Walter Raddatz; Canadian Freeman cop killer

[LordEd]

Its on front page CBC now.

"I am not lawfully obligated to pay fines handed out by those taxation pirates," he wrote in one post.

"They will have to drag me to court by force. I will not voluntarily enter a corrupt admiralty court," he wrote in another.

Brace for impact. Stormy weather for the freeman minded.

[Burnaby49]

As I said, even if you can argue to us that Raddatz was, somehow, not a Freeman it is irrelevant. The press and public are equating him with the entire movement. Freemen in general were not held in high public regard before the shooting and this is turning into a public relations disaster for them regardless of how Raddatz is catagorized.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... in-advance

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... ebook-page

[bmxninja357]

really long before i had heard of freeman on the land, or it even existed as such i had heard all of those beliefs from skinhead groups in several areas of western canada. including(but not limited to)the flag arguments, the extreme hatred by race, the hatred of government and the courts have long been hallmarks of the white power movements across north america and in other countries. they would also not call themselves freemen. they would stockpile weapons much more readily than freemen. white power folks would also include things like stomper in their online persona. this is do to stomping folk with your boots and/or a reference to a skinhead favorite movie, romper stomper.

the evidence clearly points to a few shared beliefs that run nearly universally through most freedom based movements but it further points to this individual being involved with a white power group and not any freeman type group.

instead of putting a freeman label on someone who may be from a different style and type of group maybe you should be looking for the violent group he is actual involved with to expose them and see if there is more like him. it could save lives. otherwise your simply wasting surveillance on non violent protesters so you can lump everyone in one group. and it does no good.

peace,
ninj

*edited out a bad line of double.

[Jeffrey]

There's like three separate arguments here being combined.



Raddatz, like other Freemen we discuss on this board, came from a white supremacist/stormfront back ground. Two separate groups and ideologies. Freeman concepts often get shot down on racist forums but there's a contingent that holds sovereign citizen beliefs in those racist groups.

There's racists who disagree with sovereign citizen ideas who become violent and murder people, we've seen it in the past. And we've also seen Sovereigns that become violent in the past.

Cops and society in general has to treat Freemen as extremists and potentially dangerous. It's an anti-government position, and it leads to confrontation and altercations with the authorities, and it explicitly endorses the use of violence to resist government laws.

What I feel BMX might be taking issue with is the claim that Raddatz shot the cops because of his Freeman beliefs. Hard to prove, I think the personal problems and the rest of it are probably 80% of what motivated him.

But just a few months ago we had discussions on Dean Clifford where he threatened to kill cops specifically because of his freeman beliefs. Yes, we all agree 90% probably of Freemen won't pull the trigger, but as policy you can't take the risk and pretend there isn't a danger.

[Hyrion]

instead of putting a freeman label on someone who may be from a different style and type of group maybe you should be looking for the violent group he is actual involved with to expose them and see if there is more like him

I'm not looking to perform such a task. If I was I would have aimed for a career in Law Enforcement.

What I am interested in is getting a bit of understanding of the person. Therefore a label.

A label is a description of something that conveys meaning so you don't have to describe the item in question in detail.

If I said "I ate an apple" <- you'd know exactly what kind of food I consumed without any further description.

If I said "I ate a tree bearing item that was sweet, and red, and eewwwww had a worm" <- sure, it's more descriptive and, maybe if my description is complete enough, you'll know exactly what I consumed.

Label: Freeman
My quick description:

• someone who claims to be outside Societies Laws

• claims to "do no harm to others" even while they are directly involved in harming others in that same breath, for example through such means as hoisting uni-lateral agreements or by choosing not to pay for insurance even while they drive substantially above the speed limits thereby increasing the risks for everyone

• tends to view themselves as being allowed to do something that general society has deemed improper enough that it's at least a misdemeanor

• tends to use arguments that they do not allow to be used on themselves (double standards)

• tends to hold themselves above - better than - others around them

When someone says "person X is a freeman" - I view said individual as holding the traits as I've come to understand those who use the term on themselves relative to their own words and behavior.

I'm open to continuously adapting and, as a result, if someone comes along with a better term/definition, then I'll consider adopting it. If someone comes along, defines themselves as a freeman and offers up a different clear definition of the term: again, I'll consider adopting it.

Until such time as the particular definition I've come to associate with the term Freeman is no longer reasonably accurate to describe said individuals attitude and behavior - as is proven or disproven based on their own words and actions - it'll do.

If the same term ends up being used by two or more different groups carrying multiple different definitions of behavior.... well... that's the risk groups take when they select a particular label for themselves.

There's also no rule that says he can't fit the definition of multiple different groups. Being a white supremacist does not automatically mean the individual can't belong to other groups. Most groups are not mutually exclusive, an example of an exception would be if someone was part of both white supremacist and klu klux klan. There's nothing preventing a person from being both white supremacist and freeman.

