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
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

How are businesses covered under the freeman's interpretation of the law? Can't businesses and the rich simply reject the things that they don't like about our society?

How does common law regulate emissions? Can business reject the contract requiring them to follow EPA guidelines?

Does common law or admiralty law set workers rights legislation? If the former, how? If the latter, is that something that a business or employer can otherwise reject?

How about taxation? Is taxation a contract that a freeman can reject?

How about malpractice? What part of the law covers that? Can a doctor reject a patients right to a malpractice claim?

I'd still like to know about the speeding example. To my knowledge, Freeman have argued in the past that various traffic laws such as speed limits do not apply to them. However, freeman also argue that common law covers harm to others. So, under this system of law the point at which you break the law is not when you're doing something dangerous that has been proven countless times to cause harm, but when you actually do the harm. Thus, the only criminals are the unlucky. Is that right?

What about home repossession? A mortgage is a binding contract and the actual deed of the house belongs to the bank. How does a freeman manage to claim that they have any rights at all to stay in the home? Common law seems to say, as much as an undocumented set of rules can, that ownership is somewhat finite, so if it is clear and documented that the bank owns the house and the occupant is merely contracted with the bank, then isn't the freeman not respecting the common law when they squat in a house after eviction? Does this mean that a freeman who is evicted but stays in their house is not actually a freeman because they're breaking the golden rules?

Is it possible for the police officer to reject contract laws? After all, they were not a party to the contract and they are but private citizens filling a government job. Wouldn't they only be beholden to things specifically covered in their oath? Is there a specific aspect of common law that dictates that agents of the state must accept state contracts, and if so does that mean that no officer can ever be a freeman?
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:07 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mindtoast



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 664
Location: australia
 Reply with quote  

I find this movement strange, interesting, bemusing, inconsistent but above all completely missing the point.

Essentially, they're saying "I don't like the laws, fines, courts, restrictions of civil liberties etc so i'm going to confound them and ignore them."

I don't have any problem with that. Whatsoever. You don't wanna pay taxes, don't pay your taxes.

Lets at least have the honesty to call this central premise what it is, this premise that there is some magical invisible fairy godmother admiralty law thing, what it is. Complete bullshit. It's ridiculous to the extent that it sounds like some hotted up acid trip.

We have a society that is ruled by law. the alternative to a society that is ruled by law is a society that is ruled by power. The problem with being ruled by power is it leads to oppression. The law can only function when there are independent arbiters, seperate from government, such as a Supreme Court or a High Court. Yes modern legal systems are highly technical, and require a level of expertise far beyond the layperson. Yes this leads to biases towards the elite. HOWEVER just because this is the way it is, there is no need to resort to a erroneous conspiracy belief system. The laws are made by the legislators. If you don't like the laws convince your fellow citizens, who (if your shit is tight) will agree with you and (all of you) elect someone who will change your laws. Hell, call a constitutional convention...haven't had one of those for a while. Scrap courts completely, wear togas and have debates in the marketplace. Otherwise take your chances with a society that is ruled by power and overthrow your government. But don't bother with this, extremely interesting...uh...thing.

"Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others that have been tried" - Sid Meier, Civ 4.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:23 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
firefly



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

wesfau wrote:
No, you don't need LOTS of money. In fact, I already said that. There is not one single book that I had to read in law school that isn't freely available to anyone at large. You can buy them at the school bookstore, or on Amazon, or just check them out of your local library.


Something else you also said:


Quote:

most people don't have that sort of spare time to commit. They have work, family, etc. occupying that time.



Quote:

That is completely (if it even exists as an actual issue) a product of the contract between two legally distinct (and NON GOVERNMENTAL) entities


What's your point? Can you imagine all the people (most of them poor or close to it) who get fucked by their phone companies/cable/bank/you name it, because they don't know some of the most basic knowledge of legal matters? They complain to customer service for hours, they know that they are right but the company knows that they don't have to take them seriously until they get that letter of notice. You know how long it would take to teach some of these basic legal procedures in school? Maybe an hour or two. Maybe have a whole day on it to cover more ground. Would this help out the average person in society? Of course it would. So why don't they do it? You say it's a failure, so if I call up the head of the school boards across the continent and gave them my “brilliant” idea they would go ahead with it? I don't think so.


Quote:

So...the information that is freely available to everyone should be spoon-fed to high school students and law enforcement officers? Is that what you're asserting? I guess I don't know if you are trying to shine a light on an educational failure or on a systemic conspiracy.


Spoon fed? How about TAUGHT. Do you consider teaching/training spoon feeding? Is it up to police officers to go to the library and read all the law books themselves? You'd think that knowing the law would be part of police training. Call that “spoon fed” if you want. I think you're just reaching for ways to prove me wrong.


Quote:

Frankly, you haven't been very clear at all throughout 7 pages of this thread. You seem to be angry at the government, police, lawyers, and schools, but you haven't really articulated why.


Should we be happy with our government, police, legal/school systems? Do I really need to explain what is wrong with our society? Are you one of those people who has a good job so they just want to stick their head in the sand and think it's all good. Then label all dissenters poor losers or cry babies because the system hasn't worked out for them that well?
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:33 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



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

redball wrote:
How are businesses covered under the freeman's interpretation of the law? Can't businesses and the rich simply reject the things that they don't like about our society?


It's funny how you interpret this as “rejecting things they don't like”. No one has named any specific cases that a freeman fought against besides the speeding thing (and regarding that I am quite certain that YES, speeding, drunk driving do fall under the unlawful catagory as it puts people in harm. Any freeman arguing against this – like that guy in the other video – are wrong in my opinion.


Quote:

How about taxation? Is taxation a contract that a freeman can reject


I've heard a lot of people argue that there are no laws saying that you have to pay taxes. I haven't seen one, so if someone can pull one up, I'd be interested to check it out. Personally I think that paying taxes is important YET ... it is incredibly unfair how we don't have a proper say in how our tax money is distributed. There are some places in the world practicing participatory budgeting, which I think is a great possible solution.


Quote:

How about malpractice? What part of the law covers that? Can a doctor reject a patients right to a malpractice claim?


I don't think it's up to them to decide. If they hurt someone due to their own error then I'd imagine that it's their responsibility, no? This would fall under the lawful catagory.


Quote:

What about home repossession? A mortgage is a binding contract and the actual deed of the house belongs to the bank. How does a freeman manage to claim that they have any rights at all to stay in the home?


Who argued that? If you sign a contract you are liable. And this makes sense. That's what contracts are for. I think what the freeman are arguing is that some contracts you should AVOID. No freeman (as far as I know) is arguing that you should be able to get OUT of a contract. They are saying to not sign them unless the fully understand the terms.


Quote:

is there a specific aspect of common law that dictates that agents of the state must accept state contracts, and if so does that mean that no officer can ever be a freeman?


I'm pretty sure that police officers do have to sign contracts and swear an oath.

I'm pretty sure that being a freeman means that you are no longer considered "a child of the state" and therefore you should have no obligations (like paying taxes) and also no benefits from the state. That's why I'm not on board with this stuff. At the same time, I think that those circumstances are fair and don't see why anyone would have an issue with it.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:01 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



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

mindtoast wrote:
We have a society that is ruled by law. the alternative to a society that is ruled by law is a society that is ruled by power.


Maybe I haven't been extremely clear but I think I made this point clear enough.

Freemans respects LAW (no man/woman is above the law)
Freemans are wary of commercial contracts (this also refers to contracts by the state).
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:06 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
wesfau



Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 702
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:


Something else you also said:



RIght...you don't need LOTS of money...you need time. You may argue that time=money, and you might be correct in an abstract sense.


