• 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.
RHolmes said:
I also love how FOTLers say that laws (oh I'm sorry, statutes, which of course are not reallylaws) made by democratically elected representatives cannot bind them without their specific consent but don't even flinch at the idea that an agreement between a despotic 13th century monarch and his barons is binding on everyone in Britain forever.
Click to expand...

Would our FOTLer please address this eloquently stated analysis of the FOTL woo movement? How is it that the votes of a democratically elected representative body of the population has no power over you and is not the real law, yet an arcane legal document made between elitists and despots 700 years ago is somehow the only "real" legal document you are bound by?
 
Mojo said:
What about the bad people of the nation? Don't they get a say?
Click to expand...


The bad people of a nation are those who are by definition unlawful. Judge for yourself whether a bad person shares in the benefits of lawful government. It seems obvious to me that a person who is unlawful does not have a say in lawful government and has excluded himself. So that a society is able to be defined as a community who have in common the law.
 
Last edited:
Especially said:
The bad people of a nation are those who are by definition unlawful. Judge for yourself whether a bad person shares in the benefits of lawful government. It seems obvious to me that a person who is unlawful does not have a say in lawful government and has excluded himself.
Click to expand...


Are you on the electoral roll?
 
Anyway, after that little digression, can you quote the words from the "Constitution of England" that support your contentions about sovereignty, parliament and the EU?
 
Mojo said:
Anyway, after that little digression, can you quote the words from the "Constitution of England" that support your contentions about sovereignty, parliament and the EU?
Click to expand...


I note that you use Italics when you speak of the 'Constitution of England'.

You must see for yourself that the parliament of England is elected to serve the people of England within the law of this nation. Since it is they (the people) who have the ability to elect them, and nobody else. And theirs is the sovereignty of the nation. Whether you believe in monarchy or not.

Do you not agree ?

As for the EU, no such mandate exists from the people and nor has Parliament or unelected monarchy, or any combination of the two, the power to negotiate away national sovereignty.
 
Last edited:
Especially said:
A man is entitled to have a hearing of his case and not to be held against his will without a lawyer. He is entitled to hear the case against him. And for his case to be heard. A man is entitled to fair treatment.
Click to expand...

Only under post 1066 law. Habeas corpus is not angelo-saxon law.
 
Checked site. Didn't like too much. The guy (girl?) relies on rich friends for a lifestyle. That puts me off right away. He uses too many logical fallacies. He says not to pay your loans back, or your taxes, but condemns dealing mischievously. It seems like anarchism on a bureaucratic scale, which is ridiculous. The whole site is a joke. You call it commercial law. You are still overthrowing the establishment, it is still anarchy, albeit on a minute scale. It makes me wonder if the whole thing falls into the category of Discordian scam. It certainly seems like a scam they would set up. You can tell me all you like, and wish it to be true, but unfortunately it won't be. Registration is not transferral of ownership, no matter how you look at it. Licensing isn't begging for mercy, it's showing respect to the genius who created the product. It's being picky, but being picky in a twisted, bizarre fashion. Nothing on the site had any evidence behind it.

And I'm sorry to be so critical of it, but that is what skeptical thinking is. There were too many words and phrases with emotional baggage there,and way too many leaps in logic that don't make sense. I wouldn't trust the site as far as I can throw it. That all having been said, I am also supposing you are a member of the forum, in which case, I do apologize for any offence. But I really can't trust it. Once again, apologies for the offence.
 
Mojo said:
Then I guess you're one of the people who do not have a say in lawful government and have excluded themselves.
Click to expand...


On the contrary. Those who have a say in lawful government are able to say what the law is, and what it is not.
 
Especially said:
I note that you use Italics when you speak of the 'Constitution of England'.
Click to expand...


No I don't. Those are called "quotation marks", and I used them because I was quoting the expression you used. These are italics.

You must see for yourself that the parliament of England is elected to serve the people of England within the law of this nation. Since it is they (the people) who have the ability to elect them, and nobody else. And theirs is the sovereignty of the nation. Whether you believe in monarchy or not.

Do you not agree ?
Click to expand...


Parliament is elected to represent the people. See, for example, the Bill of Rights.

As for the EU, no such mandate exists from the people and nor has Parliament the power to negotiate away national sovereignty.
Click to expand...


Quote the words from the constitution that say this.
 
Especially said:
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
Click to expand...

For your sake, I hope you never find yourself in front of a judge.
 
Mojo said:
No I don't. Those are called "quotation marks", and I used them because I was quoting the expression you used. These are italics.




Parliament is elected to represent the people. See, for example, the Bill of Rights.




Quote the words from the constitution that say this.
Click to expand...

I will quote no words to you unless/until you agree that the sovereignty of a nation is found only in its people. Because it seems to me that until you agree/disagree with this issue we can go round and round in circles.
 
Especially said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that this argument is undermined by my first point, that the Queen is a figurehead. A clear-cut example, methinks. Now, I've just taken a quick peek at the Foreign Office site, who told me that the UK has been part of the EU since 1973. This site also provided a wealth of case studies investigating the benefits of the EU, but I'll pick up on that later. I don't see anything recent about 1973, but I have figured that you probably meant differently. Where did you read about Britain recently joining the EU? No skepticism this time, but genuine inquiry. My news source isn't one that would cover the European Union and England in too much detail, so I think it may have skipped something.
 
leafman91 said:
I'm afraid that this argument is undermined by my first point, that the Queen is a figurehead. A clear-cut example, methinks. Now, I've just taken a quick peek at the Foreign Office site, who told me that the UK has been part of the EU since 1973. This site also provided a wealth of case studies investigating the benefits of the EU, but I'll pick up on that later. I don't see anything recent about 1973, but I have figured that you probably meant differently. Where did you read about Britain recently joining the EU? No skepticism this time, but genuine inquiry. My news source isn't one that would cover the European Union and England in too much detail, so I think it may have skipped something.
Click to expand...


Then tell us plainly - where is the sovereignty of a nation to be found ?
 
D'rok said:
For your sake, I hope you never find yourself in front of a judge.
Click to expand...

Well, I hope you are aware that you and I are in front of a judge every day of our lives. Judge yourself that you be not judged.

Is that not lawful ?
 
Last edited:
Especially said:
I will quote no words to you unless/until you agree that the sovereignty of a nation is found only in its people. Because it seems to me that until you agree/disagree with this issue we can go round and round in circles.
Click to expand...


Agreement given under duress is not binding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom