Anyone know anything about "Free man on the Land" movement?

[Pacman7331]

As far as I understand these people are getting out of all government regulation of their lives by proving in court they are not under the jurisdiction of statute laws, and only within the jurisdiction of common law. Therefore they cannot be prosecuted, and they often sue the government for injury as well as corporations.

I think this is what is missing from our movement, and the public in general. We don't really know how the system works, because public school does not educate us. We don't know how to sue, or contest things in court, we think we have to have a lawyer but the lawyers are a band of outlaws and lookout for each other not us.

All I know of is this website:

http://deanclifford.info

[Galt]

Actor Wesley Snipes just got out of prison for believing in a similar scheme involving the IRS.

I can see these people saying all of the way through the process - even when they are finally sitting in prison, or the Sheriff is loading their assets onto a truck to auction off for the civil judgment - that the laws don't apply to them.

[neoteny]

A Canadian judge wrote a 156 page decision (interestingly in a family law case) where he analyzed what he calls "The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case", including the "Free man on the Land" movement. A summary can be found here. Suffice to say that they're being shot down in court left & right, being judged "vexatious litigators" and found liable of elevated costs, punitive damages & fines. Not a path someone wants to go down on.

[Pacman7331]

Actor Wesley Snipes just got out of prison for believing in a similar scheme involving the IRS.

I can see these people saying all of the way through the process - even when they are finally sitting in prison, or the Sheriff is loading their assets onto a truck to auction off for the civil judgment - that the laws don't apply to them.

I know it sounds funny, but they do win some of their battles. Just because the Sheriff is loading their assets to be auctioned doesn't mean the sheriff is right and not in fact breaking the law and able to be sued for injury.

A Canadian judge wrote a 156 page decision (interestingly in a family law case) where he analyzed what he calls "The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case", including the "Free man on the Land" movement. A summary can be found here. Suffice to say that they're being shot down in court left & right, being judged "vexatious litigators" and found liable of elevated costs, punitive damages & fines. Not a path someone wants to go down on.

Neoteny, Are you going to believe in a document which states:

4. The use of obsolete, foreign or otherwise irrelevant legislation and legal documents, such as:

the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) of the United States of America;
the American Constitution;
UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL guidelines;
the 1948 Income Tax Act;
legislation governing oaths;
the Canadian Bill of Rights;
an out-of-date version of the American Black’s Legal Dictionary.

The American Constitution is Irrelevant? Government maintains it's own narrative within itself, they believe their own story, which is going to be slightly different at every level, each collective has it's own culture, pridefully logging it's self-importance.

Frankly I don't buy the idea that anyone has jurisdiction or authority over me other than myself and perhaps God. Nothing I do can be forced upon me by another, it can only be agreed to, and if I don't agree to it, it cannot be done unless it's forced which is therefore injury. I cannot do something against my will, other people can only do things against my will (assuming it is in fact against my will... but I digress...). This is the way I see it, so the free man on the land movement appeals to me, as it seems to recognize and employ this self-evident truth as a method of deconstructing society and it's control programs.

[Galt]

I know it sounds funny, but they do win some of their battles. Just because the Sheriff is loading their assets to be auctioned doesn't mean the sheriff is right and not in fact breaking the law and able to be sued for injury.

Well, is there an example out there somewhere in which someone actually prevailed on these ideas in a real court?

There are lots of examples of frivolous litigators. Some guys sit in prison with lots of time on their hands and write complaints and motions and petitions one after the other (usually handwritten with random words underlined).

[Galt]

Here's an example of a guy challenging the constitutional authority of the IRS and claiming that it didn't have jurisdiction over him:

http://openjurist.org/737/f2d/1417

The result: The guy had to pay twice the costs of the appeal plus another $2000 just for giggles for filing a frivolous legal action.

And he still has to pay his taxes.

[Galt]

Neoteny, Are you going to believe in a document which states:

4. The use of obsolete, foreign or otherwise irrelevant legislation and legal documents, such as:

the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) of the United States of America;
the American Constitution;
[...]

The American Constitution is Irrelevant?

Pretty much, to most CANADIAN litigation.

Frankly I don't buy the idea that anyone has jurisdiction or authority over me other than myself and perhaps God. Nothing I do can be forced upon me by another, it can only be agreed to, and if I don't agree to it, it cannot be done unless it's forced which is therefore injury. I cannot do something against my will, other people can only do things against my will (assuming it is in fact against my will... but I digress...).

We have to live in a society, and your anarchist position is really unsustainable.

What do you philosophically think about this situation:

Your next door neighbor is an immigrant Russian ex-physicist who has managed to construct a hydrogen bomb that he plants just over onto his side of the dividing line between your properties. A lever is sticking up that, if hit by anything, will detonate the bomb, turning most of your state into a glowing parking lot. He also sets up a giant target next to the lever, which he shoots at day and night with a high caliber rifle. The target is blocking the way to your house, so if he misses the target, he hits your house or you. He has also built an acoustic-wave equalization device, so no sound goes over onto your property.

Here's the problem: Lately he drinks a ton of vodka, and then goes on shooting sprees towards the target. He has never missed the target up to now, or hit the lever of the hydrogen bomb, so nothing has gone onto your property. There has not been any aggression at all towards you.

So he has initiated no force against you and has no interest in talking to you. Would you initiate force against him in any way?

[neoteny]

So he has initiated no force against you and has no interest in talking to you. Would you initiate force against him in any way?

I wouldn't: checking out of this valley of sorrows by being vaporized to (sub)atomic particles in a microsecond is my most preferred way to go! 

[neoteny]

Nothing I do can be forced upon me by another, it can only be agreed to, and if I don't agree to it, it cannot be done unless it's forced which is therefore injury.

I agree; as my late lamented father used to say: "Government is the conspiracy of the few against the many". Government maintains its hold on the citizenry by the credible threat of violence (injury) which is called assault when employed by a private party. The problem is that one can't unilaterally divorce the govt. Actually, you might want to look into "seasteading": IMO that has a better chance than convincing the govt. of your supreme sovereignty.

[Galt]

I wouldn't: checking out of this valley of sorrows by being vaporized to (sub)atomic particles in a microsecond is my most preferred way to go! 

OK, that is a better way to go than to date Jodi Arias, for instance.

I guess the hydrogen bomb thing is OK.

[Captain Courageous]

Food for thought.

Some of this stuff is free.

http://www.nala.org/certification.aspx

http://www.legalstudies.com/rh/online-paralegal-programs.asp

http://nationalparalegal.edu/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

[Pacman7331]

Here's an example of a guy challenging the constitutional authority of the IRS and claiming that it didn't have jurisdiction over him:

http://openjurist.org/737/f2d/1417

The result: The guy had to pay twice the costs of the appeal plus another $2000 just for giggles for filing a frivolous legal action.

And he still has to pay his taxes.

Well nothing is finished. The gubmint is always going to contest and challenge anyone who challenges their power. Any percentage of victory is worth fighting for.

Red Ice Radio - Dean Clifford - Hour 1 - Arrest, Victory & Natural Law

( Fast forward to like 3 minutes elapsed. )

Listen to this... this guy won, as you can see the battle never ends, but this is a front of resistance. Better than laying down and taking it in the ass!

I dont' want lawsuits, but if I must I want to be able to do SOMETHING. And no i'm not going to be intimated by the gubmint escalating charges. They do that because they don't want you to fight back. I will never surrender even if it means death.

What I don't like is the gumbint passing inane legislation and thinking I must abide by it. When was a I party to such precedents? Did they hear my voice? Like how if you ask a girl out more than twice that is "sexual harassment". Oh really? So I'm gonna just bow down to her majesty and make sure I not step out of line? I don't think so. World doesn't work that way, and the free man knows and employs that.