• 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

BStrong said:
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.
Click to expand...


What a succinct summary.
 
BStrong said:
Without going into detail ( I can't) an individual claiming FOTL status is threatening legal action against my employer.
Click to expand...

Take heart. I have NEVER heard a freeman describe law in an accurate way. Not even close.

Keeping that in mind, I have high hopes for you.
 
BStrong said:
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.
Click to expand...

So I guess he isn't interested in consenting to that law which requires payment for his labours? lol
 
MNBrant said:
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.
Click to expand...

All I know is that if they're wearing undies under there, then they're not the real deal.

 
MNBrant said:
Wrong episode. That was the klan episode and I have doubts that was real even though I dont know much about the klan.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, except for every single word of it.
 
MNBrant said:
Well it does sound like the government is going to do something about them. Wonder what it is? Does it involve mancatchers and battering rams?
Click to expand...
Don't much care - they're idiots and they bring on whatever happens to them.
 
hgc said:
I understand what you're saying, except for every single word of it.
Click to expand...

I remember watching the howard stern tv show the first year it came out. I thought your were referring to it with the kilt. I have autobiographical memory.
 
MNBrant said:
I remember watching the howard stern tv show the first year it came out. I thought your were referring to it with the kilt. I have autobiographical memory.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Actually I was referring to this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

As for that TV show, I also have lots of wonderful memories. It was on Saturday nights. My roommate would tape it, and we'd watch it with breakfast in the morning, just before The McLaughlin Report. Underdog Girl. Richard Simmons. The Head Injury Club for Men, with Gary Busey. Mark Harris. Joan Rivers. Hollyweird Squares. Ah, good times.
 
hgc said:
Ah, I see. Actually I was referring to this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

As for that TV show, I also have lots of wonderful memories. It was on Saturday nights. My roommate would tape it, and we'd watch it with breakfast in the morning, just before The McLaughlin Report. Underdog Girl. Richard Simmons. The Head Injury Club for Men, with Gary Busey. Mark Harris. Joan Rivers. Hollyweird Squares. Ah, good times.
Click to expand...

The one I was referring to was a 70 year old klansman in robes when asked if he had anything under his robes spread his legs wide and gave howard a peek. Wasnt all that good. Hollywood hooker squares was funny but sad.
 
I'd be fine with them not paying taxes, as long as the don't have access to any of the things taxes pay for.

Granted, this might be tricky to enforce, but then how long can someone drive around without a license plate before they get pulled over?
 
rustypouch said:
I'd be fine with them not paying taxes, as long as the don't have access to any of the things taxes pay for.

Granted, this might be tricky to enforce, but then how long can someone drive around without a license plate before they get pulled over?
Click to expand...

Are you fine with anybody who doesnt pay taxes not having access to things people pay taxes for? For instance GE didn't pay taxes.
 
therival58 said:
I'm actually reading Croft's book now, it's a real hoot.



:D
Click to expand...

Why is it even when freemen can write the situation themselves, they come off as ********? Seriously, every scenario they posit makes them come off as a failed Mary Sue, the hero is always doing soemthing sketchy then the writer says " see, that is what being a freeman is. "

The friend in that story is an *******, he should have understood that he couldn't pay his friend back, in any way before hand, and his offer to let his buddy eat there is just silly.

Heck no i don't mind you just shafted me, just as long as i can get my money back in tiny bits as long as your restaurant is successful ( and by the obvious evidence in said story, said friend doesn't have good business sense, so how long this is , is a real coin toss. ) , and you decide to let me.

I mean if your just going to spin a fantasy tale of being awesome, why not actually make yourself come off as awesome instead of a sketchbag who took advantage of his friend and essentially put him into a " Well this is better than nothing" situation.
 
BStrong said:
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.
Click to expand...

In other words, their world view is that of a spoiled 4-year-old.
 
timhau said:
In other words, their world view is that of a spoiled 4-year-old.
Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't capture all the flavor of this brand of kookiness. A 4-year old will say "because I said so." A FMOTL will (mis)use Latin phrases and legal jargon to justify the childish behavior.
 
A 4-year old will say "because I said so." A FMOTL will (mis)use Latin phrases and legal jargon to justify the childish behavior.
Click to expand...

Whilst I disapprove of your spelling of behaviour, (:p), you have pretty much summed up the essence of FOTL-Woo.

(Hi Rob the conman:D :))
 
Ladewig said:
Well, that doesn't capture all the flavor of this brand of kookiness. A 4-year old will say "because I said so." A FMOTL will (mis)use Latin phrases and legal jargon to justify the childish behavior.
Click to expand...

OK, I stand corrected.

FOTL world view is similar to the world view of a spoiled, retarded 12-year-old who has been severely overexposed to Harry Potter.
 
timhau said:
In other words, their world view is that of a spoiled 4-year-old.
Click to expand...

That's exactly correct.

The only difference is a 4 year old doesn't have access to the civil legal system on their own. The corporation I'm employed by is now being sued in small claims, and I am as an individual as well.

I haven't spoken w/ the arresting officer yet, but I'd be surprised if he hasn't at the very least been on the recieving end of a civilian complaint.
 
.
'e ain't spoilt -- 'e's always smelt loik 'at...
.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom