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

my ill will

10th March 2009, 01:41 PM

I haven't seen the link as I'm at work and can't watch video, but this seems like an amusing mix of anarchism and tax protester junk.

Not quite. The common law applies to all people, anywhere, everywhere. It's the natural, universally accepted law. You cannot cause harm or loss or breach the peace or commit fraud in your contracts. It covers everything. Theft, murder, perjury, public nuisance, etc. Admiralty law (statutes, codes, regulations) are specifically restricted in their scope and applicability to the members of that society. A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society, given the force of law. A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine, and act for a common purpose. So, statutes are laws to people who have given their consent to be a part of the society. It's like if you have lived on a piece of land your entire life, and some organization came in, claiming to be the government of the land, and tried to get you to pay taxes and follow their policies. You'd tell them they had no jurisdiction, no authority. Because they don't. It's like saying marijuana is illegal in the United States and trying to enforce that in Amsterdam. Doesn't work. No jurisdiction. And it's not because it's a separate piece of land. The fundamental laws of the land provide that all men are created equal and that governments are instilled among men to protect inalienable rights, and that when government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the right of the people to alter/abolish it. You can declare sovereignty and there is nothing anyone can do about it without a gun to your head. :)

Wow. Do you have any idea what the paragraph above actually means?

Because as far as I can tell, it's legalistic word salad.

As in, the words exist, but have no actual connection to each other. How does printing a number at the bottom of a birth certificate allow "setting-off debt"?

This is simply drivel.

Actually, yes, I do. The number is generally on the back of the birth certificate and it is evidence of a bond created in your name. In America, for example... FDR created a trust in 1933 (and there is also a trust created by the Constitution) of which the people are the beneficiaries. The Secretary of Treasury is the fiduciary of this bond and it directs the funds in it to your local representative. I think it would be your state's Congress member, not entirely sure. In Canada it's your provincial representative in Parliament. You can send notice directing these funds for debt set-off. Several people have done this with their student loans, credit card debts, etc, and it has worked. The debt simply moves to zero.

dudalb

10th March 2009, 01:42 PM

I don't understand. Can you elaborate?

Yeah. They think taxes are evil, and seem to want to go off and found their own little paradise with no government. Just like the movement that John Galt led in "Atlas Shrugged".

dudalb

10th March 2009, 01:44 PM

Pantaz

10th March 2009, 01:46 PM

Just Google "bond tracking number birth certificate (http://www.google.com/search?q=bond+tracking+number+birth+certificate)" for all KINDS of crazy!

drkitten

10th March 2009, 01:48 PM

The common law applies to all people, anywhere, everywhere.

Except in France.

Or Germany.

Or Japan.

Really, the "common law" only holds in the UK or the former colonies of the UK.

It's the natural, universally accepted law.

Except in France. Or Germany. Or,....

A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society, given the force of law.

Okay, I guess.

At least, not as wrong as

A society is defined as a number of people formed by mutual consent to deliberate, determine, and act for a common purpose.

Because, of course, most "societies" do not have a "common purpose" (what's the purpose of Kidlington, Oxon.? Or France?

And, of course, people do not necessarily "consent" to the formation of a society; most extant societies long predate any of the people who currently make it. Kidlington existed long before I was born and will continue to exist long after I am dead.

It's like if you have lived on a piece of land your entire life, and some organization came in, claiming to be the government of the land, and tried to get you to pay taxes and follow their policies. You'd tell them they had no jurisdiction, no authority.

And I'd be wrong. And the reason I know I'd be wrong is because something like this happened -- the local city decided to expand and annex some of the neighboring unincorporated land. And they had the (state-given) authority to do so. And when the residents sued, the state courts told them to go suck wind.

You can declare sovereignty and there is nothing anyone can do about it

Nor is there any reason that anyone should do anything about it. Your declaration has no legal, moral, or social weight. You can declare yourself sovereign. You can also declare yourself Batman, for all I care.

Of course, if you think that just because you declared yourself Batman -- or sovereign -- you have the ability to wander around at night breaking into buildings in search of criminals to battle, you're in for a sad disappointment. And I suspect that the next delusional declaration you make will be to claim to be the warden.

drkitten

10th March 2009, 01:50 PM

The number is generally on the back of the birth certificate and it is evidence of a bond created in your name. In America, for example... FDR created a trust in 1933 (and there is also a trust created by the Constitution) of which the people are the beneficiaries. The Secretary of Treasury is the fiduciary of this bond and it directs the funds in it to your local representative. I think it would be your state's Congress member, not entirely sure. In Canada it's your provincial representative in Parliament. You can send notice directing these funds for debt set-off. Several people have done this with their student loans, credit card debts, etc, and it has worked. The debt simply moves to zero.

So, the answer is "no, you don't know what that paragraph means."

Thought so.

my ill will

10th March 2009, 01:50 PM

my ill will is making my head spend. In one section he advocates The Venus Project, which advocates the abolition of money and private property, and now he seem to support a de facto Objectivist political movement. Anti Establishmentism is a interesting phenenmenon.

Haha. :)

Well, I wouldn't consider it a de facto objectivist political movement at all. In fact, all courts are de facto. They are UCC courts, not Constitutional. It's not "objectivist" or "political" either. It's actually just men and women enjoying the full scope of freedom, for there is a way to have it.

tomwaits

10th March 2009, 01:50 PM

I don't think he was using "common law" in the strict legal sense, he was using it to mean universal human law.

ETA: ok nvm, apparently he was talking about english common law...

drkitten

10th March 2009, 01:53 PM

I don't think he was using "common law" in the strict legal sense, he was using it to mean universal human law.

I don't think he knows what he's using words to mean. And if he's trying to distinguish "statute" from "common law," then he better be using "common law" in the strict legal sense, or he's committing a rather blatant fallacy of amphi-whatever.

10th March 2009, 01:53 PM

What in the name of Ed is this on about?

This reads like some nightmare confutation of Rothbard with James Taggart.

tomwaits

10th March 2009, 01:55 PM

I don't think he knows what he's using words to mean. And if he's trying to distinguish "statute" from "common law," then he better be using "common law" in the strict legal sense, or he's committing a rather blatant fallacy of amphi-whatever.

Yes, he's using a certain tactic of tax protesters. Words are magic (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#magicwords).

my ill will

10th March 2009, 01:57 PM

Except in France.

Or Germany.

Or Japan.

Really, the "common law" only holds in the UK or the former colonies of the UK.

The common law holds in all common law jurisdictions. I probably shouldn't have said everyone, everywhere. US, UK, Canada, NZ, Holland, etc...

Okay, I guess.

At least, not as wrong as

Because, of course, most "societies" do not have a "common purpose" (what's the purpose of Kidlington, Oxon.? Or France?

And, of course, people do not necessarily "consent" to the formation of a society; most extant societies long predate any of the people who currently make it. Kidlington existed long before I was born and will continue to exist long after I am dead.

Actually those definitions are from Black's law dictionary which is accepted in Supreme Court cases.

Nor is there any reason that anyone should do anything about it. Your declaration has no legal, moral, or social weight. You can declare yourself sovereign. You can also declare yourself Batman, for all I care.

Yes, it does have legal weight, and it has been proven. Ever heard of a Claim of Right? Or estoppel by acquiescence? Default judgement?

Of course, if you think that just because you declared yourself Batman -- or sovereign -- you have the ability to wander around at night breaking into buildings in search of criminals to battle, you're in for a sad disappointment. And I suspect that the next delusional declaration you make will be to claim to be the warden.

Well generally Free-men-on-the-Land declare their peaceful intentions and follow them, and if they don't, they get ********** like the rest of us. It doesn't give you any new powers, just allows you to enjoy your inalienable rights.

Toke

10th March 2009, 01:59 PM

my ill will

10th March 2009, 02:00 PM

So, the answer is "no, you don't know what that paragraph means."

Thought so.

You are providing zero rebuttal, just saying I don't know what it means. What the **** are you talking about?

I'd consider reading some success stories here.
http://thinkfreeforums.org/viewforum.php?f=71

tomwaits

10th March 2009, 02:01 PM

And no, common law doesn't "cover everything". If it did, there would be no need for appeals court.

my ill will

10th March 2009, 02:01 PM

Never heard of it. Who made and enforces it?

All law is derived from the principles of common law. It is enforced by the people appointed to enforce the law!

my ill will

10th March 2009, 02:06 PM

And no, common law doesn't "cover everything". If it did, there would be no need for appeals court.

Per the definition of crime, yes it does. The courts do not uphold common law because they are operating under commercial law.

Toke

10th March 2009, 02:09 PM

All law is derived from the principles of common law. It is enforced by the people appointed to enforce the law!

The laws of a country are made by parlament, enforced by police, and jugded by the courts.

You seem to claim some underlying universal principle for lawmaking. You will have to make it very vague and abstract to make it fit all the different laws on this planet.

my ill will

10th March 2009, 02:11 PM

The laws of a country are made by parlament, enforced by police, and jugded by the courts.

You seem to claim some underlying universal principle for lawmaking. You will have to make it very vague and abstract to make it fit all the different laws on this planet.

Their foundations are in common law. The basics. Everything else is corporate policy.

drkitten

10th March 2009, 02:12 PM

Their foundations are in common law.

Except in France. Or Germany. Or Japan.

Wait, we've been over this, haven't we?

We established that you don't know what "common law" means, and you're still posting drivel on it?

gambling_cruiser

10th March 2009, 02:14 PM

My ill will, is there a nonsense on the internet that you don't believe in?

Ladewig

10th March 2009, 02:20 PM

Actually, yes, I do. The number is generally on the back of the birth certificate and it is evidence of a bond created in your name. In America, for example... FDR created a trust in 1933 (and there is also a trust created by the Constitution) of which the people are the beneficiaries. The Secretary of Treasury is the fiduciary of this bond and it directs the funds in it to your local representative. I think it would be your state's Congress member, not entirely sure. In Canada it's your provincial representative in Parliament. You can send notice directing these funds for debt set-off. Several people have done this with their student loans, credit card debts, etc, and it has worked. The debt simply moves to zero.

I am having a hard time understanding your position. I realized that my confusion seems to the the result of this particular paragraph. Would you explain it in simpler terms? Also please cover the following questions:

Is the federal government purchasing or selling a bond at one's birth?

What is the value of this bond?

What happens to the bond and its value when one dies?

What do you mean by "directing these funds for debt set-off"?

Have the people who have "moved debt to zero" shown you tangible evidence that they have eliminated their debt?

If not, why do you believe this fantastic story? If they have, then may we see the evidence, too?

If one is striving to be a "freeman" and not be part of this formalized society, then isn't it rather counterproductive to acknowledge the authority of the government by using these bonds to "move [one's] debt to zero"?

Donal

10th March 2009, 02:22 PM

You can also declare yourself Batman, for all I care.

Not if I do it first. I declare myself Batman.

Professor Yaffle

10th March 2009, 02:25 PM

I typed "freeman movement" into google and the first result was a David Icke link...

my ill will

10th March 2009, 02:42 PM

I am having a hard time understanding your position. I realized that my confusion seems to the the result of this particular paragraph. Would you explain it in simpler terms? Also please cover the following questions:

Is the federal government purchasing or selling a bond at one's birth?

It creates a bond in your name. Well, not your name, but your legal person's. You see, when your birth was registered, a legal entity was created, called your strawman. It is your name in all-caps. The governments are all corporations, listed on the market AS CORPORATIONS. Their policy is corporate. This is why they require the people to have driver's licenses, SSN for nearly everything... because these identify you as employees of their corporation, meaning you must follow their regulations or you are punished. All of the courts and agencies follow the UCC, not the constitution. There is a grand deception that they are actually a government. They are a for profit corporation and all citizens are employees that must follow their rules. The BC registration is a contract. For a valid contract to exist, there must be consent, and equal consideration on both sides. The consideration the United States provides to the citizen are the benefits of citizenship. The consideration the person provides is their pledge to the US statutes, and their future tax money. The bond is related to the national debt. Money is no longer backed by physical substance, it is all debt. It is created based on someone's promise to pay (their signature). Money is created in people's future labor. If you direct someone to transfer this "money" all they are doing, basically, is reducing numbers from the national debt.

What is the value of this bond?

You know how there is an exemption of something around $685,000 when you die? Well it is said today the bonds are assigned a value of around $1-2million.

What happens to the bond and its value when one dies?

Not too sure, actually. It either disappears, or the funds go back to being transferred by the representative.

What do you mean by "directing these funds for debt set-off"?

The trustee over your bond in the United States is the Secretary of Treasury. He is directing the funds to your local representative. If you tell him to set-off a debt, he is using a distribution from the trust to move the debt to zero.

Have the people who have "moved debt to zero" shown you tangible evidence that they have eliminated their debt?

If not, why do you believe this fantastic story? If they have, then may we see the evidence, too?

Haven't personally seen any bank statements, nope. But I do know real people who have Accepted for Value instruments that are issued and transferred for value. They got calls from collection agencies and simply asked what happened to their payment, evidencing the notices they sent to the financial agency with their acceptance. Told them they were a third party, and to get out of their business. Those people never heard from the agencies again and they stated that their debts showed as zero. I've heard of many people doing this and read many success stories, and the evidence that it works is written in the law itself. Just requires some research.

If one is striving to be a "freeman" and not be part of this formalized society, then isn't it rather counterproductive to acknowledge the authority of the government by using these bonds to "move [one's] debt to zero"?

Well when being a free man, you can still use a legal entity to operate in commerce. How are you supposed to exist if you can't operate in commerce, when the entire system is commerce? A human being cannot exist in commerce because it is a fiction, a human being is a real, physical entity. So you use a legal person, a corporation, if you will. And by setting off debts, you are doing your country a favor by reducing the national debt.

Toke

10th March 2009, 02:51 PM

Sounds like you live in a parallel world.
In my world all this could not have been kept a secret.

ParanoidAndroid

10th March 2009, 02:59 PM

BPSCG

10th March 2009, 02:59 PM

I misread the thread title. I thought it said "Freemasons."

Anyone here ever get a tour of the George Washington National Masonic Memorial (http://www.gwmemorial.org/index.php) in Alexandria, Virginia? I've done it, twice (when you live in the DC area long enough, you start running out of White Houses and Lincoln Memorials to take out-of-town guests to...). The tour guides are full of all sorts of mystical babbledygook. Kinda like the OP here.

Anyway, never mind.

my ill will

10th March 2009, 03:21 PM

I'm still holding out hope that this thread is a joke.

Every "clarification" is more twisted and cloudy than the original statement...I’m actually slightly concerned for my ill will’s well being having read all this.

Sorry if that's what I'm conveying. It's hard for me to explain a lot of this in simpler terms. Perhaps this will help you understand?

The United States is bankrupt and has been since 1933. The government has no gold or silver as required by the Constitution. The only asset left is the people. So how does the U.S. finance its daily operations?

Solution, collateralize the people for credit. How? By registering them in international commerce, and selling bonds on them. The people become the surety on the bonds, or the "pledge". The asset bonded (surety) is the labor of the people which is payable as some undetermined future date. Thus, the people become the "utility" for the "transmission" of energy. Result, a very sophisticated form of peonage or slavery and the Constitution does not apply because the government, on all levels, is thrown into international commerce, the law merchant, now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. [See Public Law 88-244 in which the U.S. Subscribed to private international law. See definition of "goods" under the Uniform Commercial Code; Section 2-105(1) and 9-105(1) in which animals, i.e. humans and their unborn offspring, become "goods" sellable in commerce!

When a baby is born in the United States, a birth certificate is registered with the Bureau of Vital Statistics in the State of birth. The key word here is "registered" as registered in international commerce. The baby becomes the surety, whose energy is due at some future date. When the birth certificate is registered in the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department of Treasury issues a bond on the birth certificate ($1,000,000) and the bond is sold at some securities exchange and perhaps bought by the Federal Reserve Bank, which then uses it as collateral in order to issue Federal Reserve Notes or some other form of "debt obligation" (see 18 USC §411). The bond is then held in trust for the Federal Reserve at the Depository Trust Corp. At 55 Water Street, in New York City, about two blocks down the street from the Fed. It is a high rise office building and the sign out front reads "The Tower of Power".

When the birth certificate is registered, a separate legal entity is created, like a mirror image of the flesh and blood human. This separate entity, or alter ego (THE ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME) is the "straw man". (See Black's Law 6th edition dictionary). And it is the "accommodation party" of the Uniform commercial Code §3-415. The "name" is credit. (See Back's 6th "accommodation party"). Therefore the right (or the use) has been separated from the title (or deed). The "straw man" holds the title (he belongs to the government's client who bought the title) and the real live you, flesh and blood man or women has only naked possession with the limited "right" to use the thing (like your body or your alleged possessions and land). Maybe that's why our civil rights suits get dismissed out of court on Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motions. This deals with "failure to state a title upon which relief can be granted". A claim is another word for "title". So we have "failed to state upon which relief can be granted". We do not own the "title", even to our own bodies anymore. Isn't that encouraging! How free are you now?

When the straw man violates some rule or statue (for instance a traffic ticket), the flesh and blood, the real you has to appear at the arraignment and admit the straw man's name (credit) and the "energy" surety is due and payable (fine) by the flesh and blood man who is in use of the straw man. This, I'm sure, is why it is so important to "voluntarily give" your name to the magistrate (court). The defendant is the straw man. The real you, the flesh and blood man is the "offender". An "offender" is on the offensive team until he screws up and goes on the defensive team with the defendant (straw man) and looses as the real man.

So if this scenario is correct, how does one get back the bond that has been sold on the birth certificate. And then how does one get in control of his body and his property?

