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

[dafydd]

The reality of them.

And....?

 

[dafydd]

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.

Sigh!

 

[tsig]

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.

I didn't say anyone has to survive but most of us find it handy.

If using your words shows a lack of integrity and credibility then how much more lack of integrity and credibility did it show to use them in the first place?

 

[Bluekush623]

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 You state that consent may be withdrawn from statute law and the result for the individual would be an exemption from statutes. But, it appears you are also saying that consent may not be withdrawn from common law and everybody is bound by it.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?

Because when you break common law you are not fulfilling consent or order.

So when you rape, kill, kidnap, assault, commit fraud, steal without consent you are giving someone a lawful right to seek remedy and to have you punished for punishing them.

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?

Why do you want to keep speaking about assumptions and speculation? Lets get back to reality.

-I dont know what would happen to everyone.
-Essentially sense there is no more government. (this is kind of rhetorical)
-Yes everyone could survive.

Well your suspicion is only another false assumption. Because who is to say that freeman wont keep the safety of their community paramount or even create a new government(s) for "survival".

This assumption to freeloading is the biggest cop out argument of all time.

 

[tsig]

The reality of them.

Your local SWAT team has more and better guns so I guess they get to dictate reality then.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Atleast one person understands this.

However the freeloading part is again a frivolous assumption.

You acknowledge the truth in his statement and then immediately dismiss it as as frivolous assumption?

I can see why you guys are doing so well outside of your compounds.

 

[tsig]

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.

I would rather shop in the grocery store than dumpster dive out back.

 

[Hans]

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

Repost for our FOTL warrior of truth and light

 

[tsig]

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.

Rather like the Constitution.

 

[tsig]

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

The weather takes a toll on roads so there's always ongoing maintenance costs.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

There was an old Mr. Show sketch that nails the thinking behind these guys.

The jist of it is, a FOTL type huffs and puffs and eventually declares that he's going to secede and start his own sovereign state. To his bewilderment, the USG acquiesces and declares him his own separate country.

Sooner or later, he runs into the problems of providing goods and services, which he solves by improvising a system of money that he uses to pay himself for food and other such things.

Eventually running out of supplies, he packs up his handkerchief-on-the-end-of-a-stick and discovers this wonderful place called America with their amazingly well-stocked grocery stores and public services.

Which leads to an amusing scene where he tries to immigrate back into the US from his sovereign country "New Freeland", located in Montana.

 

[tsig]

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

Somebody sold you the wrong Book of Spells.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Somebody sold you the wrong Book of Spells.

No, it's working. He's just trying to cast Confuse on a target protected by Reflect.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

There was an old Mr. Show sketch that nails the thinking behind these guys.

The jist of it is, a FOTL type huffs and puffs and eventually declares that he's going to secede and start his own sovereign state. To his bewilderment, the USG acquiesces and declares him his own separate country.

Sooner or later, he runs into the problems of providing goods and services, which he solves by improvising a system of money that he uses to pay himself for food and other such things.

Eventually running out of supplies, he packs up his handkerchief-on-the-end-of-a-stick and discovers this wonderful place called America with their amazingly well-stocked grocery stores and public services.

Which leads to an amusing scene where he tries to immigrate back into the US from his sovereign country "New Freeland", located in Montana.

Sounds almost like Petoria from Family Guy...

 

[jargon buster]

Bluekush
By whos authourity is Common Law enforced?

If I refuse to consent to your Common Law jurisdiction,What happens to me?

JB

 

[tsig]

No, it's working. He's just trying to cast Confuse on a target protected by Reflect.

OK, I thought he was trying some sort of Shape-shift what with not being a FOTL yet sounding just like one.

If it walks, talks, has feathers and floats like a duck it is usually a duck.

_{or a very realistice duckbot}

 

[tsig]

Bluekush
By whos authourity is Common Law enforced?

If I refuse to consent to your Common Law jurisdiction,What happens to me?

JB

Your house burns down.

 

[gtm]

Sounds almost like Petoria from Family Guy...

I'd love to see a 'freeman state' in action. They'd be demanding handouts from the UN within 3 months though.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'd love to see a 'freeman state' in action. They'd be demanding handouts from the UN within 3 months though.

Wouldn't it be great if the UN replied that they don't consent to the request?

 

[Bluekush623]

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

Wrong.

.
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.
.

No its not very telling for the reason I stated.

.
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?
.

My personal life is not the discussion, it is about the law.

However..

1) If someone pay taxes contractually this is a form of sovereignty, just like someone who doesn't consent to paying taxes/services.And why I dont get the confusion and disagreement here.
2)Like I said you are assuming I am a FOTL. And just because someone is using something it doesn't mean they paid for it, so this is yet another assumption.

Because the Constitution is a legal document supplied by legal definitions.