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

[Paul]

you made no mention of using the road and not paying the toll, which is what i think you meant.

Once it's been pointed out that everyone knows you're being disingenuous, it's a good time to stop.

 

[jsfisher]

Also not paying a toll is NOT theft, there is no damaged or stolen road. It is a fee which is legal by the consent of using the road.

you made no mention of using the road and not paying the toll, which is what i think you meant.

Is this really the style of argument you choose to use, to hide behind semantic quibble?

You knew exactly what was meant when the non-payment of a toll question was raised. To seek shelter, now, by hyper-parsing a clear sentence well away from its plain and obvious meaning is not worthy of you.

Please don't cheapen your argument with this nonsense.

 

[Naddig74]

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..

Put an end to the speculation then. Do you have an income? Do you pay taxes?

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.

They are torn apart dude. Everything everyone else in this thread has said makes perfect logical sense to me. Next to nothing you have said does. You should change your login ID to Dunning-Kreuger.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

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.

See, here's what you seem to be missing:

By remaining inside the Territory claimed by the United States Gov't (and it's associated territories), you have de facto consented. If you choose not to consent to the laws of said Territorial ownership, you are free to move to a location not claimed to be under the jurisdiction of the United States.

In short: By choosing to remain in the US, you are consenting to being governed by the US. By choosing to remain a part of the United States and the society thereof, you have de facto consented to being governed by the laws and regulations thereof. That is, precisely, what "de facto" means.

 

[Ladewig]

In short: By choosing to remain in the US, you are consenting to being governed by the US. By choosing to remain a part of the United States and the society thereof, you have de facto consented to being governed by the laws and regulations thereof. That is, precisely, what "de facto" means.

The irony of claiming that the US is oppressive is apparent when one considers that in truly oppressive regimes, one cannot leave.

 

[kerikiwi]

If it wasnt for "this society" people could live off the land just like 100 years ago.

Really? 100 years ago everybody lived off the land? What planet was that?

 

[JimBenArm]

Really? 100 years ago everybody lived off the land? What planet was that?

Fotland. It's just to the East of Neverland.

 

[Naddig74]

Who says you have to buy anything?

If it wasnt for "this society" people could live off the land just like 100 years ago.

People lived off the land in 1910? Which history books have you been reading?

Big whoop you can drink liquor and smoke tobacco (The 2 deadliest drugs) and have the option to believe in fiction, watch porn, talk crap and write your opinions.

But you cant take other substances such peyote, lsd, psilocybin, dmt, cannabis, heroin, cocaine, meth countless other drugs. Because they are not "safe", its hysterical. This is the oppression.

You're a head, then? Thought so.

ETA: A couple of posts ago, you called me 'another know it all.' I'm not. I know very little about law. FYI I'm engaged in a long and bitter contact battle with my ex. I feel that the system assumes in disputes of this type that the man is always in the wrong and anything the woman says is true. They've certainly swallowed a load of evidence free lies by my ex.

It has poisoned me against the legal professions. I even feel that my own legal team don't believe my side of the story and are just happily raking in the cash that I release from the public purse. These days, I refer to solicitors as 'black rats' and the Department for Work and Pensions, and the CSA as 'the sonderkommando.'

I would dearly love to believe there was a magic phrase I could use to free myself from the courts jurisdiction, tell the lawyers to screw themselves and see my little girl whenever I wanted without my ex being able to stop me. But I'm also relatively bright, and relatively good at smelling bs; if you can't convince me, who doesn't understand the law very well and would love for all this nonsense to be true, how the hell do expect to convince anybody else?

 

[kerikiwi]

Assuming the freeman would deny a fire to be put out is an erroneous claim to make, as it the the Freeman denier who says they wont allow for their money to put out a freeman fire.

Another nonsensical sentence.

 

[kerikiwi]

No they did not alter the monarch, they altered their status, big difference.

They altered the monarch's status.

 

[kerikiwi]

"Consented to breaking the law by punching".."it" should be removed.

Nope. Still doesn't make sense:

It doesn't matter, he is breaking the common law and consenting to breaking the common law by punching the unconsented.

Does this mean he consents to breaking the law by breaking the law?

 

[tsig]

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

Argument by assertion.

 

[kerikiwi]

go re read and you will find the childish argument. Just more assuming and ignorance from a FOTL denier dipping into a conversation that was not directed towards them.

This is an open forum. Everyone who sticks to the rules can join in.
You consent to those rules by using the forum.
And I thought you weren't FOTL.

 

[kerikiwi]

Please don't cheapen your argument with this nonsense.

It doesn't need that kind of help, does it?

 

[tsig]

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

Happens all the time.

 

[JimBenArm]

Argument by assertion.

But that's the magic behind Freeloaders off the Land. They assert, but never worry about proof or reality or any of that other annoying stuff.

 

[tsig]

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.

He has yet to learn one of life's lessons:

Never piss off the man who can lock you up

 

[JimBenArm]

He has yet to learn one of life's lessons:

Never piss off the man who can lock you up

Unless you don't consent to being locked up. Then it's okay.

 

[tsig]

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

But..but, he'll be Free.

Well maybe not his body but then freemen say they're not really their body so it's all good.

 

[tsig]

They redefined the jurisdiction of the British Monarch. By force.

Likewise, you will have to redefine the jurisdiction of the United States government by force. Good luck. I'm not wearing a tie for your funeral.

He may want to study the last time that was tried. It's called the Civil War.