TITLE = RIGHT = REMEDY = RELIEF can only be granted after perfecting the "security interest" in the "goods" (The collateral = pignus = the straw man

DEFINITIONS & MEANINGS

Stramineus homo /straminiyas howmow/. L. Lat. A man of straw, one of no substance, put Forward as bail surety.

Stratocracy /stseokraisiy/. A military government; government by military chiefs of an army.

Straw man or party. A "front", a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser, or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed.

At birth your parents and the doctor become the pledger of the birth certificate title to the baby Johnny. The State become the recipient of this pledge for the future energy output of "Johnny". The state converts the "title security document" into a bond which is sold on the open market place to finance government. The bond holder is the secured party to receive the future energy output of Johnny. Johnny is the mere naked holder and possessor of the body with no title. His duty is to the secured party.

The definition of the straw man now becomes apparent. The straw man is nom de guerre artificial entity put forth that is owned by the secured party who bought into the bond placed on the market by the Treasury of the United States. The straw man is not yours. It is the front man for the secured party holder of the bond. Whatever the straw man signs, he does so to place title to property in the hands of the UNITED STATES and the bond owner. The straw man does not place title to the property into Johnny's hands. That is because Johnny does not have title to the straw man. The straw man belongs to the UNITED STATES and the bond owner.

In order to get one's liberty and independence back, one must first secure the title and ownership of the straw man back. Once one controls the straw man, then one controls the rights of the property that the straw man acquires.

The key to ownership is registration. In a military government, registered property is recognized By the "public" side. If the property is registered on the public side of the government, then the property is public. If the property is registered on the private side, then the property is private with no public interest.

The military government (democracy) has three appointed leaders. The governor, the Secretary Of State, and the Secretary of Treasury. The Secretary of State holds the registration for the Democracy corporation. The public side of the registration is the "corporate filings" at the state And county levels. The private side of the filings are the "Uniform Commercial Code filings" of the creditors to transactions. This registration by the private creditor is the highest priority of recognition by the military State (democracy). If one is not registered, then one is believed to be "foreign" with no rights, private or public, except what is granted by the military law form As a privilege.

For one to regain title to his body, the Birth Certificate must be secured and attached and recorded in the private UCC-1 filings with the Secretary of State in the democracy. Once the living soul has redeemed his Birth Certificate and filed notice of the redemption by a UCC-1 filing with the Secretary of State, then the living soul has the right of property ownership in himself through his straw man who now belongs to the living soul. Furthermore, the bond created and sold in the market place for the straw man now becomes the property of the living soul. The living soul now has the capacity to own real property by allodium and to own private chattel property by the process of the passover, redemption, chargeback, and discharge of public debt.

What's in a name? Very simple. A name is CREDIT. For any unauthorized person to use your Name or the straw man's name (when they do not own the title to the straw man) is to violate the laws of "slander of credit". Once you have redeemed the straw man and own him, then any further commercial process done by any person (like an attorney, a judge, or law enforcement office without your consent) is slander of credit against your straw man. This is a federal criminal securities violation that means prison for them.

Until you redeem your straw man and register his title to you, the living soul, then your straw man becomes the source of the credit for the UNITED STATES to the public affairs of the nation through the "pledge" or gift of your property) your body and energy) to them for their use.

my ill will

10th March 2009, 03:26 PM

As for the declaring sovereignty

Originally, the Constitution limited the jurisdiction of the federal government by making citizens of the state in which they were born or resided. According to the Constitution, the federal government could only have jurisdiction on a person if they lived in Washington DC or a US territory.

The Federalists who took control of our government after the Civil War, instituted the 14th Amendment to "protect" the former slaves. This amendment allowed the former slaves to come under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government in order that the Federal Government could protect their Constitutional rights. Many blacks were being abused by people and the local or state governments would not come to their aid. The 14th Amendment may have freed the slaves from oppression of their neighbors, but it gave them and us a new master, the Federal Government. The 14th Amendment makes us citizens of the United States AND of the several states. This allows the Federal Government to have jurisdiction over us that it never had before the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment also states (the last section) that the debt of the Federal government cannot even be questioned.

Most people have received their United States citizenship when they received their Social Security Card. With the Social Security Card came income taxes. I am not going to go into how we have been put under Statutory (Admiralty) Law; I will simply state that we are under it. We all know this because we need a license (permission to break the law) or permit to do things. A free citizen doesn't require a license or a permit. Why would a free person require permission from the government to get married, drive a car, start a business, to add onto his/her home or improve his/her property?

Please show me in the US Constitution or your state constitution where a government has the right to demand such obedience? If anyone is arrogant enough to try to use the US Constitution to show such things, please align your argument with the 10th Amendment. How did we get in such a mess, but more importantly, how do we get out of such a mess?

The Congress in session during the time the 14th Amendment was declared law provided people with a way to get out from under these provisions. It is called an apostille. An apostille allows you to deny or renounce your United States citizenship and receive diplomatic immunity. For total freedom, you also must file a UCC-1 lien against your strawman and a denial of corporate existence against the incorporated local and state governments.

dudalb

10th March 2009, 03:31 PM

My ill will, is there a nonsense on the internet that you don't believe in?

I am still boggled the he is advocating A Far Left Economic program like The Venus Plan in other threads.and the Ultra Libertarian view in this thread and does not see the contradiction.

dudalb

10th March 2009, 03:37 PM

The Congress in session during the time the 14th Amendment was declared law provided people with a way to get out from under these provisions. It is called an apostille. An apostille allows you to deny or renounce your United States citizenship and receive diplomatic immunity. For total freedom, you also must file a UCC-1 lien against your strawman and a denial of corporate existence against the incorporated local and state governments.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13773)

I have two words for you: Wesley Snipes.

geni

10th March 2009, 03:38 PM

The common law holds in all common law jurisdictions. I probably shouldn't have said everyone, everywhere. US, UK, Canada, NZ, Holland, etc...

Common law doesn't apply across the UK. Scotland has it's own legal system.

ingoa

10th March 2009, 03:41 PM

Post #31:

:eye-poppi :jaw-dropp

Is your location an Amsterdam coffee shop? Just curious. I listened to comparable stories there.

dudalb

10th March 2009, 03:42 PM

Common law doesn't apply across the UK. Scotland has it's own legal system.

And in the US Lousiana uses a combination of Common Law and The Napoleonic Code.

geni

10th March 2009, 03:48 PM

All law is derived from the principles of common law. It is enforced by the people appointed to enforce the law!

Copyright is an obvious counter example. US copyright law is clearly not derived from any common law principle. More dirrectly the house of lords in Donaldson v Beckett ruled that there was no such thing as common law copyright.

Pantaz

10th March 2009, 03:56 PM

snip... (Whole bunch of misconceptions) ...snip

The whole thing is explained very well here: http://www.teamlaw.net/Mythology.htm

Here's a couple more references...

Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2005-14
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html

The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous theory that most government documents do not actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only documents using an individual’s name with "standard" capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the individual’s name in all upper-case letters, which is common in some government documents, refers to a separate legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or that no tax is owed by the real individual because it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Objections to name printed in block letters (all-caps)
http://www.adl.org/MWD/suss4.asp
(Numerous examples of case law.)
E.g.: "The court finds Jaeger’s arguments concerning capitalization otherwise specious. The court routinely capitalizes the names of all parties before this court in all matters, civil and criminal, without any regard to their corporate or individual status...."

MarkCorrigan

10th March 2009, 03:58 PM

IThe governments are all corporations, listed on the market AS CORPORATIONS. Their policy is corporate. This is why they require the people to have driver's licenses, SSN for nearly everything... because these identify you as employees of their corporation, meaning you must follow their regulations or you are punished..

This is an outright lie.

Thank you for pointing out that I no longer need to listen to you, because if you believe rubbish like that you will believe anything.

BPSCG

10th March 2009, 04:11 PM

And in the US Lousiana uses a combination of Common Law and The Napoleonic Code.Actually, Louisiana, as well as the rest of the U.S., has been a dictatorship since September 11, 2001, when ChimpBushitler tore up the Constitution.

It's true! :)

Toke

10th March 2009, 04:11 PM

This is getting weirder and weirder, team law, patriot mytology?

10th March 2009, 04:18 PM

Unh, I hope this is an elaborate joke.

Holler Hoojer

10th March 2009, 04:41 PM

A bit of bad porridge?

my ill will

10th March 2009, 04:51 PM

I am still boggled the he is advocating A Far Left Economic program like The Venus Plan in other threads.and the Ultra Libertarian view in this thread and does not see the contradiction.

Actually there's quite a connection between the two, as becoming a Free-man-on-the-Land, in my opinion, is the first step in helping the Venus Project become a reality!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13773)

I have two words for you: Wesley Snipes.

You're really quite the philosopher. I don't think I've ever seen you make an intelligent rebuttal or a relevant discussion. Every time I have posted something, you quickly give an allusion to insult me.

my ill will

10th March 2009, 04:54 PM

The whole thing is explained very well here: http://www.teamlaw.net/Mythology.htm

Here's a couple more references...

Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2005-14
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html

Objections to name printed in block letters (all-caps)
http://www.adl.org/MWD/suss4.asp
(Numerous examples of case law.)

Really?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HONORABLE JOHN G. DAVIES, JUDGE PRESIDING

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
vs. ) NO. CV-94 xxxx -JGD
)
RANDY L. OxxxxxxxxxR )
____________Defendant(s)_ )
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Los Angeles, California - Monday, March 21, 1994

BEVERLY A. CASARES CSR# 8630
Official Court Reporter
312 North Spring Street, Room 440
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 617-2305

APPEARANCES:
FOR PLAINTIFF(S) GREGORY A. ROTH
312 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 894-2410
FOR DEFENDANT(S) RANDY L. OxxxxxxxxxR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1994; 1:30 P.M.

THE CLERK: Item number 6, case number CV-94xxxxx, United States of America versus Randy L. Oxxxxxxxxxr.

MR. ROTH: Good afternoon, your Honor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Roth appearing on behalf of the United States, and its agency the Internal Revenue Service.

THE COURT: Is there any opposition?

MR. OxxxxxxxxxR: For the record.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. OxxxxxxxxxR: My Christian name is Randy Lee, and my family name is Oxxxxxxxxxr.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. OxxxxxxxxxR: That is spelled capital R, lower case, a-n-d-y, capital L, lower case e-e, capital O, lower case x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-r.

I have responded to this petition because it was found on the door of the place where I take up housekeeping, and attempts to create a colorable persona under colorable law by the name of capital R-A-N-D-Y L period, O-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-R, the artifice being used here to deceive this Honorable Court, must be abated as a Public Nuisance.

For the record, Randy Lee and Jesus the Christ Advocate and Wonderful Counselor are using the Right of Visitation to exercise Ministerial Powers to be heard on this matter.

I, Randy Lee, am a native Californian and a Man on the Land in Los Angeles County, not a resident in the Federal Judicial District in the Central District of California.

My Colors and Authority is the California Bear Flag with the Gold star. My Law is My Family Bible. And my Status is shown by the Seal of the People.

I am who I say I am, not who the U.S. Attorney says I am. Further I sayeth not and I stand mute.

THE COURT: All right. Please take your things off of the podium and sit down at your table. Mr. Roth, do you have any response to this alleged case of mistaken identity.

MR. ROTH: Well, your Honor, Mr. Oxxxxxxxxxr seems to think that if you spell your name in upper and lower case, it relieves him of compliance.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Roth. Please call the next case clerk.

(Proceedings concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E
I hereby certify that the foregoing matter entitled UNITED STATES OF AMERICA versus RANDY L. OxxxxxxxxxR No. CV-94 xxxx -JGD is transcribed from the stenographic notes taken by me and is a true and accurate description of the same.
_____(signed)____________________. ____3/25/94________________.
BEVERLY A. CASARES CSR# 8630, Official Court Reporter

Capitalization actually has a very distinguishable effect and this is proven in many court cases.

Madalch

10th March 2009, 05:29 PM

In Canada it's your provincial representative in Parliament.

The Canadian Parliament does not have provincial representatives.

my ill will

10th March 2009, 05:33 PM

The Canadian Parliament does not have provincial representatives.

Oh, my mistake. Could you elaborate on the system really quick?

Puppycow

10th March 2009, 05:52 PM

Good golly, what a piece of work. :covereyes

This is on the level of "The gold fringe on the flag means we're under martial law" nuttiness. If you actually believe this, you need to go back to square one and recreate your worldview using common sense. I recommend reading Carl Sagan as a start. If you are just trolling, congratulations, you got a rise. Big whoop. lol.

Pantaz

10th March 2009, 06:03 PM

Really?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HONORABLE JOHN G. DAVIES, JUDGE PRESIDING

... snip

I am not an attorney, so maybe there is something in that transcript that eludes me, but it looks like the judge did not offer any sort of ruling. Can you provide a link, please? I'm interested in the final disposition.

The TeamLaw site has some unusual stuff, but the page I linked (http://www.teamlaw.net/Mythology.htm) seems to cover many of your claims. (I just Googled "name in all-caps strawman (http://www.google.com/search?q=name+in+all-caps+strawman)" and found it among the results.)

Capitalization actually has a very distinguishable effect and this is proven in many court cases.
The other linked site (http://www.adl.org/MWD/suss4.asp) shows well over a dozen cases that disagree with your assertion. I would be happy look over any other cases you can cite.

Pantaz

10th March 2009, 06:13 PM

This is on the level of "The gold fringe on the flag means we're under martial law" nuttiness.

The "TeamLaw" site actually covers a version of that:
... Therefore, there are to this day only 48 States in the Union of States of the United States of America and the proper flag of our nation has only 48 stars on its jack.
The 50 star flag is the proper flag of the President of Corp. U.S. and is properly used in his capacity as the Commander in Chief of the military forces of the United States of America, which are an original jurisdiction government body but they stand today under the assignment of Lincoln's martial law as the enforcers of that martial law, whose business needs are dictatorially controlled by Corp. U.S.’S' President.

:boggled:

They have other pages relating to the "Corp. U.S." thing. Bizarre. :boggled:

I hesitated using them as a reference in the first place, but I like their description of the "name in capitals" argument.

BPSCG

10th March 2009, 06:20 PM

This is a really good thread. I always enjoy watching someone in the grip of a powerful but probably harmless* delusion earnestly pressing his case on a bemused audience.

* Harmless as long as he doesn't act in accordance with his delusion.

Dragoonster

10th March 2009, 06:28 PM

For the record, Randy Lee and Jesus the Christ Advocate and Wonderful Counselor are using the Right of Visitation to exercise Ministerial Powers to be heard on this matter.

Jesus came back as a lawyer for crazy people? :(

Ladewig

10th March 2009, 07:36 PM

Thank you for responding to my requests. After carefully reading your posts, I see no reason to place credence in your most remarkable assertions.

I do hope that you do not run afoul of the IRS or the government as you act upon these beliefs.

scratchy

10th March 2009, 08:06 PM

Hey, gimme my rights as a human being! Obligations? Dont come to me with that, talk to the invisible guy in the corner, thats my fictional legal person.

Madalch

10th March 2009, 09:22 PM

Oh, my mistake. Could you elaborate on the system really quick?

There are about three hundred members of parliament, each representing a particular riding.

Hee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_parliament

Ysidro

10th March 2009, 09:48 PM

This is just all old tax protester BS. The "legal person" stuff, the birth certificate arguements, talk of "common law" vs. "admiralty law".

It would be a fine joke if there weren't people in prison for tax evasion who tried to use these arguements in court.

linusrichard

10th March 2009, 10:11 PM

I have to give credit to My Ill Will - this is actually the most coherently I've seen these ideas expressed before. Obviously, they are all wrong. I think the reason that they're normally not presented as coherently as MIW does here is that it makes it more obvious how wrong they are. Reading these posts, it's easy to say, Nope, Nope, Nope, Nope. Normally, reading this kind of tax protester nonsense, it's more like Huh?, What?, Nope, What?!

What gets me about this, though, is that it just doesn't pass a laugh test. We have a government that has turned into a bankrupt corporation, and decided to suspend the Constitution and enslave all of its citizens at birth. So far, so good. So, why would such a government then allow you to negate all of your debt and declare your own sovereignty simply by recognizing the value of proper capitalization and the application of the UCC, and some legal magic words? What is the United States, Rumpelstiltskin? A James Bond villain? Yes, the government is allowed to use you as collateral for the national debt without your permission, but they're not allowed to own gold, and they have to let you do whatever you want if you ask in just the right words. What? Come on, Dr. No, he's asleep - why not just shoot him now?

ETA:
P.S. It's already been said in this thread, but it can't be said too many times: do not do not do not behave as if any of these ideas were true. There is a very real possibility of prison.

That's the scary thing about this stuff. If it were just the parts about the UCC and the gold fringe and the straw man and the slavery, people might not try it in court because you would know you wouldn't get away with it. You could think - well, I could fight this, and I'd be right, but I'd lose. But the scary thing is, part of the myth is that you would win! And you wouldn't! I just have to hope that somewhere deep down, MIW doesn't believe that part. Because he might end up in prison if he does...

JoeTheJuggler

10th March 2009, 10:28 PM

Common law doesn't apply across the UK. Scotland has it's own legal system.
Here in the U.S., Louisiana also doesn't use British Common Law. Louisiana uses codified law based, I believe, on the Napoleonic Code.

Madalch

10th March 2009, 11:09 PM

Here in the U.S., Louisiana also doesn't use British Common Law. Louisiana uses codified law based, I believe, on the Napoleonic Code.

And in Canada, so does Quebec.

Foolmewunz

11th March 2009, 07:55 AM

This crap is pre-forum. As the attorney (who's apparently a rigid constitutionalist and thus mighty damned conservative) in the below link states, he's not selling good advice, he's selling grand jury indictments.

He, in the above sentence, refers of course to Roger Elvick, the darling of the anti-taxers. Not surprisingly - he wrote the theory up WHILE IN JAIL.

My Ill Will, before you wind up in jail yourself for following this insanity, maybe you want to take a breath of fresh air. This is the most batcrap crazy idea since the beginning of batcrap crazy ideas. It even surpasses the crazy lady who had photographic proof that pteradactyls did the 911 attacks on the WTC towers.

http://www.devvy.com/patriot2_20021117.html

Beerina

12th March 2009, 08:31 AM

I haven't seen the link as I'm at work and can't watch video, but this seems like an amusing mix of anarchism and tax protester junk.

Yeah, a lot more like a bunch of janitors with guns than real John Galts who shoulder the advancement of the world.

LightinDarkness

26th March 2009, 06:59 PM

I am sorry I got to this woo late, but my reading this thread was amusing. I have a lawyer friend and he says that every so often the woos in court try to bring this up. They get charged with something and then declare to the judge they are sovereign, and the judge laughs at them and precedes as usual.

By the way, no one can declare themselves sovereign because AS LONG AS YOU LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY YOU ARE BENEFITING FROM ME OR SOMEONE ELSE. I'm perfectly happy to zone off a 500 square mile part of either coast and remove it from all US military protection and ALL public services - anyone is free to go into the "freedom zone", anyone going out will be considered an illegal immigrant.

I imagine a grand total of 0 of these freedom movement woos would take up my offer.

sackett

26th March 2009, 09:00 PM

...I'm perfectly happy to zone off a 500 square mile part...and remove it from,,,ALL public services....

Well hell's afire, you are just a talking about that country east of the Gas Hills out in Wyoming. Ain't even no private services since old Jick Snyder sold up & moved to Casper to live with his grand kids. (Old basterd still owes me a month's wages after the time I rode fence for him and got lost a looking for his salt box.) I would dearly like to see some of them libertarinists try it on in that Gas Hills country, reckon they'd learn to lean on a neighbor's help oncet their well went bad. Say, if you see old Jick you might tell him how good even five dullers on account would feel.

UnrepentantSinner

27th March 2009, 12:25 AM

I'm giving this thread a rare 5 Hovinds out of 5.

And for the record, I'm declaring myself a Free-man-of-Space.

Euromutt

27th March 2009, 01:38 AM

This is just all old tax protester BS. The "legal person" stuff, the birth certificate arguements, talk of "common law" vs. "admiralty law".Yeah, most of what my ill will's writing rings familiar to me from reading David Neiwert's In God's Country: The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Country-Patriot-Movement-Northwest/dp/0874221757), except it's even more elaborate and tortuous.

KingMerv00

27th March 2009, 02:24 AM

Capitalization actually has a very distinguishable effect and this is proven in many court cases.

This is not true and your transcript does not prove the contrary. An argument like that would be shot down by the judge because it would undermine the execution of the spirit of the law. Yes, judges can make rulings for public policy reasons. I also suspect this has already been addressed in common law.

Toke

24th May 2009, 09:37 AM

So you are looking for the magic words that can set you free?

Try the Necronomicon, it comes in a paperback version.

Dr Adequate

24th May 2009, 09:54 AM

Ive been doing allot of research myself in the past 5 months after meeting a guy who was talking to me about becoming soverign...He has actually set the whole thing up in another commenwealth country and many of my friends have become soverign and are no longer paying unlawful tax anymore. It made all my hair stand on end... (one knows truth when one hears it) Evidently not.

Noticed that the rable of intelligent minds on this site had nothing of any measure to add ... Apart from facts, but hey, facts, what relevance do they have?

Its Genius that the game created by those that created it have left a get out clause ... Why do you think your Evil Slave-Masters supplied you with a get-out clause? Why wouldn't they just prosecute your sorry tax-dodging ass for not paying your taxes like the rest of us ...

... oh, wait, they would.

Toke

24th May 2009, 10:02 AM

Why do you think your Evil Slave-Masters supplied you with a get-out clause? Why wouldn't they just prosecute your sorry tax-dodging ass for not paying your taxes like the rest of us ...

... oh, wait, they would.

It would not be a propper fairy tale if they did. Hence the search for the magic words.

Skeptic

24th May 2009, 01:38 PM

Lawful Rebellion

It's hard to take seriously people whose very name is a contradiction in terms, and who do not seem to realize it.

...admiralty law...

These silly kooks think that, for some strange reason, all USA courts, because they have a US flag with gold fringes on them, are "really" admirality (or military) courts, and if the kook will just inform the judge of this point and insist on a "constitutional" court instead, the judge will have no choice but to dismiss the case against him.

One witty judge recently listened to a crank's long story about how he is not a real judge and the court is not a real court, but rather a fake "admirality" court, and replied: "well, I'll pretend you're a boat."

Skeptic

24th May 2009, 01:53 PM

e has actually set the whole thing up in another commenwealth country and many of my friends have become soverign and are no longer paying unlawful tax anymore.

You can't get blood from a stone. Most of these "free sovereign citizens" are broke losers, working under the table, who aren't worth the trouble to prosecute for non-filing of taxes.

But once the IRS sees there's something to get from the idiot, or wants to make example of the dummy, the dummy usually ends up in jail (http://www.quatlosers.com/).

Where, indeed, he will not pay any income tax, having no income any more.

tomwaits

24th May 2009, 02:03 PM

You can't get blood from a stone. Most of these "free sovereign citizens" are broke losers, working under the table, who aren't worth the trouble to prosecute for non-filing of taxes.

But once the IRS sees there's something to get from the idiot, or wants to make example of the dummy, the dummy usually ends up in jail (http://www.quatlosers.com/).

Where, indeed, he will not pay any income tax, having no income any more.

Actually, from what I've read, it's less likely than you think that a tax protester will go to jail. It is difficult to prove that the person knew that he had to pay taxes but still didn't.

However, you can bet that the IRS will still get their money, regardless if the person goes to jail. By hook or by crook, you are going to pay those back taxes.

Skeptic

24th May 2009, 02:03 PM

Jesus came back as a lawyer for crazy people? :(

Close enough. He came back as a defendant (http://www.trial.com/Blogger/2001_08_01_lightersideblogarchive.htm) sued by crazy people.

Still, as David Merrill, one of the plaintiffs in this case (the other is his motor scooter) had noted, he isn't insane, or anything: he isn't suing that Jesus Christ, so clearly, all suspicions about his mental health are unfounded.

Architect

25th May 2009, 05:41 AM

I think that the point is that we are waiting for concrete evidence from the "freeman" posters. But frankly, at the moment we just don't have a coherent argument.

Architect

25th May 2009, 05:58 AM

What's your point, caller? That the Freeman movement is founded on fairytales? I might buy that.

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:01 AM

Are you acquainted with "The Emporer's New Clothes"? It's particularly relevant to the Freeman movement who, as far as I can see, have arguments so transparently false as to be of no meaningful purpose.

But really, feel free to ignore reality.

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:05 AM

Here's an example of just how blatantly wrong a Freeman argument can be:

A Statute, like the Income Tax Act, cannot apply directly to a human
being because the Statute was created by man, and without agreement
or consent by another human, one man cannot have dominion over
another man. Therefore, a Statute (which is subservient to its
creator - man) cannot have dominion over another man, because the
created (the Statute) can never be greater than the creator (the men
who created the Statute).

So, let's get this straight. Laws, and statute, are passed by Parliament who are, in turn, elected by - wait for it - the people. But because each of the people didn't agree to that law on an individual basis, then it doesn't apply to them!

Great, isn't it?

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:06 AM

he started to think :eek: confussed :confused: he wondered why do we cling to the rocks he could see around him many other unusual creatures when he was brave enough to peek out of his shell! but the other sea creatures would nudge him to cling tighter to the rocks..

If this is your idea of a parable, never mind a coherent argument, then I very much worry for you.

:rolleyes:

then after many eons of thinking these same thoughts and every now and then peeking out of his shell ... all of a sudden the unthinkable happened :blush:

A tax protester came out with a cogent point?

Dr Adequate

25th May 2009, 06:10 AM

And then he was eaten by a penguin.

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:11 AM

On you go - you can get to 10 posts and then have some links! Then we can really have a laugh!

In the meantime, let's have another side-splitting Freeman moment:

Government owns your children.

You are the Registered Keeper.

The Government wants
to vaccinate and drug your children.
Social Services can take THEIR children.

The Government owns your car.
You are the Registered Keeper.

You pay licences (http://www.highland.gov.uk/businessinformation/licensing/) to drive, work, hunt, fish, watch TV,
park your car, blow your nose .........

YOU are a SLAVE.

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:13 AM

Ten posts! You made it!

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:15 AM

Only in the "gave ourselves a hernia laughing" sense of change.

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:19 AM

Tell you what, Em, go and have a laugh at this:

http://www.pnnac.org/Freeman-Price.html

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:26 AM

You know, we're not laughing with you.

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:28 AM

I think you may be mistaking my taking the piss for some sort of support.

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:36 AM

Are you planning to string this out all the way to 25? Or do you expect to get suspended before then?

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:43 AM

Sorry, my sides just split laughing. Do you really believe all this guff?

Skeptic

25th May 2009, 06:51 AM

Thought this was a site to discuss in a friendly and lively way?!

Edited for rule 12.

Skeptic

25th May 2009, 06:53 AM

Here's an example of just how blatantly wrong a Freeman argument can be:

So, let's get this straight. Laws, and statute, are passed by Parliament who are, in turn, elected by - wait for it - the people. But because each of the people didn't agree to that law on an individual basis, then it doesn't apply to them!

Great, isn't it?

Hey, I'm going to find out where emmanation lives and take all his stuff. I never personally agreed to the laws against theft and robbery, so it doesn't apply to me! Besides, what is he going to do -- call the police? Those EVIL AGENTS of the government???

Architect

25th May 2009, 06:56 AM

Well, make sure you only take the stuff from the basement. The rest belongs to his parents.

Skeptic

25th May 2009, 07:00 AM

by the feeling he had not felt this ALIVE before.... he had been dead all those years clinging to the rocks!

I didn't know that getting paid under the table while getting sued by the IRS makes people FEEL ALIVE, but hey, to each his own.

By the way, no mention in this thread yet of the kooks' "nuclear option": the constant attempt to get higher courts to issue a writ of mandamus to reverse their convictions in tax court, district court, etc.

This is commonly known as the "writ of mandumbass" by the bemused observers of these kooks, since only folks who fit the latter category used it as a constantly failing anti-taxing strategy.

Architect

25th May 2009, 07:01 AM

You worry? Hell, I jsut found a Scottish site citing all this guff. All they did was take out US references and put in UK ones. Badly. The legal bits are just made up, as an added humorous bonus.

fuelair

25th May 2009, 07:17 AM

Not quite. The common law applies to all people, anywhere, everywhere. It's the natural, universally accepted law. You cannot cause harm or loss or breach the peace or commit fraud in your contracts. It covers everything. Theft, murder, perjury, public nuisance, etc. Admiralty law (statutes, codes, regulations) are specifically restricted in their scope and applicability to the members of that society. A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society, given the force of law. A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine, and act for a common purpose. So, statutes are laws to people who have given their consent to be a part of the society. It's like if you have lived on a piece of land your entire life, and some organization came in, claiming to be the government of the land, and tried to get you to pay taxes and follow their policies. You'd tell them they had no jurisdiction, no authority. Because they don't. It's like saying marijuana is illegal in the United States and trying to enforce that in Amsterdam. Doesn't work. No jurisdiction. And it's not because it's a separate piece of land. The fundamental laws of the land provide that all men are created equal and that governments are instilled among men to protect inalienable rights, and that when government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the right of the people to alter/abolish it. You can declare sovereignty and there is nothing anyone can do about it without a gun to your head. :)

Actually, yes, I do. The number is generally on the back of the birth certificate and it is evidence of a bond created in your name. In America, for example... FDR created a trust in 1933 (and there is also a trust created by the Constitution) of which the people are the beneficiaries. The Secretary of Treasury is the fiduciary of this bond and it directs the funds in it to your local representative. I think it would be your state's Congress member, not entirely sure. In Canada it's your provincial representative in Parliament. You can send notice directing these funds for debt set-off. Several people have done this with their student loans, credit card debts, etc, and it has worked. The debt simply moves to zero.
I guarantee that if you attempt to live by the statements given you will have government support for a long time in a nice place with barred doors and windows. I will be supporting that since you either have no idea how law and government work or are trying as Wesley Snipes successfully and unfortunately did to plead abject ignorance/stupidity due to paying attention to , well, persons who are either truly incompetant fools OR people trying a huge rip-off. Either way, I would have no problem with them undergoing a cessation of existence due to the time the court and legal system waste on them.

Stacko

25th May 2009, 08:14 AM

Well, make sure you only take the stuff from the basement. The rest belongs to his parents.

:dl:

Nominated.

billydkid

27th May 2009, 12:09 PM

Like I said, a bunch of people who see themselves as Heros in an Ayn Rand Novel.
Yes, it couldn't possibly be that any of these are people of deeply held principles who actually seek to live by the principles on which the country was founded. Couldn't possibly be that. They could only possibly be delusional whackos. I think the best approach in general toward people with whom we might disagree is to stick our fingers in our ears and say over and over "I can't hear you. I can't hear you." and to be dismissive and condescending.

Architect

27th May 2009, 12:18 PM

Yes, it couldn't possibly be that any of these are people of deeply held principles who actually seek to live by the principles on which the country was founded.

Independence from the British Crown, all men (but no women) of a certain colour created equal under god, and grab as much land from the natives as you can? :confused:

drkitten

27th May 2009, 12:26 PM

Yes, it couldn't possibly be that any of these are people of deeply held principles who actually seek to live by the principles on which the country was founded.

That's not incompatible with the fact that they are delusional wackos.

I think it's fair to say that anyone who wears a tinfoil hat to keep the orbital mind-control satellites from reading their mind is a person of deeply held principles who is actually seeking to protect the principle of personal privacy.

But such a person is still absolutely bonkers. Good intentions are neither proof, nor evidence, nor necessarily even correlated with sanity.

The tinfoil-hat losers are actually doing more damage to the principle of personal privacy than the more level-headed (and reality-influenced) people who are aware of what the government can and will do to violate your privacy and who try to take effective action (such as the people who have filed FOIA requests and lawsuits against the NSA for illegal wiretapping). Indeed, one of the most effective ways to neutralize these people is to lump them together with the tinfoil-hat brigade.

The Freeman/Lawful Rebellion movement are the tinfoil-hat brigade of tax protesters.

KingMerv00

27th May 2009, 01:12 PM

Yes, it couldn't possibly be that any of these are people of deeply held principles who actually seek to live by the principles on which the country was founded.

This country was founded as a democratic republic. I don't think the founding fathers started a system of government just so others could ignore it when they feel like it.

KingMerv00

27th May 2009, 01:14 PM

...all men (but no women) of a certain colour...

Don't forget they had to own land too.

Ladewig

27th May 2009, 01:34 PM

Couldn't possibly be that. They could only possibly be delusional whackos. I think the best approach in general toward people with whom we might disagree is to stick our fingers in our ears and say over and over "I can't hear you. I can't hear you." and to be dismissive and condescending.

You do realize that we are talking about people who claim that when faced with a collection agency, debtors can simply giving the debt holders a number from one's birth certificate and the debt will be immediately and completely dismissed. We are talking about people who believe that if one is being sued in civil court, all one has to do is utter the phrase "admiralty flag" while pointing at the U.S. flag displayed in the courtroom and the judge will immediately stop the proceeding and dismiss the case. We are talking about people who believe there is legal difference of the greatest import between one's name spelled in lower case letters and one's name spelled in capital letters.

Delusional whackos may no be the precise description of these folks but it is close enough.

Chaos

28th May 2009, 12:34 AM

Independence from the British Crown, all men (but no women) of a certain colour created equal under god, and grab as much land from the natives as you can? :confused:

Oh yes. The greatest, most free and most democratic principles anybody ever founded a nation with. Everyone we don´t like doesn´t count, and everything we want belongs to us. That´s really something to be proud of.

Skeptic

28th May 2009, 01:04 AM

(sigh)

The "Oh look how evil the founding fathers were" meme is apparently well-established.

Tsukasa Buddha

28th May 2009, 01:29 AM

(sigh)

The "Oh look how evil the founding fathers were" meme is apparently well-established.

I find it much better than the "The Founding Fathers were Prophets who I regularly masturbate to" meme.

KingMerv00

28th May 2009, 02:37 AM

Oh yes. The greatest, most free and most democratic principles anybody ever founded a nation with. Everyone we don´t like doesn´t count, and everything we want belongs to us. That´s really something to be proud of.

We got better.

Chaos

28th May 2009, 03:59 AM

We got better.

By diverging from the views of the founding fathers. That was my point.

I mean, we got better, too, compared... no, I´m not going to mention the obvious example, but let´s just say we outgrew the "let´s grab our piece of Africa while there´s still any left to take" phase some time ago.

However, we do not, in general, take this as a reason to idolize Kaiser Wilhelm II and his megalomania. Or ignore what it meant for those on the short end of the stick.

Geezer

28th May 2009, 11:49 AM

Architect

28th May 2009, 11:54 AM

(sigh)

The "Oh look how evil the founding fathers were" meme is apparently well-established.

Sorry, but this is the "taking the piss out of niaive souls who attribute god-like piety to the Founding Fathers" meme here. You want the next door down.

Skeptic

28th May 2009, 12:28 PM

Oh, give me a break. It's not about the founding fathers. It's about making the impression that "look at me! I'm too sophisticated to buy those silly myths about the founding fathers!" -- as if anybody who considers them to be great men doesn't know they were creatures of their time as well.

linusrichard

28th May 2009, 12:59 PM

Quad4_72

28th May 2009, 01:05 PM

Just read through this thread. There is some truly awful stuff here. my ill will, not a single thing you posted in this thread makes sense.

