toward being a free man on the land

[marcmcroy]

@Gorsnak

Read this decision from a court in Alberta and get back to us.

This is why we are special appearence before court there is no court of record when a free man is and questions of sovereign soul and jurisdiction of the human being are brought into question. You never know of our victories in claiming our being above the statutes that try to entrap us. It would be very harmful to the illusion if a court of record showed otherwise, wouldn’t you agree?

[Der_Trihs]

@marcmcroy

This is why we are special appearence before court there is no court of record when a free man is and questions of sovereign soul and jurisdiction of the human being are brought into question. You never know of our victories in claiming our being above the statutes that try to entrap us.

Since such a thing never happens it would be rather difficult for us to know about it. You are not above the “statutes”, and that’s an end to it.

[running_coach]

@marcmcroy

This is why we are special appearence before court there is no court of record when a free man is and questions of sovereign soul and jurisdiction of the human being are brought into question. You never know of our victories in claiming our being above the statutes that try to entrap us. It would be very harmful to the illusion if a court of record showed otherwise, wouldn’t you agree?

That’s because it doesn’t work. Care to link to a few victories?

[marcmcroy]

@Der_Trihs

:rolleyes: Even if there was a god of any kind, and that a god actually went to the trouble of interpreting “existing Doctrines and documents” and handing its opinion over to you, it still wouldn’t matter since such a god’s opinion would have no legal force.

But you are of the creator the creator is you. and you( we the people created the government) isnt it odd that the creator is bound by the created does that seem natural to you?

[Amateur_Barbarian]

Nearly all such “independence” movements depend on existing within the boundaries of safety, security and peace provided by the nation. In other words, these “free men” are hardy individuals the way a kindergartner is king of the sand castle he just built during recess.

[Great_Antibob]

@marcmcroy

I am knowing this revelation through Divine Interpretation of existing Doctrines and documents.
Beliefs can be changed but facts are facts. right?

Random capitalization of words aside, you are certainly free to leave our society and be free elsewhere.

The price for being part of our society is abiding by the rules of that society. You want to be part of our society without paying that price. That’s not being free. That’s freeloading. Better known as stealing.

If that’s what you really want, go buy up some property hundreds of miles from anybody else and live your free life without relying on the rest of society to cover your share of the cost.

@marcmcroy

But you are of the creator the creator is you. and you( we the people created the government) isnt it odd that the creator is bound by the created does that seem natural to you?

Perfectly natural. In the Abrahamic tradition, God makes covenants all the time and abides by them. That’s textbook “bound by the created” right there.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@marcmcroy

How can I be accountable to state statutes that i don’t want to be party to.

That logic excuses any criminal act.

[Inner_Stickler]

@marcmcroy

But you are of the creator the creator is you. and you( we the people created the government) isnt it odd that the creator is bound by the created does that seem natural to you?

He’s free to come and argue his case in front of the court, same as anyone. Assuming he brings the requisite proof of godhood and two forms of ID.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

That logic excuses any criminal act.

That’s what makes it so handy!

[marcmcroy]

Read statutes they always regard the person have you read Black’s Law definition of Person
What is PERSON?

Law Dictionary: What is PERSON? definition of PERSON (Black’s Law Dictionary) PERSON Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.
What is SOCIETY?
An association or company of persons (generally not Incorporated) unit ed together for any mutual or common purpose. In a wider seuse, the community or public; the people in general. See New York County Medical Ass’n v. New York, 32 Misc. Bep. 116, 65 N. Y. Supp. 531; Josey v. Union L. & T. Co., 106 Ga. 608, 32 S. E. 628; Gilmer v. Stone, 120 U. S. 586, 7 Sup. Ct. 689, 30 L. Ed. 734. Socii mei socius mens socius non est. The partner of my partner is not my partner. Dig. 50, 17, 47, 1.

Law Dictionary: What is SOCIETY? definition of SOCIETY (Black’s Law Dictionary) SOCIETY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary

and I want out of the club

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Inner_Stickler

That’s what makes it so handy!

Nah. Putting on my Evil!Skald hat for a moment:

To live outside the law, you must first be honest. If you want to be a freeloader, a thief, or other such malcontent, don’t faff about; just do it. Only ninnyhammers will fall for your rationalizations of your selfish and criminal actions; everyone else will see right through them.

[marcmcroy]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

That logic excuses any criminal act.

Common law who is the injured party?

[BrainGlutton]

@marcmcroy

shallow judgemental words from folks without merit
c’mon i know its peculiar and out of the ordinary how about the legalese from Blacks law dictionary about what a human being is compared to the attributes of a “person”
the difference between statute and color or force of law and all the individual corporate courts and corporate status of “persons”

This (or, better still, your OP) is the point where you are supposed to post all that.

[marcmcroy]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Nah. Putting on my Evil!Skald hat for a moment:

To live outside the law, you must first be honest. If you want to be a freeloader, a thief, or other such malcontent, don’t faff about; just do it. Only ninnyhammers will fall for your rationalizations of your selfish and criminal actions; everyone else will see right through them.

who says freeloader where did that come from ? just the opposite I dont want babies to die at the hands of a goverment employee it is you that want to dismiss good common moral laws to be safe in you gilded prison

[BrainGlutton]

@marcmcroy

If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake should in terms renounce or give up any
natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would
absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of
ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily
become a slave. Samuel Adams 1772

1. That passage sheds no light at all on what is or is not a “natural right”.

2. Pace Mr. Adams, there are no natural rights, no more than there is natural law.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

You’re welcome to get out of the club. However, you don’t get to be selective about what “club benefits” you can keep - so if you reject the whole social/legal contract, you’d better have an outstandingly defended position somewhere and never leave it, because any other person could pop you right between the eyes without a consequence.

