It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Laws vs statutes" is a silly little subterfuge. Indefensible. Illogical.
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.
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.
Natural law also dictates survival of the fittest and among humans as an animal in nature that means murder to perpetuate the strongest genes.
What State laws are they violating?
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?
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.
nd since these are supposed sovereign citizens, citizens without government, they can therefore under natural law declare war on their own.
I would be interested to hear how the experts on this subject respond.
More baseless rhetoric? Do you realize it only hurts your credibility and does nothing for the debate or for the discovery of truth?
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.
"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.
A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law and the regulations issued by government agencies. 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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Well, if I was in China, then I would certainly follow the laws of China now wouldn't I?
These freemen don't believe that they are in the country they are in? So they are delusional?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)