[DrCaleb]

QBall QBall:

No investigation is needed. Any organization . . .

Full stop. That's the whole point of the Freemen, there is no 'organization'. There are no leaders, or secret handshake. They just want 'the law' to be about the people again, not about profit. At least, that's the idea. Some take it in a very different context.

Therefore, naming them as a 'terrorist organization' isn't about public safety because unorganized individuals are no threat to society.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

llama66 llama66:

I think south of the border the 'freemen' are a bit more militant, I think I read there was even an interaction with the police that resulted in police being shot and killed. Ted Kaczynski could be argued was a freeman, considering his disdain for modern society and government.

Kaczynski was in no way a freeman. He was an anti-technologist who slowly lost his mind. While his letter bombs may have appeared to be random, his [intended] targets were very specific in that they all played a role in the march of modern technology.

[Curtman]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

They just want 'the law' to be about the people again, not about profit. At least, that's the idea. Some take it in a very different context.

$1:

"Freemen on the land" are 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.

Where did you get the watered down version from? They're practising anarchists as far as I've read about them over the years.

[DrCaleb]

Curtman Curtman:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

They just want 'the law' to be about the people again, not about profit. At least, that's the idea. Some take it in a very different context.

$1:

"Freemen on the land" are 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.

Where did you get the watered down version from? They're practising anarchists as far as I've read about them over the years.

Many different sources. If you look at the rise of the movement through the US and into Canada, that was the original belief system. It's where 'freemen' and 'sovereign citizen' get confused

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen

[Curtman]

$1:

Self-described sovereign citizens take the position that they are answerable only to common law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state, or municipal levels, or that they do not recognize U.S. currency and that they are "free of any legal constraints".
...
The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies "sovereign citizens" among domestic terror threats as anti-government extremists.

Not convinced...

[shockedcanadian]

They may in fact be some risk, it should be a simple break the law and arrest situation. You can be sure at least some of them have been "lead down the garden path" by the covert apparatus...

Countries like China don't mind a bit that our intelligence service is busy wasting resources while they pillage our businesses coffers.

[DrCaleb]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

They may in fact be some risk, it should be a simple break the law and arrest situation. You can be sure at least some of them have been "lead down the garden path" by the covert apparatus...

There have been a number of court cases against some 'Freemen' and they lost horribly. I recall one judge who lambasted the defendents multi thousand page defence as 'incoherenet, a waste of trees to print, and a waste of government money to pay me to read'.

A guy I used to debate with on another site sends me stuff once in a while, and he's fallen for the 'Freeman' line. Sad to see such a smart person give over his will to someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

[BartSimpson]

Frankly, I don't see much of a threat in the Freemen or the Sovereign Citizens so long as they mind their own business and don't involve other people in their interests. It's when they commit fraud and etc. that I consider them worthy of scrutiny.

But if they own property and declare themselves independent or sovereign then I say let them have at it. The US can then recognize their independence and build a wall around their new country and refuse to issue them a visa for entering the USA when they want to.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Frankly, I don't see much of a threat in the Freemen or the Sovereign Citizens so long as they mind their own business and don't involve other people in their interests. It's when they commit fraud and etc. that I consider them worthy of scrutiny.

But if they own property and declare themselves independent or sovereign then I say let them have at it. The US can then recognize their independence and build a wall around their new country and refuse to issue them a visa for entering the USA when they want to.

Agreed. (then fill it with water -lol)

I have this vision that some Freeman wins the lottery, and buys their own island and declares it a soverign state. Then some other Freeman shows up and says "I delclare this a soverign Embassy . . . "

[BartSimpson]

[BartSimpson]

Vaguely on-topic...

$1:

BOSTON - April 20, 1775

National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, had links to a radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against local tax collection offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed weapons. Governor Gage had issued a ban on private ownership of weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting earlier this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms. One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists simply obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in Lexington’s town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths.

Before order could be restored, armed citizens from the surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor has also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.
First reported on April 20, 1775

Update:
Be on the lookout for Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, and remain at large.

[shockedcanadian]

Agreed. (then fill it with water -lol)

I have this vision that some Freeman wins the lottery, and buys their own island and declares it a soverign state. Then some other Freeman shows up and says "I delclare this a soverign Embassy . . . "[/quote]


Haha, this is funny. I don't really understand these people, one of the basic tenets of anything of value requires someone else recognizing it as such. Therefore, someone can't walk into a grocery store, hand a guy a handful of cobwebs he collected from his basement and state "I declare this currency in exchange for this loaf of bread". What;s next? Walking into your neighbours house and declaring yourself a co-owner?

I suggest that if any laws are broken, they are taken to court and tossed in the clink when necessary. They can then declare their cell their embassy...


Per the comment you made above regarding how some seemingly intelligent people can get this way and take the bait on some of this garbage. These new group of clowns with their "Freeman" ideals is a bit out there, but in general I would suggest that the methodology to "manufacture" such clowns (in this cases in which they are influenced by CSIS or the RCMP) is simple...look for vulnerable targets, those without close family or who are under duress, gain their trust and then slowly push ideas on to them. Most people will reject this "Freeman" b.s, but they can find success in a few people that they can then suggest is a "movement" or whatever they are branding these people as.

I think of the intelligent guy who was prudent and successful his entire life; building an empire and then flushing it down the toilet when a conman gains his trust and he loses his lifes savings. When people want to influence such actions they can...for many unfortunately they make it their job...something they perfect.

[BRAH]

[DrCaleb]

LOL

How long you been waiting to use that one?

[Benn]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

They may in fact be some risk, it should be a simple break the law and arrest situation. .

CSIS is not law enforcement, you know that right? They don't arrest anyone or have arrest powers. They don't have to wait for someone to break a law to take an interest in them. Live with it, that won't change. That is how it is will all intelligence services around the world though.