[bmxninja357]

There's like three separate arguments here being combined.



Raddatz, like other Freemen we discuss on this board, came from a white supremacist/stormfront back ground. Two separate groups and ideologies. Freeman concepts often get shot down on racist forums but there's a contingent that holds sovereign citizen beliefs in those racist groups.

There's racists who disagree with sovereign citizen ideas who become violent and murder people, we've seen it in the past. And we've also seen Sovereigns that become violent in the past.

Cops and society in general has to treat Freemen as extremists and potentially dangerous. It's an anti-government position, and it leads to confrontation and altercations with the authorities, and it explicitly endorses the use of violence to resist government laws.

What I feel BMX might be taking issue with is the claim that Raddatz shot the cops because of his Freeman beliefs. Hard to prove, I think the personal problems and the rest of it are probably 80% of what motivated him.

But just a few months ago we had discussions on Dean Clifford where he threatened to kill cops specifically because of his freeman beliefs. Yes, we all agree 90% probably of Freemen won't pull the trigger, but as policy you can't take the risk and pretend there isn't a danger.

there are certain freeman that are anti Semitic. but it is a vast minority. the admiralty court theories have been around long before damn near anyone had heard the word freeman in reference to anything but slavery. a belief that laws require consent(not that all freemen believe this the same) is very much different than a belief that 'i dont have to obey no f@cking jew lawyer or there race trading laws'. skinhead groups also openly embrace violence against gov, law enforcement, homosexuals, non aryan races, and anyone who defends them. freeman as a group are non violent with the exception of a very small few. non violent resistance or operation under duress is the most common hallmark of freemen. freemen as a whole are several million times more likely to fire off some papers when they feel wronged than fire of a weapon of any type.

the chart you made could put the admiralty courts in the middle and walter moves left to the big circle. in fact theres many folks in general who believe in 'some admirality court thing' or another that are just regular joes. it comes up on coasttocoastam fairly often, and that's as main stream as it gets. its just that most are not part of any group nor do they act on every belief they hold.

and i have said before, dean clifford was a drug manufacturer with an arsenal to protect his ongoing illegal enterprise. he was about as anti cop and loudmouthed as any drug dealer. i believe he is a freeman as long as it fills his pockets. deep down i think he is just a profiteer looking for acceptance and a steady income. but thats for another thread.

There's also no rule that says he can't fit the definition of multiple different groups. Being a white supremacist does not automatically mean the individual can't belong to other groups. Most groups are not mutually exclusive, an example of an exception would be if someone was part of both white supremacist and klu klux klan. There's nothing preventing a person from being both white supremacist and freeman.

actually often there is. many skinhead groups consider klansmen to be welfare bums and white trash. this has caused many problems amongst them. virtually the same belief systems, but very different in practice and tradition.

and your apple analogy does not work. unless all fruits are apples. or do we just jump to things are food because we can eat them. the little differences are important. and so are who those folks choose to be associated with; as that is the direction they are most likely to go.

peace,
ninj

[Burnaby49]

I'm certainly not making the claim that Freemen in general espouse violence. Robert Menard is/was one of our leading Freemen and while I've made numerous negative comments about him I have to say he's not, to my knowledge, ever advocated violence. I'd be really hard-pressed to even picture him as a gun hoarder. Chief Sino Rock General, who I've covered in depth, is very anti-violence. I've met a lot of the Vancouver freemen and none have made me apprehensive. Clifford, as you say, is more of an opportunist than anything else. His only real firm belief is look out for number one.

However the general freeman philosophy of freeing yourself from the state, magically emasculating the power of the police and courts, ignoring all laws that you chose to ignore, attracts a lot of fringe players. Raddatz was one of them and whatever he was, freemen are stuck with it.

Foror a different take, try this;

http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/43- ... l?start=10

[Jeffrey]

Robert Menard is/was one of our leading Freemen and while I've made numerous negative comments about him I have to say he's not, to my knowledge, ever advocated violence.

I'll just have to disagree with you on that point. Menard has advocated violence explicitly and implicitly in the past. The entire NUICOR concept, as invented and promoted by Menard claimed that as long as you filed a NUICOR you could use lethal force to defend your property from police. i.e. Cop pulls you over and tries to impound your car, per Menards interpretation, you can shoot and kill the cop since you're operating under a claim of right. Not to mention instances where he's promoted the idea of arming C3PO and using said guns to prevent cops from enforcing statutes.

So while I agree, Menard would never shoot a cop since that would require getting off the couch. He has certainly advocated it.

[Burnaby49]

Robert Menard is/was one of our leading Freemen and while I've made numerous negative comments about him I have to say he's not, to my knowledge, ever advocated violence.

