Freeman on the Land - opting out of society

Factual Questions
121

I thought we had all been clear that the claims have been knocked down by dozens of courts over decades. The cites have never been forthcoming. It is not a matter of this being something new that people just thought of. It is old news.

That is a different matter from its being inherently silly. But it is that as well. Anyone who understands the law would understand that these claims are prima facie different from all other legal claims.

So magic words claims are inherent nonsense that cannot ever have cites and have been shot down from every angle by every level of court, not just once but many times, so many that some courts are sanctioning people who even bring them up, because it is a frivolous waste of the court’s time.

That is as different and distinct from any example you raised as can possibly be in law.

Perhaps this is all new to you and you are approaching it with caution. That’s fine up to the point where it ignores that we have been trying to inform you why your caution is invalid in this particular case. That we have found many different ways of telling you that your arguments are incorrect doesn’t negate that.

122

But – for purposes of this discussion – I’m not especially interested in why they’re wrong. I’m interested in why they think they’re right. If we can knock it down at the “why they think they’re right” stage, we don’t even need to get to the “why they’re wrong” stage. If we skip right to the “why they’re wrong” stage, we might be patting ourselves on the back for knocking down arguments they’re not even making while ignoring the arguments they’re actually making.

But I don’t give a crap about the latter. Whether it’s inherently silly strikes me as entirely irrelevant to why they think they’re right or whether they’re wrong.

Again, the latter isn’t what really interests me. The former part, the “cannot ever have cites” part, that’s the meat of the argument. Put that up and the part about shooting it down follows naturally. Why skip to the “shooting it down” part?

Well, no. Some of the “different ways” had no merit whatsoever.

Little Nemo’s “pretty much always wrong” rule of thumb about claiming “the courts can’t do something” was especially bad if it was meant in reply to the multiple examples that applied to courts (namely, saying “the statute of limitations ran out” or “this court already litigated that matter”). Ravenman’s ‘compel to drop charges for a wide range of crimes’ criterion was likewise especially bad in light of multiple examples that apply to a wide range of crimes (namely, saying “the statute of limitations ran out” or “this court already litigated that matter”).

Their follow-up responses had merit, though I still don’t think they touch the underlying question. But why claim their initial responses were any good? How does that help you?

Look, either the woo-woos can produce valid cites or they can’t. Nemo’s rule of thumb is useless in deducing whether such cites exist. Ravenman’s criterion is likewise useless in deducing whether such cites exist. Claiming “inherent silliness” is useless in that regard as well. If the woo-woos can’t produce valid cites – and I suspect they can’t – then nothing else matters. If they can produce valid cites, then nothing else matters.

123

Then go read their insane literature. The OP
had links to it. Here’s one set of principles.

It’s just plain BS. The idea that one could go into court and say that the court has no right to try a PERSON (as opposed to a person) is just nonsense.

Again, a claim that the statute of limitations ran out doesn’t bring an end to a legal process. The claim must be examined for its legal aspects (what law is alleged to have been broken? What is the statute of limitations?) and factual (when did the crime occur?). There can be argument by either side on these matters.

The Freeman position is that they can exempt themselves from any argument in any court by simply saying the right things. (See my citation.) Again, it is BS.

124

Because the whole argument is that the government wants to sieze property. But the only way they could do that was to sew gold fringes on flags and invoke admiralty law. Which is ridiculous. If the government wants to sieze your property they enact a law that says, “We’re taking your stuff. Ha ha. Live with it.” They don’t have to go through all this rigamarole about flags.

You’re still missing the point. Where did the statute of limitations come from? Where did double jeopardy come from? Where did Miranda rights come from? Where did rules of inadmissable evidence come from? They all came from within the legal system. So the point is that the legal system has power over everything - even the legal system itself.

125

The dude will still owe the IRS, even in his Antarctican fortress: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97324,00.html

126

Yes, and – as per your link – the woo-woo in question would cheerfully answer likewise about his idée fixe. Where did the statute of limitations come from? Where did double jeopardy come from? Where did Miranda rights come from? Where did rules of inadmissible evidence come from? They all came from within the legal system, which has power over everything, including the legal system itself. Where, we ask the woo-woo, did this “gold fringe” technicality come from? He’d answer by saying it came from the legal system, which has power over everything, including the legal system itself. He’d answer by saying it came from U.S.C. Chapter 1 and an Executive Order signed by Eisenhower that got published in the Federal Register and everything.

