Merged Freeman on the Land in America/lawful rebellion/sovereign citizens

[jargon buster]

I dont bother wasting time on grndslm anymore, he simply ignores every single rebuttal of his nonsense and then moves on to something else without ever acknowledging his tomfoolery.

Hes simply trolling the site, he cannot verify anything he says or claims and is even dishonest with his claims.

Hes best ignored

 

[drkitten]

Orly?

Yes, really.

Do you have the right to carry firearms or other weapons??

Not relevant; we're talking about the right to travel, not the right to carry firearms.

I've noticed this to be a characteristic of FOTL "reasoning" as well; when they lose one argument, they immediately jump into another argument on a completely different topic. One that they will invariably lose as well, because the second argument is based on equally specious reasoning supported by out-of-context cherry-picked quotations that they don't understand.

But they hope that people will have forgotten how badly they lost the first argument by the time they're done losing the second argument as well.

It's not, however, going to work this time. If you want to discuss the right to travel, feel free to discuss it. Case law (which is common law) shows that you have the right to travel, but that the government has the right to regulate whether and how you can drive as long as the restrictions are reasonable and evenly applied.

 

[Ladewig]

He's simply trolling the site, he cannot verify anything he says or claims and is even dishonest with his claims.

The evidence does appear to indicate that. I suspect that he thinks he is somehow disrupting our site when in fact he is just making us laugh. Of course the other result of his posting gibberish here is to show that the skeptic board doesn't delete posts in the same way that the FOTL boards do. We can counter dissent with documented facts, logic, and valid arguments. Three things not found in excessive numbers on FOTL boards.

I am still waiting for a reason why the murderous, treasonous, and corrupt U.S. government allows loopholes in its unjust occupation of the Land of the Freemen.

..........

Admiralty Law Forever!

 

[grndslm]

Yes, really.



Not relevant; we're talking about the right to travel, not the right to carry firearms.

Umm... of course it's relevant.

In our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, our government is formed around the understanding that individuals are allowed to protect themselves and have liberty to do anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

If we grant ourselves the right to protect ourselves.... why do you think we wouldn't grant ourselves the right to travel on our own roads??

Riddle me that one.

Edited by kmortis: 

Do not alter other's usernames for purposes of insult

 

[drkitten]

Umm... of course it's relevant.

No.

In our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, our government is formed around the understanding that individuals are allowed to protect themselves and have liberty to do anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Not in the slightest; in fact, in our Constitutional Republic, we specifically formed our government around the idea that we needed a stronger central government because the previous weak government (under the Articles of Confederation) was unable to provide the services people needed.

If we grant ourselves the right to protect ourselves.... why do you think we wouldn't grant ourselves the right to travel on our own roads??

Again, not relevant. We do grant ourselves the right to travel, including to travel by motor vehicle. But not to operate a motor vehicle without the necessary safety equipment, training, and permits.

 

[Horatius]

Do you really have no useful comment on the fact that your cut-n-pasted "source" has seriously distorted the content of several of the court cases quoted, and that, even then, it really doesn't say anything about what you claim it said?

I guess we'll have to take it as a "no" on the useful comments, then.

 

[Hawk one]

If we grant ourselves the right to protect ourselves.... why do you think we wouldn't grant ourselves the right to travel on our own roads??

It is precisely -because- we* are protecting ourselves that we're not just allowing everyone to operate a motor veichle on the roads. It's that simple.



*Granted, I'm not a US citizen, but our countries has roughly the same regulations on what licences etc. are needed to lawfully drive on our roads. And for the exact same reasons.

 

[abaddon]

Umm... of course it's relevant.

In our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, our government is formed around the understanding that individuals are allowed to protect themselves and have liberty to do anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

If we grant ourselves the right to protect ourselves.... why do you think we wouldn't grant ourselves the right to travel on our own roads??

Riddle me that one.

Edited by kmortis: 

Do not alter other's usernames for purposes of insult

You lost that right by not paying taxes which keep those roads in place and maintained.

You don't pay, then stay the hell of the roads that everyone else pays for.

 

[carlitos]

He does claim to stay "off to the side" of the roads. Imagine if everyone did that.

 

[dafydd]

If it is no question whether or not you can carry a gun on your person, then it should be no problem whether you can travel in any modern conveyance of the time... as is said in a number of the quotes I cited.

Do you mean paying for a ticket on a train,plane or bus? People do that all the time.

