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

[carlitos]

But it's not 100 years ago.

You maintain that Freemen can co-exist with the current US government.

I ask "how could you do this unless it's off the land in the wilderness?"

Your response is that you don't have to "buy anything."

Please elaborate - how could one live in a populated area without buying anything? To start, where would you live?

many scenarios.

point is, it is not impossible.

OK, great. Could you perhaps enlighten us with one scenario (of the many possible)?

Most notably, where would you live seems like a big obstacle to me. If I'm off base, I would really appreciate your thoughts to set me straight.

Thanks!

 

[KingMerv00]

Also, having FOTL opting out of military defense (again, for clarity's sake, we are not talking about foreign wars of any sort but merely patrolling our borders to prevent hostile countries from invading) results in them getting benefits that they cannot supply for themselves.

China: Hello? America?

USA: Sup?

China: Can we bomb the crap out of you?

USA: NO!

China: OK...what if we just bomb Steve's apartment?

USA: N...oh wait. He is on our non-consent list. Go nuts.

China: WEE!

USA: Waaaait. You aren't going to bomb anything else are you?

China: Noooooo....

USA: Isn't Steve's apartment near the White House?

China: Kinda.

USA: ....

China: ....

USA: ....

China: How about just the East Wing?

USA: NO!

 

[elbe]

I think it's sad that even the AnCaps had a more coherent understanding of the economy and law than BlueKush seems to.

 

[Mashuna]

One's FOTL status. Let's say Jaime declares himself FOTL. What power backs his claim?

Well, either Jaime is wrong, and ends up in jail or owing a large debt due to his error in interpreting the legal system.

Or it's all true, but the stupid judges and police don't understand the truth of it, and Jaime ends up in jail or owing a large debt due to their error in interpreting the legal system.

Or it's all true, but the evil judges and police know it, but have sworn a secret oath to uphold the current corrupt system, and Jaime ends up in jail or owing a large debt due to the conspiracy to corrupt the legal system.

I'm not very good at pattern analysis, so if someone could look for any key points to tie these scenarios together, I'd be grateful.

 

[CORed]

I imagine the IRS would disagree with you there...

and its already been proven they cant.

Proven by whom? All the tax protesters (FOTL and otherwise) who have come up with clever legal theories as to why they don't have to pay taxes and ended up in prison?

 

[CORed]

I think it's sad that even the AnCaps had a more coherent understanding of the economy and law than BlueKush seems to.

AnCaps, at least have a somewhat coherent idea of how they think society should work, and understand that it is not the way things currently work. Now, mind you, I don't think the society that AnCaps envision is any more workable than the Marxist socialist utopia, but the FOTL folks have a bizarre fantasy that by saying a few magic words, they can just opt out of the laws that govern the rest of us, and most of them don't even seem to realize that their fantasy has no relationship whatsoever to the real world.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

AnCaps, at least have a somewhat coherent idea of how they think society should work, and understand that it is not the way things currently work. Now, mind you, I don't think the society that AnCaps envision is any more workable than the Marxist socialist utopia, but the FOTL folks have a bizarre fantasy that by saying a few magic words, they can just opt out of the laws that govern the rest of us, and most of them don't even seem to realize that their fantasy has no relationship whatsoever to the real world.

To be fair, their fantasy does have a relationship to the real world...just not what they envision it to be...

 

[Wildy]

It doesnt matter, he is breaking common law and consenting to it breaking the law by punching the unconsented.

If the guy who threw the punch doesn't consent to the government, and therefore the courts, then how are you going to ensure that the common law is upheld?

This has been a failed attempt to discredit consent for ever now and it holds no weight.

Claiming an argument doesn't hold weight means very little coming from you.

Have you ever considered that perhaps the problem isn't with this possible conclusion but with premise that everything can be consented to?

 

[CORed]

He might also want to understand that the DOI is not and never has been part of the constitution. It was political propaganda written to inflame the populace and it worked quite well for that but it was not intended as an instrument of government.

He also perhaps should understand, if he doesn't already, that the British King and Parliament didn't just read the Declaration of Independence and say, "Well, ok then, have a nice country. Americans." There was the small matter of a war that had to be fought to make that happen. The writers of the Declaratin of Independence were fully aware that it would take a war to make their fine words into reality. The FOTL kooks seem to think that the can "alter or abolish" their system of government simply by uttering a few magic words.

 

[LightinDarkness]

There's stupid, there's utterly stupid, and then there's monumentally stupid. Guess which category the quoted post above falls under.

I can take a guess!

Really though, it is quite astounding isn't it? When you read what has been said to him - the intricate, careful details that multiple posters have been laying out that debunk him from every angle possible...and then you read his replies.