The woo-woo in your link doesn’t postulate a deity as justification or put forth some truth held to be self-evident; he’s out to base his odd claim on codified decisions from elected government officials, and will say “Act of Congress” this and “Presidential signature” that when pressed.

By contrast, Ravenman’s latest post links to a woo-woo page that doesn’t build an argument around the same stuff that gave rise to statutes of limitations and double-jeopardy rules and so on. Ravenman’s link showcases a whole different kind of crazy. But your guy? Your guy claims the “gold fringe” claim has its basis within the legal system, just like age-of-consent laws and admissible-evidence restrictions and double-jeopardy bans. Your guy would have no problem describing the gold-fringe rule the same way you just described the statute-of-limitations rule.

Not that Ravenman’s link is entirely unhelpful in this regard:

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
The Freeman position is that they can exempt themselves from any argument in any court by simply saying the right things. (See my citation.) Again, it is BS.
[/QUOTE]

But if you poke around on that linked website a bit, a number of 'em quickly add that the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right and the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the 1700 Act of Settlement are legal statutes that were made by the people and rubber-stamped by British Parliament. Horatius linked to a post and thread on a different site where a woo-woo attempts to cite Section 18 of the Notary Act. DrDeth linked to a page of stories about people trying to get proceedings dropped by citing everything from the Coinage Act of 1792 to the Thirteenth Amendment to the OMB number of the Treasury regulation requiring the filing of a Form 1040. Northern Piper and Miss Violaceous agreed that woo-woos keep on citing the Uniform Commercial Code.

I’m sure there are woo-woos out there who don’t fit that bill. But there seem to be plenty who believe they’re merely citing this or that codified technicality, whether from an enacted statute or a Constitutional Amendment or whatever, in much the same way that you or I would legitimately cite a twenty-year statute of limitations or a Constitutional ban on double-jeopardy proceedings or whatever.

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Again, a claim that the statute of limitations ran out doesn’t bring an end to a legal process. The claim must be examined for its legal aspects (what law is alleged to have been broken? What is the statute of limitations?) and factual (when did the crime occur?). There can be argument by either side on these matters.
[/QUOTE]

And, again, they don’t figure that merely saying the courtroom’s flag has a gold fringe on it brings an end to the legal process either.

Look, you don’t automatically win a case in the real world by saying “they’re claiming I committed this crime more than five years ago, and that’s past the statute of limitations”. If you say that and they’re accusing you of a crime committed five days ago, the magic words accomplish nothing; they’ll check the date and proceed. If you say it’s a five-year statute of limitations and it’s a twenty-year one, you’ll likewise fail to stop 'em in their tracks; they’ll cite the right law and cheerfully proceed. But if you’re right about the facts and the law, then saying “the statute of limitations already ran out” – well, it works.

It works even though they really want to lock you up for raping that poor girl. It works even though they really want to prosecute you for robbing all those people or dealing all those drugs or whatever.

Ditto for saying “double jeopardy, man; this court already litigated that matter.” It doesn’t work if you’re wrong, but it works if you’re right – no matter that they really want to lock you up for the rape or the robbery or whatever. Ditto for claiming you were under the age of consent when you signed the contract: you’re raising a question of fact (how old were you then?) and a question of law (what age is codified as the cut-off?) – so, yeah, don’t try saying it if you weren’t under the age of consent, and don’t try claiming the age of consent is thirty-seven either. But if the facts and the law are on your side, then, sure, mention it for the win.

And that’s how they feel about the gold fringe on flags. Even the woo-woos don’t think it automatically gets you a win; you’re merely raising a question of fact, in a courtroom where the flag might have a silver fringe or a black one or no fringe at all. But if you are in a courtroom where the flag has a gold fringe, then as with a statute of limitations or a ban on double-jeopardy prosecutions or whatever – well, the legal question is whether you can provide a relevant cite from codified law, sure as the factual question is whether this flag has that fringe.

127

On the page I linked to, #15 states that if you send a registered letter to someone saying “I agree to pay the debt of the contract,” then the courts are precluded from further action on a civil claim, and may in fact find the plaintiff in contempt for daring to bring into court a Freeman who said the magic words.

Seriously, that’s as stark as it comes. Person A runs out on a contracted debt, Person B tries to collect, Person A sends a registered letter with a few magic words in it, and therefore judges are prohibited from adjudicating the case (but might order the arrest of Person B).

128

Hey guys, don’t work too hard at trying to find consistency or rationality in woo-woo. It ain’t there.