Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

"Laws vs statutes" is a silly little subterfuge. Indefensible. Illogical.

From my understanding there is huge difference. Under Roman law and English law, "laws" have to do with rights whereas "statutes" have to do with remedies. Therefore "statutes" can be used to create the effect of law without creating the law.

However if a statue isn't law then how are we forced to comply with them?

reply to post by MojosGhost


That is correct, however, these freemen are also ignoring the laws of states, they are subverting state laws not just federal.

Now I can buy the argument that Freemen don't want to abide by federal law, but when you want to start ignoring state and local law, well, now you just sound like an anarchist group.

I know I know, "natural law" Natural law also dictates survival of the fittest and among humans as an animal in nature that means murder to perpetuate the strongest genes.

Or do I have to point out all the wars to prove my point?

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Article I Section 7: United States Constitution

[edit on 7/3/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

Now I can buy the argument that Freemen don't want to abide by federal law, but when you want to start ignoring state and local law, well, now you just sound like an anarchist group.

What State laws are they violating?

Natural law also dictates survival of the fittest and among humans as an animal in nature that means murder to perpetuate the strongest genes.

Are you referring to common law here? If so can you show where murder is allowed under common law? Or is this just more baseless rhetoric?


[edit on 3-7-2010 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib

What State laws are they violating?

Most states have laws that state that when you operate a motor vehicle, you are required to have proper licensure. In Michigan a motor vehicle license is different than a Commercial Drivers License.

But Freemen don't like that law, they feel that it's their right to barrel down the highway at 75+ MPH in a piece of machinery that weighs over a ton without any proof that they are able to operate that piece of machinery safely.

reply to post by harvib

Are you referring to common law here? If so can you show where murder is allowed under common law? Or is this just more baseless rhetoric?

Self defense and every single war that humanity has ever fought in the history of this pathetic species. And since these are supposed sovereign citizens, citizens without government, they can therefore under natural law declare war on their own, therefore, to Freemen, what would constitute MURDER to the general law abiding citizenry, would constitute a declaration of a legal war against an aggressive foreign power.

[edit on 7/3/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

Most states have laws that state that when you operate a motor vehicle, you are required to have proper licensure. In Michigan a motor vehicle license is different than a Commercial Drivers License.

I would be interested to hear how the experts on this subject respond.

But Freemen don't like that law, they feel that it's their right to barrel down the highway at 75+ MPH in a piece of machinery that weighs over a ton without any proof that they are able to operate that piece of machinery safely.

More baseless rhetoric? Do you realize it only hurts your credibility and does nothing for the debate or for the discovery of truth?

nd since these are supposed sovereign citizens, citizens without government, they can therefore under natural law declare war on their own.

What law in specific are you referring to. Where is this written. Common law is documented. So unless your claim is, once again, baseless then you should be able to quote it and source it.

How can they be without Government if they believe that they are bound by common law? You clearly don't understand common law. They have a Government, it operates in every town and State in the Union. Murder is a crime under common law. This Country has and continues to operate under common law. When you demonize it you demonize the foundation of the whole legal system of our Republic.





[edit on 3-7-2010 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib

I would be interested to hear how the experts on this subject respond.

Contact your local DMV.

More baseless rhetoric? Do you realize it only hurts your credibility and does nothing for the debate or for the discovery of truth?

So freemen don't travel on highways doing the speed limit?

How can they be without Government if they believe that they are bound by common law? You clearly don't understand common law. They have a Government, it operates in every town and State in the Union. Murder is a crime under common law. This Country has and continues to operate under common law. When you demonize it you demonize the foundation of the whole legal system of our Republic.

Oh I see, so it's an ala carte thing right? Some laws they follow, but if they don't like that law, then they are freemen and ignore that law?

I didn't know that it says that in the federal Constitution or states constitutions, can you provide me with the subtext that says, "unless you don't want to follow this law, then it's all cool"


[edit on 7/3/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

"Laws vs statutes" is a silly little subterfuge. Indefensible. Illogical. Any further argument about that in this thread amounts to nothing more than mental masturbation and I refuse to be sucked into it. There are two opinions. There are two sides. There is no middle ground. There is, however, no moral equivalence on the two sides.

It is telling indeed that those who wish to criminalize the freeman movement merely by their opinions alone would use language such as you do. "Laws vs statutes" is a silly little subterfuge? Really? It is you engaging in the subterfuge and willfully ignoring much of the definitions and legal understandings of what a statute is, and how that is distinguished from law. Consider what the Wikipedia article has to say about statutes:

A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county.[1] Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy.[1] The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law and the regulations issued by government agencies.[1] Statutes are sometimes referred to as legislation or "black letter law". As a source of law, statutes are considered primary authority (as opposed to secondary authority).

