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

[Grassy Knowlington]

well "U.S. Stock" may be shorthand for stock in the Second Bank of the United States, but reading through both pages it's still pretty ambiguous

The "US Stock" market appears, to my uneducated and perhaps simplistic viewpoint, to be concerned with the public trading of shares ("US Stock") in USA based or registered corporations. Was the essence any different in 1825?

 

[GreyArea]

CBS' 60 Minutes recently had a report on the "sovereign citizens". There is an article here, and the video segment can be seen here.

Then, Talking Points Memo talked to some of the movement's "gurus" to see why they think the government is illegitimate. The article quotes part of last year's ADL report, saying:

The theories all share the belief that many years ago an insidious conspiracy infiltrated the U.S. government and subverted it, slowly replacing parts of the original, legitimate government (often referred to by sovereigns as the "de jure" government) with an illegitimate, tyrannical government (the "de facto" government).

TPM clarifies this with an example. One of the movement's lecturers claims that the Food and Drug Act usurped the Declaration of Independence's recognition that every man is a sovereign like a king. And the Act did this because its language "means that the government deems man to be an animal" and "animals are not 'endowed by their Creator.'"

Read more from this clown, and even nuttier examples, here. There is plenty there for skeptics, rationalists, historians, legal scholars, atheists, and (arguably) evolutionists to hoot at.

It would be merely amusing if these ideas were just crackpot yarns. However, there is a violent and dangerous element to this particular political fringe, as the 60 Minutes report notes. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration's DHS has backed off from pursuing or reporting on it.

People need to take the threat seriously. News coverage, as well as asking what do we do about the sovereign citizen movement on a skeptics' forum, are only parts of a process of educating and motivating people to combat ahistorical conspiracy talk. But law enforcement also needs to play a role in confronting the people who instigate physical harm because of such nonsense.

 

[The Big Dog]

Soverign Pizza Mogul Loses His Pizza

In a hilariously lulz worthy article, the owner of Giordano's Pizza Chain in Chicago sees his Freeman on the Land stunt cost him his business and even his ability to eat pizza at his own restaurants.

Enjoy!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0612-giordanos--20110611,0,1118609.story

 

[dropzone]

The pizza was over rated. Pretty much pizza pudding in a shell. He deserves whatever he gets because REAL Chicago pizza is a fairly thin crust, good sauce, too much sausage, and enough mozzarella to cause a heart attack. So much of each that SOME people won't look askance when you dab at the top with a napkin to draw off some of the fat.

 

[akama1]

In a hilariously lulz worthy article, the owner of Giordano's Pizza Chain in Chicago sees his Freeman on the Land stunt cost him his business and even his ability to eat pizza at his own restaurants.

Enjoy!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0612-giordanos--20110611,0,1118609.story

Wow... just wow. He has had the wool pulled over his eyes by Home, and not only doesn't realise it, but is diving in head first. What a way to waste years of work.

 

[The Big Dog]

The pizza was over rated. Pretty much pizza pudding in a shell. He deserves whatever he gets because REAL Chicago pizza is a fairly thin crust, good sauce, too much sausage, and enough mozzarella to cause a heart attack. So much of each that SOME people won't look askance when you dab at the top with a napkin to draw off some of the fat.

Oh no you dint! j/k. Actually their "thin" crust is fantastic.

This was a major front page article in Sunday's Chicago Tribune.

The guy from Arizona is properly exposed as a major scumbag.

 

[Bosozoku]

So much gold in that article, I hardly know where to start!

Home is defiant. He said he is outraged by what happened to the Apostolous and is trying to get the pizza chain back for them.

"My claim is solid, legal and secured," Home said. "I will be in control of the business. You can count on it."

Home is, in case you didn't read the article, the Freeman whose advice got the owner (Apostolou) banned from his own business. In other words, a man you can count on!

"He's a man who cares about people, who helps people save their homes from illegal foreclosures," Apostolou said of Home. "He asked me to come out there. He said, 'I can save you.'"

I wish I could do as poorly as these guys do and still have people think that I was some sort of wizard who could make their debts disappear. This guy fired his lawyers and yet still thinks the guy whose advice directly cost him his business is the guy who is going to save him.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

CBS' 60 Minutes recently had a report on the "sovereign citizens". There is an article here, and the video segment can be seen here.

