The Freeman Movement and England

[jargon buster]

grndslm do you know what impunity means?

im·pu·ni·ty   
[im-pyoo-ni-tee] Show IPA
–noun
1.exemption from punishment.
2.immunity from detrimental effects, as of an action.

If you are caught you will be punished, you are not exempt, if you think you are , show us the evidence.

 

[D'rok]

Too bad you don't realize that your corporate government is not bound by the constitution, bills/charters of rights..

Except, of course, they are. Shall I cite cases where unconstitutional laws have been struck down? There's rather a lot of them, you know. On both sides of the border.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Consent matters, but FMOTL don't understand what consent means.

Heres a hint Rob...er...HandyRandy: whining and screaming about courts holding you in contempt when they don't accept your insane ramblings is not withdrawing consent.

Life is about choices, and those choices have consequences. You can choose to consent or not consent. If you choose not to consent, you need to get out of the society that we all have agreed on. You don't get to sit there living on the government dole after "withdrawing consent" - you don't get to benefit from any part of society. But freemen don't do that, because its not about being a freeman on the land, its about being a freeloader on the dole.

That is the way reality operates. You don't consent? Fine - leave. If you don't leave the society then your presence means you consent no matter what your mouth says. We know this is true because try as they might, no amount of paper terrorism gets freeloaders on the land out of their court cases. Time and again Rob, I've told you that you can silence every single person who has debunked you by showing just ONE SINGLE CASE where ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY acknowledged someones"freeman status" and stated that by virtue of their freeman status, they don't have to do X (obey statute, pay a fine, whatever). Any case, any topic, any jurisdiction. It can't get anymore open. I even offered you $10,000 if you could provide just 1 case - free money no strings attached, and you couldn't do it.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Too bad you don't realize that your corporate government is not bound by the constitution, bills/charters of rights.

How fortunate we all are, then, that the FOTL understanding of what "corporate" means has no relationship to reality and governments are, in fact, not corporations.

 

[jargon buster]

Careful LID hes trying to take it off topic again

 

[jeffwode]

I ignore statutory legislation every day by smoking big fat blunts of cannabis.

This helps explain why you think that courts are ships, human beings aren't people and not giving consent is the same as having diplomatic immunity.

 

[grndslm]

To compare FMOTL with the Egyptian protest is an insult tot the Egyptians.
WHere are the FMOTL protesting in the street and putting their asses where the bullets are?

I wholeheartedly agree.

But things are pretty bad in America right now. Most people don't see it, but it's obvious that "the will of the People" is not being carried out.

Bush, alone, more than 2 years ago, agreed to $9 Trillion in corporate bailouts... and we sat by and did nothing about it. We can't even comprehend 9 trillion grains of rice, so it just slides right past us.

There will be a day sooner than most, who stare at their Tube all day, might realize... when people are going to take control over their society. Like the Egyptians, did.

I am only a Freeman so far as there isn't a competent society to belong to.

Once the day comes where our government and our people can co-exist together, with, say, a 66.66% & 33.33% voting share... I don't want to have anything to do with it.

If I could program, I could build such a system. If all "THREE Houses of Congress" don't vote in lockstep, then nothing could even be passed into Law. NOTHING!

Gridlock is what made the U.S. so great, but now with the GOLD PARTY, there is no debate. People have lost the ability to be eccentric and critical.

Not forever, tho.

 

[grndslm]

Are you in California by chance? If so, how was decriminalization accomplished? Oh yeah...democratically - i.e., BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

Simple. Our politicians don't bull **** and like to get wasted from time to time, too.

Fail. If a cop wants to give you a ticket, you will get a ticket whether you consent to it or not.

Hah... Who's he gonna write it out to?

So you're not in California then. What does "most" people mean? How was decriminalization accomplished in your jurisdiction, hmm?

It means a majority of people here smoke the herb.

It beats me how decriminalization was accomplished in Mississippi. I just woke up one day and that's the way it was. There's no doubt in my mind that there's an economical reason for the change, not an change due to any uprising.

And you'd be wrong. Wrong in the sense that you promote - i.e., the ability to have a line item veto on laws that you don't like. Sorry, the rule of law doesn't work that way.

The rule of law might be difficult for most, but it's still not LAW. It's not undefeatable, impenetrable, invincible, or whatever... it's some **** that you agree to, but are not obliged to.

Law school grad here. Hi.

Well, that would make a ton of sense, then.

It's a factual observation. Your lot has a ton of growing up to do. You compare your "plight" to that of the Egyptians and have the delusion that your "battle" is as noble as that of the people in the streets of Cairo.

