Freeman on the Land?

[Brad Sallows]

Emphasizes the point that the law is whatever the occupants of the land who control it say.

 

[lenaitch]

I disagree with that sentence for the simple reason it seems to be handed out simply because the judge didn’t like his defense, which as wrong as it is, he is entitled to.

We have much more serious crimes being given much less time in jail, as delusional as this guy is I don’t see him as a specific threat to anyone unlike many which are just being given conditional discharges.

It's not just tying up the court's time, it's the potentially dangerous (and fatal in a few cases) confrontational interactions with police, or essentially squatting in a rental accommodation and driving a landlord into the poorhouse.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A lot of people prone to confrontational interactions with police or to abusing landlords don't get tossed in jail for a year. I don't see those factors as being relevant.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

A lot of people prone to confrontational interactions with police or to abusing landlords don't get tossed in jail for a year. I don't see those factors as being relevant.

Of course they are.

 

[Kilted]

A lot of people prone to confrontational interactions with police or to abusing landlords don't get tossed in jail for a year. I don't see those factors as being relevant.

They are very common with Freeman and other related people. I remember reading a case, can't remember the name of it. Essentially a sovereign citizen was park illegally while sitting in his car somewhere. The first police officer ran the plate, found some mention of him being a sovereign citizen, called it in, waited for three other cruisers to show up before giving him a ticket. He tried to say that that was excessive force, but the court found that it was reasonable.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The underlying principle is simple: we shouldn't pile on just because we don't like someone. All violent people should be treated equally before the law. All deadbeats and squatters should be treated equally before the law.

 

[Brad Sallows]

They are very common with Freeman and other related people.

Try substituting "black" or "aboriginal" and see how it wears.

 

[Kilted]

Try substituting "black" or "aboriginal" and see how it wears.

We aren't talking about an ethnic group here. We are talking about various groups of people who have decided that they don't want to follow the law anymore and for some reason think they can actually get away with it. I can't think of an example of a Freeman/SC being killed from interaction with police, but I do know of a few police officers who have been killed by them. Perhaps better words to substitute would be Nazi, Incil, ANTIFA, etc.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The underlying principle is simple: we shouldn't pile on just because we don't like someone. All violent people should be treated equally before the law. All deadbeats and squatters should be treated equally before the law.

So one soldier stands in front of the CO and just keeps repeating "f$@k you" over and over but the second one apologizes and swears he'll never do it again.

And you think they should receive the same punishment?
You know behavior matters, but because you like the Freeman concept, you grasp at legitimizing a grievance for them.

 

[brihard]

The underlying principle is simple: we shouldn't pile on just because we don't like someone. All violent people should be treated equally before the law. All deadbeats and squatters should be treated equally before the law.

If that’s what you think is going on here you need to slow your roll and actually read the decision. The judge delivered a very thorough, thoughtful, and well articulated reasons for sentencing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So one soldier stands in front of the CO and just keeps repeating "f$@k you" over and over but the second one apologizes and swears he'll never do it again.

And you think they should receive the same punishment?
You know behavior matters, but because you like the Freeman concept, you grasp at legitimizing a grievance for them.

I don't like them. But I don't like uneven law enforcement standards more.

 

[brihard]

I don't like them. But I don't like uneven law enforcement standards more.

Do you like reading case law that explains what actually happened and why?

 

[Brad Sallows]

If that’s what you think is going on here you need to slow your roll and actually read the decision. The judge delivered a very thorough, thoughtful, and well articulated reasons for sentencing.

Relax. I just pointed out that there's no need to pile onto them because they might pose risks that other people pose without having the same negativity directed at them.

We aren't talking about an ethnic group here. We are talking about various groups of people who have decided that they don't want to follow the law anymore and for some reason think they can actually get away with it. I can't think of an example of a Freeman/SC being killed from interaction with police, but I do know of a few police officers who have been killed by them. Perhaps better words to substitute would be Nazi, Incil, ANTIFA, etc.

Words have particular meanings, and actually ought to fit. For example, we're talking about people who are closer to anarchy than any other political ideology.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I don't like them. But I don't like uneven law enforcement standards more.

Say what?
So answer my question I offered to you above....you're ok with the same punishment to those two soldiers in question?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I think what Brad is getting at is that certain segments of society are getting a pass or even lauded for the same violent, anarchic behaviour that gets Freeman jailed. You can ask Brad, but I infer he is making the point that the sentencing they receive should also be applied to others.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Go back and read what I first wrote and what I was responding to. There's enough in the case without dragging in extra "concerns" because of how they profile.

Horrible people have been objecting for centuries to whatever lawful authority controlled the land.

 

[brihard]

Go back and read what I first wrote and what I was responding to. There's enough in the case without dragging in extra "concerns" because of how they profile.

Horrible people have been objecting for centuries to whatever lawful authority controlled the land.

But this is a common law contempt of court case. Show any other situation where someone outside of the OCPA category has continuously and openly defied the court and spammed it with nonsense as long as this guy has, and you'd have an argument. The thing with any other group of idiots is by the time they're in court, they may not like how court goes, but they play the game within Canada's system of laws. This case is very, very different from that,a nd the only relevant comparators are those who show a similar pattern of behaviour in court.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I don't object to holding him accountable for his behaviour in court. I don't think things like abstract potentials for violence or squatting on someone's rental property bear on it. All profiling is just an application of observable qualities and probability. It's useful and defensible, but it can be misused.

All of lawful authority is a package; there's no useful line between rules outside court and rules inside court. These people reject the government, which makes them not substantially different than anyone else across history who rejected a government. The only thing that sets them apart from me is that I (like almost everyone) have a much higher tolerance for the impositions governments have to make (because not all people can be simultaneously satisfied). But there are assuredly points at which I would start simply ignoring particular rules (depends on the rule), points at which I would entertain myself by administratively burdening the system, and a point at which I would rebel.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

But this is a common law contempt of court case. Show any other situation where someone outside of the OCPA category has continuously and openly defied the court and spammed it with nonsense as long as this guy has, and you'd have an argument. The thing with any other group of idiots is by the time they're in court, they may not like how court goes, but they play the game within Canada's system of laws. This case is very, very different from that,a nd the only relevant comparators are those who show a similar pattern of behaviour in court.

Mind you, I suspect King John felt the same about the Magna Carta when it was first presented. With a WTF is this crap?

 

[Eaglelord17]

I get it, the point being there is a slight level of legitimacy to these nut jobs from a philosophical standpoint.

Canada is a nation founded upon a monarchy forcably taking control of the land. That monarchy was founded by someone at some point going I am the king, you all will follow me. Our customs and laws are all based off of a flawed starting point.

At no point was it based off the consent of the governed, as even today from a legal standpoint it is up to the monarch to approve or deny all laws written.

From a philosophical view, where is the legitimacy of our system other than the brute force behind maintaining it? If you don’t follow the rules created by people you don’t know, or are long dead, enforced by people you also likely don’t know who are willing to use violence to bring you into compliance, that doesn’t sound like too legitimate a system.