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

[Mojo]

key word is "persons".

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1824/pdf/ukpga_18240083_en.pdf

Key word is "Person". It explains so much about FOTLer use of the term.

 

[Stacey Grove]

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

Why does everyone ignore and forget the Common law?

Hi, Bluekush.
Perhaps you could explain? You state that consent may be withdrawn from statute law and the result for the individual would be an exemption from statutes. But, it appears you are also saying that consent may not be withdrawn from common law and everybody is bound by it. Which authority compels us to be bound to common law and why is it not possible to withdraw consent?

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT THERE WILL EVER ONLY BE FREEMAN, this is YOUR ASSUMPTION. I have abundantly said over and over that Freeman and the current Government can exist together. There is NOT one or the other.

But what would happen if every citizen (including those in government) did decide to become a fotl? What would happen then? Wouldn't all services funded by taxation disappear? Could a country survive if everybody was a fotl? You see, I have a suspicion that people who want to take the fotl path know that it is essential that the majority of people remain non-fotl tax payers otherwise the fotl free ride would be no more. It's not very honourable is it?

 

[tsig]

I'm an American and rather fond of the DOI. Seeing the FOTLer's do a reductio ad absurdem on the "consent of the governed" distresses me, even though I don't think they realize that they are doing that.

I'm sure they've never even read it, they just use bits that have been posted on footle websites.

ETA: I remember reading it in the 4th grade and being mesmerized by the concepts. To this day I have a copy of it and the Constitution on my coffee table.

 

[Bluekush623]

.
Then why are you spending so much time advocating it?
.

Already covered. Because i support the law.

.
Ah, great: then you'll have not a whit of problem pointing out a *single* time when these principles and practices have been successful in declining consent when legally challenged.

I'll wait right here.
.

Already Covered. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it is not possible.

.
Actually, I would submit that your obvious consent to accepting services (use of an Internet, most of the R&D in developing and maintaining of which came from governmental or academic sources) while insisting that one can "opt out" can only lead to one of two conclusions:

1. either you you pay your taxes making your insistence that sovereignty is and has been how things should be a proposition with which you yourself do not agree (else why would you *not* take advantage of it yourself,)

2 you privately pay the various governmental and academic entities to which you owe this medium of communication and instead of detailing for us how such payments are calculated and made (thereby ending all debate) you choose to base your advocacy on baseless assertion and deception.
.

Look your under false assumptions again, I never claimed to be a FOTL, If people actually read the thread before chiming in with their 2 cents I would not need to keep repeating myself.

 

[Bluekush623]

If you don't survive you can't reproduce and therefore lose the genetic lottery.

You would rather not survive than be a sissy?

Who says anyone has to survive? This is a choice.

And please don't start using my words towards me, it shows a lack of integrity and credibility.

Not to mention it is totally flawed assertion because not everyone who sacrifices reproduction and survival is a sissy, in turn they could be the bravest of all humans.

 

[TSR]

Already covered. Because i support the law.

.
No, you don't. You apparently support some principle which allows one to "remove consent" from being bound by the law.
.

Already Covered. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it is not possible.

.
But if it is the way things have always been, seems like you would be able to cite a *single* such instance.

That you cannot is very telling.
.

Look your under false assumptions again, I never claimed to be a FOTL, If people actually read the thread before chiming in with their 2 cents I would not need to keep repeating myself.

.
Nor did I state you were: I very clearly allowed for the possibility that you *know* FOTL is incorrect.

Will you please *read what I wrote* this time, and choose one of the options or supply your own and deal with the implications:

I would submit that your obvious consent to accepting services (use of an Internet, most of the R&D in developing and maintaining of which came from governmental or academic sources) while insisting that one can "opt out" can only lead to one of two conclusions:

1. either you pay your taxes, making your insistence that sovereignty is and has been how things should be a proposition with which you yourself do not agree (else why would you *not* take advantage of it yourself,)

NOTE: "with which you do not agree."

2 or you privately contract with and pay the various governmental and academic entities to which you owe this medium of communication and instead of detailing for us how such payments are contracted, calculated and made (thereby ending all debate) you choose to base your advocacy on baseless assertion and deception.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show how the word "persons is defined in the Constitution such that the usual definition as it relates to an individual as "any individual human being" is somehow changed?
.

 

[BrianX]

I know I'm not a particularly prolific poster around here, but can I ask Bluekush something?

In the real world, "common law" is a system by which laws are decided by precedent. It's the core of the US legal system, and also a critical tool for deciding what is and isn't constitutional. But it seems the FOTL and similar movements have a rather different definition -- what exactly is that definition?

 

[Elizabeth I]

And please don't start using my words towards me, it shows a lack of integrity and credibility.

The quote above isn't even incoherent. It's approaching word salad.

 

[Bluekush623]

So FOTL believe that they can opt out of police protection. The police apprehend and lock up murderers, rapists, and arsonists, but the Freemen say, "I'm not going to pay for benefits I receive from a local police force enforcing common law mala in se crimes."

Any one can opt out of any service, no matter what the it pertains to, even safety.

Ever heard of medical consent? No one can tell you what to do with your life.