Quote:


What's your point? Can you imagine all the people (most of them poor or close to it) who get fucked by their phone companies/cable/bank/you name it, because they don't know some of the most basic knowledge of legal matters? They complain to customer service for hours, they know that they are right but the company knows that they don't have to take them seriously until they get that letter of notice. You know how long it would take to teach some of these basic legal procedures in school? Maybe an hour or two. Maybe have a whole day on it to cover more ground. Would this help out the average person in society? Of course it would. So why don't they do it? You say it's a failure, so if I call up the head of the school boards across the continent and gave them my “brilliant” idea they would go ahead with it? I don't think so.


My point is that you are mixing your concepts. Are you raging against the government and its "contract" with its citizens or are you raging against the contract that you entered with your phone company? One is completely voluntary. I'll let you decide which.



Quote:


Spoon fed? How about TAUGHT. Do you consider teaching/training spoon feeding? Is it up to police officers to go to the library and read all the law books themselves? You'd think that knowing the law would be part of police training. Call that “spoon fed” if you want. I think you're just reaching for ways to prove me wrong.


There are civics classes taught in every public school in America. You may argue (probably successfully) that schools fail more often than not, but the information is available at the very least. It then becomes incumbent upon the student to pursue the knowledge further if he or she values his or her education. So anything more is, in my opinion, spoon feeding.


Quote:


Should we be happy with our government, police, legal/school systems? Do I really need to explain what is wrong with our society? Are you one of those people who has a good job so they just want to stick their head in the sand and think it's all good. Then label all dissenters poor losers or cry babies because the system hasn't worked out for them that well?


You are super at taking someone's post and twisting it to some extreme that they never posited. You are not so super at clearly articulating your own points.

I'm still waiting for some authority for your 2ft rule as pertaining to filming police officers.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:18 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:
Are you raging against the government and its "contract" with its citizens or are you raging against the contract that you entered with your phone company? One is completely voluntary. I'll let you decide which


Oh, I totally understand that if you sign a contract with your phone company for instance that you are bond by those terms but what often happens (and it happened to me) is that the company itself, if they breach the contract will try to avoid rectifying the situation. I'm talking about if you get screwed and you call customer service and they still don't help you out, you have to take matters in your own hands and most people don't know what to do. For instance, I got fucked by my phone company, I complained and complained and nothing was done. My laywer friend helped me write them a letter and I got a call in less then a week saying that they will finally help me.


Quote:

There are civics classes taught in every public school in America. You may argue (probably successfully) that schools fail more often than not, but the information is available at the very least. It then becomes incumbent upon the student to pursue the knowledge further if he or she values his or her education. So anything more is, in my opinion, spoon feeding.


Most kids don't see the importance of learning about law when they're in high school. I think it's the schools responsibility to teach their students more about this. Also, you completely ignored my comments about the police. Do you consider it "spoon feeding" to properly train police?


Quote:

I'm still waiting for some authority for your 2ft rule as pertaining to filming police officers.


All I have for proof is my word (I might be able to dig something up but I don't feel like spending the time to do so). This happened to me personally, I was even given a ticket for "filming without permission" that had NO DATE on it. I obviously contested the ticket and I haven't heard anything from them (it's been 2 years). I showed the ticket to my lawyer friend and she said that it was extremely sketchy. It was only a photocopy, had no date and no signature. I think the cop was trying to scam me into paying a fine for something that there was no law against.

But if you do a little bit of research you will find that most states don't have any laws against filming police. In fact you can film anyone as long as it's on public property. The 2 feet thing was because I had to give the officer space or else it could be considered harrassment.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:35 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
wesfau



Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 702
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:


Oh, I totally understand that if you sign a contract with your phone company for instance that you are bond by those terms but what often happens (and it happened to me) is that the company itself, if they breach the contract will try to avoid rectifying the situation. I'm talking about if you get screwed and you call customer service and they still don't help you out, you have to take matters in your own hands and most people don't know what to do. For instance, I got fucked by my phone company, I complained and complained and nothing was done. My laywer friend helped me write them a letter and I got a call in less then a week saying that they will finally help me.


