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

[jargon buster]

Oh dear look at this one
One of the believers actually thinks this video is bonkers.
Its not all that far away from the freeman philosophy either.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124040

http://www.youtube.com/user/MichelleNye#p/a/u/1/zf69Af2XslE

JB

 

[Toke]

Elizabeth I,
Your scenario is sounds very optimistic to me. But does serve to illustrate some of the problems with private fire-fighting.

 

[Paul]

Oh dear look at this one
One of the believers actually thinks this video is bonkers.

Even on Ickes declaring yourself god and jesus is going too far.

 

[Ladewig]

The highlighted portion above is a bit of a non-sequitur, but I'll give you that for federal income tax. So let's say that you don't work, so you don't pay taxes via withholding. How would you avoid property tax?

If I may take the step of quoting Bluekush. Because no one can own land, all property taxes are improper.

Sales tax?

Bluekush accepts sales taxes because they are "consentual."

Excise tax on things like cigarettes and alcohol and gasoline?

Bluekush has never mentioned these. They might be acceptable because the purchaser understands the nature of the tax and can voluntarily accept it or simply not make the purchase or they might be unacceptable because selling unlicensed liquor could be a freeman's right.

Local taxes on entertainment, hotels, restaurants?


Federal taxes on communications like phone lines?

I am guessing acceptable, but that is more of an inference than a quote.

 

[tsig]

What a whining obviously lie filled tirade. I have heard better cover stories on cops episodes.

And on a personal level, this guy comes off as a wiener, his constant commentary about the bailiff scaring him is eye rolling at best.

Agree, if he could have shown he was in Florida he would have. Sounds like one of those guys who thinks it's always someone else's fault.

He was riding that scooter.

 

[carlitos]

Agree, if he could have shown he was in Florida he would have. Sounds like one of those guys who thinks it's always someone else's fault.

He was riding that scooter.

Yeah, probably. I have some experience with teens that think like this. He is not destined to have a happy life.

 

[dudalb]

It would appear he is looking at jail time, and for what, stumbling across the likes of Menard and getting dumb advice no doubt.

JB

Yeah, he could hire Perry Mason AND Rumpole of the Bailey and he could not get off after the stunts he has pulled.

 

[sadhatter]

Agree, if he could have shown he was in Florida he would have. Sounds like one of those guys who thinks it's always someone else's fault.

He was riding that scooter.

You know i wouldn't even give him the credit of being " someone else's fault" guy. I believe that he thought he found a way to commit illegal acts and get away with it, like all other freemen. And now the real law, the one that gets enforced is going to show him who's boss.

 

[Bluekush623]

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

To say anyone can be clumped into any group without their consent is ludicrous.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

To say anyone can be clumped into any group without their consent is ludicrous.

I agree.

Now, just learn why your use of society's benefits constitutes consent, and we can all go home.

 

[Bluekush623]

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

That's obvious.

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

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

No, it doesn't.

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.

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

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

oh please, nothing but redundant opinionated disagreements.

You proved my stance correct and then claim it is wrong. You just have no understanding of this topic.

no matter what your opinion is the facts are Legality derives itself from Common law.

legality did not come before common law.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

Of course states dont need your consent to exist. However they need your consent to claim jurisdiction over a you.

 

[sadhatter]

oh please, nothing but redundant opinionated disagreements.

You proved my stance correct and then claim it is wrong. You just have no understanding of this topic.

no matter what your opinion is the facts are Legality derives itself from Common law.

legality did not come before common law.

If your just going to say he is wrong, why not reply to posts that directly address problems with FOTL's claims? It is cool if you think he is unworthy of your attention, but why then waste a post, when there are so many posts that bring up very good points that you are ignoring?

There is every type of debunking here of fotl possible, from practical to moral , so if you don't like the way one person is arguing , you have plenty of other choices to reply to.

But it seems to me, you favor the " cut the important bits out of someone's post and respond to a lobbed softball." approach, versus answering any of the hard questions.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

just because no one has become a freeman doesnt mean it is not attainable. this is a fallacy.

and at the end of the day it is the rich man keeping the poor man down. there is no woo about it.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

Dont worry about it, it is my personal private business and at the end of the day you are only assuming and speculating no matter what dots you put together.

the discussion is not about me. it is about the law and freeman/sovereignty theories/practices.

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?

They are not torn apart, and there are not better informed people. They are just ignorant know it alls.

There is nothing in it for me accept keeping freedom safe in a would of scoundrels.

 

[sadhatter]

just because no one has become a freeman doesnt mean it is not attainable. this is a fallacy.

and at the end of the day it is the rich man keeping the poor man down. there is no woo about it.

Cops are not rich, and they are the ones that physically enforce the laws. I fail to see how this is an issue of the rich keeping the poor down, when the crux of the law ( enforcement) makes slightly above average pay at best. No cops, no law. Plain and simple. A law that cannot be enforced has no power whatsoever.

 

[Bluekush623]

To be fair, he acknowledged this.

Making stuff up and remembering things is not the same.

 

[Ladewig]

Of course states dont need your consent to exist. However they need your consent to claim jurisdiction over a you.

So a murderer can simply say, "I do not consent to the state's jurisdiction. No arrest warrants for me, thank you"?

 

[sadhatter]

Dont worry about it, it is my personal private business and at the end of the day you are only assuming and speculating no matter what dots you put together.

the discussion is not about me. it is about the law and freeman/sovereignty theories/practices.



They are not torn apart, and there are not better informed people. They are just ignorant know it alls.

There is nothing in it for me accept keeping freedom safe in a would of scoundrels.

Oh yeah we live in a total police state, i mean why can't i drink a beer in my living room while smoking a cigar, while not believing in god, watching porn, talking crap about the government, writing my opinions on the internet for all to see, and maybe having a three way if i get time?

Oh wait, i could do all of that. So um, where is this oppression?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Of course states dont need your consent to exist. However they need your consent to claim jurisdiction over a you.

You're still here. What more consent do they need?