What freemen don’t get about statute law

[arayder]

Freemen go the long way around the barn, spouting a lot of nonsense, in their attempts to prove that statutes aren’t law and hence are not binding upon them.

Over the years this bit of propaganda has so captured the freeman imagination that freemen gurus, wannabe gurus and freeman practitioners have attempted to make their reputations with ever more arcane arguments advancing this canard. If one visits any freeman forum one has to laugh at the specious arguments made by freemen doing their best Perry Mason impressions.

But what freemen never talk about are the power vesting or enabling clauses in the Constitutions of the western democracies which give their respective legislatures the power and authority to make and, along with the courts, enforce blinding law.

It’s just that simple.

The trouble with freemen is that they think the law is overly complicated and as such is used by the-powers-that-be to trick everyone with gobbledygook language.

This idea that the law is so massively complicated also lends stature to the freemen guru who make claim he has figured out how it is we were supposedly tricked into following the law.

One may argue that the constitutions of the western democracies are imperfect, or that they don’t always reflect the will of the people at a given time.

But the reality is that any reasonably intelligent middle school child with a modicum of reading ability can directly trace the authority of statue law all the way back to the foundational documents of their nations!

This begs the question of how many freemen and their gurus failed middle school civics?

--------

Dope Clock: It has been 91 days since freeman guru Robert Menard promised to bring legal actions to secure precedent setting judgments. So far there is no documentation of a single legal action by Menard.

[TheNewSaint]

The trouble with freemen is that they think the law is overly complicated and as such is used by the-powers-that-be to trick everyone with gobbledygook language.

I grew up in a family who felt this way about the legal system. It wasn't until I experienced it myself as an adult did I realize this was not true. The law is primarily concerned with finding out the facts of the case, not how many times the paperwork was stamped. Yes, there are procedures that must be followed, and legal technicalities that must be adhered to, and professional representation is necessary. But 95% of what goes on in a courtroom is plain English, and court personnel take pains to explain things.

The sad thing is, freemen get this completely backwards. They needlessly complicate a straightforward process, based on their own misunderstandings of how it works.

But what freemen never talk about are the power vesting or enabling clauses in the Constitutions of the western democracies which give their respective legislatures the power and authority to make and, along with the courts, enforce binding law.

It's not even that complex. Freemen simply fail to consider that anyone's opinion but their own matters. Even people who are empowered by the very code they cite to make such rulings. They take grossly ignorant arguments to court, are shocked when they lose, and see it as further proof of the conspiracy against them rather than their own error.

This idea that the law is so massively complicated also lends stature to the freemen guru who make claim he has figured out how it is we were supposedly tricked into following the law.

Yes, and this speaks to a major fallacy among freedmen: the law cannot be studied in miniature. Freedmen pore over statutes, looking for one or two sentences they think justifies whatever they're looking to do, and run with it. They fail to consider that individual laws may have caveats; may only apply in certain situations; that overriding laws may exist; that the code they cite may be for an entirely different jurisdiction; and just plain taking things out of context.

To people unaware of this fallacy, freedmen arguments can seem very convincing.

Freemen go the long way around the barn, spouting a lot of nonsense, in their attempts to prove that statutes aren’t law and hence are not binding upon them.

While sending out documents reading "unrebutted affidavit stands as truth" with no irony whatsoever.

[notorial dissent]

The thing is, NO constitution is EVER or is EVER going to be perfect but they do the best they can with what the writers and times have to work with, some just happen to have more than others, IMHO.

The thing I keep seeing with the footl and sovcit crowd is that most of them cannot read anything barely more than a simple sentence, and then I question that. They think complication adds to the power of whatever they are doing, but then what can you expect from inept superstitious magic users.

[arayder]

The thing is, NO constitution is EVER or is EVER going to be perfect but they do the best they can with what the writers and times have to work with, some just happen to have more than others, IMHO.

The thing I keep seeing with the footl and sovcit crowd is that most of them cannot read anything barely more than a simple sentence, and then I question that. They think complication adds to the power of whatever they are doing, but then what can you expect from inept superstitious magic users.

As close to reality as any freeman guru ever gets is to argue the Lysander Spooner argument that constitutions confer no authority because they are not contracts between men.

The difference between Spooner and freemen gurus is that the former never pretended that the courts had accepted his argument and would do so again anytime the argument was made.

When freemen gurus pretend they have a winning and replicable argument they are telling a willful lie!

And that lie about as dishonorable is it gets.

--------

Dope Clock: It has been 92 days since freeman guru Robert Menard promised to bring legal actions to secure precedent setting judgments. So far there is no documentation of a single legal action by Menard.