 

[dafydd]

I dont bother wasting time on grndslm anymore, he simply ignores every single rebuttal of his nonsense and then moves on to something else without ever acknowledging his tomfoolery.

Hes simply trolling the site, he cannot verify anything he says or claims and is even dishonest with his claims.

Hes best ignored

No,we should encourage him,just for the giggles. Most Freeloaders leave these threads quickly after making eejits of themselves.

 

[dafydd]

Umm... of course it's relevant.

In our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, our government is formed around the understanding that individuals are allowed to protect themselves and have liberty to do anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

If we grant ourselves the right to protect ourselves.... why do you think we wouldn't grant ourselves the right to travel on our own roads??

Riddle me that one.

Edited by kmortis: 

Do not alter other's usernames for purposes of insult

Because I don't want to meet an uninsured,untrained Freeloader with a bong in his car coming the other way.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

The evidence does appear to indicate that. I suspect that he thinks he is somehow disrupting our site when in fact he is just making us laugh. Of course the other result of his posting gibberish here is to show that the skeptic board doesn't delete posts in the same way that the FOTL boards do. We can counter dissent with documented facts, logic, and valid arguments. Three things not found in excessive numbers on FOTL boards.

I am still waiting for a reason why the murderous, treasonous, and corrupt U.S. government allows loopholes in its unjust occupation of the Land of the Freemen.

..........

Admiralty Law Forever!

Indeed. And I am still waiting for an answer to ruling of the Mississippi Supreme Court which seems to suggest that grndslm is indeed a person under the law. Whither the strawman?

Do you realize that if a statute contains the definition, you MUST use that definition??

What is a person in law dictionaries isn't important if the statute has the definition for person within, which it usually does. The answer is in the statute!!

And I cannot mediate with you when it comes to Canadian statutes or cases. Not my specialty.

Point taken. I didn't realize that you had a specialty. You've only trained and practiced in Mississippi law I presume? Well, I'm only familiar with Canadian law, so you'll have to bear with me as I wade into your specialty (although, as we have both trained and practiced, I'm sure you'll agree that legal research and reasoning are really skills that transcend jurisdictional boundaries, no?)

Anyway, after a quick search I found this decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court in the matter of Coleman v. State of Mississippi, NO. 2004-CT-00346-SCT.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Randolph (this passage is collateral to the point on which Randolph J. is dissenting) states as follows:


¶

35. Additionally, Miss. Code Ann. Section 1-3-65 instructs, “All words and phrases contained in the statutes are used according to their common and ordinary acceptation and meaning; but technical words and phrases according to their technical meaning.” As my esteemed colleague, Justice Dickinson, recognizes those who may be prosecuted for embezzlement are “limited to certain persons who steal from 'any private person,'” let us examine the common meanings of “private” and “person” as defined by Webster's Dictionary.

Private is defined as “(4) Belonging to a specific person or persons; (5)
Not in an official or public position; (6) Not public.” Webster's further provides the core meaning: belonging or confined to a particular person or group....” Webster's II New College Dictionary 880 (2001).

The definition of person is as follows: “(7) Law A human being or
organization with legal rights and duties.” Webster's II New College Dictionary 820 (2001).

I've bolded the relevant bits. Of course, the Court (understandably, I would argue) doesn't feel the need to also examine the common meaning of "human being", but I imagine that you will, so please find it below, also from Webster's Dictionary:

Definition of HUMAN

: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : man; broadly : hominid

Now I've also found a piece of Mississippi legislation entitled the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

You can find it here: mslawyer.com/statutes/landlord.html (I know this isn't an official source, but I think its good enough for our purposes).

The definitions are set out in s. 89-8-7. Please note that the word "person" is not defined in this section of the statute (nor in any other section of the statute). Now, based on that fact, and on the decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court I cited above, would you say that you are, for the purposes of this Act, a person, and as such, it applies to you?

And having so admitted, are you able to produce any Mississippi statutes that do explicitly define person so as to explicitly exclude human beings from their application?

Anyway, I think that Horatius and D'rok have made the point already. Mr. grndslm has so far not been able to demonstrate that his arguments have any merit. However, I remain interested to see if he will respond to any of these counterarguments.

 

[Horatius]

Anyway, I think that Horatius and D'rok have made the point already. Mr. grndslm has so far not been able to demonstrate that his arguments have any merit. However, I remain interested to see if he will respond to any of these counterarguments.

I think the point we've all made is, his declarations to the contrary, grndslm wants to stay as far away from a serious discussion of his beliefs and assertions as he possibly can. He's not interested in a "discussion"; all he wants is unthinking acceptance.

