• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Especially said:
Yes, and the unelected monarchy of England invaded the USA and killed lots of Americans. It happened in the War of Independence. Did you forget that ? And who opposed the great USA and its Constitution ? Why, the elite monarchy of England !!

England had kings but they were all elected. They were not tax gathering slaves to the Papacy. And they were not the sovereignty of the nation. The people were.

Big differences, yes ?
Click to expand...

Especially said:
Agatha (and I hope you don't mind me calling you this ?),

I did NOT say all Englands kings were elected.
Click to expand...
One of these things is not like the other (my bolding).

Especially said:
In fact, I said the very opposite. I said that the head of the state in which we are living is an UNELECTED DYNASTY. (As you can clearly see on this thread).

Secondly, I said the early kings included those who were elected. And I gave you an example in King Saul.

Which is not good enough for you.

I further suggested you read a book on early English history.

But (unless I am mistaken) you wish me to read it for you.

Would you care to say when, and in which location, I should do this service for you, and whether my consent and yours has been obtained before it takes place ?

Yours most sincerely
Click to expand...
No, you need not read anything on my account, I am capable of doing my own research. So you are, indeed, mistaken in what you believe that I wish.
 
leafman91 said:
Read it again, with care. You might pick out that I had registered the Queen as 'figurehead'. This means she and her monarchy, while having seeming to have quite a lot of power at first inspection, actually have very little, as they are prevented by convention from using it. Once again, try next time with evidence. Show me the monarchy has and uses excessive power, and how in any way the monarchy is at current against the interest of the public.
Click to expand...


Well, Sir, I will not write pages of proofs. Let me reply to your question with one of my own.

Recently, the Royal Assent has been given to the political union of the UK with the European Union.

This obtained NO mandate from the people of this nation, with whom is (and always has been) national sovereignty. Nor was it ever sought from them. Despite promises. A clear case of the monarchy acting contrary to the sovereign will of the people. Since the people of this nation have given no such consent in respect of the sovereignty of this nation. Furthermore, monarchy itself does not have the consent of the people of this nation and has never sought it.

Thank You
 
Last edited:
I have never heard of a freeman in prison for the Common Law of England. Show me a single case.
Click to expand...

Since My expertise is on US freeman Woo...I'll give you an example of why it doesn't work here at least...

How about you take less than 30 seconds out of your day to do some research like I did.

Maybe it would help to know where a lot of this crap comes from and where it ended up...oh wait LOOK!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen
And then there's this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Patriot

and according to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_(organization)
Some Posse members have engaged in vigilantism.[citation needed]

In 1983, former Posse member (and accused parole violator) Gordon Kahl killed two Federal marshals (who had come to arrest him) in North Dakota and became a fugitive. Another shootout ensued on June 3, 1983, in which Kahl and Lawrence County, Arkansas Sheriff Gene Matthews were killed. Other members of the group have also been convicted of crimes ranging from tax evasion and counterfeiting to threatening the lives of IRS agents and judges.

And a bit more history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement

And this is likely where the current FOTL woo comes from, at least regarding birth certificates and the UCC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement

So perhaps you need to do a little bit more research before you think you know so much...Especially considering these are likely where you picked up this BS...Granted this is in America, but you get my point.

Anyone who has Examples regarding England, feel free to drop some knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Gosh, what was that vote in 1975 for, again?
 
Agatha said:
One of these things is not like the other (my bolding).

No, you need not read anything on my account, I am capable of doing my own research. So you are, indeed, mistaken in what you believe that I wish.
Click to expand...

Agatha,

If you read English early history and fail to find a case of a king being elected by his people do not forget me, since I will direct you to such cases, with great pleasure.

Regards
 
Especially said:
This obtained NO mandate from the people of this nation, with whom is (and always has been) national sovereignty. Nor was it ever sought from them. Despite promises. A clear case of the monarchy acting contrary to the sovereign will of the people. Since the people of this nation have given no such consent in respect of the sovereignty of this nation. Furthermore, monarchy itself does not have the consent of the people of this nation and has never sought it.
Click to expand...


Well, there's this thing called parliamentary democracy...
 
Especially said:
Yes, it is so poetic it would be trodden under the hoof before it got to the courtroom.
Click to expand...

I asked you who makes common law. Suddenly's excellent post shows that when you say "common law" you really mean "natural law". Here are wikipedia's simplified definitions of each:

Common law refers to law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive action, and to corresponding legal systems that rely on precedential case law.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is human-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.

Which of these is closer to what you mean when you say "common law"?
 
Mojo said:
Well, there's this thing called parliamentary democracy...
Click to expand...


Yes indeed. And the parameters of Parliamentary democracy do not include political union with the European Union. They are confined to the government of the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, EU integration is contrary to the Constitution of England.

And, finally, the sovereignty of this nation is its people. Who gave no mandate.
 
Surely every king of England was elected, you told me so quite clearly in post 177.

Just to be clear, do we start with Offa, or do we begin earlier?
 
D'rok said:
I asked you who makes common law. Suddenly's excellent post shows that when you say "common law" you really mean "natural law". Here are wikipedia's simplified definitions of each:

Common law refers to law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive action, and to corresponding legal systems that rely on precedential case law.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is human-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.

Which of these is closer to what you mean when you say "common law"?
Click to expand...

No, this is not quite accurate.

Common Law is NOT Natural Law.

Common Law is that law binding on a nation from time immemorial which is recognised even by the states and the rulers who today govern it. Judges are involved in establishing Common Law in case after case, so that its power is a matter of plain and documented record. But Common Law is NOT made by judges. Nor is it made by politicians. It is merely confirmed by them and is recorded as having been confirmed by them. So that through these documented examples we can see that it is being observed and respected in our nation.

Regards
 
Especially said:
Yes indeed. And the parameters of Parliamentary democracy do not include political union with the European Union. They are confined to the government of the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, EU integration is contrary to the Constitution of England.

And, finally, the sovereignty of this nation is its people. Who gave no mandate.
Click to expand...


Can you quote the specific words in the "Constitution of England" that state the above?
 
Mojo said:
That depends on what the constitution says. Where would you say sovereignty lies in an absolute monarchy?
Click to expand...

Mojo,

There is no lawful constitution of a state unless the good people of the nation are recognised to be the source of its sovereignty. As for 'absolute monarchies' and dynasties coming from them those silly errors do not need to be revisited in the history of governments. Since there is no absolute in the affairs of mankind except God Himself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom