But we already threw off the Admiralty!

Ahem. The USA has been on common law all along. And we threw out the Admiralty in the 1770’s. Those words mean things other than what you think they mean.

I’m seriously worried for you here. When you use language like this, you sound dangerously close to falling for pseudolaw scams, which could cost you a lot of money and/or your freedom.

What common law really is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law (long)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_law (short)

See here for the scams:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman-on-the-land

This stuff does not work. The law does not work that way. Common law is not some magical consensual opt-in. We are not living in the Biblical Book of Judges, where every man can do as he sees fit. Our society and legal tradition is both largely democratic and largely common law already, and there’s not really a contradiction there.

Scams of this nature probably pop up under several other names, like “Constitutionalism.” So eyes open, and use some common sense. Courts, unlike scam artists, are not playing around. The courts are entirely convinced the laws they enforce are the legitimate laws, and there isn’t a way out of their jurisdiction for the common man.

I predict this will end well.

Yes, very. I have this disturbing image: This page becoming an ever-increasing storm of mockery, meanwhile some unscrupulous poster finds our poor idealistic constitutionalist and tries to sell him some swampland.

Let’s actually try to be informative, guys.

I’m just grateful for the American colonies invention of democracy in 1776.

Fess up foolsguinea, you’re heavily invested in gold . . . fringe aren’t you? :wink:

CMC fnord!

Gold fringe implies admiralty law. Admiralty law implies a court-martial. And I cannot be court-martialled twice for the same crime!

She can afford it with all the money she saved by opting out of the voluntary income tax.

You know how to opt out of the voluntary income tax? Voluntarily have an income lower than the personal exemption. At least, that’s how I did it. It’s not that great.

OK, so not listening.

SG, if you do decide to come back, just don’t hijack other threads.

Actually, the core ideas (if not the primary intentions and expectations) of the “freeman on the land” folks are legitimate. I really AM a sovereign citizen and I really do NOT have to consider myself bound in any way by the laws of the land if I do not consent to be governed.

Of course that does not in any way compel the United States of America (or the State of New York or the City of New York or the Borough of Manhattan) to try to negotiate with me.

Being an anarchist does not magically free you of the effects of government, either.

I’ve heard appellate judges discuss this in Continuing Legal Education courses (CLE – lawyers are required to take some to keep their licenses current). They remark how it’s an interesting experience to have a “sovereign citizen” appear before you as a pro se litigant – “These guys seem to speak some kind of language of their own” – but they never make any arguments any judge can take seriously.

It all seems to be a type of cargo-cult mentality towards the law. If I can just learn the right magic phrases, all good things will be given to me. Has anyone yet written a real sociological paper on these people?

This is exactly right. You can declare yourself a free man, not bound by society’s rules. And society will ignore your declaration and treat you like they treat the rest of the serfs. You can tell the cops they have no authority to arrest you, the cops will arrest you anyway. You can tell the judge that his laws are a sham, and he’ll send you to prison anyway. You can tell the prison guard he’s a fascist, and he’ll keep you locked up anyway.

You’re perfectly free to regard the laws and police and courts and social customs of America as illegitimate. However, declaring this won’t change the way the organs of social control operate. That’s the part that doesn’t make sense. The fascist cops and judges can do whatever they want, so why should they let you go just because you don’t recognize their authority? If they replaced the real laws with fake laws back in 1787, why would the judges operate according to the real law, just because you asked them nicely? If it’s all a big conspiricy to enslave us all, why would they let you opt out of being enslaved? Who’s going to stop them from just ignoring the “real” law, and treating you like all the other sheep?

Ha! Just because you got rid of the Emperor and Darth Vader?! It’s not that easy, rebel scum! The Admiralty survives! Well, those Admirals whom Vader did not remote-strangle survive, anyway . . .

I think of it as a “cheat code” mentality-people grow up thinking that there is always a work-around, or “cheat”, available.

Yes, my point exactly, although you said it better than I did.

With apologies to the Coen brothers…

“You may have declared yourself a free man but the state of Mississippi’s liable to be little more hard-nosed about it.”

Sorry about that.

Last time I had to appear in court for a traffic ticket, I just did “left left X Y up left trigger,” and then I vaporized the judge with a fireball.

It’s more like “If I say the magic word, it puts me in ‘God Mode’ and none of the rules apply to me”