Then, Talking Points Memo talked to some of the movement's "gurus" to see why they think the government is illegitimate. The article quotes part of last year's ADL report, saying:


TPM clarifies this with an example. One of the movement's lecturers claims that the Food and Drug Act usurped the Declaration of Independence's recognition that every man is a sovereign like a king. And the Act did this because its language "means that the government deems man to be an animal" and "animals are not 'endowed by their Creator.'"

Read more from this clown, and even nuttier examples, here. There is plenty there for skeptics, rationalists, historians, legal scholars, atheists, and (arguably) evolutionists to hoot at.

It would be merely amusing if these ideas were just crackpot yarns. However, there is a violent and dangerous element to this particular political fringe, as the 60 Minutes report notes. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration's DHS has backed off from pursuing or reporting on it.

People need to take the threat seriously. News coverage, as well as asking what do we do about the sovereign citizen movement on a skeptics' forum, are only parts of a process of educating and motivating people to combat ahistorical conspiracy talk. But law enforcement also needs to play a role in confronting the people who instigate physical harm because of such nonsense.

My understanding is that there are no sovereign citizen guru's out there. Watching a 60 minutes episode on it is something like watching howard sterns hollywood hooker squares. Yes you see hookers but have no idea what they do or even if they are real women.

I have serious doubts that a real one would show his face on tv either. I really dont have enough information to know what you saw.

 

[Tolls]

It makes you wonder how he managed to stay in business for 20+ years.

 

[John Albert]

I find it sad. Giordano's isn't great pizza, but it's been a decent standby on occasion.

 

[zooterkin]

that doesnt make her a freeman on the land, that makes her deluded.

That's an awfully fine hair you're splitting there.

 

[The Don]

It makes you wonder how he managed to stay in business for 20+ years.

I suspect that he only considered Freeman ideas once the business was in trouble. Before that, he ran the business along conventional lines until it ran into trouble.

 

[jargon buster]

It makes you wonder how he managed to stay in business for 20+ years.

Thats easy, he was "asleep" all his life, its only when he "woke up" that his problems started.

I always find it funny that CTs always claim to be "awake" and its this state of awareness that brings paranoia and delusion.

 

[John Albert]

I feel sorry for Aposolous. I'm guessing he was feeling rather desperate. He ran a reasonably successful restaurant chain until the economic problems of the last few years took their toll. After dealing with the gut-wrenching process of bankruptcy for several months, he somehow gets mixed up with this crazy Arizona "super-patriot" guy who pitches him some arcane legal solution to resolve his financial problems. For some reason, Apostolous fails to recognize Home as a foamy, right-wing nut. Maybe he's a Glenn Beck fan. Who knows?

Apparently, this "Home" guy (can that possibly be his real name?!?) is a "multibillionaire activist" who's been running the same type of scam on foreclosure victims in Arizona. This radio interview with Home is quite revealing. Home says he spent several years in Costa Rica working as a "healer," and claims he has the power to "look inside peoples' bodies" and "reconstruct peoples' bodies" with his hands. So the guy has a history of preying on the disadvantaged. I wouldn't be surprised if he charges fees for his "legal advice."

 

[The Big Dog]

I feel sorry for Aposolous. I'm guessing he was feeling rather desperate. He ran a reasonably successful restaurant chain until the economic problems of the last few years took their toll. After dealing with the gut-wrenching process of bankruptcy for several months, he somehow gets mixed up with this crazy Arizona "super-patriot" guy who pitches him some arcane legal solution to resolve his financial problems. For some reason, Apostolous fails to recognize Home as a foamy, right-wing nut. Maybe he's a Glenn Beck fan. Who knows?

Apparently, this "Home" guy (can that possibly be his real name?!?) is a "multibillionaire activist" who's been running the same type of scam on foreclosure victims in Arizona. This radio interview with Home is quite revealing. Home says he spent several years in Costa Rica working as a "healer," and claims he has the power to "look inside peoples' bodies" and "reconstruct peoples' bodies" with his hands. So the guy has a history of preying on the disadvantaged. I wouldn't be surprised if he charges fees for his "legal advice."

