a state Blue?

a sovereign group or individual has no difference.

BIG, BIG different my friend with individual consent you get anarchy. I state again the concept of individual consent in the Constitution is false. It was by state. You're just making stuff up.

There is not basis for the FOTL concept of individual consent to be found in that time. If people could do that then why did so many loyalists leave the US? Couldn't they just opt out? LOL

There is no mention of individual consent

 

[Bluekush623]

Nope. Mala in se refers to acts which are illegal/unlawful because they are immoral and as such need not be explicitly prohibited by statute.

An act that is malum in se is illegal regardless of whether or not statute prohibits it (and can be punished as such); an act that is malum prohibitum has a statute prohibiting it. Many acts are both.

This is my point. Common law (mala in se) precedes Statutory Law/Legality (mala prohibitium), and Statutory Law/Legality proceeds the Common law.

Clearly YOU do not understand this.

Your legal knowledge is utterly without foundation. If you think otherwise, provide a reference. Your silly ramblings wouldn't be convincing even if they were right. Not that there's much risk of that. There's a reason I cited sources....

No your knowledge is without utter foundation, as you are only copy/pasting and why you have links.

Everything i write is off the top of my head and why there are no references.

If you want a more authoritative source for exactly how and why your analysis is wrong, I suggest this paper that discusses exactly this difference. It actually addresses -- and rejects -- the argument you just made :

"At first thought, it might appear that the two classifications of crime could be differentiated on the basis of whether or not the original designation of criminal nature was statutory. This
interpretation was suggested in a Harvurd Law Review article (1929: 118n),yet this view cannot withstand critical examination. Many of the crimes which were proscribed by statute had long been recognized as morally wrong under common law. Within the rubric of statutory law, therefore, a distinction must be made between statutes which merely “declared” the criminal nature of the particular activities and those which “created” a new criminal designation (Columbia Law Review, 1930: 77)."

I need to subscribe to that link and im not going to.

However it it starts saying whether or criminal nature is statutory, in the same sentence it says that view cannot withstand critical examination. Then it states that the distinction must be made between statutory law which falls under common law (mala in se) and what is "new" (mala in prohibitium).

So this is exactly what i mean. Lawful and Legality are not the same. the Common Law gives birth to Statutory Law.

 

[Bluekush623]

I didn't ask what you were doing...I asked you WHY you do it. Can you give me a straight answer?

Why am i defending the Law?

Because it is the honest/correct/responsible thing to do.

Im not going to let LID spew propaganda all day.