And what it further states in regard to international law:

A Statute is a legislative rule given the force of law by consent within a society. The term statute is also used to refer to an International treaty that establishes an institution, such as the Statute of the European Central Bank, a protocol to the international courts as well, such as the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Statute is also another word for law. The term was adapted from England in about the 18th century.

Further both you and the other hack are either woefully ignorant of jurisprudence in general, and specifically, American jurisprudence, or are willfully ignoring that jurisprudence, just to be hacks and dismiss that of which you don't agree with merely based upon your opinion. Consider the legal term locus standi:

In law, locus standi means the right to bring an action, to be heard in court, or to address the Court on a matter before it. Locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. For example, in the United States, a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. In order to sue to have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for whoever is suing to be there. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law.

This principle of standing is clearly based on the understanding in law, that if it be law it must protect the rights of an individual, and if a statute in effect does the opposite of this and instead causes harm, then this gives legal standing to the person asserting loss to challenge the statute as not having any real force of law. Consider also the legal definition of the law of necessity:

In general, whatever makes the contrary of a thing impossible, whatever may be the cause of such impossibilities.

Whatever is done through necessity, is done without any intention, and as the act is done without will, and is compulsory, the agent is not legally responsible. Hence the maxim, necessity has no law; indeed necessity is itself a law which cannot be avoided nor infringed.

It follows, then, that the acts of a man in violation of law., or to the injury of another, may be justified by necessity, because the actor has no will to do or not to do the thing, he is a mere tool; but, it is conceived, this necessity must be absolute and irresistible, in fact, or so presumed in point of law.

Even further, while it has all ready been stressed that judicial review quite clearly gives the courts authority to strike down a statute, code, or regulation as being unconstitutional, and as such, it follows that that if a statute, code, or regulation can be struck down as not having the force of law, then clearly a legislative act, or executive order in and of itself is not enough to qualify it as law. If it is law it must have legal standing itself and be able to show when being challenged that it somehow protects the rights or interest of individuals.

Both you and the other hack have gone to great lengths to point to a few instances in where people claiming to be a part of the freeman movement have wound up in gun battles with police, and you have gone to these great lengths, (and most certainly the other hack has willingly asserted that because a few have had these gun battles by extension all that adhere to freeman ideology are guilty), both you and the other hack dismiss the multitudes of murders where a police officer has killed an unarmed victim as being either not relevant, or worse, (and certainly you have defended the other hack for playing the subterfuge game), then attempt to frame the messenger who points to cops who have acted as murderous thugs, as being the messenger who then declares all cops murderous thugs.

Not all freeman are trigger happy gunslingers itching for a battle with cops anymore than all cops are murderous thugs. The difference between I, and the both of you is that I acknowledge that not all cops are not murderous thugs, (that other hacks efforts to frame me otherwise notwithstanding), but neither one of you are willing to acknowledge that freemen, and most importantly the freeman featured in the video of the O.P. are not murderous thugs. Yet, it is you who accuses those who defend the freeman movement, and they do so by relying upon longstanding principles of jurisprudence, as engaging in subterfuge, while you yourself rely heavily on subterfuge to make your opinion seem to have some sort of validity, while defending the other hack, one who has consistently in this thread relied heavily upon deception and falsehoods in order to demonize people he doesn't like.

What ever your agenda may be, it sure as hell isn't about freedom, nor is it an agenda that has any regards for universal rights. This much is clear.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by whatukno

Oh I see, so it's an ala carte thing right? Some laws they follow, but if they don't like that law, then they are freemen and ignore that law?

What if I accused you of picking and choosing what laws you wanted to follow because you don't follow the laws of China? Would you agree that such an accusation would be ridiculous because you don't fall under the jurisdiction of China?

If you don't understand the legal concept of jurisdiction or of contract law then you don't have the ability to determine if the "freemen movement" is correct or not.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


So basically, Freemen are part time citizens, citizens when it's convenient and sovereign when laws get in their way.

In general statutes and codes do not get in the way of people being free. However, laws are laws as I have shown with Article I Section 7 of the United States Constitution. But I guess that will get ignored because freemen only choose to hide behind the bill of rights as the bulk of the Constitution.

reply to post by harvib

What if I accused you of picking and choosing what laws you wanted to follow because you don't follow the laws of China? Would you agree that such an accusation would be ridiculous because you don't fall under the jurisdiction of China?