Tsukasa Buddha

28th May 2009, 01:16 PM

Soapy Sam

28th May 2009, 02:14 PM

Is your location an Amsterdam coffee shop? Just curious. I listened to comparable stories there.

You too?
Brown bars, old gin, other...stuff and politics. Amsterdam.

ParanoidAndroid

28th May 2009, 02:48 PM

Personally, I love moral relativism coming from a conservative. It's so refreshingly dissonant.

It's obnoxious for 21st century observers to try to judge 18th century statesmen by 21st century standards of morality (never mind of course that there were, for example, abolitionists in the 18th century), but it's perfectly cool for 21st century scolds to judge 21st century homosexuals by 1st century standards of morality.

It's like - metarelativism!
(bolding by PA)

Which shouldn't be confused with metrorelativism*

* derived from the (relatively) modern term ‘metrosexual’, metrorelativism posits that regardless of the context of the standards used to judge a particular group of people's morals, their sexuality, or their political leanings, we can all agree that to be proper, they should be well groomed, stylish, and hyper-aware of the latest pop-cultural and countercultural accoutrements

dudalb

28th May 2009, 02:56 PM

Yes, it couldn't possibly be that any of these are people of deeply held principles who actually seek to live by the principles on which the country was founded. Couldn't possibly be that. They could only possibly be delusional whackos. I think the best approach in general toward people with whom we might disagree is to stick our fingers in our ears and say over and over "I can't hear you. I can't hear you." and to be dismissive and condescending.

Gee, the founding fathers were de facto anarchists. You learn something every day.
When somebody denies tha government has the power to regulate things like driving, where incompetence behind the wheel is a clear and present danger to others, that is pure wackiness.
BUt I also find the snickering about people like Washington, Jefferson, and Adams that is going on here to be pretty childish,and a good example of High School/College age "KNow It All Disease".
Of course I note that most of those who are doing this have radical political agendas which have the chance of a snowball in hell of suceeding under the current Constitution, so naturally they want to junk it under the guise of "revising" it. I find the longing for a overwhelming powerful central government to be partiuclarly dangerous.

Toke

28th May 2009, 03:32 PM

I tend to think of politics and economics as sliding scales with freemen/anarcists vs dictatorship, and laisefaire capitalism vs pure socialism.
In real life, economics and politics are hard to seperate, so some of the combinations are impossible.

I find the longing for a overwhelming powerful central government to be partiuclarly dangerous.
Overwhelming?
I have a problem with a goverment so weak it can be brought up by commercial interrests.:)

Toke

28th May 2009, 05:04 PM

Dudalb,
I recall you as american, is there any chance you could scrug off that cultural phobia of goverment and come over to the red side?:D

Skeptic

29th May 2009, 02:56 PM

Personally, I love moral relativism coming from a conservative. It's so refreshingly dissonant.

It's obnoxious for 21st century observers to try to judge 18th century statesmen by 21st century standards of morality (never mind of course that there were, for example, abolitionists in the 18th century), but it's perfectly cool for 21st century scolds to judge 21st century homosexuals by 1st century standards of morality.

It's like - metarelativism!

The mistake here is the usual mistake progressives make -- namely, that because some things people believed in the past were wrong and were changed to the better, then everything believed in the past was wrong and should be changed.

But for every change for the better there was a change for the worse. Progressives supported women's votes as the inevitable way of the future... but they also supported communism and eugenics for the same reason. The mere fact that (a) something was believed in the past and (b) progressives today disagree with it hardly means it is wrong.

One of the reason progressivism looks impressive is that we are constantly given its past "hits" (abolition, women's liberation) and ignore its past "misses" (eugenics, communism).

The Central Scrutinizer

29th May 2009, 03:04 PM

Just wondering if anyone in here has heard about it. I'll try to provide some insight.

Lawful Rebellion is basically a peaceful uprising of men and women in commonwealth nations who deny their consent to be governed, using notices and Claims of Right. In all representative governments, representation requires mutual consent and the government is bound by their own rules. If enough research on the relationship between common law and admiralty law is done, it is visible that we may exist completely free of all statutory obligations, restrictions, and restraints. "Free-man-on-the-Land"

A large section of this movement is dedicated to the commercial "Accepted for Value" remedy. There was a trust created in your person's name when you were registered as a child, and there is an actual bond tracking number on your birth certificate. This bond can be used for the purposes of setting-off debt, and actually aids your country in reducing the national debt. This method has been used by quite a few people, and obviously does not have much mainstream coverage as it has been hidden for a long time. But make no mistake, it is there and it works.

If anyone is interested, here is a video that will help you understand what I'm talking about. http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/articles/john-harris-its-illusion

By the way, I didn't see a "law" section so I posted it here. Feel free to move it!

edit: Yes, I see the recommended films at the bottom. Ignore them. I don't like conspiracy theories either.

You're asking if we've heard about nuts? Yep, sure have.

The Central Scrutinizer

29th May 2009, 03:09 PM

All law is derived from the principles of common law. It is enforced by the people appointed to enforce the law!

Please provide a list of all my rights under common law.

KoihimeNakamura

29th May 2009, 03:13 PM

The mistake here is the usual mistake progressives make -- namely, that because some things people believed in the past were wrong and were changed to the better, then everything believed in the past was wrong and should be changed.

But for every change for the better there was a change for the worse. Progressives supported women's votes as the inevitable way of the future... but they also supported communism and eugenics for the same reason. The mere fact that (a) something was believed in the past and (b) progressives today disagree with it hardly means it is wrong.

One of the reason progressivism looks impressive is that we are constantly given its past "hits" (abolition, women's liberation) and ignore its past "misses" (eugenics, communism).

This would be more impressive if you provided any reasonable evidence this applied to what they said, rather than just throwing something out there to dismiss the argument without debating it first.

The Central Scrutinizer

29th May 2009, 03:19 PM

It creates a bond in your name. Well, not your name, but your legal person's. You see, when your birth was registered, a legal entity was created, called your strawman. It is your name in all-caps. The governments are all corporations, listed on the market AS CORPORATIONS. Their policy is corporate. This is why they require the people to have driver's licenses, SSN for nearly everything... because these identify you as employees of their corporation, meaning you must follow their regulations or you are punished. All of the courts and agencies follow the UCC, not the constitution. There is a grand deception that they are actually a government. They are a for profit corporation and all citizens are employees that must follow their rules. The BC registration is a contract. For a valid contract to exist, there must be consent, and equal consideration on both sides. The consideration the United States provides to the citizen are the benefits of citizenship. The consideration the person provides is their pledge to the US statutes, and their future tax money. The bond is related to the national debt. Money is no longer backed by physical substance, it is all debt. It is created based on someone's promise to pay (their signature). Money is created in people's future labor. If you direct someone to transfer this "money" all they are doing, basically, is reducing numbers from the national debt.

What color is the sky in your world?

The Central Scrutinizer

29th May 2009, 03:23 PM

Sorry if that's what I'm conveying. It's hard for me to explain a lot of this in simpler terms. Perhaps this will help you understand?

The United States is bankrupt and has been since 1933. The government has no gold or silver as required by the Constitution. The only asset left is the people. So how does the U.S. finance its daily operations?

Solution, collateralize the people for credit. How? By registering them in international commerce, and selling bonds on them. The people become the surety on the bonds, or the "pledge". The asset bonded (surety) is the labor of the people which is payable as some undetermined future date. Thus, the people become the "utility" for the "transmission" of energy. Result, a very sophisticated form of peonage or slavery and the Constitution does not apply because the government, on all levels, is thrown into international commerce, the law merchant, now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. [See Public Law 88-244 in which the U.S. Subscribed to private international law. See definition of "goods" under the Uniform Commercial Code; Section 2-105(1) and 9-105(1) in which animals, i.e. humans and their unborn offspring, become "goods" sellable in commerce!

Just out of curiosity, do "they" use us to make Soylent Green after we die?

Dr Adequate

29th May 2009, 10:56 PM

The mistake here is the usual mistake progressives make -- namely, that because some things people believed in the past were wrong and were changed to the better, then everything believed in the past was wrong and should be changed.

http://constanttrek.typepad.com/photos/picardie/strawman.JPG

But for every change for the better there was a change for the worse. Progressives supported women's votes as the inevitable way of the future... but they also supported communism and eugenics for the same reason. The mere fact that (a) something was believed in the past and (b) progressives today disagree with it hardly means it is wrong. And yet as progressives are against slavery, the subjugation of women, eugenics, and Communism, you have provided no actual counter-examples to such a proposition.

One of the reason progressivism looks impressive is that we are constantly given its past "hits" (abolition, women's liberation) and ignore its past "misses" (eugenics, communism). One reason that science looks impressive is that we are constantly given its past "hits" (the Periodic Table, X-rays) and ignore its past "misses" (phlogiston, N-rays).

Skeptic

29th May 2009, 11:12 PM

This would be more impressive if you provided any reasonable evidence this applied to what they said, rather than just throwing something out there to dismiss the argument without debating it first.

His claim is that it is wrong to judge 18th century people by 18th century standards because I refuse to judge gays "by 21st century standards" (that is, I oppose gay marriage). But the whole point is that declaring support of gay marriage to be the new "standard" doesn't make it so, and even if it were, it doesn't mean it's correct.

But in any case the whose claim on his part is a non sequitor. The claim of moral relativism would make sense if I claimed that in the 18th century slavery was not wrong, and magically became wrong when most people opposed it. That would indeed be moral relativism. But I am not saying that -- I agree 100% that slavery was wrong in the 18th century.

What I disagree with is merely how much moral culpability was there to support of slavery at that time. It is one thing to support an evil when it is not clearly recognized as an evil in your time. Quite another to support it when it is clear how evil it is.

linusrichard

29th May 2009, 11:18 PM

Let me make sure I understand the claim:

Slavery is immoral today, it was immoral 200 years ago, and it was immoral 1000 years ago. It always has been and always will be.

People who engage in slavery today are committing immorality, but people who engaged in it 200 years ago were not (pretending of course that slavery was not recognized as an evil 200 years ago).

So, doing something immoral isn't necessarily immoral.

(I'm not trying to jump to conclusions or put words in your mouth; I'm just trying to understand the claim, because it seems like a strange one and I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.)

Skeptic

29th May 2009, 11:20 PM

Solution, collateralize the people for credit.

The one thing I don't understand about this is who would accept them as payment.

"Look, I'm a few bucks short here..." (searches pockets) "...will you accept Johnny?"

"Sorry, I'm all out of change for large bills. Don't you have anyone skinnier on you?"

Skeptic

29th May 2009, 11:23 PM

Also, it's amusing that these guys think that "they", at the same time, cares so much about the constitution it just had to turn everybody into slaves in 1933 just so that some sub-section in the constitution will not be violated (not that it was, but I digress) and care so little about the constitution they are running a secret police state despite everything the constitition says.

Skeptic

29th May 2009, 11:28 PM

So, doing something immoral isn't necessarily immoral.

Absolutely.

If I suffer from a delusion that Mr. X is a secret government agent out to kill me and I shoot him, I have done something immoral (murder), but I am not necessarily morally culpable for it (due to my diminished mental capacity). Or take headhunting. If a headhunter were dropped from the sky into modern Boston, kills someone and puts his shrunken head over his door, he did the exact same thing that John Smith, born and raised in Boston, did last week. Both of them must be stopped, but the headhunter is in a very different moral category than the psychopath. Similarly with slavery. Slavery is an evil that must be stopped, but someone who owned slaves in the 18th century is in a totally different moral category than someone who trades slaves in the 20th.

It is dishonest to confuse the two. But it serves very well the purpose, in certain "progressive" sorts of colleges, of making the students despise and belittle the founding fathers (and more generally America and the West). I say it's dishonest, and not a real confusion, because the very same "progressive educators" are all for "unerstanding the context" and "not being judgemental" about all other cultures except the western one.

Dr Adequate

30th May 2009, 02:15 AM

The one thing I don't understand about this is who would accept them as payment.

"Look, I'm a few bucks short here..." (searches pockets) "...will you accept Johnny?"

"Sorry, I'm all out of change for large bills. Don't you have anyone skinnier on you?" That would have been even funnier if you'd written: "... will you accept William?"

Dr Adequate

30th May 2009, 02:19 AM

It is dishonest to confuse the two. But it serves very well the purpose, in certain "progressive" sorts of colleges, of making the students despise and belittle the founding fathers (and more generally America and the West). I say it's dishonest, and not a real confusion, because the very same "progressive educators" are all for "unerstanding the context" and "not being judgemental" about all other cultures except the western one. Anyone round here go to that certain progressive sort of college?

Chaos

30th May 2009, 02:45 AM

Anyone round here go to that certain progressive sort of college?

Actually, I sort of wonder if anyone inhabits the same world as our esteemed fellow poster.

Architect

30th May 2009, 04:02 AM

Anyone round here go to that certain progressive sort of college?

I think that you'll find that "the founding fathers" don't even flag up on the radar in the European universities. I can guarantee, however, that applying some sort of god-like status and claiming absolute piety on their behalf is guaranteed to cause considerable mirth.

linusrichard

30th May 2009, 04:47 AM

That would have been even funnier if you'd written: "... will you accept William?"

And if he'd written "... I'm a few Bucks short here..."

Anyone round here go to that certain progressive sort of college?

Yes! I mean, sort of. I mean, I went to a large, liberal, liberal arts university, where my professors included ex-hippies and fruitcakes and socialists and ivory tower types and at least one (and I'm pretty sure more) Actual Marxist.

But as far as any of the stuff described?

making the students despise and belittle the founding fathers (and more generally America and the West).... "unerstanding the context" and "not being judgemental" about all other cultures except the western one.

Not at all. As far as America, the West, and the founding fathers, there was no "despising" taught. Obviously American leadership comes in for criticism at some points (But I hope nobody has a problem with that! Anyone who thinks American leadership throughout history is beyond criticism is either ignorant of history or shockingly im-/amoral - neither of which I ascribe to Skeptic.), but no, it's very much about "understanding the context." As far as all other cultures, "understanding the context," sure! What's wrong with that? But there was not some command of reverence of all things not Pale, Male, and Stale. How would you even teach, let's say, Japanese history in the 1930s and 1940s, under such a command?

My black Marxist professor who taught African American Political Thought was far, far less critical of anybody white than he was of black intellectuals whom he considered too radical or not radical enough or in the wrong way, and, if I recall correctly, he particularly disliked Maoists. I also had professors who were political conservatives and Republicans.

TjW

1st June 2009, 07:40 AM

The one thing I don't understand about this is who would accept them as payment.

"Look, I'm a few bucks short here..." (searches pockets) "...will you accept Fat William here?"

"Sorry, I'm all out of change for large bills. Don't you have anyone skinnier on you?"

Fixed it for you.

Puppycow

3rd June 2009, 12:26 AM

Guess who was a member of this "Freeman Movement" (http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=33729)

Just three hours after Tiller was gunned down in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church, where he had been ushering, law enforcement apprehended Scott P. Roeder, 51, of Merriam, Kansas, traveling the speed limit on the I-35 back to his home. He was officially charged with the murder today.

Tiller's murderer had shot the abortionist once and threatened two other men in the church, before departing the scene of the crime in a powder-blue 1993 Ford Taurus, which deputies checked out as belonging to Roeder. After Sherriff’s deputies intercepted Roeder, he surrendered to them without incident and was taken back to Wichita for questioning.
. . .
The Anarchist Origins of Scott P. Roeder

Roeder’s first links with violence and terrorism began with his association with the anti-government “Freemen” movement. The Freemen claim that the individual has sovereignty above the government, making them largely exempt from laws, regulations and taxes. Among other things, they began operating their own legal system, and printing their own paper currency independent of state and federal governments.

Puppycow

3rd June 2009, 01:36 AM

Once you have redeemed the straw man and own him, then any further commercial process done by any person (like an attorney, a judge, or law enforcement office without your consent) is slander of credit against your straw man. This is a federal criminal securities violation that means prison for them.

Uh-huh.

In April 1996, while the Freemen were engaged in the first month of an armed 81-day stand-off with the FBI at their Jordan, Montana compound, Roeder was pulled over and arrested by Shawnee county deputies for driving without a valid license plate. Instead Roeder had a tag reading, "Sovereign private property. Immunity declared by law. Non-commercial American.''

Roeder had been on an FBI list of Freemen, and when a deputy searched the trunk of his car, he found weapons, ammunition, a gas mask , and bomb-making materials: a fuse cord, a pound of black powder, two nine-volt batteries, and a switch for a bomb-trigger.

Roeder was then charged and subsequently convicted of felonious possession and use of explosives, driving with a suspended license, and having neither vehicle registration nor car insurance.

Following his conviction, Roeder was released on probation with intensive monitoring, and he was required to have no more contact with anarchist anti-government groups that advocated violence. Yet, Roeder soon violated parole in 1997 by refusing to pay his taxes and give his employer a social security number, which earned him a 16 month sentence in state prison.

However, in December of that year, the Kansas Court of Appeals, threw out his conviction on the technical grounds that the officer arresting Roeder had improperly searched his car.

Jesus Christ. Can't believe that a court would let a terrorist go on a technicality like that. He didn't even have a lisence plate.

Chaos

3rd June 2009, 02:45 AM

Uh-huh.

Jesus Christ. Can't believe that a court would let a terrorist go on a technicality like that. He didn't even have a lisence plate.

He´s not a terrorist, he´s a patriot. Terrorists are foreigners with weird names who come from weird countries and believe in weird gods.

Random

3rd June 2009, 06:26 AM

...We are talking about people who believe that if one is being sued in civil court, all one has to do is utter the phrase "admiralty flag" while pointing at the U.S. flag displayed in the courtroom and the judge will immediately stop the proceeding and dismiss the case...

I don’t know. If I was a judge and case came in front of me and the defendant started pointing in the corner and yelling "ADMIRALTY FLAG! ADMIRALTY FLAG!" I would be sorely tempted to dismiss the case just to get that looney out of my hair.

Alareth

3rd June 2009, 11:24 AM

What color is the sky in your world?

Obviously it must be BLUE.

grndslm

18th February 2011, 11:45 AM

Why is it that Americans are the ones who need the movement the most, but aren't standing up to move??

TragicMonkey

18th February 2011, 11:50 AM

Because we don't need it? We're sitting pretty in the land of plenty with free speech, lots of rights, prosperity, and a rich legacy of Solid Gold dancers which once roamed freely across the land. I don't know which America you're in, but the one I'm in is pretty darn good.

grndslm

18th February 2011, 12:02 PM

Well... I'm from Mississippi.

That's the land where both CONSTITUTIONS of Mississippi *and* the United States of America are ignored.

Takes for example...

Mississippi: "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power where thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons." Miss. Const. art. III, § 12.

No Mississippi government agent will tell you that I have the right to carry an UNCONCEALED weapon without a permit, even tho they swear an oath to defend and protect my right to do so.

I have been thrown in a holding cell for telling a judge that his loaded question was irrelevant (which it truly was; even the prosecutor had no clue how to answer the question, which is why the judge then asked me; and the cop was hanging his head as he had to put me in cuffs (just doing his job he says); but I'll save that for another time), so what happened to my RIGHT to free speech??

What about my right to travel in any modern conveyance?? Older Supreme Court cases say, of course, liberty refers to travel. How can you have liberty and not travel. This is why it wasn't included in the Bill of Rights, because it was so obvious. But now we can't use conveyances that are SAFER than horse and buggy, unless we ask for permission??

Things are not as good as they seem. Most of us get nothing in return for 60% of our salaries going toward various tax, insurance schemes... other than an increase in policy enforcement officers and harassment.

There have been a number of times I have been stopped, while walking or riding a bicycle at night time... because there was a robery nearby. *EVERY* time I run across a cop at night, there was just a robbery right where I was?? What did they rob?? One set of clothing? Understood on the bicycle part, if a bicycle was really reported stolen. But then why did they demand I take pictures. And as I roll the bicycle with me, preparing for the picture, they demand me to put the bike down??

I bet things are great for you if you stay inside and watch Fox News all day.

grndslm

18th February 2011, 12:08 PM

Did you know that you can be arrested in Mississippi for not having the proper lighting equipment, including on a bicycle?!?

grndslm

18th February 2011, 12:22 PM

Did you know that "the People" are the sovereign leaders in a Constitutional Republic??
Yet our will is not done???

2/3rds of Americans have wanted Universal Health Insurance (I didn't say Obamacare, now did I?) for decades. So why don't we have it yet?

Wars that we don't want.... why do we have them, then?

Do I have to deal with this society? No.
Or can I leave society, yet remain on the land? Short answer, yes.

Can I be required to carry an ID? No.

Do you know what a "state Citizen" is, and how it differs from a U.S. citizen?

Are you obligated to register your child with THE STATE? Why would you do so? So they can take him/her from you if you decide you want to home educate them? (HINT: school are for fishes)

Why do you need to get a marriage license from THE STATE before you can get married? Why let THE STATE come between your marriage? Isn't marriage between a man, woman, and God?

Why is it that Christian Scientists cannot be arrested for failing to take their children to the hospital when sick? Because it's their RIGHT to have the freedom of religion. Law and Legalities are not the same thing.

Do you actually have a SSN? Or does the Social Security Administrator own it? (HINT: It's on the card)

There are layers and layers of deception, and most people don't see any of it because they're stuck in front of a TV.

People aren't going to be able to collect what they've put into The System, because they're not keeping check on their politicians. It's a sham. I mean... It's a shame.

SECTION 5.
All political power is vested in, and derived from, the people; all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

SOURCES: 1817 art I �2; 1832 art I �2.

SECTION 6.
The people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary to their safety and happiness; provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

SOURCES: 1817 art I �2; 1832 art I �2.

Everybody knows there's a problem here, but they don't want to come to terms with reality.

It's the normalcy bias. Nothing could every go wrong here.

Tick, tock, tick, tock.

dudalb

18th February 2011, 12:46 PM

Why don't you move to Somalia, since them seen to have the kind of government that you like?

IDB87

18th February 2011, 12:50 PM

There have been a number of times I have been stopped, while walking or riding a bicycle at night time... because there was a robery nearby. *EVERY* time I run across a cop at night, there was just a robbery right where I was??

Move to a better neighborhood.

gtm

18th February 2011, 01:48 PM

Well... I'm from Mississippi.

You need to do either of the following:-

a) get a Judgement in the Supreme Court of Mississippi that validates / supports Freeman legal theory.

or

b) March on Jackson with several 100,000 of your fellow Mississippian 'freemen' & overthrow the whole 'rotten system'.

Report back to us when you've achieved a) or b). Anything else is just wasting our time (& yours)

Cheerio

jargon buster

18th February 2011, 02:33 PM

You need to do either of the following:-

a) get a Judgement in the Supreme Court of Mississippi that validates / supports Freeman legal theory.

or

b) March on Jackson with several 100,000 of your fellow Mississippian 'freemen' & overthrow the whole 'rotten system'.

Report back to us when you've achieved a) or b). Anything else is just wasting our time (& yours)

Cheerio

Couldn't have put it better myself, cut the nonsense.
Its time we nipped these freeman numpties in the bud.

Lets just keep them on topic, rebutting grndlsm is pointless he just ignores the facts and carries on regardless.

16.5

18th February 2011, 02:38 PM

KingMerv00

18th February 2011, 02:57 PM

Why is it that Americans are the ones who need the movement the most, but aren't standing up to move??

I can't speak for everyone but I'll tell you why I won't move:

I went to law school and learned that freeman on the land are out of their bleepity bleeping minds. Seriously, I've never heard a FOTL claim that was even remotely true.

Captain_Swoop

18th February 2011, 03:24 PM

But now we can't use conveyances that are SAFER than horse and buggy, unless we ask for permission??
You need permission to take a bus train or aircraft?

Did you know that you can be arrested in Mississippi for not having the proper lighting equipment, including on a bicycle?!?

Same in the UK, red at the rear, white to the front and a reflector on each wheel. It helps cars avoid killing you inthe dark.

dudalb

18th February 2011, 03:25 PM

ANd mouthing off to a judge when he is on the bench is really,really,stupid.
ANd you do know your right to free speech is not unlimited when it comes to where, when, and how.You can't rent a truck and go into a residential neighborhood at Three o Clock in the Morning with loudspeakers blaring you rant of the day.

Horatius

18th February 2011, 03:50 PM

You can't rent a truck and go into a residential neighborhood at Three o Clock in the Morning with loudspeakers blaring you rant of the day.

Fascist!

tsig

18th February 2011, 04:01 PM

Did you know that "the People" are the sovereign leaders in a Constitutional Republic??
Yet our will is not done???

2/3rds of Americans have wanted Universal Health Insurance (I didn't say Obamacare, now did I?) for decades. So why don't we have it yet?

Wars that we don't want.... why do we have them, then?

Do I have to deal with this society? No.
Or can I leave society, yet remain on the land? Short answer, yes.

Can I be required to carry an ID? No.

Do you know what a "state Citizen" is, and how it differs from a U.S. citizen?

Are you obligated to register your child with THE STATE? Why would you do so? So they can take him/her from you if you decide you want to home educate them? (HINT: school are for fishes)

Why do you need to get a marriage license from THE STATE before you can get married? Why let THE STATE come between your marriage? Isn't marriage between a man, woman, and God?

Why is it that Christian Scientists cannot be arrested for failing to take their children to the hospital when sick? Because it's their RIGHT to have the freedom of religion. Law and Legalities are not the same thing.

Do you actually have a SSN? Or does the Social Security Administrator own it? (HINT: It's on the card)

There are layers and layers of deception, and most people don't see any of it because they're stuck in front of a TV.

People aren't going to be able to collect what they've put into The System, because they're not keeping check on their politicians. It's a sham. I mean... It's a shame.

Everybody knows there's a problem here, but they don't want to come to terms with reality.

It's the normalcy bias. Nothing could every go wrong here.

Tick, tock, tick, tock.

Well, i get a check every month from the Feds, one from the state and one from that evil corporation that I worked for so I'm collecting.

TSR

18th February 2011, 04:44 PM

Well... I'm from Mississippi.

That's the land where both CONSTITUTIONS of Mississippi *and* the United States of America are ignored.

.
Speaking of ignoring, you seem to be ignoring this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6882525&postcount=5247) and those in direct response to it.

Can you give us a good reason why?
.

LightinDarkness

18th February 2011, 05:27 PM

The reason why is because most people are smart enough not to take it seriously because YOU and fellow self-proclaimed FMOTLers can't answer simple questions like this:

All you have to do to prove your case is something that time and again we've seen every self-proclaimed FOTL fail to do -

Cite one single court case from any country on any statute law where a self-proclaimed freeman on the land was allowed to ignore statute law because of he declined to consent to it.

Thats it. Thats all you have to do. It cannot get anymore simple. If the world operates as you believe it does, where as long as you do the right tap dance in court and refuse to do certain things to "decline" consent, then this should be so easy to find. The world cannot be as you believe it is if you can't offer even one case like this. And don't tell me that the court would never issue such an opinion. Courts issue opinions like this all the time for real, valid exemptions from statute law (like sovereign Native American tribes).

If you cannot provide even 1 court citation from any country on any matter about anything that shows this, then you should admit your worldview is a delusion and come back to reality.

LightinDarkness

18th February 2011, 05:32 PM

I have been thrown in a holding cell for telling a judge that his loaded question was irrelevant (which it truly was; even the prosecutor had no clue how to answer the question, which is why the judge then asked me; and the cop was hanging his head as he had to put me in cuffs (just doing his job he says); but I'll save that for another time), so what happened to my RIGHT to free speech??

Then by your very own recollection FMOTL is a utter and complete failure. If FMOTL had any basis in law then the judge could not even call you into court (only your strawman, and you could simply A4V the charges away or use maritime liens). The very fact that they can call you into court and can throw you into jail for contempt of court shows that you, in fact, are not a freeman on the land.

What about my right to travel in any modern conveyance?? Older Supreme Court cases say, of course, liberty refers to travel. How can you have liberty and not travel. This is why it wasn't included in the Bill of Rights, because it was so obvious. But now we can't use conveyances that are SAFER than horse and buggy, unless we ask for permission??

Except you don't have a right to travel in any modern conveyance. Thats another made up FMOTL thing.

16.5

18th February 2011, 05:47 PM

Free Loaders on the land in America.

grndslm

18th February 2011, 06:01 PM

Why don't you move to Somalia, since them seen to have the kind of government that you like?I'm fairly certain you don't know what kind of government that I like. You'd never guess my ideal form of government in a million years.

Move to a better neighborhood.They're all the same. It's not like this all happens in one neighborhood anyway. Happens citywide, at minimum.

Cool, albeit totally incomprehensible, story bro.

Free Speech does not equal mouthing off to a judge in Court, "bro.Was I really mouthing off. If the judge requires you to answer an irrelevant question with a yes or no, then why doesn't the Constitution apply??

I can't speak for everyone but I'll tell you why I won't move:

I went to law school and learned that freeman on the land are out of their bleepity bleeping minds. Seriously, I've never heard a FOTL claim that was even remotely true.What claims have you heard?

Michael Badnarik is "the most famous American who travels without a license", perhaps you should ask him how he does it. He doesn't need anymore identification than his passport that says "Constitutional, but not statutory citizen".

ANd mouthing off to a judge when he is on the bench is really,really,stupid.
ANd you do know your right to free speech is not unlimited when it comes to where, when, and how.You can't rent a truck and go into a residential neighborhood at Three o Clock in the Morning with loudspeakers blaring you rant of the day.Once again.. I didn't mouth off. I humbly and politely told him that his question was irrelevant.

He actually didn't even give me contempt for that. I answered the question with "that's irrelevant" three times. He proceeded to talk. He formed an independent clause, then stopped speaking and smiled. I then continued on with a third reason as to WHY his question was irrelevant, because HE interrupted me. At that point he said, "... BUT... Contept of Court!" As if he were still speaking.

The catch is that I agreed to not interrupt him from the beginning. I did not realize that accidental interruptions were included.

I'm not afraid to learn.

Well, i get a check every month from the Feds, one from the state and one from that evil corporation that I worked for so I'm collecting.You likely aren't collecting what you put in, however, thanks to inflation.

.
Speaking of ignoring, you seem to be ignoring this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6882525&postcount=5247) and those in direct response to it.

Can you give us a good reason why?
.I can't go in that thread for another couple days it seems, because there's other things to do.

There's a great misunderstanding that we're on level ground there, but we're not. I'm speaking about America. Everybody else is speaking about Europe. There's at least 15 new responses for every new post I make, so I just can't deal with that. Perhaps in another day or two.

As to that post... Jesus did not teach anyone to beat their slaves. Quote that whole chapter of Luke if you'd like, and I'll respond to it here... if you absolutely require a response.

The reason why is because most people are smart enough not to take it seriously because YOU and fellow self-proclaimed FMOTLers can't answer simple questions like this:

All you have to do to prove your case is something that time and again we've seen every self-proclaimed FOTL fail to do -

Cite one single court case from any country on any statute law where a self-proclaimed freeman on the land was allowed to ignore statute law because of he declined to consent to it.

Thats it. Thats all you have to do. It cannot get anymore simple. If the world operates as you believe it does, where as long as you do the right tap dance in court and refuse to do certain things to "decline" consent, then this should be so easy to find. The world cannot be as you believe it is if you can't offer even one case like this. And don't tell me that the court would never issue such an opinion. Courts issue opinions like this all the time for real, valid exemptions from statute law (like sovereign Native American tribes).

If you cannot provide even 1 court citation from any country on any matter about anything that shows this, then you should admit your worldview is a delusion and come back to reality.I could shoe you some amazing court cases, but, as you already know, my old forum is down due to a DDoS attack. Thanks, tho.

Ignoring statutory law has NOTHING to do with "being a freeman". Why do I need to repeat myself so often??

I have provided you an example of how Christian Scientists are not subject to statutory punishment if they refuse to take their children to the hospital and the child dies. I'll find some more if you absolutely require, but getting out of "statutory punishment" is about asserting your rights every step of the way. That means... you won't even go to trial, because the case will be quashed, demurred, dismissed, etc... long before it gets to that point. That's the entire point. If you sign papers at the arraignment, then you're a sucker and have already admitted to citizenship and jurisdiction.

Then by your very own recollection FMOTL is a utter and complete failure. If FMOTL had any basis in law then the judge could not even call you into court (only your strawman, and you could simply A4V the charges away or use maritime liens). The very fact that they can call you into court and can throw you into jail for contempt of court shows that you, in fact, are not a freeman on the land.Did I say I claimed to be a freeman on that day of court?

I actually went in there with my license to do nothing more than debate two "no tag light" and "no DL on person" citations. Since I screwed up at arraignment, I had no choice but to fill the role of the statutory citizen.

I showed my DL. And after that, I proved to the prosecutor that I was right. He hung his head in disbelief.. but the judge didn't care. Brought in the extraneous question that the prosecutor couldn't answer three times, then asked me. I didn't want to answer yes or no, because it was LOADED!! I answered honestly that his question was irrelevant THREE TIMES. I did not get contempt. I got contempt because I agreed to not interrupt him, which I accidentally did after he had stopped speaking. We were beyond procedure at that point, so I wasn't really sure what to do, but I did want to explain WHY I was answering that the question was irrelevant.

As I was being handcuffed, I said, "I do not consent. I object. I decline to contract." He said, "10 days in jail! And if you don't stop, I'll give you 180!" I was "detained" in a holding cell for a bit, then released and brought back before the judge. He said... "I'll give you the choice... 10 days in jail or 2 months probation." I sat there for at least 2 minutes before answering, because I wanted to think really long and hard about how much this relied on my choice. I truly did want to take the jailtime to try to habeas corpus out, but then realized that I'd still have to go see that same judge. The better of those 2 choices was the probation so that I could appeal. The best option would have been to continue declining to contract, or counter-offer, or accept either one upon receipt of 10 pounds of gold. I didn't do any of those, because I had no clue about anything and I already knew I messed up from the beginning by giving them jurisdiction at the arraignment.

Anyway... don't go making presumptions about what I did at the court if you haven't heard the story. That's idiotic.

Except you don't have a right to travel in any modern conveyance. Thats another made up FMOTL thing.Question Michael Badnarik if you'd like to. He's "the most famous American who travels without a license". Ask him how he got his passport that says he's a "constitutional, but not statutory citizen".

I'm sure there are many things that you don't know but others do. Shouldn't be so positive about things you know NOTHING about.

grndslm

18th February 2011, 06:08 PM

Free Loaders on the land in America.If by loading others with freedom... then yes, you are right.

There are necessary tools you would need in order to exercise your rights. That takes knowledge and conviction.

Just because I failed in court as a statutory citizen, does NOT mean that freemen have it wrong.

Just because I won in court on a public drunk charge, as a statutory citizen, does NOT mean that statutory citizens have it right.

There's ABSOLUTELY *NO* CORRELATION between a man's status & his outcome in court. The secret comes down to his tools, which most of you are unaware of.