Don't feel too bad for Aposolous, he and his family were pulling $2 million a year out of the company, before the bank forced them to cut down to a mere $900k.

Further, he filed a document in the bankruptcy accusing the United States of fraud, and "cancelling the contract with the Court" and therefore terminating the hearing to appoint a trustee that had been set by the Judge.

Several hundred people work for this Company and this clown wants to **** all over them.

 

[Scott the Grey]

A guy was trying to tell me over the weekend about some 'freeman' who was getting out of court scot-free for something until he engaged the court by taking a toothpick out of his mouth at the Judge's request, therefore iving 'consent' and leading to his arrest. He also tried to tell me that some Commercial law was the only law that counted since 1933. I hadn't heard of either of these so didn't give him a reply and simply said I'll have to check it out.

Turns out the Commercial Law appears to be the UCC, which is a law for traders and wasn't initially drafted until 1942 and wasn't law until 1952. I could see nothing that suggested it had priority over any other law or even that it was relevant to this country (Scotland).

As for the 'toothpick' story - I was assured if I searched "the toothpick case" I'd be able to read all about it. Well I did, and in amongst hundreds of links to cases for toothpicks, I eventually found two pages that referenced a passage from the Mary Croft book, quoted almost verbatim in both cases, that gave no details of the name of the 'freeman', the nature of the trial or even where it took place. In fact, no details to suggest it was anything more than a paragraph out of a book.


Is it wrong that I'm surprised just how thin the arguments are? Both the guy's points were on the same web-page (also selling the Zeitgeist: Moving Forward movie) and could be easily questioned with 5 minutes of googling.

 

[Boot2TheHead]

The toothpick thing is them trying to rationalize why they keep losing even when they do the whole magical ritual right. Although, I'm actually really surprised that the "you accidently gave consent by taking your hat off/looking up when the judge said your name/said 'what?' when the judge said 'personsayswhat'" explanation comes up a lot more than the more predictable "the judge is corrupt, and totally should have dismissed the case when you called common law".

I guess it saves them from having to finally answer to whom the judge is answerable when he is in "dishonor" for not recognizing the rules that Freemen made up.

These people are so ardent in their belief (so cocksure in fact, that anybody who disagrees with them MUST be paid to!), it really is frustrating to see how flimsy the arguments that convinced them are. A drowning person will clutch at straw(men). Although I believe that it has less to do with desperation than sheer refusal to take any responsability and accepting any excuse (or again, rationalization) for it.

What amazes me is that they pick a fight against invisible entities that they made up and LOSE.

 

[The Platypus]

I refuse consent to be governed by your delusional "common law"...

So much for natural, universal acceptance huh...

 

[jargon buster]

I spent two years on the freeman forums,I have heard every story and anecdote there is.
Not once has the idiocy ever worked yet they still keep trying, well just a very select few do.
David Ickes site used to be full of them there are around 4 torch carriers now most of the others just faded away when they saw the gurus failing in every debate.
World Freeman society has listed over 6000 members,there are only around 20 active members, 4,500 of those "members" are spambots with either zero or one post.
TPUC just talk about chemtrails and satanic worship.

It was just a passing fad due to recessions,Im sure it will do the rounds again at some point.

Menard keeps banging on about his withdrawal of consent and equality,strangely enough both of those theories automatically cancel each other out.
If his withdrawal of consent is lawful then by definition he has an advantage over others and therefore is not their equal.
Equality surely means we must all follow the same rules or all be able to abandon those rules.
So if we all are able to abandon the rules then Menards withdrawal of consent means nothing because we can all ignore him as there are no rules.

 

[BStrong]

I've just become familar with this FOTL foolishness, through a business related incident.

Without going into detail ( I can't) an individual claiming FOTL status is threatening legal action against my employer.

Basic gist is that the individual in question is not subject to any rules said individual does not approve of and agree to, but all other individuals and entities that said individual comes into contact with are subject to all of said individual's rules...whether they are aware of said rules or not.

Didn't work well with the arresting officer, and didn't work with us.