Corporations act in their own self-interest, to the detriment of the consumer. Got it.


Quote:



Most kids don't see the importance of learning about law when they're in high school. I think it's the schools responsibility to teach their students more about this. Also, you completely ignored my comments about the police. Do you consider it "spoon feeding" to properly train police?


At some point the student bears responsibility as well. I think that the police training could be better...as could most things in life. I do not, however, think that you've shone a light on any particular failing in the training.


Quote:



All I have for proof is my word (I might be able to dig something up but I don't feel like spending the time to do so). This happened to me personally, I was even given a ticket for "filming without permission" that had NO DATE on it. I obviously contested the ticket and I haven't heard anything from them (it's been 2 years). I showed the ticket to my lawyer friend and she said that it was extremely sketchy. It was only a photocopy, had no date and no signature. I think the cop was trying to scam me into paying a fine for something that there was no law against.

But if you do a little bit of research you will find that most states don't have any laws against filming police. In fact you can film anyone as long as it's on public property. The 2 feet thing was because I had to give the officer space or else it could be considered harrassment.


So, no authority. Got it. As for the bolded part, I am done discussing this if you just don't feel like supporting your assertions.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:56 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



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

It's a pretty well known fact that it is legal/lawful to film police officers. I'm surprised that this is even being debated.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:50 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:
I think that the police training could be better...as could most things in life.


That is an understatement if I ever heard one.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:54 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
wesfau



Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 702
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
It's a pretty well known fact that it is legal/lawful to film police officers. I'm surprised that this is even being debated.


I was looking for support of your assertion that a 2ft perimeter must be maintained.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:02 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
It's funny how you interpret this as “rejecting things they don't like”. No one has named any specific cases that a freeman fought against besides the speeding thing (and regarding that I am quite certain that YES, speeding, drunk driving do fall under the unlawful catagory as it puts people in harm. Any freeman arguing against this – like that guy in the other video – are wrong in my opinion.


I say reject things they don't like because it seems that freeman are able to have the best of both worlds. Perhaps I could instead phrase it permissively, as rejecting all "government contract" laws but accepting the ones they do like. So, the question stands, where does, for instance, overtime law fall? It would seem to me that a business run in this legal framework could say that such laws are contracts that they are not a party to and that if employees want to have overtime they must specify that in their work contract.

As for the speeding thing, I recall reading of other instances where freeman argued against traffic law. We can write that off. I bring it up because traffic law is contentious even in the regular legal system. Many people believe that speed limits are fallacious, that drunk driving should not be punished when it is victimless, etc.. So, it is interesting to think of how this would play out in a freeman system where most of the law that is considered to be unarguably applicable is undocumented, thus susceptible to varied interpretation.

And... I bring that up because it alludes to the reason why our laws are so complicated and require so much time to learn properly. Everything is open to interpretation and modern legal systems rely on various mechanisms to clarify the proper interpretation of the law. Each clarification, be it case law (which is public but is not necessarily indexed a way that is easy for the layman to consume) or legislation, introduces more information that must be learned so that the next question of interpretation can be answered in an informed way. Even if we switch to a freeman based system these kinds of clarifications would become necessary, and thus increase the complexity of the law.

firefly wrote:
I've heard a lot of people argue that there are no laws saying that you have to pay taxes. I haven't seen one, so if someone can pull one up, I'd be interested to check it out. Personally I think that paying taxes is important YET ... it is incredibly unfair how we don't have a proper say in how our tax money is distributed. There are some places in the world practicing participatory budgeting, which I think is a great possible solution.


I don't know that we don't have a proper say. I think that most of the time representatives work in the public interest. The problem is that a group of hundreds of millions will have wildly varying and often conflicting interest. Determining what is a proper say is not an easy thing. There is a big difference between being unhappy with how things are allocated and not having a say in the matter.

