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

[Bluekush623]

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

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

The State still needs your consent.

 

[jargon buster]

no it doesnt.
To say a government requires individual consent is ludicrous.
How , if we have so many barnpots saying that they dont consent do we still have a government?

Simple really isnt it, its because your individulal consent is irrelevent.

JB

 

[drkitten]

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.

No. I understand it. It's simply wrong.

Everything i write is off the top of my head

That's obvious.

and why there are no references.

... and that's why everything you write is wrong.

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

Translation : you're not going to risk learning something.

However it it starts saying whether or criminal nature is statutory, in the same sentence it says that view cannot withstand critical examination.

No, it doesn't.

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).

Exactly. Which means that the distinction between statutory and common law is different than the difference between mala in se and malum prohibitum. (Some thing that are prohibited by statute are nevertheless mala in se.)

Which means that your attempt to make those two differences the same is utterly wrong.

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

And as usual, "what you mean" is wrong.

 

[Hans]

The State still needs your consent.

Nope, please go back and read about the revolutionary times. States didn't need your consent to exist. There was no concept of individual consent in that time period. If you think there was post links to the rich history supporting it.

If in fact such a thing had existed someone would have noted it. No one did.

You are simply making stuff up.

 

[talkie toaster]

Considering the fact that here, in Europe, we as nations and as a society have evolved our legal principles over a 1000 years and have had taxes and land ownership for the same amount of time, if not longer, then if any of this "I'm a Freeman and don't consent" stuff was legitimate then it would also have evolved into a viable legal entity.

The fact that it hasn't, to me any way, indicates more about it's veracity than any thing else. That, and the fact that apart from some dude getting off a speeding fine every now and then there are no examples of it working.

So now enter the corrupt courts and legal profession denials that always ensue.

"It's the man always trying to keep a player down....."
No, no, no......
It's patently Wahoonieness of the highest order.

 

[Cuddles]

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?

I think he may be the FOTL version of a no-planer. Technically falls under the FOTL umbrella, but disagrees with a few important parts of the doctrine and would generally be dismissed by the mainstream FOTLs as a disinfo agent. His posting manner is very similar, particularly the way he keeps trying to hijack threads on mainstream FOTL with claims that both skeptics and FOTLs are wrong and that his FOTL is the only true FOTL.

 

[Naddig74]

Never stated my income status. <Snippy>

But you did say you never claimed welfare. If you don't have an income from work or benefits, how do you own a computer, pay your phone and electric bills? The fact that you clearly do those things, implies that you have a taxable income.

Why am i defending the Law?

No, why do you come here day after day and use the same 'off the top of your head' arguments that are routinely torn to bits by better informed people? What's in it for you?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

You are simply making stuff up.

To be fair, he acknowledged this.

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

 

[gtm]

But you did say you never claimed welfare. If you don't have an income from work or benefits, how do you own a computer, pay your phone and electric bills? The fact that you clearly do those things, implies that you have a taxable income.

It's easy to be a freeman if you live with your Mum & Dad (& get fiat notes as 'pocket money')

 

[Ladewig]

So Bluekush623, do you have a problem with a jurisdiction using a sales tax to fund

1) a fire department
2) a police department that arrests people accused of mala in se crimes
3) a judicial system that determines the innocence or guilt of mala in se criminals
4) a system of public roads
5) a army used to defend the borders of the country
6) a voluntary system of vaccination

 

[Ladewig]

Bluekush623, how widely accepted among freemen is the concept that no one can own land?

 

[Ladewig]

Bluekush623, please indicate which of the following, if any, are mala in se

1) drunk driving
2) driving without insurance or the financial resources to pay for damage arising from an accident that you caused
3) lying about the medical benefits of a product being advertised
4) legalizing prostitution but requiring prostitutes to get monthly medical checkups
5) lying on an application for a loan
6) not paying a toll on a private toll road (or on a public toll road)

ETA: 7) stealing from a public agency

 

[Mojo]

But they don't have jurisdiction over the freeman...

Yes, they do.

...so it really doesnt matter if they are still alive they are abolished from his life.

No, they aren't.

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)

You don't need to "fight to physically alter and abolish" laws to get them altered or abolished. You have this thing called democracy. You can start a campaign and get someone voted in who will alter or abolish the laws you don't like. But until you accomplish that, they apply to you whether you like it or not.

The document you cited purported (in your interpretation) to give a right to alter or abolish laws, not to ignore them if you don't feel like complying.

 

[jargon buster]

talkie toaster wrote

Considering the fact that here, in Europe, we as nations and as a society have evolved our legal principles over a 1000 years and have had taxes and land ownership for the same amount of time, if not longer, then if any of this "I'm a Freeman and don't consent" stuff was legitimate then it would also have evolved into a viable legal entity.

There are zero references to the term Freeman ON the land in any law or history book.
The term is around (at most) 20 years old.
Now the term freeman is a recognised titleand it is a title bestowed upon you, not claimed via a letter to the Queen

Some idiot has latched onto the Magna Charta and with possibly the most skewed logic ever has mixed up a variety of bits of information and bastardised it into an excuse of how to not to pay your way.

the fact that this has not materialised into one successful court case in favour of a freeman in 800 years should be enough for anyone to cast the theory in the bin.

JB

 

[Wildy]

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

What if the puncher refuses to consent with the authorities?

 

[Hans]

To be fair, he acknowledged this.

LOL, true but he was trying to support his made up stuff by saying it was in the Constitution or that the founding fathers were in favour of this idea.

They were not.

Therre appear to be a wide spectrum of what we call FOTL, roughly I can divide it) provisionally into three

'High' FOTL this is philosophical position that 'everyone should be free', they recognize its not feasible.

'Blue' FOTL this is what Bluekill is espousing, nearer to 'High' with the difference that he thinks it is feasible.

'Common' FOTL these are the guys who feel they can use FOTL to get out of legitmate debts and penalties for violating laws

'Low' FOTL is basically embracing a type of complete anarchy with 'POL POT' elements.

Comments would be appreciated

 

[talkie toaster]

talkie toaster wrote


There are zero references to the term Freeman ON the land in any law or history book.
The term is around (at most) 20 years old.
Now the term freeman is a recognised titleand it is a title bestowed upon you, not claimed via a letter to the Queen

Some idiot has latched onto the Magna Charta and with possibly the most skewed logic ever has mixed up a variety of bits of information and bastardised it into an excuse of how to not to pay your way.

the fact that this has not materialised into one successful court case in favour of a freeman in 800 years should be enough for anyone to cast the theory in the bin.

JB

My sister-in-law was granted freeman of York status or similar, it entitled her to graze sheep on the Knavesmire, not avoid taxes or speeding tickets.

 

[jsfisher]

My sister-in-law was granted freeman of York status or similar, it entitled her to graze sheep on the Knavesmire, not avoid taxes or speeding tickets.

She didn't get it notarized, then.

 

[JimBenArm]

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

Several colors, but all shades of brown, and they all taste like BS.

 

[talkie toaster]

She didn't get it notarized, then.