Grow up.

PLEASE!!! QUOTE ME!!! Where did I "compare" the two??

I said, consent is the real deal. On a societal or individual level. It's all about consent every step of the way. And you know it, because you're a lawyer.

 

[D'rok]

Simple. Our politicians don't bull **** and like to get wasted from time to time, too.

Nonsense. Californians voted for it on a ballot proposition.

Hah... Who's he gonna write it out to?

To you. Whether you want him to or not.

It means a majority of people here smoke the herb.

Not bloody likely.

It beats me how decriminalization was accomplished in Mississippi. I just woke up one day and that's the way it was. There's no doubt in my mind that there's an economical reason for the change, not an change due to any uprising.

Looks like it is only sort of decriminalized.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4546

And the change, such as it is, was enacted by your state legislature. You know, those folks you vote to represent you. In other words, you are governed by consent.

The rule of law might be difficult for most, but it's still not LAW. It's not undefeatable, impenetrable, invincible, or whatever... it's some **** that you agree to, but are not obliged to.

If you are above the law, then there is no rule of law. It's quite simple to understand really. Fortunately, you are not above the law.

Well, that would make a ton of sense, then.

Indeed. Education is invaluable. You should try it.

PLEASE!!! QUOTE ME!!! Where did I "compare" the two??

Right here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6876994&postcount=5047

I said, consent is the real deal. On a societal or individual level. It's all about consent every step of the way.

If you remove your consent to the laws of your society, that action will have no force or effect. Shucks. If everyone does, that's another story. See Egypt.

And you know it, because you're a lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer. But even if I didn't have training in law, I would still know utter ******** when I see it.

 

[grndslm]

No, that would be all statutes.
Which country are you in?

Which statute do I want to ignore, that I don't??

I am in the the country of 50 countries.

grndslm do you know what impunity means?


If you are caught you will be punished, you are not exempt, if you think you are , show us the evidence.

Do you have a QUOTED example of me not using the word properly??

I will live my life as I choose, because that is my unalienable right. If I am "caught", I will object. I won't give my name. I will claim that I am on a mission from God and then, of course, I will be set free.

Like this guy --> youtube.com/watch?v=CuyOBVTnoLQ

 

[grndslm]

Except, of course, they are. Shall I cite cases where unconstitutional laws have been struck down? There's rather a lot of them, you know. On both sides of the border.

You shall cite as many as you'd like.

The OFFICERS and JUDGES alike do not give 2 ***** about your rights here in the good ol' U.S. of A.

If they did, they wouldn't pledge an oath to protect your right to life, liberty, and property... your right to carry a gun... and then take your gun because you don't have a license to carry.

Surely you know what the difference between a right and a privilege is!

 

[D'rok]

I will live my life as I choose, because that is my unalienable right. If I am "caught", I will object. I won't give my name. I will claim that I am on a mission from God and then, of course, I will be set free.

Like this guy --> youtube.com/watch?v=CuyOBVTnoLQ

Wow. That dude has some sort of taser immunity super power. Is there a non-meth way to get that power?

 

[jeffwode]

Rob - if that be you - I understand your political/philosophical position. I get the tyranny of the majority thing and I appreciate that the 'if you don't like it, leave' argument is a bit facile. We can all name laws we don't agree with and maybe it would be nicer if we could live on islands with people who share exactly the same mindsets (although I doubt it).

The problem with FTOL is not that it advocates a do-as-you-please-just-don't-tread-on-me society, but that it actively tells people that they can legally get away with living like that here and now. As a consequence, a lot of people - some of whom are not in the best of mental health - are getting themselves into serious trouble with the law. Doesn't that make you feel slightly ashamed?

 

[grndslm]

Life is about choices, and those choices have consequences. You can choose to consent or not consent. If you choose not to consent, you need to get out of the society that we all have agreed on. You don't get to sit there living on the government dole after "withdrawing consent" - you don't get to benefit from any part of society. But freemen don't do that, because its not about being a freeman on the land, its about being a freeloader on the dole.

That is the way reality operates. You don't consent? Fine - leave. If you don't leave the society then your presence means you consent no matter what your mouth says. We know this is true because try as they might, no amount of paper terrorism gets freeloaders on the land out of their court cases. Time and again Rob, I've told you that you can silence every single person who has debunked you by showing just ONE SINGLE CASE where ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY acknowledged someones"freeman status" and stated that by virtue of their freeman status, they don't have to do X (obey statute, pay a fine, whatever). Any case, any topic, any jurisdiction. It can't get anymore open. I even offered you $10,000 if you could provide just 1 case - free money no strings attached, and you couldn't do it.