Its as if hes not even reading and simply quoting and typing stream of consciousness - in the post you quoted, there is little to no relationship between what he quotes and what he wrote, and the points that are relevant were specifically debunked previously! If this is NOT a bot or professional trolling job, hes doing a good job of convincing me otherwise.

He seems to envision us as the evil hordes of skeptics hellbent on destroying his FMOTL utopia and (completely not real) vision of what he thinks common law is, and him as the beacon of light and justice for Truth and Liberty.

 

[Mojo]

some failed propaganda.

No, that's the way it is. The problem with FOTL is that they claim that the law is already as they want it to be. And it isn't.

 

[Naddig74]

Great you admitted you know very little. Yet you somehow have a strong BS meter for law.

These 2 statements are in contradiction.

My BS meter is a Universal Detector that registers strong readings at-

i) Repeated assertion.
ii) Total lack of evidence.
iii) Goalpost shifting.
iv) Poor communication skills.
v) Disingenuousness.
vi) Arguments Ad Hominem.

Show us just ONE example of when this stuff has been accepted by the courts. Just ONE, and we might start to take you seriously.

 

[gtm]

My BS meter is a Universal Detector that registers strong readings at-

i) Repeated assertion.
ii) Total lack of evidence.
iii) Goalpost shifting.
iv) Poor communication skills.
v) Disingenuousness.
vi) Arguments Ad Hominem.

Show us just ONE example of when this stuff has been accepted by the courts. Just ONE, and we might start to take you seriously.

There is the Credit River decision:

http://loveforlife.com.au/content/0...state-minnesota-county-scott-united-states-am

It didn't create any form of Judicial precedent & it seems that Judge Mahoney was a bit of a looney. That's it. That's all they've got.

 

[Elizabeth I]

He is still butting into a conversation he was not apart of. It is rude and impolite no matter what the forum rules are. Just like real life.

No. Wrong. You are not in a private chat room. You are in a public forum. When you post here you give IMPLICIT CONSENT (like that?) for others to read and comment on what you say.

Look, your under a false assumption (like LID) that the services are now somehow run independently from the government.

I have explicitly said that the United States Corp and its services are still going to exist, but why cant a freeman privately pay the United States Corp for the same services as its taxpayers pay publicly.

Because if people paid on a private and voluntary basis for public services, not enough people would pay to make it possible to provide the services.

And if the people do not want the services let capitalism and freedom speak for itself.

And if you don't like your neighbors not having fire protection, MOVE. You don't live in the ghetto because it is your right, you stay away because you know the environment is not safe.

It has been explained to you repeatedly that it is not that we "don't like" our neighbors not having fire protection, it is that their lack of fire protection would endanger our property and quite possibly our lives.

You're not good at this whole "reading comprehension" thing, are you?

 

[Mojo]

Show us just ONE example of when this stuff has been accepted by the courts. Just ONE, and we might start to take you seriously.

I'm still waiting for him to cite any authority (constitutional or not) that allows individuals within a state to ignore laws they don't want to follow.

 

[Naddig74]

I'm still waiting for him to cite any authority (constitutional or not) that allows individuals within a state to ignore laws they don't want to follow.

That too.

 

[CORed]

The thing is we DONT know for sure that current legal authorities even know.

I have said that they could just be completely ignorant and oblivious to sovereignty.They just do their jobs as the manual says.

And the reason why those in authority can not use Freeman theories/practices is because they are in contract/consent with the government. They took an Oath to follow the rules of the institution.
If they tried to somehow say that they were not apart of the institution they would be looking at fraud, so they must accept the responsibility of their decisions.

I'm sure the "current authorities" know absolutely nothing about the delusions and fantasies that the FOTL have pulled from their posteriors.

 

[carlitos]

???

I hate to bring up the Constitution again, but that document appears to disagree with you.

14th Amendment

Additionally, US Code clarifies who is a 'natural born citizen' of the US. Are you suggesting that states don't have jurisdiction over citizens of that state?

key word is "persons".

.
And since it is so key, how is it defined in that document such that the usual definition as it relates to an individual as "any individual human being" is somehow changed?
.

I have the same question. What in the world makes "persons" the key word in the 14th Amendment? It doesn't apply to dogs or horses, it applies to people.

If you have a second, BlueKush, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. The 14th Amendment specifically gives states jurisdiction over their own citizens, and the US government jurisdiction over their citizens. Thanks!

 

[dafydd]

Bluekush623 does seem very confused about all this.

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>
Not paying a toll is NOT theft, there is no damaged or stolen road.
<snip>

My bolding.

Any use of a road will damage (wear) it. Individual use may not wear it much, but the damage is cumulative. If the road was not damaged it would not need repairing.

Dave