Well, if I was in China, then I would certainly follow the laws of China now wouldn't I?

OH but is that the problem? These freemen don't believe that they are in the country they are in? So they are delusional?

reply to post by whatukno

So basically, Freemen are part time citizens, citizens when it's convenient and sovereign when laws get in their way.

There you go again with more subterfuge and obfuscation. You can't offer any sound reasoning to support your own arguments, and rather than simply acknowledge that there are certain truths, you instead hope to win the argument by "translating" what it is I have said. Of course, given we are both speaking the same language, no translation is necessary. It is a game those ill equipped to sufficiently argue their stance like to play, but all it accomplishes is reveal an intellectual dishonesty on your own part.

In general statutes and codes do not get in the way of people being free. However, laws are laws as I have shown with Article I Section 7 of the United States Constitution. But I guess that will get ignored because freemen only choose to hide behind the bill of rights as the bulk of the Constitution.

When a statute is struck down for being unconstitutional it is not a statute in general that is being struck down and your proclivity to speak in generalities only further reveals your intellectual dishonesty. You showing Article I, Section 7 of The Constitution for the United States of America does nothing more than illustrate which branch of government has been invested with the authority to legislate. The language used that declares this legislation as law is express. Conversely, there is no express language granting the Judiciary the right of judicial review, and yet you acknowledge this right of judicial review nonetheless. This is the hypocritical game you like to play.

If you wish to be a strict constitutionalist in the sense that only that which is expressly written be considered, then be consistent with that and challenge the authority of judicial review. You would not be alone, and of course, Thomas Jefferson was outraged by Marbury v. Madison, and more recent "Constitutional scholars" have come to challenge the validity of judicial review, but you haven't. You play fast and loose with your ideology, and mostly do so out of ignorance. While you are most certainly entitled to your opinions, those opinion, particularly when founded upon ignorance, should be challenged vigorously for the suspect ideas they come from.


[edit on 3-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by whatukno

Well, if I was in China, then I would certainly follow the laws of China now wouldn't I?

Now what if you were in your own Country and were charged with breaking Chinese law? You would argue Jurisdiction. You would state that the Chinese don't have jurisdiction over you.

That is what these individuals are claiming, that they don't fall under the jurisdiction in which these regulations apply. Are they right? I don't know. But baseless generalities only act as a hindrance in finding out.

These freemen don't believe that they are in the country they are in? So they are delusional?

I think they claim that they are citizens of their respective Countries. In the united states they claim to be citizens of the Republic.



[edit on 3-7-2010 by harvib]

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
"Hack job"? No. A bit of an emotion driven generalization to be sure, but by no means a "hack job."

No, it's a hack job, and no more a supporting argument than if I were to say that all Californians were murdering cultists because of the Manson Family, that all catholics are child molesters, or that all mormons were dangerous because of Jim Jones. It's a ridiculous attribution circulating in the media meant to demonize the freeman movement, and should be called out as such. Using this violent tragedy as some kind of politically motivated generalization of the movement is completely unacceptable, a hack job.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It's not subterfuge and obfuscation, it's an observation, what I have been told by the people defending these part time citizens is that they follow their own laws and if those laws merge with existing laws of the State they live in or of the United States, it's a happy coincidence. If however, they don't, then Freemen choose to ignore those laws.

That makes them part time citizens, in that they pick and choose which laws they want to abide.

reply to post by harvib

Now what if you were in your own Country and were charged with breaking Chinese law? You would argue Jurisdiction. You would state that the Chinese don't have jurisdiction over you.

Irrelevant to this discussion as these are supposedly United States citizens charged with breaking laws of the state they reside in. They are claiming sovereignty, in essence declaring that they are indeed not citizens of the United States or citizens of the state they reside but in practice they are claiming that they are immune from prosecution because they claim no citizenship for the state or the country they reside.

So it's either, they are illegal immigrants from no country at all, or they are Citizens of the state they reside, and subject to the laws of that state.

reply to post by twitchy


And how many times have you seen that same "hack job" applied to police officers on this board welcomed with praise and agreement?

reply to post by whatukno

It's not subterfuge and obfuscation, it's an observation, what I have been told by the people defending these part time citizens is that they follow their own laws and if those laws merge with existing laws of the State they live in or of the United States, it's a happy coincidence. If however, they don't, then Freemen choose to ignore those laws.

