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

[TSR]

Who says everyone is bound to the Constitution?

.
Everyone isn't -- most of the world aren't US citizens.

But every US citizen, by definition, is.

And who are these citizens? Amendment 14 details this for us.

And since, you claim that the word "persons" in that amendment is "key," why don't you show us how that word is defined in the Constitution such that the usual definition as it relates to an individual as "any individual human being" is somehow changed?
.

 

[Bluekush623]

I wonder what is at the root of Bluekush623's obsession with guns?

The reality of them.

 

[BrianX]

And you still haven't answered what your definition of "common law" is, nor why it differs so radically from the legal definition.

 

[TSR]

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

.
Or unlawfully making use of it without paying the toll, causing wear and tear for which the owner will have to pay...
.

 

[Bluekush623]

But that is the beauty, the good guys have more guns than the bad guys. I am not saying a criminal is right, i am not saying the law is right, i am saying it is enforceable. A criminal can enforce his wants and needs on you, but police can enforce societies wants and needs on them. And what decides that? Consent? No , which side has more guns and more hands to use them with. It would be better if force was not needed, but that is a silly unrealistic view. Utopia is for Utopians, and Utopians we are not.

You are only assuming "the good guys" "have more" guns then the "bad guys".

Dude the discussion is not about "enforcement", it is about what is lawful and legal.

But I do like you admitting that "THE LAW" has no real authority, it is one mans word over anothers.

And stop with the Utopia talk, it has no relevance in this discussion.

As much as you may want to go on about how wrong and illegal that is, it is the way it is. Consent has nothing at all to do with law, law isn't some divine force out to protect you, it is simply the force of the land codified.

Too say consent has nothing to do with the law is blasphemy and down right wrong.

No one said the law is Divine. It is a mental construct. And the mentally constructed law of the land has everything to do with consent.

Only laws that are enforced have any power, and even if the fotl stuff is perfectly valid, ( which it is not, but trying to use legal evidence to support the argument hasn't been working. So i am taking the pragmatic route. ) no one is willing to enforce it, thereby making it useless.

What has to be enforced with being free? that's a contradiction.

So what we have is a small minority saying " we want this law" and the rest of us saying " no that is a silly idea" and the rest of us have the power of enforcement backing us up. that is the beauty of democracy. The rest of us don't want to live in freemanland, and you don't have the power of enforcement to make us. In short, the freemen lose. And seeing as the rest of us are perfectly happy paying our dues to society in order to receive its benefits, that is a beautiful thing.

To bad America IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, it is a REPUBLIC. Dont blend the voting process and the political status of the country together.

Again, I have consistently stated that, one person becoming a freeman does nothing to the United States.You FOTL deniers are creating an illusionary "Freeman Utopia", "Freemanland".

I have never mentioned forcing any into a freeman status and have actually spoke against it.

In short you cant force anyone to do anything beyond there will (As just stated).

If so you most start admitting that America is some sort of Evil Fascist/Socialistic/Communistic Dictatorship that is enslaving people to it will. Although you probably wouldnt deny this so you enjoy paying your dues.

Prison is beautiful when you cant see your bars.

 

[Bluekush623]

You didn't read my post did you? If you did you would have read where i was endorsing the idea of jail. And of course we will need a court system to decide who goes to jail and who doesn't.

Jail is another manifestation of force. If we do not want to hurt you, ( as in your not doing anything at that second that would hurt someone.) we lock you up. Again, proof that enforcement is key to the law , not consent.

the fundamental misunderstanding here is you think the law is magic words that can be manipulated like a spell, where i realize it is simply the will of the person enforcing it and there is leeway in the enforcement. This may not always work out perfectly, but it works quite a bit better than any alternative. Especially the one the freemen are purposing

Dude, Law is based on consent, and can only be enforced through consent. Force does not equal consent, this is coercion which is HIGLY unlawful.

Side note: all words are a form of magic

 

[Mojo]

Already covered. Because i support the law.

It is a fundamental legal principle that all laws apply equally to everyone. You don't seem to support that.

