The S.S. World Freeman Society is listing, badly...

[arayder]

The usual cop out. . .

Lets get down to cases:

"Freemen on the land" are a loose group of people who claim that all statute law is contractual, and that such law is applicable only if an individual consents to be governed by it. They believe that they can therefore declare themselves independent of government jurisdiction, holding that the only "true" law is their particular interpretation of the term "common law".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

Question asked. Answer avoided. Question answered.

Shall we move on?

[bmxninja357]

im not sure anyone actually asked you a question. but actually in reality your assigned definitions are meaningless; particularly when offered from a site based solely in bias opinions. remember when you and your jref mates had it changed because freemen had actually put up what was far closer to the truth? then whined when it was changed back? right up until you got your way?

but alas, i answered the original question asked of me, if that forces you to defend your opinion, no matter how misguided, i will no longer engage you in such buffoonery.

i seem to be able to communicate with most here in a civil manner, for better or worse. but with you i will no longer acknowledge your persistent foolishness. arguing with a fool only proves there are two. i do not intend for you to let me prove that with you.

sorry to the mods, i will not continue down this road. its just hard not to reply when the foolishness is directed in a way to disparage others to hide faults in their debate notes.

ninj

[arayder]

Freeman debate trick number 5:

Haughtily feign insult so as to avoid discussion or answering a question.

[wserra]

i can answer without over reaching my boundaries.

if i was to define the first word i would use this definition,

"freeman
One born or made free as to civil rights.
Source : William C. Anderson, A Dictionary of Law (1893)"

OK, that's me too.

now im sure at some point the "on the land" did refer to admiralty law; but as i have said my understanding has grown and as a whole i would say the term, 'freeman on the land' is a simple way to distinguish this group from others.

What group? And what is the "simple way to distinguish"?

and as an aside, some seem to belive 'freeman' comes from the magna carta

As I said, I really don't care where it comes from. I assume that you believe yourself to be a "freeman on the land". From the ways I've seen the phrase used, I don't believe that I'm one. I accept your definition of "freeman". So what makes us different?

hope that answers a few things.

For the above reasons, it doesn't.

sorry to the mods, i will not continue down this road. its just hard not to reply when the foolishness is directed in a way to disparage others to hide faults in their debate notes.

No apologies necessary, but I'm not doing that.

[arayder]

This is sorta like when a freeman gets pulled over by the cops for speeding and rather than tell the officer he doesn't have a license, registration or insurance he starts yammering, demanding the cop's business card, that the cop provide proof that he's taken a proper oath and telling the cop he's out of uniform because he doesn't have his hat on.

This sort of thing is thought, in the freeman subculture, to be brilliant! But it's coyness mistaken for smarts.

Hells bells, folks, we all know what freemen are and what they believe.

[bmxninja357]

What group? And what is the "simple way to distinguish"?

c'mon man. there are several different and distinct groups. the easy pickings are some are preferring to define by things like race or religion or geographic or geopolitical region. some are defined by political lean. some defined by lack of anything of the sort. etc.....

As I said, I really don't care where it comes from. I assume that you believe yourself to be a "freeman on the land". From the ways I've seen the phrase used, I don't believe that I'm one.

you asked distinctly where i thought it came from. i answered with not only where i believe it to be from but also what i believe it is. i also do not believe you are one. sorry, i dont mean to be a grammar guy.

if you do not accept my answer it does not change it. i think there is a lot of inaccurate info going both ways. im not saying my opinion is right but i dont think yours is yet either.

No apologies necessary, but I'm not doing that.

"im sorry but i dont believe in apologizing."-homer simpson

peace,
ninj

[arayder]

Traffic cop: License and registration, please..

Freeman: I'll need to see your business card.

Traffic cop: License and registration, please. I'll need to see your proof of insurance, too..

Freeman: I'll need to see your business card.

Traffic cop: License and registration, please..

Freeman: I'll need to see your business card.

Traffic cop: License and registration, please..

Freeman: I need to see a copy of the oath you took as a policy officer.

Traffic cop: License and registration, please..

Freeman: I need to see a copy of the oath you took as a policy officer.

Traffic cop: License, registration and insurance right now!!!.

Freeman: You are frightening me.

Traffic cop: License and registration. Do you have a license and auto registration?.

Freeman: I need to see a copy of the oath you took as a policy officer.

Traffic cop: I am only going to ask one more time. . .license, registration, and insurance.

Freeman: I don't have to respond to you. You are not in uniform.

Traffic cop: What?.

Freeman: You have no hat!

------------------

The question: So what is a "freeman on the land"? -- wserra, September 8, 2014

The simple answer:

https://www.facebook.com/WorldFreemanSociety/info

"A Freeman on the Land is someone in a common law jurisdiction who lawfully refuses to give consent to be governed, therefore no statutory obligations or restrictions apply to that human being."

--------------------

[wserra]

you asked distinctly where i thought it came from.

Not exactly.

So what is a "freeman on the land"?

I'm not so much interested in where it comes from as what bmxninja357 means by it.

In fact, I specifically said that I wasn't asking where it came from, but rather what you mean by it. You're a mod of a forum apparently devoted to "freemen on the land". Define the phrase for me.

[arayder]

We may not be getting an answer to the question, but we are finding out why the S.S. World Freeman Society is listing, badly.

[Pottapaug1938]

We may not be getting an answer to the question, but we are finding out why the S.S. World Freeman Society is listing, badly.

I think that the starboard rail is probably under water by now.

[notorial dissent]

Well Ninj, I'll give you credit for one thing, 150 words without actually saying anything, or committing to anything, truly worthy of a politician or an apologist.