That would be just too convenient wouldn't it??

That's like saying... I'm American... give me my property back is a sufficient lawful argument.

It'd be nice, tho, that instead of doubting the power of the people... the people themselves acknowledged their own freeman status and just stood up in court, saying, "WE AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT!", "WE DON'T ACCEPT YOUR DECISION; THE MAN IS OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT!", etcetera.

How fortunate we all are, then, that the FOTL understanding of what "corporate" means has no relationship to reality and governments are, in fact, not corporations.

Governments have been corporations for quite some time.

THE CITY OF MYHOMETOWN is a corporation.
THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI is a corporation.
THE UNITED STATES is a corporation.

And on and on and...

 

[Cocana The Second]

That would be just too convenient wouldn't it??

That's like saying... I'm American... give me my property back is a sufficient lawful argument.

It'd be nice, tho, that instead of doubting the power of the people... the people themselves acknowledged their own freeman status and just stood up in court, saying, "WE AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT!", "WE DON'T ACCEPT YOUR DECISION; THE MAN IS OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT!", etcetera.

Hmm, Especially/Freeman Bob

This has already got rather circular. People don't need "freeman" status (which is totally meaningless in reality anyway) to start saying, "WE AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT!", "WE DON'T ACCEPT YOUR DECISION; THE MAN IS OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT!" etc. They can say what they like now. As to what's legally effective, that's another matter.

Widening this point to government and society in general, once again "freeman" status means nothing. Take a look at the Egyptians, as mentioned earlier.

If "freeman" status actually meant something, you'd be able to cite examples of its success in court, as LID has invited. You can't do that and you never will for the simple reasons that it isn't recognised in law and it never will be.

Governments have been corporations for quite some time.

THE CITY OF MYHOMETOWN is a corporation.
THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI is a corporation.
THE UNITED STATES is a corporation.

And on and on and...

And your point is...?

 

[Stacey Grove]

If I am "caught", I will object. I won't give my name. I will claim that I am on a mission from God and then, of course, I will be set free.

Like this guy --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuyOBVTnoLQ

Have you actually viewed the video you posted?
Is that what you saw, the man being set free because he refused to give his name?
Are you sure about that?
I'll tell you what I saw.
Two officers had the man on the ground. The gentleman in question was told he was under arrest and he then started spouting some gibberish which the policemen ignored. As they brought him to his feet he managed to wrestle himself free and promptly ran away as fast as he could.
Is that video (in your opinion) an example of a success? Physically escaping from the police and running like ****?

 

[Stacey Grove]

Which statute do I want to ignore, that I don't??

What about those that cover consumption taxes?
How do you avoid paying taxes on your spending?
Or do you (conveniently) consent to those laws?

 

[Vladd]

Have you actually viewed the video you posted?
Is that what you saw, the man being set free because he refused to give his name?
Are you sure about that?
I'll tell you what I saw.
Two officers had the man on the ground. The gentleman in question was told he was under arrest and he then started spouting some gibberish which the policemen ignored. As they brought him to his feet he managed to wrestle himself free and promptly ran away as fast as he could.
Is that video (in your opinion) an example of a success? Physically escaping from the police and running like ****?

Must have been a reaction to the Tazer, apply a few volts and whoosh he was off. Slightly of the point but two officers had a man pinned down on the ground and still felt the need to tazer him? Had the second officer not let go so the first could tazer they probably could have cuffed him and taken him in. Anyone know if they caught up with him later?

 

[brodski]

How fortunate we all are, then, that the FOTL understanding of what "corporate" means has no relationship to reality and governments are, in fact, not corporations.

Governments may not be corporations* but they are bodies corporate.

That doesn’t mean that FMOTL know what they are talking about when they talk about “corporate government”, to (many of?) them corporate is just a scary word.


*(some explicitly are corporations, for instance the Corporation of the City of London)

 

[D'rok]

You shall cite as many as you'd like.

All to no effect, naturally. If evidence and reality swayed you, you wouldn't be promoting FOTL garbage in the first place.

The OFFICERS and JUDGES alike do not give 2 ***** about your rights here in the good ol' U.S. of A.

If they did, they wouldn't pledge an oath to protect your right to life, liberty, and property... your right to carry a gun... and then take your gun because you don't have a license to carry.

Your right to own a gun is constitutional. So are certain laws restricting the use of that gun. Other laws restricting the use of that gun are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975

Surely you know what the difference between a right and a privilege is!

Indeed I do. Unfortunately, FOTLers with overblown senses of personal entitlement do not.