I'll just have to disagree with you on that point. Menard has advocated violence explicitly and implicitly in the past. The entire NUICOR concept, as invented and promoted by Menard claimed that as long as you filed a NUICOR you could use lethal force to defend your property from police. i.e. Cop pulls you over and tries to impound your car, per Menards interpretation, you can shoot and kill the cop since you're operating under a claim of right. Not to mention instances where he's promoted the idea of arming C3PO and using said guns to prevent cops from enforcing statutes.

So while I agree, Menard would never shoot a cop since that would require getting off the couch. He has certainly advocated it.

You win. Wasn't thinking about his arguments in favour of arming his C3PO gang. Like most Menard positions (until that traffic stop last summer) one he advocated but did not personally practice.

[Hyrion]

and your apple analogy does not work. unless all fruits are apples

You'll need to do better then that to clarify your point of why my apple analogy to explain:

• a valid use of labels to convey a much broder description/definition then if you defined what you meant fully each and every time

does not work.

Does my using the label of "apple" and stating "I'm eating an apple" somehow convey to you the impression I'm consuming a cherry? Certainly my follow up description complete with "worm" could very well lead you to think I'm eating a cherry when I'm really eating an apple.

You can reject the use of labels - whether "freeman" or otherwise - all you want. As a society, we'll keep using labels to convey information.

Your best option - if you don't like the definition we, as individuals, end up attaching to "freeman" based on our own general exposure - is to provide clarity by providing your own definition. If you disagree with any of the elements as outlined, then it's up to you to identify those and how - in your opinion - they are different.

If you do not wish to "have your feet nailed to the floor" and prefer a more vague definition - then we are free to build more concise definitions as we see fit.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and gives birth to little duckling eggs.... odds are.... it's an apt label..... at least until someone comes along and provides evidence supporting why it's not a duck.

[Hyrion]

There's also no rule that says he can't fit the definition of multiple different groups.

actually often there is. many skinhead groups consider klansmen to be welfare bums and white trash. this has caused many problems amongst them

I don't know of a single group - including the unit of a family - that doesn't have such conflicts in them. So if your point is accurate, then no one who has a dispute with another can claim to be part of the same group as that other - including families. I have very different opinions on the value to place on the family bond and what's acceptable behavior with regards treating my siblings then my siblings have.

Of course, we all know that's not true. Sadly, the family value that I'm the black sheep of is that it's acceptable to abuse people. That doesn't somehow alter either my genetic makeup or that of any of my family members. And no - I haven't had anything to do with them for a long time. Again: that doesn't alter the reality we share the same genes, blood, parental lineage. So when someone talks of the ...... family, whether I like it or not, I'm included in that group.

So while people you know to date would not belong to both skinhead and kkk groups - don't be surprised if you ever run accross someone who is.

[bmxninja357]

i have long ago run into a member of both. he re-branded when he moved from Louisianan to vancouver. he was a large man, lots of aryan tattoos. very knowledgeable on history in general and of both the klan and the skins and their different brands.

currently he is serving a manslaughter sentence for killing a pedophile. got a good plea bargain for a man with absolutely no remorse.

but i assure you this type of thing is the exception and not the rule.

peace,
ninj

[Dr. Caligari]

there are certain freeman that are anti Semitic. but it is a vast minority.

On the Sov Cit/ FOTL forums I have visited, Aryan Nations-style white supremacy seems rare, but anti-Semitism seems ubiquitous, what with all the talk about "the Rothschilds" running the worls, et al. YMMV, of course.

[bmxninja357]

i often had tried to change the view from blaming 'jewish bankers' and such to simply 'bankers'. contrary to many folks beliefs not all bankers are jewish. and i do belive modern banking has caused many pitfalls in the modern world but it has little to do with race or religion or ethnicity. it has to do with with banking, the monetary system and things like compound interest.

then you throw in things like the repeatedly debunked protocols of the elders of zion and a few other half truths or often repeated flat out lies and a few smartish sounding folks who are actually complete anti semites (some creep into any group) and if you focus on the few racists and ill informed one can try and label the whole group as racist. it makes for good hard copy but it is often not at all a defining quality of a group.

peace,
ninj

[Dr. Caligari]

i often had tried to change the view from blaming 'jewish bankers' and such to simply 'bankers'.

One of the early 20th century Socialists (I forget who) called antisemitism "the socialism of fools," because, he said, some people saw the misdeeds of Jewish bankers and foolishly blamed all Jews rather than all bankers.

contrary to many folks beliefs not all bankers are jewish.

Jews were prominent in banking in Europe in the early modern era, when the Church forbade Christians from lending money at interest, but nowadays most bankers are not Jews. And in America, Jews were actually underrepresented in banking until quite recently.

[Burnaby49]

I took the question mark off of the discussion title.

As I've said it really doesn't matter if you can parse out a description of freemen that doesn't include Raddatz, the press and the public have already made the connection.

Another less than flattering editorial about freemen;

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/12/fr ... d-citizens

Raddatz has brought the movement to the public's attention big time. The perception is moving from them being a niusance to being officially a danger to public safety.