HOWEVER.... You haven’t answered the question. So try a gain, it’s a simple honest question.

[wserra]

It appears as though ninj is no longer a moderator there. And then there's yesterday's semi-literate rant from user "Xabre":

All of a sudden im being Moderated....bull Shit BAWANA!!! if this is the case I'll take my business else where!
I do NOT come to WFS to be Moderated! I DO NOT come to WFS to see if my Topics or Reply's are politically CORRECT!!! I do not come to WFS to be gentle if there is a topic that does NOT CALL for BEING Gentle. I dont come to WFS to coddle the faint of heart...
I come to WFS to tell it like I see it!, I come to WFS to Debate and exchange ideas, I come to WFS to disagree or Agree and if the subject gets heated then so be it....but the minute you start censoring the subject matter than this site has lost what its mantra stands for....not impressed!!!

to which user "trvthseeker" responds:

Good luck. There is not a forum with free speech. Not one.

Well, actually, there is at least one . . .

[notorial dissent]

I think I remember ninj saying he bailed because of the attitude over there and being tired of the BS or something colorful to that end.

[wserra]

It's amazing these guys don't tie their shoes together every morning.

[Famspear]

It's amazing these guys don't tie their shoes together every morning.

I especially enjoyed the comments about "cereal killers."

[pigpot]

i just know your little dance around a simple fact its none of your business

Look around, ninja. Freemanism is dying as we speak because it can't decide what it is and can't adhere to its ever-changing core beliefs.

Freemanism says it's about not harming others. . .yet between the bad legal advice and outright frauds it can't seem to do anything but harm.

Freemnism says it's about openness and honesty. . .but when somebody asks where the money went they get a sophistic two step.

I suspect you don't have a clue what happened to the money and just can't own up to the reality that you weren't paying attention.

actually the changes could be seen as a good thing and proof of progress. as to freemanism dying thats a horn you have been blowing for many years already. and here the freemen are still. i wonder how many times you have claimed it was dead now and been wrong? gotta be dozens.

personally i came here for a greater understanding on certain legal issues not to argue about things with you. but you cant see the forest for the trees. so i will learn from others and let you rant on about everyone being whatever name you choose to give them and how they need to be accountable to you. i can simply ignore it.

ninj

Oh, no. . .my point is that the folks who ran the World Freeman Society never accepted accountable to anyone, including its own members, about anything.

One has to wonder why you are continuing the coverup?

You see this is my my point about Freemanism, it's simple, it doesn't work. End of... Wait that's wrong. Too many people just spew out ad hominem stuff like I've just typed but as I said it's just plain wrong. There's reasons why it's wrong and here are some of them.

I was a little transfixed by what one man called Robert had to say. But as time went on I quite quickly realised his position was oxy-moronic. The same as all the other followers he has had over the years and any one who calls themselves a freeman-on-the-land but believes in government in any sense whatsoever.

Let's just look at the words involved. Simply start with I want to be "free" yet I accept being "governed". You can just stop right there. Same for the sovereign citizen. Makes no sense at all and neither do those that subscribe to it's doctrines. Some can hardly have passed third grade with they way in which they type and make fools out of themselves professing knowledge of legal matters and giving opinions on such like.

At the very least I am thankful that this site affords me the ability to warn others about the way "Freemanism" (if there is such a thing) has moved. It never seemed to be so and the direction of the site changed very much when Peter moved on. The site from others words was "cloned" and given a new direction. Robert became nothing more than a has been and his peaceful ideas were usurped and modified to fit a new agenda. All of I care nothing more for these days. There are some good people left there but they are the few.

They bemoan government yet they still profess to want it in a "good" form. Sorry people there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Better maybe... A dictator nonetheless.

Just stick to the facts and it becomes as clear as day. No opinions wanted and let alone needed. The main problem over there was that some wished to define what a freeman is / was / could be. Again they were SO ARROGANT that they "believed" that their opinion was somehow FACT . They create various other sites (which numbers are at best pitiful) and keep shouting how they are right. Shouty, shouty doesn't make you right.

Compare this World Freeman Society against the Freeman-on-the-land (FMOTL) website previously run by one Veronica (Ronnie) Chapman and you'll notice a whole world of difference in the (real) memberships numbers etc. There is much less of a doctrine over on FMOTL but it's run quite well and deals more in facts than opinions.

So there's some of the dealings I've had with these people.

My issues of government versus anarchy and power versus authority are an altogether different issue. Nothing to do with what I've wrote. One thing for the end of this post though... Again there cannot be and never has or never will be a benevolent dictator. Disagree with that? Show me one such example.

Cheers.

[Burnaby49]

My issues of government versus anarchy and power versus authority are an altogether different issue. Nothing to do with what I've wrote. One thing for the end of this post though... Again there cannot be and never has or never will be a benevolent dictator. Disagree with that? Show me one such example.

Lee Kuan Yew

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew

http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/ ... -dictator/

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malay ... t-dictator

[Wake Up! Productions]

I have a question for anyone who is familiar with Youtube policy.

As some of you may know, I am the creator of the youtube freeman film, "Consent Of The Governed: The Freeman Movement Defined".

A few months ago I DELETED my original upload of this film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEXAUBMwgr0, however I had already granted the World Freeman Society youtube channel the right to upload the film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMjPbbM5fPU

My question is - is there any lawful way to rescind that grant of permission - given that I have already deleted my original upload?

[wserra]

One of the machers from WFS - an idiot who calls himself "thinker2" and has a hugely-inflated opinion of his own, well, thinking - has started posting on Marc Stevens' board. It isn't going well. I particularly like how the folks there are starting to ask him for proof.

Careful there, guys. Or, in other words, "Physician, heal thyself".