You are going to seriously argue that they don't want the service that a lawful and legal police force provides to the community (please ignore all drug laws and other laws related to victimless crimes in this part of the discussion). You are going to seriously argue that they don't receive huge benefits from having other people pay taxes to support the police

The benefits are trickle down and not direct so 3rd parties are NOT liable for anything. Private Companies provide benefit to the neighborhoods and cities in America but it doesn't mean the citizens have to pay. As in reality if some secedes their former governing body it is now private to them.

-​

Say a corner store had no security when it opened and then it was robbed 5 times in the first year. Robberies in general not only affect the store but the community and residents too. Then the corner store hires a private security company for services. The private security then with its presence does its job and no robberies happen in the next year.

-​

This not only protects the company but also the residents of the community, yet the community does not "owe" the company owner jack squat for negating robberies by hiring private security and helping keep the community safe.

This is what is supposed to be so great about America. Everyone benefits indirectly from everyone elses benefits. This is not some fascist, socialistic, communistic country where anyone "owes" anyone else anything without a lawful claim that is.

And again you like everyone else is falsely asserting that they wouldn't pay.
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.

Summing up: The FOTL (1) are receiving benefits, (2) are pretending that they are not receiving benefits, and (3) are claiming that they have the right to not pay for these benefits.

I never claimed that any freeman "would pay", I said they "can" pay, so again your wrong.

Who says anyone has to accept any protection? My gawd, All you FOTL deniers are the most self righteous people ever, who in the name of your morality deem it your duty and right to "protect me" in which you have no lawful right.

You guys sound just like religious whack jobs with there god and "savior" Jesus Christ. You have no right or duty to protect anyone else, get this through your desensitized brains.

1) 3rd party benefits, sure.
2) Have never claimed FOTL are receiving not benefits.
3) they do have the right not to pay for them.

Seriously a United States Corp. Fireman putting out a Freemans house has nothing to do with the Freeman. They are protecting their paying customers whose houses that may surround the burning Freeman house.

If the Freemans house was on a concrete block all its own, the United States Corp Fire Department has no duty to fulfill in protecting it (if it was not privately paid for that is!). So the house would burn and the Freeman would start over. what is so wrong about having this as a possibility?

It is a way of defining the relationship between the governed and the government. It spells out what governing bodies may and may not do. It delineates between just and unjust laws. It enumerates the inalienable rights of the common man. It outlines the fundamental principles that every fair and lawful government must follow. How can it be anything other than a political system? What do you think it is?

-Half correct, It defines what is lawful and unlawful governing, not what they can do.
-Wrong, It delineates between lawful and legal laws.
-Correct
-Wrong, There is no outline of fundamental principles of what a fair and lawful government can it do, it defines what is lawful and unlawful governing.

It is not a "system" because it creates nothing, it defines what is already there. If anything it is a status.

If you believe my assertion is false, please provide evidence. Show how everyone in the U.S. adopting FOTL tactics would not result in anarchy.

Common law.

And yet if no one paid for government services, then U.S. currency would stop being made and money would drop out of circulation due to wear and tear. It is a tool that is supplied by the government and this tool provides benefits to all people residing in the country.
......

And you act like other currencies or governments would not be created if there was a void of either.

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

No is forced to work, thus no one is forced to have an income. If one has no income then there are no taxes to be paid.

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

Through the victim.

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?

Nope, consent is paramount.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

I have already covered this.

The whole reason as to why Americans should be able to freely deny consent is because the people they are succeeding from have ALREADY FOUGHT the war for freedom.

Why would we de-evolve or stay stuck in the same predicament?

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

More "Freeman Utopia" woo that i have already debunked.

 

[TSR]

No is forced to work, thus no one is forced to have an income.

.
Where and how does one survive under these circumstances?
.

If one has no income then there are no taxes to be paid.

.
Unless one purchases most goods or services, in which case sales tax and various governmental fees apply.

And I'm still waiting for you to show how the word "persons" is defined in the Constitution such that the usual definition as it relates to an individual as "any individual human being" is somehow changed, since that word is apparently "key" to the 14th?
.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

I never said it was against the rules, just that it is rude and impolite.

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.

Your only assuming but anyways let freedom ring.

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.

Again your assuming freeman would lack adequate fire protection.

And if you don't like that your neighborhood is environmentally safe MOVE. Like I said, you don't live in the ghetto because it is your right. You stay away because it is not safe.

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

no you are not.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

omg, this has been covered dauntlessly.

it is not about ignoring, it is about lawfully claiming that legality needs your consent for jurisdiction.

 

[Bluekush623]

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!

Who says everyone is bound to the Constitution?

 

[Hans]

Bluekill

You missed a question upabove about Common law, in the FOTL universe everyone HAS to accept common law is that correct?

Why are you not free to not consent to it?

If I don't consent to it who or what is going to force me to?

If it is force where has the concept of free consent gone?

In the FOTL world how many wives can I have?

 

[Bluekush623]

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

Nice way to play semantics.

What I meant was under criminal intent, like unlawfully taking a jack hammer to it.

 

[Bluekush623]

What you know is irrelevant.I lawfully own my land.I can show you the deeds.

Which is only a piece of paper, with imaginary words on it. Claimed as authority by the power of a gun.

There is no force in the universe that binds that certain land mass to you, so you dont own it.

You could have a piece of paper for every grass blade you think you own, it means jack squat in reality.