• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Slayhamlet said:
I'm not sure where you got the idea that you were part of the conversation. Had you followed it you'd know that they were discussing an American FOTL claim from the start. Perhaps you're confused by the thread title? Some thread drift is allowed here, especially when we're 138 pages in. There's only so much FOTL in the world; no point in limiting the discussion to one country.
Click to expand...

The thread title was The Freeman Movement and England until it was derailed with this irrelevant 14th amendment rot, and the mods had to intervene and split out the 14th Amendment stuff to a separate thread. This thread.

Did you fail to read the thread title at the time you posted?
 
abaddon said:
The thread title was The Freeman Movement and England until it was derailed with this irrelevant 14th amendment rot, and the mods had to intervene and split out the 14th Amendment stuff to a separate thread. This thread.

Did you fail to read the thread title at the time you posted?
Click to expand...

Yes, it said the Freeman movement AND England, not IN Englnad, which to me implied a discussion of both the Freeman movement in general, and its relations to England, BUT NOT LIMITED to just England.
 
Last edited:
well done therival58, you are now a fully fledged FMOTL, spinning the meaning of words and phrases to suit an agenda, great stuff.

it only took over 5,400 posts for someone to interpret it that way, what was everyone else thinking
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
well done therival58, you are now a fully fledged FMOTL, spinning the meaning of words and phrases to suit an agenda, great stuff.

it only took over 5,400 posts for someone to interpret it that way, what was everyone else thinking
Click to expand...

I suppose I should have read the first few pages to understand the thread was just on England, but given how much larger it is compared to other FOTL threads, I thought it was for general discussion of FOTL with the main focus on England, but not limited to other freeman topics.

anyway let's not make a mountain out of an anthill. lesson learned.
 
therival58 said:
So you're telling me that the language in the 14th amendment is worded to actually accommodate and make the case for the FOTLers claims? The video posted discussed how the original definition of 'citizen' was to be a citizen of a US state, thus maintaining individual sovereignty there, not a citizen of the district of columbia federal government.
Click to expand...


Even if this were the case, it wouldn't help the basic FOTLer argument that they are immune from any law that they don't consent to, or the "personal sovereignty" stuff. All it would mean was that they would be citizens of one state (the local state) rather than another (the federal state).
 
Browsing through old issues of popbitch, I came across this from October last year (I think the story itself is a little older):

Bob Inglis, of South Carolina, lost a
vicious Republican primary fight with a
right-wing insurgent named Trey Gowdy
to stand for a Congressional seat.

Inglis said he was amazed that when
he was out canvassing he kept meeting
voters who were convinced that the
numbers on their Social Security cards
meant that they had been bought at birth
by a secret bank.
Click to expand...


FOTLers?
 
Mojo said:
Even if this were the case, it wouldn't help the basic FOTLer argument that they are immune from any law that they don't consent to, or the "personal sovereignty" stuff. All it would mean was that they would be citizens of one state (the local state) rather than another (the federal state).
Click to expand...

At best, it wouldn't make any difference. My understanding of American law is that federal law supercedes state law (hence recent cases ruling Chicago gun laws unconstitutional, for instance). If someone insisted that they only recognised the laws of their state, and their state says (as they have to) that they recognise federal law, the individual would still have to recognise federal law to remain within state law.

I am not a lawyer, so that may well be bollocks. I apologise to any lawyers who suffer headaches as a result.
 
Apparently Lindsay Lohan could have gotten out of trouble. Here's a comment posted on the story about her going to jail.
Well we knew that would happen. The corrupt court stands to make to much money off the bond they create on this case. To bad people don't know who they are and how they really have this system rigged against everyone. Her first mistake was hiring an attorney and her second mistake was not knowing who she really is, but oh well, 99% of the population makes the same mistake, If she knew the truth and who she is and what she is not, she would have walked away and the case would be dismissed.
Click to expand...

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b238102_lindsay_lohan_sentenced_120_days_in.html#ixzz1KMObryTv

It's probably only time before some celeb tries to pull the FMOTL bs and it gets wide exposure.
 
The site globalistagenda.org claims Canada is a corporation because it is labeled as a company under the US Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) website and files an annual financial reports to the SEC.

My question is, why would the country of Canada be filing annual financial reports with the SEC and why is it called a company?:confused: Do other countries do this?

http://globalistagenda.org/lawMore.htm

The Corporation of Canada

The above link is to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States. You can see for yourself that Canada is in fact a corporation that files an annual financial report to the SEC. This could have been listed under Finance or Law but the fact is that all law is in fact contract or equity law and thus they are really one and the same. The law of the land is really corporate, equity, contract law.
Click to expand...
 
therival58 said:
The site globalistagenda.org claims Canada is a corporation because it is labeled as a company under the US Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) website and files an annual financial reports to the SEC.

My question is, why would the country of Canada be filing annual financial reports with the SEC and why is it called a company?:confused: Do other countries do this?

http://globalistagenda.org/lawMore.htm
Click to expand...



Except if you look at the forms listed on the site they link you to, they're labelled quite clearly:


FORM 18-K/A
AMENDMENT NO. 2
For Foreign Governments and Political Subdivisions Thereof
Click to expand...


Canada puts out bonds and borrows money on the open market. Why wouldn't the SEC want a full report of their financial activities, at least so far as they take place on US-controlled markets?
 
abaddon said:
Your 14th amendment is entirely irrelevant. I do not live in the US of Arrogance, nor does most of the population of this planet.
Click to expand...

And for that reason you are, most likely, not liable to pay USA federal income tax (with some exceptions -- e.g., non-USA citizens working for a US corporation or similar situations).

Feel free to explain why your rules obviate any others.
Click to expand...

They don't. He is simply talking about the law in the USA. He is not claiming this is the law elsewhere...
 
Horatius said:
Canada puts out bonds and borrows money on the open market. Why wouldn't the SEC want a full report of their financial activities, at least so far as they take place on US-controlled markets?
Click to expand...

That's correct - if you issue a bond in the United States, it must meet SEC requirements, whether you are a regular corporation or a government.

What the FOTL crowd does not seem to understand is that governments need to enter into business transactions every now and again. Because of this, they sometimes have to act as corporations. All very simple, and easily understood by 99.9% of the country. FOTLers, however, seem to think that by virtue of occasionally acting a corporation, that a government ceases to act as a governing body. There is not one authority to suggest this is true, and yet they hinge many of their "legal theories" on this.
 
Horatius said:
Except if you look at the forms listed on the site they link you to, they're labelled quite clearly:

Canada puts out bonds and borrows money on the open market. Why wouldn't the SEC want a full report of their financial activities, at least so far as they take place on US-controlled markets?
Click to expand...

Ok I didn't look closely enough thanks for clarifying
 
Last edited:
I don't know what to say about that video other than that anyone who watches it and follows through with its advice will end up in debt up to their eyeballs or in jail. It's so insane that there's no point in bothering to address the "argument" it puts forward.

It's like trying to tell a person walking on the street proclaiming that they are Napoleon Bonaparte that they are wrong. What's the point? If they think it's true, then they are crazy and nothing you can say will convince them they are wrong.
 
Having seen that video, I lost at least sixteen thousand brain cells

I am a newbie to this whole FMOL stuff. However watching that video made my head hurt. Honestly, if our true representative government was replaced by an evil corporation, then why would they have to create a legal fiction to make money off of you? Couldn't they just do what they do in all dictatorships and just use their monopoly on legal violence to force compliance? Not only that but if they are so corrupt, why would they have to play by the freeman get out of jail/debt/taxes free card? Wouldn't the very definition of corruption imply that the government in that case would just ignore the "real freeman law"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom