Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Becoming a Freeman - Claiming Sovereignty
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > The General Forum

Author Message
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

I agree that the law should be thorough but it shouldn't be frickin' hieroglyphics. But fine, let's just say that it HAS to be as complicated as it is, money still shouldn't play as important of a role and police officers shouldn't go around giving tickets just to generate money for the city, which often is the case (and these are valid justifications for fighting against the ticet). If someone is ticketed, it should be for a valid reason and people shouldn't end up paying unfair tickets because of their lack of knowledge of the law or fear of having to pay extra for court fees.

Do you really believe that the general public is adequately educated in the law? Do you not think that our school system and society as a whole could do a better job in educating people? This is all I'm saying and if you think this is tin hat territory, I don't know what to say.

redball wrote:
I think that most of the time representatives work in the public interest


Most representatives SAY they do but really they only listen to the people who will help finance their next campaign. Look at Obama, people voted him in because they wanted change. Doesn't look like change to me. Look at the indefinite detention bill! I bet you if that decision was voted on by the whole nation it would of failed miserably! Same goes for most of the major decisions that politicians make these days.

But I agree that it's not easy, although it is possible. I think I mentioned this before here but the city of Porto Alegra in Brazil has a population of 1.5 million and they have greatly improved their city with participatory budgeting.

Look, I'm not going to defend all Freemans. We've all seen the videos of the assholes out there, so obviously there are plenty of people who like you said are only applying what they like and not really doing much research on the matter. The freeman or any law activist (don't know what else to call them) that I do respect are the ones who study tirelessly and who conduct themselves in an honourable fashion, treating people with respect. They don't do this to “waste peoples time” or to get out of things that they shouldn't get out of. They pick their battles wisely and fight against the unjust claims against them. These guys have the balls to challenge the system, to basically go up against Goliath. The ones who are doing it right, deserve props. In my opinion.
Post Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:50 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

crash wrote:
astrophysics is excessively complex and only understood by the elites. sounds like a scam to me.


So in your opinion astrophysics is as complicated as judging and defending law and order in society. Sure it is.
Post Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:55 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 1997
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

At this point we aren't even talking about the sovereign citizens movement any more. We aren't talking about its specific tenets and whether or not those tenets actually hold water.

I don't even think firefly opposes most actual laws--even particular ones such as income tax that freemen have famously and repeatedly used sovereign citizen claims to contest. The only cohesive objections I see here are to the overall complexity and opacity of the current system, and perhaps to the idea of user fees for access to government services and municipal resources such as policed public roads.

It seems to me that we're mostly just talking about how firefly considers government to be oppressive and byzantine, and on general principle likes the idea of people chipping away at that by questioning whether or not what authorities state to be the law is actually the law.
Post Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:48 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
outpatient



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 475
Location: haggis and scotch eggs
 Reply with quote  

After having studied these issues extensively, I can tell you that this is a Freeman:

Post Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:24 am
 View user's profile Send private message
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

i think it is regrettable that legal language is as difficult to understand as it is, but this isn't a conspiracy. the law has been developed over hundreds of years and in the process its use of language has deviated from the vernacular. assault is a good example. if i said "she assaulted me" in conversation, the implication is that i was physically attacked. in a courtroom however, it means that she caused me to reasonably fear bodily harm (that's a rough paraphrasing). threatening someone is assault. the physical violence is actually called battery.
Post Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:21 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6870
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

firefly,

I think the law is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be. Yes, legalese can be challenging, but every large corpus of work will introduce its own form of technical writing and communications. Laws must be written in technical terms, because colloquial terms, or "normal" language, would introduce ambiguity that would require even more clarification.

Otherwise the problem is compilation. You need to compile sets of code for it to make sense. This is because legal frameworks provide for modifications and interpretations. The court can strike aspects of various laws or interpret them in certain ways. Congress can modify the contents of previous acts with new ones (this is a large part of what makes the AHCA such a pain to understand). The Executive branch can issue orders in certain areas that affect how laws are interpreted and enforced. If it weren't this way laws would take forever to create and change, and the courts wouldn't be able to modify them so they'd get struck down in entirety all the time.

It is possible to correct some of this, but not all. There are compilations of various sets of codes, which helps, but those likely don't include interpretation instructions. You could change the system such that the courts' interpretations would be included in the codes, I guess. That would just make the sets of code huge. And, of course, you can basically throw out and rewrite laws. However, that is only a temporary fix and it introduces those laws to the same procedure all over again.

The point is that current law is needfully complicated. That's because society is complicated. I think we should apply more skepticism to "solutions" to societal problems that are supposedly easy, simple, or trivial. Try to apply it at the very least in a hypothetical environment and see what issues stand out.