[BrainGlutton]

@marcmcroy

. . . how about the legalese from Blacks law dictionary about what a human being is compared to the attributes of a “person”

Here ya go:

What is PERSON?

A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.

What is MAN?

A human being. A person of the male sex. A male of the human species above the age of puberty. In feudal law. A vassal; a tenant or feudatory. The Anglo-Saxon relation of lord and man was originally purely personal, and founded on mutual contract. 1 Spence, Ch. 37.

For “HUMAN” there is no listing.

[marcmcroy]

@Amateur_Barbarian

You’re welcome to get out of the club. However, you don’t get to be selective about what “club benefits” you can keep - so if you reject the whole social/legal contract, you’d better have an outstandingly defended position somewhere and never leave it, because any other person could pop you right between the eyes without a consequence.

Beautiful you get it, so my family, if i did catch one has no recourse because i am not a “person” I am a human being I would have to settle for common law jurisdiction ( which is a victim crime so my survivors will find the culprit yes I am protected by law not statute. )

[BrainGlutton]

@marcmcroy

shallow judgemental words from folks without merit
c’mon i know its peculiar and out of the ordinary how about the legalese from Blacks law dictionary about what a human being is compared to the attributes of a “person”
the difference between statute and color or force of law and all the individual corporate courts and corporate status of “persons”

You’d really better look at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s analysis.

The movement is rooted in racism and anti-Semitism, though most sovereigns, many of whom are African American, are unaware of their beliefs’ origins. In the early 1980s, the sovereign citizens movement mostly attracted white supremacists and anti-Semites, mainly because sovereign theories originated in groups that saw Jews as working behind the scenes to manipulate financial institutions and control the government. Most early sovereigns, and some of those who are still on the scene, believed that being white was a prerequisite to becoming a sovereign citizen. They argued that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guaranteed citizenship to African Americans and everyone else born on U.S. soil, also made black Americans permanently subject to federal and state governments, unlike themselves

The Sovereign Belief System
The contemporary sovereign belief system is based on a decades-old conspiracy theory. At some point in history, sovereigns believe, the American government set up by the founding fathers — with a legal system the sovereigns refer to as “common law” — was secretly replaced by a new government system based on admiralty law, the law of the sea and international commerce. Under common law, or so they believe, the sovereigns would be free men. Under admiralty law, they are slaves, and secret government forces have a vested interest in keeping them that way. Some sovereigns believe this perfidious change occurred during the Civil War, while others blame the events of 1933, when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard. Either way, they stake their lives and livelihoods on the idea that judges around the country know all about this hidden government takeover but are denying the sovereigns’ motions and filings out of treasonous loyalty to hidden and malevolent government forces.

Though this all sounds bizarre, the next layer of the argument becomes even more implausible. Since 1933, the U.S. dollar has been backed not by gold, but by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government (in fact, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ended private ownership of gold in large amounts in 1933; governments could still sell gold for dollars to the U.S. Treasury for a fixed amount after that, until that practice was ended by President Richard Nixon in 1971). According to sovereign “researchers,” this means that the government has pledged its citizenry as collateral, by selling their future earning capabilities to foreign investors, effectively enslaving all Americans. This sale, they claim, takes place at birth. When a baby is born in the U.S., a birth certificate is issued, and the hospital usually requires that the parents apply for a Social Security number at that time. Sovereigns say that the government then uses that birth certificate to set up a kind of corporate trust in the baby’s name — a secret Treasury account — which it funds with an amount ranging from $600,000 to $20 million, depending on the particular variant of the sovereign belief system. By setting up this account, every newborn’s rights are cleverly split between those held by the flesh-and-blood baby and the ones assigned to his or her corporate shell account.

The sovereigns believe evidence for their theory is found on the birth certificate itself. Since most certificates use all capital letters to spell out a baby’s name, JOHN DOE, for example, is actually the name of the corporate shell identity, or “straw man,” while John Doe is the baby’s “real,” flesh-and-blood name. As the child grows older, most of his legal documents will utilize capital letters, which means that his state-issued driver’s license, his marriage license, his car registration, his criminal court records, his cable TV bill and correspondence from the IRS all will pertain to his corporate shell identity, not his real, sovereign identity.

The process sovereigns have devised to split the straw man from the flesh-and-blood man is called “redemption,” and its purpose is two-fold. Once separated from the corporate shell, the newly freed man is now outside of the jurisdiction of all admiralty laws. More importantly, by filing a series of complex, legal-sounding documents, the sovereign can tap into that secret Treasury account for his own purposes. Over the past 30 years, hundreds of sovereigns have attempted to perfect the process by packaging and promoting different combinations of forms and paperwork. While no one has ever succeeded, for the obvious reason that these theories are not true, sovereigns are nonetheless convinced with the religious certainty of a true cult believer that they’re close. All it will take, say the promoters of the redemption scam, is the right combination of words.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@marcmcroy

<snip> just the opposite I dont want babies to die at the hands of a goverment employee <snip>

Wait, what? Whose baby has die at the hand’s of a government employee? What are you talking about here?