Of course, I do intend to keep on making that point, just in case anyone leaning towards the FOTLer mindset (other than grndslm!) reads this thread, so they can see exactly what FOTLer "research" and "discussion" actually involves. grndslm is likely too far into the woo to ever come out of it, but others who are just starting the downwards slide might still be reachable.

 

[grndslm]

You guys talk too much.

The term person is in the statute. Tell me what statute you'd like to talk about and see what it says for person in the definitions section.

 

[D'rok]

I dont bother wasting time on grndslm anymore, he simply ignores every single rebuttal of his nonsense and then moves on to something else without ever acknowledging his tomfoolery.

Hes simply trolling the site, he cannot verify anything he says or claims and is even dishonest with his claims.

Hes best ignored

And right on cue...

You guys talk too much.

The term person is in the statute. Tell me what statute you'd like to talk about and see what it says for person in the definitions section.

 

[grndslm]

Dude...

http://freemen.freeforums.org/travel-f14.html

Check that research out. Do some of your own research. Make up your own mind. Ya dig?

 

[grndslm]

Here's a couple more direct link to the goodies...

http://freemen.freeforums.org/travel-information-resource-page-t155.html

http://freemen.freeforums.org/travel-cache-t121.html

GO AMERICAN LAW!!!

 

[Horatius]

You guys talk too much.

The term person is in the statute. Tell me what statute you'd like to talk about and see what it says for person in the definitions section.

We "talk too much"? And then you turn around and ask us what statute we'd like to "talk" about? Nice consistency there.


But okay, let's discuss what definition of "person" should be used in reading the MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, Title 63 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.


Since I know you have difficulties with finding proper citations, I'll even link you to the "Definitions" section.

http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/63/001/0003.htm


Go!

 

[solzhenitsyn]

You guys talk too much.

The term person is in the statute. Tell me what statute you'd like to talk about and see what it says for person in the definitions section.

I just provided you with one: Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

Here is the link (again, not from an official source, but I'm sure we can find one if you think its important): www.mslawyer.com/statutes/landlord.html

Here is the definitions section:

Sec. 89-8-7. Definitions; Notice to Landlord's Agent

(1) Subject to additional definitions contained in subsequent sections of this chapter which apply to specific sections or parts thereof, and unless the context otherwise requires, in this chapter:

(a) "Building and housing codes" includes any law, ordinance, or governmental regulation concerning fitness for habitation, construction, maintenance, operation, occupancy or use of any premises or dwelling unit;

(b) "Dwelling unit" means a structure or the part of a structure that is used as a home, residence or sleeping place by one (1) person who maintains a household or by two (2) or more persons who maintain a common household;

(c) "Good faith" means honesty in fact in the conduct of the transaction concerned and observation of reasonable community standards of fair dealing;

(d) "Landlord" means the owner, lessor or sublessor of the dwelling unit or the building of which it is a part, or the agent representing such owner, lessor or sublessor;

(e) "Organization" includes a corporation, government, governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership or association, two (2) or more persons having a joint or common interest, and any other legal or commercial entity;

(f) "Owner" means one or more persons, jointly or severally, in whom is vested (i) all or part of the legal title to property or (ii) all or part of the beneficial ownership and a right to present use and enjoyment of the premises, and the term includes a mortgagee in possession;

(g) "Premises" means a dwelling unit and the structure of which it is a part,facilities and appurtenances therein, and grounds, areas and facilities held out for the use of tenants generally or whose use is promised to the tenant;

(h) "Rent" means all payments to be made to the landlord under the rental agreement;

(i) "Rental agreement" means all agreements, written or oral, and valid rules and regulations adopted under Section 89-8-11 embodying the terms and conditions concerning the use and occupancy of a dwelling unit and premises;

(j) "Tenant" means a person entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others;

(k) "Qualified tenant management organizations" means any organization incorporated under the Mississippi Nonprofit Corporation Act, a majority of the directors of which are tenants of the housing project to be managed under a contract authorized by this section and which is able to conform to standards set by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development as capable of satisfactorily performing the operational and management functions delegated to it by the contract.

Please note that "person" is not defined. Please also note that the definitions of both "landlord" and "tenant" include persons. So from the reasoning of the Mississippi Supreme Court that I just posted, would you not conclude that that statute applies to you, a human being, in Mississippi (to the extent that you fall under the definition of landlord or tenant)?

EDIT: or let's just focus on the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulations that Horatius posted above.