I can assure you, however, that I know what mistakes not to take on my next go 'round... if need be. Likely won't ever get to that point, because I do not carry my license with me anymore... and I know how to respond to certain questioning and "offers".

Learning is fun, unless you're a JREF member. If you're highly educated, then it sucks learning something from the n00b. Puts you in your place, on level ground. And you guys are better than everyone else, right?

16.5

18th February 2011, 06:38 PM

If by loading others with freedom... then yes, you are right.

There are necessary tools you would need in order to exercise your rights. That takes knowledge and conviction.

Just because I failed in court as a statutory citizen, does NOT mean that freemen have it wrong.

Just because I won in court on a public drunk charge, as a statutory citizen, does NOT mean that statutory citizens have it right.

There's ABSOLUTELY *NO* CORRELATION between a man's status & his outcome in court. The secret comes down to his tools, which most of you are unaware of.

I can assure you, however, that I know what mistakes not to take on my next go 'round... if need be. Likely won't ever get to that point, because I do not carry my license with me anymore... and I know how to respond to certain questioning and "offers".

Learning is fun, unless you're a JREF member. If you're highly educated, then it sucks learning something from the n00b. Puts you in your place, on level ground. And you guys are better than everyone else, right?

Cool story bro. Public drunkenness? Classy!

Some day the free loaders on the land will understand that with rights comes responsibilities.

Now why would you have a license, my friend? You are not using public roads, are you? Of course not. You are a Freeman on the land, you wouldn't use property that is not yours, that you did not build, that you don't maintain? That is for statutory citizens. You did not consent, you did not contract! As such, to use the public roads would make you a free loader on the land, wouldn't it?

You aren't a free loader on the land are you? You have rights, responsibilities are for suckers.

Go drink your drink, freeman. Ten Pounds of gold!

LightinDarkness

18th February 2011, 07:18 PM

I could shoe you some amazing court cases, but, as you already know, my old forum is down due to a DDoS attack. Thanks, tho.

No, you couldn't, because there are no court cases that affirm your views. Your vanity site isn't getting DDoSed either, as no one cares enough about your legal mythology to bother.

Ignoring statutory law has NOTHING to do with "being a freeman". Why do I need to repeat myself so often??

Actually it has everything to do with being a freeman from your own responses, as that is what you've sought to do in your own (self-described) multiple court case failures.

I have provided you an example of how Christian Scientists are not subject to statutory punishment if they refuse to take their children to the hospital and the child dies. I'll find some more if you absolutely require, but getting out of "statutory punishment" is about asserting your rights every step of the way. That means... you won't even go to trial, because the case will be quashed, demurred, dismissed, etc... long before it gets to that point. That's the entire point. If you sign papers at the arraignment, then you're a sucker and have already admitted to citizenship and jurisdiction.

To begin with, Christian Scientists are brought to trial and jailed all the time if they refuse to take their children to a hospital. The fact that you believe this and use it as a basis for your Freeloader belief system says much when google debunks you pretty quickly:

Authorities in four states are prosecuting Chris*tian Science parents on manslaughter, murder, or child abuse charges for refusing medical care to their dying chil*dren.

The cases — six of them in all, including three in California — represent the largest assault in history against Christian Science reliance on prayer instead of medical treatment to cure dis*ease, according to Rita Swan of the Sioux City Iowa-based orga*nization, Children’s Health-care is a Legal Duty (CHILD).
http://www.equip.org/articles/government-pressing-death-cases-of-six-children-against-christian-scientists

You can't get out of "statutory punishment" - you have specifically been asked to find 1 case where someone got out of it and have been unable to do so. You are subject to the law, and no amount of song and dance and legal rituals will change that. There are still records when court cases get dismissed - find just one. You cant because you believe in a lie.

Did I say I claimed to be a freeman on that day of court?

I actually went in there with my license to do nothing more than debate two "no tag light" and "no DL on person" citations. Since I screwed up at arraignment, I had no choice but to fill the role of the statutory citizen.

I showed my DL. And after that, I proved to the prosecutor that I was right. He hung his head in disbelief.. but the judge didn't care. Brought in the extraneous question that the prosecutor couldn't answer three times, then asked me. I didn't want to answer yes or no, because it was LOADED!! I answered honestly that his question was irrelevant THREE TIMES. I did not get contempt. I got contempt because I agreed to not interrupt him, which I accidentally did after he had stopped speaking. We were beyond procedure at that point, so I wasn't really sure what to do, but I did want to explain WHY I was answering that the question was irrelevant.

And this is why you live in la la land. You lost because your argument had no legal merit - 0, zip none - not because you didn't perform the right type of legal ritual. Your own story debunks you. What is amazing is that someone can be shown time and again that they are 100% wrong about what the law is, and continue to believe in this mythology. Its like a mental illness of some sort.

Question Michael Badnarik if you'd like to. He's "the most famous American who travels without a license". Ask him how he got his passport that says he's a "constitutional, but not statutory citizen".

I'm sure there are many things that you don't know but others do. Shouldn't be so positive about things you know NOTHING about.

Again, you've debunked yourself by showing you haven't a clue whats going on. Michael Badnarik, you, or any other freeloader are free to travel without a license and make up passports with nonsense about being a "constitutional, but not statutory citizen" - you have a right to be delusional. But once you get stopped - which he has been and he has been arrested for it - the game is over.

So the question remains because you've shown you have 0 evidence for your legal mythology:

Provide 1 court case from any jurisdiction on any issue that states anyone is not subject to "statutory punishment" due to their freeman on the land status. You cannot do so because your ideology has no basis is the actual law and is in reality a mythology.

grndslm

18th February 2011, 07:44 PM

Cool story bro. Public drunkenness? Classy!Was I actually drunk, tho??

No, I wasn't. Which is why I got off.

The public drunk charge came long before I ever knew about any freeman "theories". More testament to how the cops here will arrest you for anything they possibly can.

Good comprehension, tho.

You should've been there when a cop was testifying against me, swearing that I "threw a box of beer out the window of the car", when he wasn't even the arresting officer and wasn't even around. I wasn't even in a car, for forks sake.

Now why would you have a license, my friend? You are not using public roads, are you? Of course not. You are a Freeman on the land, you wouldn't use property that is not yours, that you did not build, that you don't maintain? That is for statutory citizens. You did not consent, you did not contract! As such, to use the public roads would make you a free loader on the land, wouldn't it?Do you know who I am??

Why do you like to fill in the blanks on my behalf??

Roads are for ALL "people", including Constitutional citizens. As I've said... it is possible to get a passport that states you are a "Constitutional, but not statutory citizen". You think those people can't travel on our roads???

You aren't a free loader on the land are you? You have rights, responsibilities are for suckers.I thought you knew who I was.... why are you asking me now?

"With rights come responsibilities", but you already knew that.. or else you wouldn't have mentioned it.

The right to travel on public roads does not mean I'm responsible for its upkeep in anyway. Those who use the gasoline pay for the roads over here, buddy. Has nothing to do with what I do for a living or my property value or anything of the sort.

Go drink your drink, freeman. Ten Pounds of gold!Go find some another freeman to get bitter with.

TSR

18th February 2011, 07:47 PM

As to that post... Jesus did not teach anyone to beat their slaves.

.
Nor was your challenge to show Jesus "teaching anyone" but to show Jesus spoke of it.

That wasn't even a good try at moving the goalposts.

That'll be $10,000.00, payable to Elizabeth and TSR. please.

Or you can continue to run away, while we point and laugh.
.

Elizabeth I

18th February 2011, 07:59 PM

As to that post... Jesus did not teach anyone to beat their slaves.
Sure he did - spoke of it most approvingly in a parable.

grndslm

18th February 2011, 08:01 PM

No, you couldn't, because there are no court cases that affirm your views. Your vanity site isn't getting DDoSed either, as no one cares enough about your legal mythology to bother.Are there "court cases" of cases that are quashed, demurred, dismissed, etc.??

As soon as you find one, we'll all find your question more reasonable.

Actually it has everything to do with being a freeman from your own responses, as that is what you've sought to do in your own (self-described) multiple court case failures.QUOTE ME!! You're very dense.

Not once have I gone to court claiming to be a freeman. Not once.

Both times I went as a "statutory citizen". I won the first, public drunk. I lost the second, tag light & contempt, tho I could've gotten out of the contempt had I just walked out of the courthouse when I was released from the holding cell. Wasn't thinking clearly at the time, because I was expecting to be in jail for 10 days.

There were no multiple failures. One time I've had a problem. I'm appealing it now, and it's likely that it will turn out my way considering teh amount of information I've found on contempt. It is not possible to be put on probation for direct contempt, because if I allegedly wronged the court, then I should have to pay the fine to the court. I cannot pay a separate corporation any fine moneys. They also did not write
ANYTHING in the record. Multiple supreme court cases state that what is on the record is all that matters. Even the arrest report was void of a reasoning for the arrest besides "the judge made me do it".

So we'll see when my de novo appeal is over with, but nothing is as you perceive it, that's for sure.

It will likely return back to NO failures and TONS of fun learning. Check back next month.

And this is why you live in la la land. You lost because your argument had no legal merit - 0, zip none - not because you didn't perform the right type of legal ritual. Your own story debunks you. What is amazing is that someone can be shown time and again that they are 100% wrong about what the law is, and continue to believe in this mythology. Its like a mental illness of some sort.You don't know what you're talking about.

You are fabricating things of which you do not know.

I have not relinquished my license, my social security card, etc... so I wouldn't be using "freeman arguments". That's idiotic.

We can go over "the law" in the form of the Constitution all we want, but that doesn't mean that government officials are going to abide by what's in it, now are they??

Again, you've debunked yourself by showing you haven't a clue whats going on. Michael Badnarik, you, or any other freeloader are free to travel without a license and make up passports with nonsense about being a "constitutional, but not statutory citizen" - you have a right to be delusional. But once you get stopped - which he has been and he has been arrested for it - the game is over.Nobody said Michael Badnarik has never been arrested, have they?? I have no evidence of such a thing, however... DO YOU??

He most certainly did not make up his passport, however. How else do you think he gets on planes?? He does NOT have carry any form of statutory identification.

So the question remains because you've shown you have 0 evidence for your legal mythology:You are as blind as Lucifer.

All you need to do is lie and say, "Nope"... and you think that's a sufficient response??

Provide 1 court case from any jurisdiction on any issue that states anyone is not subject to "statutory punishment" due to their freeman on the land status. You cannot do so because your ideology has no basis is the actual law and is in reality a mythology.See my first response to you in this post.

TSR

18th February 2011, 08:02 PM

Sure he did - spoke of it most approvingly in a parable.
.
Not to mention that "that thread" is *this* thread...
.

grndslm

18th February 2011, 08:06 PM

.
Nor was your challenge to show Jesus "teaching anyone" but to show Jesus spoke of it.

That wasn't even a good try at moving the goalposts.

That'll be $10,000.00, payable to Elizabeth and TSR. please.

Or you can continue to run away, while we point and laugh.
.Who's running??

I "mis-spoke" when I made that bet. Jesus never advocated beating slaves. You know that's what I intended, but whatever. Petty, petty issues to detract others from teh Truth.

grndslm

18th February 2011, 08:07 PM

Edited for rule 12.

TSR

18th February 2011, 08:16 PM

Who's running??

.
You are, as shown below.
.

I "mis-spoke" when I made that bet. Jesus never advocated beating slaves. You know that's what I intended, but whatever. Petty, petty issues to detract others from teh Truth.

.
Did you even bother to read the referenced verses?

He explicitly talks about the beating of slaves as if it were only to be expected.

Can you offer a verse in which Jesus even suggests the beating of slaves, or h*lls, even the owning of slaves, was something to be discouraged?

No?

And I have no way to tell what you intended, only what you actually wrote. Tell you what: go to Vegas and try to tell them you "mis-spoke" when you hit on 19 at blackjack and they should have know what you intended to say was "hold" and let us know how that works out for you. Or will you claim you never contracted to pay your losses?

But if it makes you feel better to continue to try to move the goalposts to cover your ignorance, you're fooling no one but yourself.

Learn your own Holy Book, ferchristssake.

And learn to say "I was wrong" -- you're going to need that quite a bit, I predict.

TSR

18th February 2011, 08:24 PM

Edited for response to modded post.

LightinDarkness

18th February 2011, 08:39 PM

Guys, were dealing with a professional troll here - likely Menard himself or one of his lackeys. Don't let him pull you off topic and obfuscate. Like most cult followers, hes been trained to ignore the evidence so the only thing you can do is bring it up again and again since he doesn't have any answer:

ANSWER THE QUESTION:

Provide 1 court case from any jurisdiction on any issue that states anyone is not subject to "statutory punishment" due to their freeman on the land status. You cannot do so because your ideology has no basis is the actual law and is in reality a mythology.

The only thing you've said so far in response to this is the insinuation that there will be no opinion because it'll get dismissed. Its to bad that you know so little about the legal system that you've debunked yourself again - in most cases judges are required to explain why a case is dismissed and its a part of the formal court record. Find ANY dismissed case that says the case is dismissed due to the law not applying to the FOTLer.

You will find none, because you believe in a lie.

16.5

18th February 2011, 08:45 PM

The right to travel on public roads does not mean I'm responsible for its upkeep in anyway. Those who use the gasoline pay for the roads over here, buddy. Has nothing to do with what I do for a living or my property value or anything of the sort.

Go find some another freeman to get bitter with.

Ahhhh, now we see. The free loader on the land philosophy. He's not responsible for the upkeep, he's not not responsible to follow any rules applicable to people using the roads.

But he's got his RIGHTS!

Freeloader on the land. We who do pay for the upkeep of the roads do not consent to your use of the roads and do not contract with you to use the roads, freeloader. Any use of public roads requires the payment of 10 kilograms of gold, freeloader.

Move to Somalia, freeloader on the land. We don't consent.

dudalb

18th February 2011, 09:00 PM

Seems like the FOTLers want all the rights and none of the reponsibility.
Why does a certain famous slogan from a certain Web Spinning Super Hero come to mind?

Piggy

18th February 2011, 09:04 PM

Did you know that "the People" are the sovereign leaders in a Constitutional Republic??

Really? Which CR is that?

Ladewig

18th February 2011, 09:32 PM

As I've said... it is possible to get a passport that states you are a "Constitutional, but not statutory citizen". You think those people can't travel on our roads???

Do you have a photo of one of these passports?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- That's just fine and dandy, but that is not a motor vehicle. I am not for hire. This is my private automobile. Nowhere in Title 63 of the MS Code will you find the term automobile for the reasons I've outlined in that Notice I presented you with.
So did the law makers intend to make that distinction? Did they intend to exclude people like you from the requirements about drivers licenses or was it just the result of sloppiness?

16.5

18th February 2011, 10:03 PM

Do you have a photo of one of these passports?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So did the law makers intend to make that distinction? Did they intend to exclude people like you from the requirements about drivers licenses or was it just the result of sloppiness?

You'd think the freeloaders on the land could keep to their own well maintained Constitutional roads.

Did you contract with them? I didn't.

tsig

19th February 2011, 03:30 AM

I'm fairly certain you don't know what kind of government that I like. You'd never guess my ideal form of government in a million years.

They're all the same. It's not like this all happens in one neighborhood anyway. Happens citywide, at minimum.

Was I really mouthing off. If the judge requires you to answer an irrelevant question with a yes or no, then why doesn't the Constitution apply??

What claims have you heard?

Michael Badnarik is "the most famous American who travels without a license", perhaps you should ask him how he does it. He doesn't need anymore identification than his passport that says "Constitutional, but not statutory citizen".

Once again.. I didn't mouth off. I humbly and politely told him that his question was irrelevant.

He actually didn't even give me contempt for that. I answered the question with "that's irrelevant" three times. He proceeded to talk. He formed an independent clause, then stopped speaking and smiled. I then continued on with a third reason as to WHY his question was irrelevant, because HE interrupted me. At that point he said, "... BUT... Contept of Court!" As if he were still speaking.

The catch is that I agreed to not interrupt him from the beginning. I did not realize that accidental interruptions were included.

I'm not afraid to learn.

You likely aren't collecting what you put in, however, thanks to inflation.

I can't go in that thread for another couple days it seems, because there's other things to do.

There's a great misunderstanding that we're on level ground there, but we're not. I'm speaking about America. Everybody else is speaking about Europe. There's at least 15 new responses for every new post I make, so I just can't deal with that. Perhaps in another day or two.

As to that post... Jesus did not teach anyone to beat their slaves. Quote that whole chapter of Luke if you'd like, and I'll respond to it here... if you absolutely require a response.

I could shoe you some amazing court cases, but, as you already know, my old forum is down due to a DDoS attack. Thanks, tho.

Ignoring statutory law has NOTHING to do with "being a freeman". Why do I need to repeat myself so often??

I have provided you an example of how Christian Scientists are not subject to statutory punishment if they refuse to take their children to the hospital and the child dies. I'll find some more if you absolutely require, but getting out of "statutory punishment" is about asserting your rights every step of the way. That means... you won't even go to trial, because the case will be quashed, demurred, dismissed, etc... long before it gets to that point. That's the entire point. If you sign papers at the arraignment, then you're a sucker and have already admitted to citizenship and jurisdiction.

Did I say I claimed to be a freeman on that day of court?

I actually went in there with my license to do nothing more than debate two "no tag light" and "no DL on person" citations. Since I screwed up at arraignment, I had no choice but to fill the role of the statutory citizen.

I showed my DL. And after that, I proved to the prosecutor that I was right. He hung his head in disbelief.. but the judge didn't care. Brought in the extraneous question that the prosecutor couldn't answer three times, then asked me. I didn't want to answer yes or no, because it was LOADED!! I answered honestly that his question was irrelevant THREE TIMES. I did not get contempt. I got contempt because I agreed to not interrupt him, which I accidentally did after he had stopped speaking. We were beyond procedure at that point, so I wasn't really sure what to do, but I did want to explain WHY I was answering that the question was irrelevant.

As I was being handcuffed, I said, "I do not consent. I object. I decline to contract." He said, "10 days in jail! And if you don't stop, I'll give you 180!" I was "detained" in a holding cell for a bit, then released and brought back before the judge. He said... "I'll give you the choice... 10 days in jail or 2 months probation." I sat there for at least 2 minutes before answering, because I wanted to think really long and hard about how much this relied on my choice. I truly did want to take the jailtime to try to habeas corpus out, but then realized that I'd still have to go see that same judge. The better of those 2 choices was the probation so that I could appeal. The best option would have been to continue declining to contract, or counter-offer, or accept either one upon receipt of 10 pounds of gold. I didn't do any of those, because I had no clue about anything and I already knew I messed up from the beginning by giving them jurisdiction at the arraignment.

Anyway... don't go making presumptions about what I did at the court if you haven't heard the story. That's idiotic.

Question Michael Badnarik if you'd like to. He's "the most famous American who travels without a license". Ask him how he got his passport that says he's a "constitutional, but not statutory citizen".

I'm sure there are many things that you don't know but others do. Shouldn't be so positive about things you know NOTHING about.

In his book, Good to Be King, Badnarik suggests that it is unnecessary to have a driver's license to drive

LightinDarkness

19th February 2011, 04:24 AM

Do you have a photo of one of these passports?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I have a feeling that if it does exist, its going to be one of those things where the Freeloader has altered the document but not the data thats scanned from it - which means there is a good chance border officers would never see it.

timhau

19th February 2011, 04:26 AM

As I was being handcuffed, I said, "I do not consent. I object. I decline to contract." He said, "10 days in jail! And if you don't stop, I'll give you 180!" I was "detained" in a holding cell for a bit, then released and brought back before the judge. He said... "I'll give you the choice... 10 days in jail or 2 months probation." I sat there for at least 2 minutes before answering, because I wanted to think really long and hard about how much this relied on my choice. I truly did want to take the jailtime to try to habeas corpus out, but then realized that I'd still have to go see that same judge. The better of those 2 choices was the probation so that I could appeal. The best option would have been to continue declining to contract, or counter-offer, or accept either one upon receipt of 10 pounds of gold. I didn't do any of those, because I had no clue about anything and I already knew I messed up from the beginning by giving them jurisdiction at the arraignment.

That wasn't your mistake. Your mistake was not to evoke your right to do the Happy Hamster Hop. That would have forced the judge to either sing "America the Beautiful" naked in front of the courthouse, or set you free -- and you know how much they hate to sing "America the Beautiful".

jargon buster

19th February 2011, 04:34 AM

grndslm wrote
Ask him how he got his passport that says he's a "constitutional, but not statutory citizen".

your point being????
are you saying this is proof he is free to ignore statutory legislation?
Jeez... the guy has been arrested in the past...how could that possibly happen?

jargon buster

19th February 2011, 10:26 AM

grndslms site is imploding.
http://freemen.freeforums.org/index.php

Theres nobody on it, I bet he wishes he had not invited me now.

Even Menard has now run away, hardly surprising without his minders in tow.

sadhatter

19th February 2011, 11:21 AM

LightinDarkness

19th February 2011, 03:23 PM

Speaking of the Freemen on the Land in the US, here is yet another example of how successful the movement is:

SARASOTA - Last April, a veteran Sarasota homicide detective went to the courthouse and tried to secede from the United States of America.
Key Documents:

The detective, Tom Laughlin, filed a convoluted document declaring himself a "sovereign citizen." The filing included a thumbprint on each page and a photocopy of 21 silver pieces -- the price to become a "freeman."

In doing so, Laughlin, 42, joined a small but growing group of U.S. citizens who claim they are not subject to federal law, that they no longer have to pay taxes and that their homes are their embassies.

Last week, he was fired for it.

In what department insiders are calling one of the strangest internal affairs cases in recent memory, Laughlin has gone from a decorated and respected investigator to the subject of office jokes.

Laughlin has handled some of the area's highest-profile cases in recent years. His work led to the conviction of Deandre Tunstall for gang-related murders. He solved the cold-case killing of John Allaman Jr. on Bird Key, and he teamed with U.S. marshals to track down Willie James Kimble, a Sarasota man accused of beating a woman to death in New York nearly 40 years ago.

In his personal life, though, Laughlin was growing increasingly frustrated with the direction of the city and the country. He privately worried that "Obamacare" was bad for his family, that Sarasota leaders planned to lay off police officers, and that the city might take his pension.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110219/ARTICLE/102191022/2055/NEWS?Title=Detective-fired-for-trying-to-secede-from-U-S-

I highly recommend JREFers read the article, they also include PDF copies of both the police internal investigation and the guy's "sovereign" paperwork that he filed. Its both hysterically stupid and very sad, as hes now backpedaling after he realizes how hes destroyed his life with this.

This is a key example for any JREF posters left who think that the freeman movement may be delusional but harmless. This guy lost his job for 20 years because of it.

If you read on, you see the article is really a "two for one" example of freeman success:

His brother, also a "sovereign citizen" who recently was charged in St. Johns County with trying to extort two Florida Highway Patrol troopers and later with bilking a Sarasota bank of $50,000, convinced Laughlin that he could declare himself a "freeman."

And yet again freeman ideology is going to land someone in jail for their delusions....and now this man will have lost his job and have to deal with his brother being in jail for a very long time (given the charges).

And what of this guy's real motivations? Looks like his freeman got him to "believe" because he was looking for a easy way out of his detbs was going to claim that infamous "strawman account" that doesn't actually exist:

About the same time, investigative reports show, Laughlin's colleagues saw his behavior change around the office. He talked increasingly of a "straw man account" that allowed government to hide millions of dollars from citizens.

Colleagues told internal affairs that Laughlin wanted to pay off personal debts through the straw man account and that he made strange statements about a global financial conspiracy.

I'll stop there but it gets even more bizarre as the story goes on...clearly another freeman success I'm sure grndslm and Rob Menard will be commenting on any day now.

LightinDarkness

19th February 2011, 03:31 PM

By the way, that guys sovereign paperwork shows very careful dedication to doing the legal ritual dance correctly.

He even signs every other page at a 45 degree angle and included a stamp (I have no idea why one would put a postal stamp on every other page of a document in the same place and sign over it unless its some new part of the sovereign ritual)! There is so much legal magic in that thing that I can't wait for a sovereign to explain what mistake he made that "accidentally" granted the government jurisdiction back over him again...

Sledge

19th February 2011, 03:35 PM

There's no way for that guy to come out looking good, is there? At best, he was trying to scam his way out of debt. At worst, he's become a hypocritical lunatic.

deeper

19th February 2011, 04:33 PM

grndslm has now started deleating my posts and removing my signatures from the threads, the man has also admitted he has no income and surfs other peoples internet providers
unfortunately he has deleted the thread

http://freemen.freeforums.org/index.php

That's seriously weak, why would he do that if he thought his position was robust?

And on the site, this talk of some guy (I forget his name) "the most famous American to travel without a license". If there's some way of avoiding the need for a license why don't all Freemen do it? It either works or it doesn't?

grndslm, do you drive without a license (assuming you drive)? If not, why not? Why havn't you passed the information on how to avoid it to all your family and friends? Am I missing something?

jargon buster

19th February 2011, 04:43 PM

grndslm, do you drive without a license (assuming you drive)? If not, why not? Why havn't you passed the information on how to avoid it to all your family and friends? Am I missing something?

I had that out this afternoon with shikamura in the chat room.
he claimed that it was totally lawful to "travel" in a car without insurance tax mot and without a registration, but when i asked him if he was doing that his response was "not yet" :D

Sledge

19th February 2011, 05:11 PM

I frequently travel in a car without having insurance, tax or MOT. The key is to be given a lift in someone else's car.

grndslm

19th February 2011, 05:23 PM

I've lost many cases, and the ones i have won i can't prove.

Wow, real convincing argument op. It is like saying i am a great fighter, i made some stupid mistakes, leading to every fight you could see being a loss, but i assure you i won a bunch when you wern't looking.Who said that???

My case is actually not over. My de novo appeal is next month, and there's no way that they can win against me. NO WAY.

There's nothing on the record. I have witnesses and proof of them lying.

I'm not even using any "freeman arguments", I'm merely exposing the Truth.

Hawk one

19th February 2011, 06:33 PM

fromdownunder

19th February 2011, 06:53 PM

Who said that???

My case is actually not over. My de novo appeal is next month, and there's no way that they can win against me. NO WAY.

There's nothing on the record. I have witnesses and proof of them lying.

I'm not even using any "freeman arguments", I'm merely exposing the Truth.

If this is the case then you will not be providing any evidence that FMOTL works. You will be just using judicial arguments which normally work in any court situation.

So if your appeal has nothing to do with FMOTL, why raise it here? It is off topic.

What you say above is a bit like saying "FMOTL works because I had Forensic evidence that the Speed Camera which clocked me at 120K was faulty"

Norm

timhau

20th February 2011, 02:56 AM

Who said that???

My case is actually not over. My de novo appeal is next month, and there's no way that they can win against me. NO WAY.

For sufficiently creative definitions of 'win', I'm sure that's true.

Toke

20th February 2011, 06:21 AM

That wasn't your mistake. Your mistake was not to evoke your right to do the Happy Hamster Hop. That would have forced the judge to either sing "America the Beautiful" naked in front of the courthouse, or set you free -- and you know how much they hate to sing "America the Beautiful".

Yes, that is one of the lesser known Freeman legal rituals, a shame it is not used more often. :D

deeper

20th February 2011, 06:39 AM

The last thing that Freeloaders want is reality intruding into their websites.

Sadly, I know you're right but it would be nice if they admitted it explicitly (or even just admitted it to themselves).

Ladewig

20th February 2011, 08:39 AM

As I've said... it is possible to get a passport that states you are a "Constitutional, but not statutory citizen". You think those people can't travel on our roads???

Do you have a photo of one of these passports? My Googling does not turn up anything useful.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- That's just fine and dandy, but that is not a motor vehicle. I am not for hire. This is my private automobile. Nowhere in Title 63 of the MS Code will you find the term automobile for the reasons I've outlined in that Notice I presented you with.

So did the law makers intend to make that distinction? Did they intend to exclude people like you from the requirements about drivers licenses or was it just the result of sloppiness?

...........................................

Also, I have a lengthy but simple American Freeman question. Would you prefer I post it in this thread, another thread, or on your board?

Captain_Swoop

20th February 2011, 10:16 AM

16.5

20th February 2011, 10:42 AM

I don't think it's sloppy, he just mis interprets it like everything else.
In the UK there is a definition of a Motor Vehicle that describes what is covered. There are within the license various classes of vehicle covered by different requirements. Agricultural Vehicles. Motor cycles. Commercial ,Heavy Goods, Public Service Vehicles etc.

All require a license entitlement all require some class of taxation.
If it is propelled by a motor, be that an internal combustion engine, a steam engine or an electric motor it needs tax, insirance and a license to operate on the road.

What is baffling to me is that these Freeloaders on the Land seem to think that they can do anything they want, and yet are still entitled to use the roads and other services that are paid for, and maintained by others.

If he doesn't want to get a drivers license, he can drive all he wants, on his own property.

I also note that every Freeloader in the land "success" story allegedly involves people hanging their heads in shame or disbelief.

Oh mi gosh, he HAS a drivers license, I must hang my head in stunned disbelief! rolls eyes...

grndslm

20th February 2011, 11:09 AM

What is baffling to me is that these Freeloaders on the Land seem to think that they can do anything they want, and yet are still entitled to use the roads and other services that are paid for, and maintained by others.The heavy gas tax we pay in America goes toward the roads and nothing else. We don't have a VAT, but we have a heavy gas tax to pay for the roads.

Now...Explain to me how one can "drive" or "travel" on the roads and not pay for it.

If he doesn't want to get a drivers license, he can drive all he wants, on his own property.Driving is a commercial activity. I don't want to drive. I want to exercise my Common Law "RIGHT" to TRAVEL.

I also note that every Freeloader in the land "success" story allegedly involves people hanging their heads in shame or disbelief.My stories are based around me gaining more knowledge about the system. I had absolutely no clue about any of this stuff until a year ago.

As many times as I heard, "JUST KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS" as the #1 rule. I forgot it when in court and choked. I sub-consciously wanted to continue on in the process to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Now I've been motivated (sub-consciously from the beginning) to deal with an arraignment WITHOUT WAIVING IT, how to hit the law library, to learn how to file my own Notices & Motions, how to handle myself at a Motions Hearing, etc. And now my journey is just beginning from the start again with my de novo appeal.

It's a brand new opportunity for me to set the record straight since the lower court had NO record. They have a summary judgment, where they are required to write what I got contempt for. They didn't do that!! I know that from visiting the Law Library, tho! They have an arrest report, where the cop doesn't mention anything wrong that I did, but just that "the judge told me to arrest him". That's more prima facie evidence of fraud on the part of the court!! The judge puts me on probation, where I pay $50/mo for 2 months to the probation company. Guess what!! Went to the Law Library and the court's not allowed to do that, since the court is the injured party... THEY must collect the fine, not cause me to give the fines to another company!!

THANK YOU JUDGE FOR MOTIVATING ME TO VISIT THE LAW LIBRARY!! ;)

Oh mi gosh, he HAS a drivers license, I must hang my head in stunned disbelief! rolls eyes...Yes, I do.

One man in Colorado thinks that signing his name on the license "Without Prejudice" is the way to go. A license is a contract, so if you sign it without prejudice, you are "reserving all your rights and waiving none".

Many, many paths to freedom --> http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

drkitten

20th February 2011, 11:12 AM

I think the passports actually say "national but not citizen", or "non-citizen national".

All citizens are nationals, but not all nationals are citizens.

Goodness me, and you mistook "national but not citizen" for "constitutional but not statutory citizen"?

A non-citizen national is defined (Section 308 INA) as a person born in one of the outlying territorial possessions of the United States (in this case, American Samoa and Swains Island). There are a few other cases included -- e.g. the child of two Samoans born abroad inherits US nationality, but not citizenship. In other words, she gets the same status as her parents.

This has nothing to do with constitutional vs. statute law; it's basically a matter of colonial law.

ETA: and even most of the outlying possessions have been addressed by congress; people born in Guam, for example, used to be non-citizen nationals but are now full citizens.

Mistakes like this are why no one has ever been documented to win a case using FMOTL "logic." The law literally does not say what you wish that it said.

16.5

20th February 2011, 11:23 AM

The heavy gas tax we pay in America goes toward the roads and nothing else. We don't have a VAT, but we have a heavy gas tax to pay for the roads.

Now...Explain to me how one can "drive" or "travel" on the roads and not pay for it.

Driving is a commercial activity. I don't want to drive. I want to exercise my Common Law "RIGHT" to TRAVEL.

My stories are based around me gaining more knowledge about the system. I had absolutely no clue about any of this stuff until a year ago.

As many times as I heard, "JUST KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS" as the #1 rule. I forgot it when in court and choked. I sub-consciously wanted to continue on in the process to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Now I've been motivated (sub-consciously from the beginning) to deal with an arraignment WITHOUT WAIVING IT, how to hit the law library, to learn how to file my own Notices & Motions, how to handle myself at a Motions Hearing, etc. And now my journey is just beginning from the start again with my de novo appeal.

It's a brand new opportunity for me to set the record straight since the lower court had NO record. They have a summary judgment, where they are required to write what I got contempt for. They didn't do that!! I know that from visiting the Law Library, tho! They have an arrest report, where the cop doesn't mention anything wrong that I did, but just that "the judge told me to arrest him". That's more prima facie evidence of fraud on the part of the court!! The judge puts me on probation, where I pay $50/mo for 2 months to the probation company. Guess what!! Went to the Law Library and the court's not allowed to do that, since the court is the injured party... THEY must collect the fine, not cause me to give the fines to another company!!

THANK YOU JUDGE FOR MOTIVATING ME TO VISIT THE LAW LIBRARY!! ;)

Yes, I do.

One man in Colorado thinks that signing his name on the license "Without Prejudice" is the way to go. A license is a contract, so if you sign it without prejudice, you are "reserving all your rights and waiving none".

Many, many paths to freedom --> http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

HEY! You went to the law library! Wow. Good for you. I mean every single thing you said is laughably wrong, but at least you went to the library.

Signed, without prejudice, hee hee!

Freeloaders on the land, just enough information to be hilarious.

grndslm

20th February 2011, 11:27 AM

If you have the intellect to make it thru this entire document, you will understand why a state citizen is a national....

http://citizensfortruthingovernment.org/WhyANational.pdf

People... I don't think it's possible for you to discredit the things I'm saying, but you can keep talking about FMOTL "logic" in a condescending manner, all you'd like. Doesn't make your side look any better, and it only goes against the rules of this forum.

I am NOT a U.S. citizen, because I was not born in the "ten square mile" jurisdiction of THE UNITED STATES, a federal corporation/entity. I am a non-citizen national.

drkitten

20th February 2011, 11:42 AM

If you have the intellect to make it thru this entire document, you will understand why a state citizen is a national....

Did you read through the actual law that defines what a "national" is?

Your little misrepresenting PDF file is simply wrong. This is actually in the Constitution itself: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

I am NOT a U.S. citizen, because I was not born in the "ten square mile" jurisdiction of THE UNITED STATES, a federal corporation/entity.