 

[Bluekush623]

Oh yeah, i can see how no freeman would ever want to commit an act that takes money away from someone because they can get away with it.

Do freemen feces smell like fresh baked bread as well?

Ugh, your only assuming and have no evidence for your frivolous claims.

Non of this wild speculation spewed by FOTL deniers would hold any validity in a lawful court.

Please bring some relevant discussion, or you get ignored too.

 

[Mojo]

omg, this has been covered dauntlessly.

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

Cite the authority that supports your position.

 

[Architect]

It is a fundamental legal principle that all laws apply equally to everyone. You don't seem to support that.

I have kept out the comedy gold that is this thread, but I think this about sums it up.

The US and the UK are democracies, albeit representative rather than direct. Those we vote into power have the right to make laws on our behalf, likewise the point of a democracy is that said laws will then apply to everyone unless unconstitutional.

If our resident FoTL wants to progress his "argument" then he needs to show, in concrete terms, why it's unconstitutional - and I don't mean unfounded philosophical discussions about the nature of the "person".

 

[Wildy]

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.

Congratulations you've failed to answer my question. Would you care to try again?

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.

So why is it that the guy who threw the punch is forced to consent to the law?

 

[Bluekush623]

First off , if someone wants to head **** themselves with those drugs, that is cool, but i can tell you i don't want a bunch of tripping coke heads wandering about the streets of my city. And most people do not either, so we have the police to curb this. Democracy in action my friend.

And as far as pot, come on man. I can smoke a joint any day i want to in my living room, and have , many times walked right down the street doing it. Hell on no less than 2 occasions i have smoked one within sight of a police officer, getting nothing more than a " hey could you put that out?". Oh woe the police state we live in.

And seriously, if hard drugs are your only claim of a police state, go live in iraq or iran for a while, then tell me we live in a police state.

And do you realize your post is saying " so what about my right to express myself , i want to do hard drugs.", your priorities my friend, are seriously misplaced.

Ugh America is not a democracy.

Second there is no difference between a coke head (illegal) and a drunk (legal) and their effects on society for the sake of the argument, when i could even attend that drunks have a worse effect. So if one drug should be illegal then they all should and vice versa.

Now with your pot incursions, you as a tax paying American are willingly breaking the law and the cops you encountering failed to do their job and could be charged with fraud.

Both of you guys are in the wrong according to your legality. But yet this is ok? Give me a break, the way you guys are so gun ho for cops and firefighters, you should have walked up to the cops and say "im breaking the law, please arrest me"

And i never said anything about a police state, i said that the government is oppressive by limiting what your are able to do, and this is truth since it does actually limit what you are legally allowed to intake.

I like how to also clumped the 5 psychedelics in with the 3 narcotics and called them all "Hard drugs". And its not about WANTING to do illegal drugs, it about having the FREEDOM to be able to do whatever you want and that is the priority.

 

[Bluekush623]

Yeah, your right, they set the standard for going to another country, taking the inhabitants by force and claiming it. If you want to do the same go ahead and try, but in playing war, my side has the cooler toys, by far.

Btw, i am again calling you on not reading my post, what you said made little sense as a reply to what i said.

Wow are you asserting or admitting the government takes people without their will.

We mine as well call it a criminal organization or name it like the Mafia, if so, since you know it does give "protection".

 

[Bluekush623]

We should give the Freemen and Freewomen a country of their own and let them get on with it.We could all bet on how long it would take before they started eating each other.

False sense of superiority.

 

[Hans]

And you still haven't answered what your definition of "common law" is, nor why it differs so radically from the legal definition.

Brianx

He has bypast yours, mine and others question on that prickly point.

He appears to be very, very afraid of the that question. I will be off line for a day or so so I recommend you repeat your questions (repost them) and continue to repost them until he answers.

Given his dishonest style he'll then try and hand wave them away with a half sentence dismissal. In that case repost them again and ask again for him to answer them fully.