As for the interest of our elected representatives, I heartily disagree with you. I think that your view is a popular one, but it is not an informed one. We focus on the things we don't like while ignoring the things we do, never mind the things we don't understand or know about. However, I know that it is impossible for me to convince you, and likely half of the forum or most of the populace, of my view by writing a few posts on a forum. So, we are at an impasse on this aspect of the discussion and nothing further productive can come from this.

To change things a bit, I will say that even if you think that there are fundamental flaws with the system that does not mean the correct action is to invent a new one filled with misinformation and conspiracy theories. This is especially true when the application of such a system can destroy the lives of those who believe it. Did you read either of those threads the Self Conscious posted? They are littered with links to stories of freemen losing their homes and being sent to jail, things that were easily avoidable by following the legal framework that is actually, really and truly in place, rather than living your life according to scrawlings on the Denver Airport wall.

Mark's issues with the freeman belief of the legal system are very instructive, and I think many of them are left unaddressed. I think we can add to those that freeman beliefs are not well founded or well stated, causing the very ambiguity that our legal system has evolved to avoid. We can also top this off with the fact that even the one defender of this system, or at least advocate for offering the system respect, has brought up fatal flaws himself. The conclusion seems pretty clear to me, that this freeman stuff is in no way an improvement upon our current system and people shouldn't encourage others to bother with it.
Post Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
breakreep
homophobic yet curious


Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem
 Reply with quote  

crash wrote:
astrophysics is excessively complex and only understood by the elites. sounds like a scam to me.


Dude hush, you'll blow my conspiracy.
Post Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:12 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

Like I said earlier I agree it needs to be complicated but not to the point where you have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars at University to be able to be licensed as a lawyer. That right there shows how rigged the system is. Then if you pass the bar you have to swear allegiance to the Queen (at least in the common wealth countries) but again, this isn't suspicious because you have to be stupid to think that conspiracies exist; therefore, it makes perfect sense to swear allegiance to an old queen who wears a crown and magic wand.

About our representatives, look at all the new laws they are passing! How does this represent our interests? Like I said in the other thread about the indefinite detention bill, what practical purpose does arresting U.S. Citizens for life without trial serve the general public. What harm could it have to give a citizen a fair trial? How is this acting in the public interest? If you go about your day thinking that there are no conspiracies (cause that crazy guy thinks they exist), you will think whatever you need to think to make sense of this. But in reality, the members of congress/senate and the president just committed treason. But I'm sure you think that that's an exaggeration.

I agree that Mark asked some good questions, I wish I had all the answers. I will try to provide some decent documents or videos with more information. But you have to actually read what they have to say, not just base your opinion off of a couple of message board discussions. I'll try to find the interesting stuff.
Post Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:03 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
wesfau



Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 702
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
Like I said earlier I agree it needs to be complicated but not to the point where you have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars at University to be able to be licensed as a lawyer. That right there shows how rigged the system is.


How so?

Damn those doctors for keeping all the medical knowledge to themselves! Damn the schools for charging for the education and training!
Post Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:34 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 1997
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

We've come to a consensus in this thread that the core axiom of the sovereign citizen movement is that most government power relies on the universal acceptance of a profound deception about the fundamental limits on the ability of the government to make and enforce laws.

The question I'm most disappointed that you haven't answered is simply this: Assuming that this axiom belief of the movement is a legal reality that can be proven in a court of law, why is this a good thing? Why would any freemen ever attempt to expose that deception in a way that ultimately limits the jurisdiction of courts, law enforcement, and government officials? Why aren't they instead working with those in authority to close the loopholes?

The vast majority of what local, state, and federal government do for us is good. Yes, there are bad laws, and there are officials who abuse their authority; history is rife with examples of this. All citizens share a responsibility to push for and make incremental improvements to the system. Freemen don't appear to be doing that; instead they're attacking the very foundations of government authority. I don't see how they could succeed in doing this without throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and so even if their beliefs are rooted in fact (and I haven't been convinced they are) I still think they've taken this revelation in the exact wrong direction.

This is the thing I'm disappointed you haven't talked about more. You seem to want there to be an honor system where freemen only "reject the contract" to fight true injustice but play along with it the rest of the time. Meanwhile you are have been unwilling to deal at all with what happens if the "hidden contract with the government" can be rejected and people start rejecting it in ways that are destructive to the rule of law and to good social order.

If the capability for abuse exists and we don't fix it, in my opinion it's not sufficient to merely disown or be disappointed in anyone who misuses the freeman logic for malice or selfish personal benefit. We also need to reserve some amount of criticism (and even contempt) for people who can explain how and why this loophole exists and aren't working to close it.
Post Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:09 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

wesfau wrote:
firefly wrote:
Like I said earlier I agree it needs to be complicated but not to the point where you have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars at University to be able to be licensed as a lawyer. That right there shows how rigged the system is.


How so?

Damn those doctors for keeping all the medical knowledge to themselves! Damn the schools for charging for the education and training!


How so? This creates exclusivity where only the rich can become lawyers. You don't see a problem with this? Jesus Christ ...