Is this one of those silly ALLCAPS games? Because the actual Constitutional wording is "the United States," not "THE UNITED STATES." So even if that mattered, you'd have the wrong end of the stick. You were born in (one of) the United States, and therefore a citizen of the United States.

grndslm

21st February 2011, 03:21 AM

There is no such word people can claim to be without drawing criticism. Is this not correct??

FMOTL, Freeman, Freemen, Sovereign, Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Classical Liberal, Libertarian, Socialist, Libertarian-Socialist, Isolationist, Republican, Democrat, Republicrat, Demolican, etcetera.

Everybody can come up with something negative about all these "titles".

I am just a man, who happens to realize I am free. I accept specific positions when it comes to a specific situation.

If you would like to take a specific issue that you'd like to disprove, instead of a blanket "it doesn't work", then sure... let's see the best you've got.

Let's start breaking this stuff down into its basic elements instead of being as shallow as you guys typically are....

Do you actually own your property? Do you care?
Do you have the right to travel in an automobile? Do you care?
Do you have the right to protect yourself? Do you care?
Do you have the right to change your system of government? Do you care?
Do you have the right to a trial by jury in all alleged criminal offenses? Do you care?
Do you have the right to respectfully decline to answer a judge's question? Do you care?
Do you have the right to home educate your child[ren]? Do you care?
Do you have the right to refuse vaccinations on behalf of your own children? Do you care?

Sledge

21st February 2011, 03:24 AM

Prove it works or don't, but don't try and waffle your way out of it.

grndslm

21st February 2011, 03:29 AM

Define "it". Let's be specific here.

Pick any issue you'd like.

Sledge

21st February 2011, 03:31 AM

Let's not. Let's keep it open to you proving that anything FOTL claims is true. Go.

Mojo

21st February 2011, 03:35 AM

Do you actually own your property?

I suspect that "actually own[ing] your property" might be problematic for freemen in the USA since the due process clause of the 14th amendment, which could prevent the state from depriving you of your property without due process, explicitly applies to "persons".

Do you have the right to travel in an automobile?

Can you cite an authority for the existence of this right?

Toke

21st February 2011, 03:40 AM

It looks like grndslm have just abandoned the whole freeman routine.
By banning JB he have acknowledged that consent is not a requirement to exert authority over others, In this case as mod/administrator.

I don't see how anyone can do so and still expect courts to bow to his own lack of consent?

grndslm

21st February 2011, 03:42 AM

How about, I have the right to be a state citizen, a national, and constitutional... but not statutory citizen???

http://inclusion.semitagui.gov.co/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyANational.pdf

I have the right to choose who/what I am. I am not a member of THE UNITED STATES federal corporation with its 10-square miles of land, and I've never even set foot there. I am a Mississippian. My flag is the Bonnie Blue flag, adopted by the six southern-most counties of Mississippi, immediately after Mississippi's secession from THE UNITED STATES and they (not it) claimed their sovereignty. I agree to protect and defend the Constitution of my state and of my country, the "united States of America", even whenever sworn government agents dishonor their oath to protect and defend the same documents.

What else is there?

The Declaration of Independence should be read every week, at minimum.

Mashuna

21st February 2011, 03:45 AM

Do you have the right to travel in an automobile?

Can you cite an authority for the existence of this right?

I belive it goes back to biblical times, when Moses came down from the mountains in his Triumph. It's extrapolated from motorbikes to cars.

Sledge

21st February 2011, 03:50 AM

Aitch

21st February 2011, 03:55 AM

grndslm

21st February 2011, 03:58 AM

I suspect that "actually own your property" might be problematic for freemen in the USA since the due process clause of the 14th amendment, which could prevent the state from depriving you of your property without due process, explicitly applies to "persons".You're making assumptions about the 14th amendment, prolly because you don't actually understand it.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the [I]United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
....
Am I subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Not without my consent.

I'm a Mississippian!! A citizen of the united States of America!! Definitely have nothing at all to do with the United States.

Seriously... look up Black's Law definition of "United States". Look in that PDF I linked to above and you'll see the cases that list the multiple meanings of the phrase "United States"... there's at least three different understandings.

Can you cite an authority for the existence of this right?- http://freedom-school.com/travel/
- http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm
- http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
- http://freemen.freeforums.org/you-re-traveling-not-driving-t11.html#p453
- http://freemen.freeforums.org/you-re-traveling-not-driving-t11-10.html#p463
- http://freemen.freeforums.org/no-license-document-t119.html
- http://freemen.freeforums.org/travel-cache-t121.html

It looks like grndslm have just abandoned the whole freeman routine.
By banning JB he have acknowledged that consent is not a requirement to exert authority over others, In this case as mod/administrator.

I don't see how anyone can do so and still expect courts to bow to his own lack of consent?I have consented to courts. I'm not the best Freeman in the shed, because I do not truly understand how to completely untether myself from the government, but I know it's possible. Everybody knows that this stuff is possible, but it might take more time and energy than most people can handle.

To me, I'm just after understanding court process and the reason that the Constitution(s) are ignored by our government officials here.

grndslm

21st February 2011, 03:59 AM

And the point you wish to defend is...?You just proved my point.

Mojo

21st February 2011, 04:01 AM

- http://freedom-school.com/travel/
- http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm
- http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
- http://freemen.freeforums.org/you-re-traveling-not-driving-t11.html#p453
- http://freemen.freeforums.org/you-re-traveling-not-driving-t11-10.html#p463
- http://freemen.freeforums.org/no-license-document-t119.html
- http://freemen.freeforums.org/travel-cache-t121.html

I'm not particularly interested in screeds posted on advocacy sites and forums. Just cite the authorities - either constitutional, legislative, or case-law.

Mojo

21st February 2011, 04:03 AM

Am I subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Are you a person?

grndslm

21st February 2011, 04:03 AM

I belive it goes back to biblical times, when Moses came down from the mountains in his Triumph. It's extrapolated from motorbikes to cars.Not necessarily. (http://slatford.co.uk/Car%20Pictures%20Pages/Triumph.htm) ;)

I gotta ask... what's with all the references to the Pentateuch/Torah on this forum?? What's the hidden link about this place?

zooterkin

21st February 2011, 04:03 AM

Not necessarily. (http://slatford.co.uk/Car%20Pictures%20Pages/Triumph.htm) ;)

Well, exactly! If it had been a bike, Moses would surely have been on it, not in it. :)

grndslm

21st February 2011, 04:09 AM

Are you a person?Not when it comes to THE UNITED STATES.

Well, technically, Yes I am, only because I have not "untethered" myself yet, but I will act as if I have until I feel the time is right to let them know my position. So technically, rights/duties have been ascribed to me, but I can change that at any time I'd like.

You're missing the keyword, tho... "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

I'm not subject to the jurisdiction thereof if I don't consent.

You don't NEED to be a person unless you're born in D.C., or a government agent, or you're a corporation, or you're an employee of that corporation.

That's the whole point of all this. Maybe 98% of people NEED to be persons, but it's finding the limits of the system where we come to terms with reality.

timhau

21st February 2011, 04:12 AM

I am just a man, who happens to realize I am free. I accept specific positions when it comes to a specific situation.

What if those specific positions land you in a generic jail? Is that evidence that you're wrong, or evidence that the system is corrupt?

Mojo

21st February 2011, 04:17 AM

Not when it comes to THE UNITED STATES.

How about when it comes to "the United States"? As has already been pointed out to you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6898289#post6898289), the constitution says "the United States" not "THE UNITED STATES".

Mojo

21st February 2011, 04:18 AM

Removed personal remarks:boxedin:

If you can't cite the authorities, just say so.

grndslm

21st February 2011, 04:20 AM

What if those specific positions land you in a generic jail? Is that evidence that you're wrong, or evidence that the system is corrupt?We would need a specific example.

In my case, I made many, many mistakes... even after knowing exactly what to do and what not to do. I was cornered by the judge after I rested my case, and instead of just asking questions... I told him his question was irrelevant. I knew I should always keep asking questions. And I knew from the beginning I shouldn't be making quasi-contracts with him ("I agree not to interrupt you", because he included accidental interruptions that happen after court procedure is over (both sides had rested)), but I did it anyway because I thought, this is simple, no way would I interrupt him.

While I was being handcuffed, I said, "I do not consent. I object. I decline to contract."

I was then released about 10 min. later after they "talked it over".

If I really wanted to end it all right there, I would have continued not consenting, but I didn't want it to end. This is my first time, so I figured I'd like a de novo appeal, so that's where I'm at right now.

Sledge

21st February 2011, 04:24 AM

You just proved my point.

No, you proved mine. :( Sound and fury signifying nothing. Still, there will always be a few suckers who can be won over by quantity of text rather than quality, so I'm sure you'll find a few people to think you're saying something with meaning.

grndslm

21st February 2011, 04:24 AM

How about when it comes to "the United States"? As has already been pointed out to you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6898289#post6898289), the constitution says "the United States" not "THE UNITED STATES".Capitalization doesn't matter terribly much. I only do it in all caps to show that THE UNITED STATES is a corporation. It especially helps when writing, in order to differentiate between THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI and Mississippi state, or Mississippians.

The original Constitution stated "united States of America", not "United States". Good try, tho.

If you can't cite the authorities, just say so.I can sight them, alright, and I did. Pick any one link and you'll see a boatload of authorities.

That's far more respect than I got in my 9/11 thread to something as simple as "Explain the reasoning that 20 floors of wtc7 gave thru at the exact same second, with NO RESISTANCE AT ALL, like from BENDING or schtuff like that."

JREF response:
http://forums.randi.org/search.php

timhau

21st February 2011, 04:41 AM

While I was being handcuffed, I said, "I do not consent. I object. I decline to contract."

That's kind of the point of handcuffs -- they make your non-consent irrelevant.

grndslm

21st February 2011, 04:58 AM

Not from my outlook.

I was RELEASED. Then I was flat-out told that *I* could make the decision of what I wanted to do. If I was actually arrested, I wouldn't have been released and unhandcuffed.

Being brought back before the judge was all just a show. I could have walked out the door if I wanted to. I just didn't realize it at the time. Things were happening too fast for me, and I really wanted to get out of there because I had a big pool league game that was coming up in 3 days, and I didn't want to let my team down.

But it was consensual every step of the way.

JimBenArm

21st February 2011, 05:10 AM

Great. Another Freddie the Freeloader.

Hey, grndslm, I served on a federal jury that had one of your fellow loons as a defendant. Idiot tried all the magical incantations and gyrations you all love.

Guess what? Guy is in the slammer. Federal prison. Even though he was not consenting.

Imagine that.

FMOTL is teh stupid.

grndslm

21st February 2011, 05:17 AM

It must have been nice for that man to have the opportunity to have a trial by jury, tho. Don't you think??

Against the terms of my state & federal Constitutions "all criminal cases", I was not permitted a trial by jury in my "direct contempt" charge, which is a criminal offense.

I must be the only person who can't catch a break, because all these rights are written down... yet nobody is handing them to me. I wonder what's up!

Toke

21st February 2011, 06:23 AM

I could have walked out the door if I wanted to.

With handcuffs on?
Wouldn't that be theft of police property?

grndslm

21st February 2011, 06:29 AM

Unhandcuffed means removed from handcuffs, in my mind.Not from my outlook.

I was RELEASED. Then I was flat-out told that *I* could make the decision of what I wanted to do. If I was actually arrested, I wouldn't have been released and unhandcuffed.

Being brought back before the judge was all just a show. I could have walked out the door if I wanted to. I just didn't realize it at the time. Things were happening too fast for me, and I really wanted to get out of there because I had a big pool league game that was coming up in 3 days, and I didn't want to let my team down.

But it was consensual every step of the way.

jargon buster

21st February 2011, 06:43 AM

hello grndslm, still waffling I see .:)
care to show the forum any verifiable evidence that freeman on the land woo has any bearing on the legal system in any country in the world?

Thought not, happy waffling.

Toke

21st February 2011, 06:47 AM

You are still a bit inconsistent.
It appears that your level of consent were influenced by the risk of getting locked up if you tried to just walk off.

grndslm

21st February 2011, 06:55 AM

You are still a bit inconsistent.
It appears that your level of consent were influenced by the risk of getting locked up if you tried to just walk off.Absolutely.

I was afraid that they could do anything they wanted after they ignored me say, "I do not consent. I object. I decline to contract." and threw me away for that ten minutes.

After saying that, I was actually threatened with 180 days in jail if I didn't shut up. I actually had nothing else to say, so he kept the threat at 10.

Then, after having my arms chained behind my back and thrown in a holding cell, I was released by an officer, who apologized for the other officer leaving the cuffs on me the entire time. We walk back and and the judge then smiles and tells me he'll let me choose -- 10 days in jail or 2 months probation. I thought long and hard and figured I'd do what would make my pool league team happiest, and how I could appeal, because my friend (witness) was speaking with the probation officer who told us I could get an appeal bond even if I were to go to jail. So, I took the probation so that I could study before my appeal, basically.

Like I said, I could have just walked out, but I am not a lawyer. I don't understand much of anything and I'll be quick to admit that. I would understand a lot less had I never just made the jump. I fell, yes... but I got right back up, much wiser than I was before.

For example, now I would tell the judge one of several options --

- I'll take neither, thanks!
- I'll take either, upon receipt of 1,000 pounds of gold
- Why should I choose either one?
- If you tell me what I did, I'll think about that...
- What is "contempt"?

I truly had no clue what contempt of court was, but after visiting the Law Library, they wronged me more than I could have possibly understood.

Even the probation officer REPEATEDLY said, "The judge did you wrong", and then she called me "righteous" at some point after "agreeing" to the probation. I'll never forget being called righteous. Ever.

The judge actually only gave me 2 month probation in lieu of 2 days in jail. So he actually lied about his offer, which makes it fraudulent. Much, much fraud involved with that judge and prosecutor. It will all be revealed at my de novo trial next month.

Oh yea.. forgot to mention how the judge repeatedly told my friend and I that I couldn't even appeal a direct contempt charge. Oh how he was wrong. Had to explain it to several people that I must get due process. Constitutions don't matter to these people... only what's in the statutes. And my "privilege" of appealing any contempt charge is guaranteed in statutes, as well.

jargon buster

21st February 2011, 07:18 AM

After saying that, I was actually threatened with 180 days in jail if I didn't shut up. I actually had nothing else to say, so he kept the threat at 10.
How convenient :rolleyes:
It would appear you have a lot to say now, unfortunately again nothing of substance.
We walk back and and the judge then smiles and tells me he'll let me choose -- 10 days in jail or 2 months probation.
Surely your answer should have been "neither", after all you were not consenting at this point.
Like I said, I could have just walked out, but I am not a lawyer.
You don't need to be to simply refuse to consent to a courts jurisdiction.
For example, now I would tell the judge one of several options --

- I'll take neither, thanks!
- I'll take either, upon receipt of 1,000 pounds of gold
- Why should I choose either one?
- If you tell me what I did, I'll think about that...
- What is "contempt"?
Then you would have no doubt done the ten days

Even the probation officer REPEATEDLY said, "The judge did you wrong", and then she called me "righteous" at some point after "agreeing" to the probation. I'll never forget being called righteous. Ever.
:D:D:D:D
It will all be revealed at my de novo trial next month.
please, please please don't forget to come back with the result :)

jargon buster

21st February 2011, 07:23 AM

grndslm wrote
I am just a man, who happens to realize I am free.

freemen are normally babbling on about how they are enslaved, you on the other hand claim to be free, so what your problem?
Why are you attacking a system that recognises your freedom?

uke2se

21st February 2011, 07:33 AM

Has anyone provided any real evidence (as in real life examples) that FMOTL works and isn't just a bunch of waffle yet?

16.5

21st February 2011, 07:35 AM

Absolutely.

I was afraid that they could do anything they wanted after they ignored me say, "I do not consent. I object. I decline to contract." and threw me away for that ten minutes.

After saying that, I was actually threatened with 180 days in jail if I didn't shut up. I actually had nothing else to say, so he kept the threat at 10.

Then, after having my arms chained behind my back and thrown in a holding cell, I was released by an officer, who apologized for the other officer leaving the cuffs on me the entire time. We walk back and and the judge then smiles and tells me he'll let me choose -- 10 days in jail or 2 months probation. I thought long and hard and figured I'd do what would make my pool league team happiest, and how I could appeal, because my friend (witness) was speaking with the probation officer who told us I could get an appeal bond even if I were to go to jail. So, I took the probation so that I could study before my appeal, basically.

Like I said, I could have just walked out, but I am not a lawyer. I don't understand much of anything and I'll be quick to admit that. I would understand a lot less had I never just made the jump. I fell, yes... but I got right back up, much wiser than I was before.

For example, now I would tell the judge one of several options --

- I'll take neither, thanks!
- I'll take either, upon receipt of 1,000 pounds of gold
- Why should I choose either one?
- If you tell me what I did, I'll think about that...
- What is "contempt"?

I truly had no clue what contempt of court was, but after visiting the Law Library, they wronged me more than I could have possibly understood.

Even the probation officer REPEATEDLY said, "The judge did you wrong", and then she called me "righteous" at some point after "agreeing" to the probation. I'll never forget being called righteous. Ever.

The judge actually only gave me 2 month probation in lieu of 2 days in jail. So he actually lied about his offer, which makes it fraudulent. Much, much fraud involved with that judge and prosecutor. It will all be revealed at my de novo trial next month.

Oh yea.. forgot to mention how the judge repeatedly told my friend and I that I couldn't even appeal a direct contempt charge. Oh how he was wrong. Had to explain it to several people that I must get due process. Constitutions don't matter to these people... only what's in the statutes. And my "privilege" of appealing any contempt charge is guaranteed in statutes, as well.

That is hilarious.

I'll read your next post for 1000 pounds of gold, champ.