Still, I grant that you are not advocating for an interpretation of this that would preclude contributing to the tax pool.

firefly wrote:
I don't think it's up to them to decide. If they hurt someone due to their own error then I'd imagine that it's their responsibility, no? This would fall under the lawful catagory.


I think malpractice law is a bit more complicated than this. Also, would the freeman system exclude any laws to protect doctors from liability?

firefly wrote:
Who argued that? If you sign a contract you are liable. And this makes sense. That's what contracts are for. I think what the freeman are arguing is that some contracts you should AVOID. No freeman (as far as I know) is arguing that you should be able to get OUT of a contract. They are saying to not sign them unless the fully understand the terms.


It seemed to be a popular belief in the freeman forum I was reading from the one thread linked. They believed that the sheriff had no jurisdiction and couldn't move them. Maybe that's not proper freeman thinking, but that sort of thing seems to be pervasive. It kind of flies in the face of the thought that the freeman system is somehow less skewed towards the uneducated if so many people repping themselves as freeman are less informed about it than you are.

firefly wrote:
I'm pretty sure that police officers do have to sign contracts and swear an oath.


Yes, but does that oath hold them to laws applicable under the legal system as we know it? Can't they believe that the legal system works as the freeman believe it does and similarly assume that they are not a party to laws they did not specifically agree to beyond common law?


firefly wrote:
I'm pretty sure that being a freeman means that you are no longer considered "a child of the state" and therefore you should have no obligations (like paying taxes) and also no benefits from the state. That's why I'm not on board with this stuff. At the same time, I think that those circumstances are fair and don't see why anyone would have an issue with it.


I am still very much against it. They may believe they are not subject to the obligations of the state or benefits, but there is no real documentation saying that. Thus, the state must operate as it does, whether anyone thinks that fair. The result is that the freeman DO use state resources and incur expenses that are shared among the community, but they feel no obligation to partake in some of the codified rules that the community has put in place. In effect, freeman seem set to behave with the same sort of antisocial attitude that I loath about corporations when they are treated as half-people. Likewise, I think their legal maneuverings in court are similarly shameful as corporations.

The difference is the same argument that you and wesfau are having: time vs. money. Corporations throw around money to make problems go away. Every freeman success story involves them throwing around their free time and thus wasting the time of various government and private agencies, until they are eventually let off. Not because they are right by any means, but because punishing the crime is no longer worthwhile.

I could see the argument that the freeman aren't so bad if they're acting with the same antisocial behaviors as corporations, because what's good for the goose... but I tend to lean away from that towards a more idealistic view that it would be better to fix the legal system so that corporations are less psychopathic than to encourage individuals to reinterpret the law to even the playing field in the opposite manner.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DeadAwake



Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 576
Location: Aus.
 Reply with quote  

redball wrote:

What about home repossession? A mortgage is a binding contract and the actual deed of the house belongs to the bank. How does a freeman manage to claim that they have any rights at all to stay in the home? Common law seems to say, as much as an undocumented set of rules can, that ownership is somewhat finite, so if it is clear and documented that the bank owns the house and the occupant is merely contracted with the bank, then isn't the freeman not respecting the common law when they squat in a house after eviction? Does this mean that a freeman who is evicted but stays in their house is not actually a freeman because they're breaking the golden rules?


On the topic of ownership, what about the government claiming land and selling it? Thats something i want to know. Im okay with houses costing money, but LAND, something which wasnt constructed, made or synthesized by human intervention? Surely, there is legislature pertaining to this practice. If someone could point it out i would be most grateful.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:09 pm
 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  

astrophysics is excessively complex and only understood by the elites. sounds like a scam to me.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

DeadAwake wrote:
On the topic of ownership, what about the government claiming land and selling it? Thats something i want to know. Im okay with houses costing money, but LAND, something which wasnt constructed, made or synthesized by human intervention? Surely, there is legislature pertaining to this practice. If someone could point it out i would be most grateful.


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.
Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:57 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:53 am
  Display posts from previous:      


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