And I actually think education should be free and so did Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, believe it or not. At the very least it shouldn't cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Post Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:05 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

Mark in Minnesota wrote:
Why would any freemen ever attempt to expose that deception in a way that ultimately limits the jurisdiction of courts, law enforcement, and government officials?


Because what the freeman consider “bogus” statutes aren't for the better of society, they only benefit the state (registration fees and such). They aren't saying that we should be able to rob, rape and murder people, they are only challenging things that just generate money for the state and don't serve the people. Why would you think that I would defend people who think it's cool to destroy what ever small amount of order we have in our society?


Quote:

The vast majority of what local, state, and federal government do for us is good


It depends on which district, state, country, etc but in general I'd agree that a lot of what governments do is good. They are meant to serve the people, the tax payers. We pay our taxes so that we get the service of running society. Some people, like the freemans don't think that they're using their tax money wisely so they want to separate themselves from society and become sovereign. So they move out to the bush, on communes or by themselves. What's the harm in that? Maybe if enough people did that, the government would start respecting the tax payer more and serve us better? I personally don't think that's the solution but I don't see what they shouldn't be allowed to do that.


Quote:

Freemen don't appear to be doing that; instead they're attacking the very foundations of government authority.


I think it's more that they're saying the government doesn't have any authority, that they are supposed to serve us. But that's a good thing since making sure our streets are safe and that justice is SERVED (as in service) are part of that service. It's not them bossing us around, it's them providing a service. What happens ALL THE TIME is you have police who break the law, abuse tax payers and intimidate them into paying fees and tickets that the freeman are arguing they don't have to. These are the types of fees that only serve the paper pushing bureaucracy that is part of the government. Police often have quotas to meet, that the mayor ask of them so that they can generate more money (this is a big issue in Montreal where our mayors are notoriously fudging up the budgets). So they have cops go out and mass ticket people for nonsense like J-walking or drinking in a public park.

Social services (again, the word service), health care (at least in Canada and most sane countries, no offence), fixing roads, etc, are all good things. And like I have already said, I don't think any well educated “freeman” is saying that this is bad. There are obviously some nuts out there who love some of the things the freeman or law activists are saying because their life sucks and they want to blame the government for it. That's unfortunate of course but it doesn't describe all law activists out there.


Quote:

Meanwhile you are have been unwilling to deal at all with what happens if the "hidden contract with the government" can be rejected and people start rejecting it in ways that are destructive to the rule of law and to good social order.


Maybe I'm not being clear, but these contracts only apply to admiralty law, things pertaining to registration fees and other commercial activity. If you steal from someone, kill someone, that's it, you serve your time. I wouldn't be defending people who think that they should be able to weasel out of something like that.
Post Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:11 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 1997
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

You've missed my point, but that's okay. I don't intend to press this any further.
Post Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DeadAwake



Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 562
Location: Aus.
 Reply with quote  

redball wrote:

In what capacity do you mean? You mean in the initial land grab, or you mean after that? Are you talking about the US or elsewhere? For the US you could probably start worse places than here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#United_States

Of course, ownership of land and natural resources has been a point of contention in every society throughout time. The only constant is that ownership is not a universal right, it is a function of the state.


Yes, thank you, this is exactly what i wanted. U.S. but that also covers Aus as well so double +.

I was referring to it in principle, the government assuming an authority to claim ownership of land and selling it for large sums when citizens who make up the societies and maintain the societies with work efforts, should be entitled to land free of charge as they are consitutents of the society. But i guess if this was done, houses would double in price to fill in the economic gap. And of course, the whole inherency thing is a spanner in the works.

crash wrote:
astrophysics is excessively complex and only understood by the elites. sounds like a scam to me.


Thats not a relevant comparison. The functioning of the universe is much more impartial than human matters.
Post Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:56 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6495
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

The roots of what Firefly is saying is legitimate, but he takes it off to Batshitcrazyland.

There is a movement within the legal profession towards "plain language" and I'm a big supporter of it. There is no reason for lawyers to write like they are living in 17th century England, other than to try to make themselves feel more important, and keep their jobs secure.

Law school is overpriced. You are paying for the degree. I think it could be shortened to three semesters, with a required internship to be licensed.

But what Wesfau says is true. Lawyers have spent the time to learn things, and that's why people hire them. Plenty of people have done the research and argued for themselves adequately.

I saw a guy in the court of appeals. He is part of some barefoot society. Got kicked out of a public library for going barefoot. He was not a lawyer, but this was his passion and he did his research. He ran circles around the lawyer for the county. The judges loved him. I gave him a hard time for wearing shoes to court. He won.

This is 9 pages of pure nuttiness, though. There is no special code or password. I'm going to be an acting judge here in a month or so (sitting for one day while the judge is on vacation.) I'll let you know if I get let in on some big secret (or maybe I won't... hahahaha.)
Post Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:36 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon