I came across this story in today's paper, he clearly didn't visit this site and decided to use a nut job defense.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010 ... 41071.html

Nothing new.. Those wackjobs have been trying to raise their public profile for years. I heard they have great KoolAid parties

Will be interesting to see how it turns out for him wont it ?

Apparently he was not arrested or even charged/fined for his stance. May be a good idea to follow this case...could have an interesting outcome !

It's a bunch of bunk...

Canada and it's successive governments, like all nations have adopted laws to protect their people and assert people's rights in a balance with the rights of society.

Yes it's an imperfect system...but the alternatives are no less perfect.

Could we return to a feudal system? Great...then how do we prevent drunks and 9 year olds from driving putting YOU at risk?

I'm not sure I've read one compelling arguement that we have some sort of contract (that we can reneg) with the Corporation of Canada...but like when I was raised as a child, if you don't like the rules in our home, there's the door.

Canada was continue to be run the way it is and I'm betting 99.9% are just fine with the status quo.

If you don't like the laws of our land, move elsewhere...I'm sure the learned among you know of places much better than Canada, without cumbersome rights, free healthcare, low cost education and low crime...Ewww!!! Who WOULD want to live here...

Please send postcards...

CoolChick wrote:

Apparently he was not arrested or even charged/fined for his stance.

I don't follow you.

Why would you have an expectation of being charged for using an "off the wall" defense? As long as your respectful when you present it to the Justice then your free to use the defense of your choice, the worst thing that can happen is that it's fails and your convicted.

Coolchick,

Now I understand where your ideas on the "Corporation of Canada" come from.

This IS cult propaganda.

Agreed.

Aluminum hats pose a mental health risk and I have wondered loudly on here if CC sleeps with her's on, and while researching this stuff today, I've read references to "tin hats" on more than one occasion. The argument simply has not been thought through, but it entices many (hey even I was interested because if I could submit a successful legal argument telling the government to stick their income tax bills where the sun don't shine, I would have a grand time in doing so ).

Now, with that said, there are some legitimate premises to the Freeman on the Land argument, AT FIRST GLANCE (as is usual with cult propaganda). We must contract into the agreement as free people, and this acknowledgement has been ignored. Simply being born into a society cannot be interpreted to one being in agreement to participating in it. It also is not a sufficient argument to say "move elsewhere, then". What, ultimately, this freeman on the Land position advocates is for a lawless society prior to feudalism taking hold in Medieval England. One of the cornerstones of feudalism was to protect society from lawlessness (and from a King's absolute power). The Magna Carta, recognized as the last "lawful" constitution of common law by the Freeman of the Land, is the cornerstone of our common law system today. It is puzzling why the Magna Carta would be accepted, given that a man's will, according to the Magna Carta, can be BOUND by law - and this is where we get that we are bound by law to Canada. It is this premise that is most at odds with Freeman on the Land philosophy.

The Freeman on the Land argument can be drilled right down to not agreeing to be bound by those most sacred agreements to abide by the laws of society such as murder, theft, squatting, rape, etc....the list goes on. It would be utter chaos, because human nature is not one where we are a peaceful animal.

I understand the premise, but submit that it is like communism - great on paper, devastating when put into practice. The absolute end to the Freeman argument is one of survival of the fittest in the same manner prey and predator live in the wild. We have come up, over millenia, with a system that still has many kinks to iron out, but it is much preferable to this alternative. Furthermore, I believe one person with some knowledge on law constructed this Freeman on the Land theory, and since then, laypersons have played "telephone" with the message. The end result is that nobody really knows what they are talking about, asserting rights and forgetting that the laws don't matter anymore when your freedom fails 100% of the time when the enemy is bigger and swallows you, the dissident, whole. The choice is to become part of the collective, in other words, abide by a gentler society of rules, or leave yourself vulnerable to the lawlessness and the brutality inherent with a lawless society. THAT is the way nature works, and "society" and the contract we have with our country as members protects us all from such a demise.

My question now is: Why are freemen ideals being argued here on this site which deals with legislation fundamentally opposed by Freemen? This site deals with issues whilst working within the law - something Freemen are fundamentally opposed to, begging the question of why CC even bothers to spew this bull excrement on THIS board in particular if she does not believe in the parameters that are generally accepted truths here....unless she's here to prosthelytize. Or troll. Or both.

VERY well spoken...

The whole idea started with the Posse Comitatus movement years ago. Oh by the way, here's an interesting quote:

"I am no longer a citizen or employee of the corrupt political corporate of the State of Michigan and the United States of America. I am answerable only to common laws." -- Terry Nichols, in a letter to the State of Michigan, "revoking" his signature on his fishing, hunting and driving licences