This quoted remark of yours is riddled with subterfuge and obfuscation. "Part time citizens" is a phrase of your own making and nothing you "have been told by the people defending" the freeman movement. Nor have you "been told" they follow their own laws merge (sic) with existing laws of the State they live in..." They may be "observations" made by you, but they are "observations" made by someone particularly affected with an ideological myopia of which no prescription for corrective glasses exist.

Your assertion that "they pick and choose" which laws they want to obey ignores your own willingness to do the same.

Originally posted by whatukno

Irrelevant to this discussion as these are supposedly United States citizens charged with breaking laws of the state they reside in. They are claiming sovereignty, in essence declaring that they are indeed not citizens of the United States or citizens of the state they reside but in practice they are claiming that they are immune from prosecution because they claim no citizenship for the state or the country they reside.

So it's either, they are illegal immigrants from no country at all, or they are Citizens of the state they reside, and subject to the laws of that state.

No, they are full time citizens of the US, discounting for the moment the Canadian contingent, but there is a "special" distinction.

THEY consider themselves Constitutional "sovereign citizens" and others [that would be the likes of you [by non-renunciation] and me, or *especially* *me* by non revocable biology], to be "second class citizens" of the 14th Amendment variety" IOW: If you are not of the White Male, over 21, variety you need not apply.

[edit on 4/7/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

[edit on 4/7/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

Three edits!! Tired I am.

[edit on 4/7/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Your assertion that "they pick and choose" which laws they want to obey ignores your own willingness to do the same.

Knowing you broke the law and then using those same laws to skirt your way around it is quite different than just ignoring the law and claiming that it does not apply to you.

Anyway, this all boils down to this simple thing.

Go ahead, if you feel that your a freeman, and that none of the laws apply to you if you don't want them to, then go right on ahead, just don't cry fowl if and when you wind up in county jail for driving without a license. Because a judge (you know, one of those guys that is part of the 3rd branch of our government) is going to throw the book at you and show you the weight of the law (codes, statutes, regulations)

reply to post by whatukno

Knowing you broke the law and then using those same laws to skirt your way around it is quite different than just ignoring the law and claiming that it does not apply to you.

Here is precisely the evidence of your own lawless nature. You wish to somehow distinguish yourself from the freeman movement and hold yourself as someone with a higher moral purpose because you merely break laws and attempt to skirt around the legality, whereas a freeman will simply question the jurisdiction of a law. Challenging jurisdiction is a legal and lawful action, criminal actions that you have admitted to is not, but somehow in your twisted view you are superior to those who act lawfully, while your own unlawful actions are excused by errant youth.

Go ahead, if you feel that your a freeman, and that none of the laws apply to you if you don't want them to, then go right on ahead, just don't cry fowl if and when you wind up in county jail for driving without a license. Because a judge (you know, one of those guys that is part of the 3rd branch of our government) is going to throw the book at you and show you the weight of the law (codes, statutes, regulations)

It has been my consistent experience that liars have some of the worst memories known to humanity. It is no surprise to me that your memory is so weak that you have conveniently forgotten that I make no claims to be a freeman. I am, however, a person who possesses certain inalienable rights, and I am only subject to those laws that have jurisdiction over me.

When a person is illegally detained or arrested if they hope to have their inalienable rights acknowledged by the court, the very first thing they must do is "cry fowl", (sic, although I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was a play on words coming from the woodpecker), otherwise the lack of protestation can and will be used as a presumption of acquiescence and tacit agreement of the abrogation and derogation of right.

Of course, that is a legal matter, of which you have quite handily demonstrated you know nothing about. You have also demonstrated you could care less for the law, and will, if you deem it so, break that law simply because you don't agree with it.

Your assertion that a judge, (you know that guy who has been mandated with adhering to law, not legislation, but law), will throw the book at any person who has challenged jurisdiction, simply for challenging it, is just more ignorance coming from a wascally woodpecker who gleefully admits to lawlessness only to turn around and "cry fowl" when people assert their inalienable rights and lawfully challenge jurisdiction of dubious legislative acts.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


So what court would they be tried in if they win their appeal for jurisdiction?

Because a person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial. Therefore there must be a trial, and if there is no jurisdiction in any territory of the United States that is qualified to judge the person accused of the crime then obviously they are not a citizen of the United States now are they?

So, Freemen are willfully giving up their citizenship, and therefore, whenever a LEO encounters a Freeman, the Freeman must be turned over to INS for deportation.

And because they have no country to be deported to, they will remain in detention for an indefinite period of time.

On a side note, isn't it interesting that I can debate you without resorting to sad pathetic attempts at insulting you?

[edit on 7/4/2010 by whatukno]