Why is BlueKill so afraid of the contradiction of 'common law'? Why am I not free to not consent, why am I a slave to common law?

So Blue you gonna answer why I don't have right to to consent or not consent to Common law? Why am I not free - why am I a slave to this common law?

Would you explain who is going to use a gun to force me to obey common law when I refuse to consent to it?

Come on answer, LOL it'll be fun to watch you fumble around

 

[dafydd]

False sense of superiority.

Real sense of reality.

 

[Bluekush623]

Man paints a fence, man has fence painting equipment ( paint, overalls, etc.) paid for by the person who is employing them. At the end the person employing them states " sorry , no damage was done to you, you didn't have to pay any money, and you didn't ask me to write you up consent to do it, no money for you."

Man runs a haunted house during halloween puts up a sign saying to pay as you exit. Family enters, when asked to pay they say " sorry you did not get our consent to pay."

Or seeing as you seem rather pot oriented. Lt's try this one.

You are at a pot cafe, there is a 5 dollar charge to use a very nice bong. You pick up the bong, smoke out of it and refuse to pay the charge for using the bong because you didn't give consent to pay.

These are just three examples of how silly your logic is. Damage does not have to be done in order for you to pay, goods do not have to be exchanged. You simply have to use a service, if you do not want to pay, do not use the service. Anything else is being dishonest in order to avoid payment.

No one said damage is the only way.
No one said consent was only on paper.

All three of these include verbal/physical consent and it could go either way in the out come as you left each situation with a mass void of detail as to what happen and if verbal contract/agreement was made.

Someone just cant cut your grass and they expect you to pay them.

1) There is either a verbal agreement on pay/hours, if there is not a contract. If there wasn't then yes the worker got shafted and basically volunteered.
2)The sign is the contract and if they read it and used the service then they consented. However if the sign visually hidden or turned backwards to where it couldn't be seen then the owner got shafted
3)If it was verbally/visually known the bong cost 5 bucks to use then there is another contract. If there was no sign or announcement then it is again the owners fault.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Again, I have consistently stated that, one person becoming a freeman does nothing to the United States

So what gives you (or any other individual) the right to enjoy all the benefits of our society without paying their fair share (i.e. taxes, adhering to the laws/regulations as determined by that society)?

it about having the FREEDOM to be able to do whatever you want and that is the priority

This is, IMHO, what FOTL boils down to - selfishness on the part of the FOTL.



You still haven't found a way around my previous comment regarding your continued presence here in the United States. If you wish to not consent to the rules/regulations of the society in which you live, then you should not benefit from that society. By remaining in and benefiting from that society, you de facto consent to the laws of that society. This applies even if not a citizen of the society within which you are visiting (or residing).

For example, apparently in Italy it's illegal to perform cartwheels in a Police station - whether one is a citizen of Italy or a citizen of the U.S. taking part in a study abroad program.

 

[Bluekush623]

I think you have it backwards. The FOTL described in this thread do not want to force the rest of us to follow their political viewpoint. They enjoy watching the rest of us being taxed to raise money to build roads so that they can freeload by using those same roads. They know that all the benefits they currently enjoy would disappear if they could force everyone to be FOTL.

Atleast one person understands this.

However the freeloading part is again a frivolous assumption.

 

[Bluekush623]

Yeah, i mean kush is a pot smoker , so am i. And i have been caught by police a few times in my life, every time i am courteous and nice as can be. And you know what, i have never gotten so much as a fine.

Hell one night i was about one drink shy of being flammable. And two police officers see me taking a giant number 2 off of a sign. Even **** faced drunk i was polite and explained that i was sorry and that due to drinking i thought it was a good idea to take the number two. This is the most illegal thing i have done, and should i have been a cop, i may have arrested me. But they simply told me to get my pizza , go home, and stop acting like a moron.

The worst i could say about the cops is they didn't find the concept of owning a giant number 2 funny. ( i at length explained that due to the inherent fecal reference i would find it humorous to put up in my place. They did not get the joke. )

And you should be up in arms that your tax dollars are being wasted.