Why don't you move to Somalia, since them seen to have the kind of government that you like?
I'm fairly certain you don't know what kind of government that I like. You'd never guess my ideal form of government in a million years.
Move to a better neighborhood.
They're all the same. It's not like this all happens in one neighborhood anyway. Happens citywide, at minimum.
Cool, albeit totally incomprehensible, story bro.
Free Speech does not equal mouthing off to a judge in Court, "bro.
Was I really mouthing off. If the judge requires you to answer an irrelevant question with a yes or no, then why doesn't the Constitution apply??
I can't speak for everyone but I'll tell you why I won't move:
I went to law school and learned that freeman on the land are out of their bleepity bleeping minds. Seriously, I've never heard a FOTL claim that was even remotely true.
What claims have you heard?
Michael Badnarik is "the most famous American who travels without a license", perhaps you should ask him how he does it. He doesn't need anymore identification than his passport that says "Constitutional, but not statutory citizen".
ANd mouthing off to a judge when he is on the bench is really,really,stupid.
ANd you do know your right to free speech is not unlimited when it comes to where, when, and how.You can't rent a truck and go into a residential neighborhood at Three o Clock in the Morning with loudspeakers blaring you rant of the day.
Once again.. I didn't mouth off. I humbly and politely told him that his question was irrelevant.
He actually didn't even give me contempt for that. I answered the question with "that's irrelevant" three times. He proceeded to talk. He formed an independent clause, then stopped speaking and smiled. I then continued on with a third reason as to WHY his question was irrelevant, because HE interrupted me. At that point he said, "... BUT... Contept of Court!" As if he were still speaking.
The catch is that I agreed to not interrupt him from the beginning. I did not realize that accidental interruptions were included.
I'm not afraid to learn.
Well, i get a check every month from the Feds, one from the state and one from that evil corporation that I worked for so I'm collecting.
You likely aren't collecting what you put in, however, thanks to inflation.
.
Speaking of ignoring, you seem to be ignoring
this post and those in direct response to it.
Can you give us a good reason why?
.
I can't go in that thread for another couple days it seems, because there's other things to do.
There's a great misunderstanding that we're on level ground there, but we're not. I'm speaking about America. Everybody else is speaking about Europe. There's at least 15 new responses for every new post I make, so I just can't deal with that. Perhaps in another day or two.
As to that post... Jesus did not teach anyone to beat their slaves. Quote that whole chapter of Luke if you'd like, and I'll respond to it here... if you absolutely require a response.
The reason why is because most people are smart enough not to take it seriously because YOU and fellow self-proclaimed FMOTLers can't answer simple questions like this:
All you have to do to prove your case is something that time and again we've seen every self-proclaimed FOTL fail to do -
Cite one single court case from any country on any statute law where a self-proclaimed freeman on the land was allowed to ignore statute law because of he declined to consent to it.
Thats it. Thats all you have to do. It cannot get anymore simple. If the world operates as you believe it does, where as long as you do the right tap dance in court and refuse to do certain things to "decline" consent, then this should be so easy to find. The world cannot be as you believe it is if you can't offer even one case like this. And don't tell me that the court would never issue such an opinion. Courts issue opinions like this all the time for real, valid exemptions from statute law (like sovereign Native American tribes).
If you cannot provide even 1 court citation from any country on any matter about anything that shows this, then you should admit your worldview is a delusion and come back to reality.
I could shoe you some amazing court cases, but, as you already know, my old forum is down due to a DDoS attack. Thanks, tho.
Ignoring statutory law has NOTHING to do with "being a freeman". Why do I need to repeat myself so often??
I have provided you an example of how Christian Scientists are not subject to statutory punishment if they refuse to take their children to the hospital and the child dies. I'll find some more if you absolutely require, but getting out of "statutory punishment" is about asserting your rights every step of the way. That means... you won't even go to trial, because the case will be quashed, demurred, dismissed, etc... long before it gets to that point. That's the entire point. If you sign papers at the arraignment, then you're a sucker and have already admitted to citizenship and jurisdiction.
Then by your very own recollection FMOTL is a utter and complete failure. If FMOTL had any basis in law then the judge could not even call you into court (only your strawman, and you could simply A4V the charges away or use maritime liens). The very fact that they can call you into court and can throw you into jail for contempt of court shows that you, in fact, are not a freeman on the land.
Did I say I claimed to be a freeman on that day of court?
I actually went in there with my license to do nothing more than debate two "no tag light" and "no DL on person" citations. Since I screwed up at arraignment, I had no choice but to fill the role of the statutory citizen.
I showed my DL. And after that, I proved to the prosecutor that I was right. He hung his head in disbelief.. but the judge didn't care. Brought in the extraneous question that the prosecutor couldn't answer three times, then asked me. I didn't want to answer yes or no, because it was LOADED!! I answered honestly that his question was irrelevant THREE TIMES. I did not get contempt. I got contempt because I agreed to not interrupt him, which I accidentally did after he had stopped speaking. We were beyond procedure at that point, so I wasn't really sure what to do, but I did want to explain WHY I was answering that the question was irrelevant.
As I was being handcuffed, I said, "I do not consent. I object. I decline to contract." He said, "10 days in jail! And if you don't stop, I'll give you 180!" I was "detained" in a holding cell for a bit, then released and brought back before the judge. He said... "I'll give you the choice... 10 days in jail or 2 months probation." I sat there for at least 2 minutes before answering, because I wanted to think really long and hard about how much this relied on my choice. I truly did want to take the jailtime to try to habeas corpus out, but then realized that I'd still have to go see that same judge. The better of those 2 choices was the probation so that I could appeal. The best option would have been to continue declining to contract, or counter-offer, or accept either one upon receipt of 10 pounds of gold. I didn't do any of those, because I had no clue about anything and I already knew I messed up from the beginning by giving them jurisdiction at the arraignment.
Anyway... don't go making presumptions about what I did at the court if you haven't heard the story. That's idiotic.
Except you don't have a right to travel in any modern conveyance. Thats another made up FMOTL thing.
Question Michael Badnarik if you'd like to. He's "the most famous American who travels without a license". Ask him how he got his passport that says he's a "constitutional, but not statutory citizen".
I'm sure there are many things that you don't know but others do. Shouldn't be so positive about things you know NOTHING about.
