• 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:
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.
Click to expand...


Boy, did you dig a hole for yourself at JREF with that last statement.
 
Especially said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
Which judge would that be?

(I think it's judge not, lest ye be judged)
 
ENOUGH OF THE B.S.!

Especially, tell me how to save money, and tell me right now! I don't have the patience or time to bother with a frikkin' website, FOTL or whatever. Just tell me how Freemanism will save me £££. Tell me in this thread, now. NOW!
 
It's simples, Comsat Angel. You write to the DVLA and deregister your car. Then you don't have to pay tax or insurance or get it MOTd. Then you write to the council and tell them you don't wish to avail yourself of the services they provide, and you don't pay council tax. Why stop there? Write to Cap'n Darling and tell him you don't consent to the deduction of tax or NI.

Then, as if by magic, you'll be provided with bed and board by the state. Not only have you saved money, you get stuff paid for!

I would offer to visit you in the Scrubs, but I have an aversion to prisons.
 
Especially said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

The only judge I'm in front of every day of my life is Mrs. D'rok. Unfortunately, she's the trier of fact, the weigher of evidence, the warden of the prison, and the parole officer.

Hmm...maybe I could adapt this FOTL thing to the marriage contract. I have a common law right, since time immemorial, to drink beer while avoiding the dishes! I, D'rok the freeman, have spoken my truth!

(I'll let you know how that works out).
 
Last edited:
Comsat Angel said:
ENOUGH OF THE B.S.!

Especially, tell me how to save money, and tell me right now! I don't have the patience or time to bother with a frikkin' website, FOTL or whatever. Just tell me how Freemanism will save me £££. Tell me in this thread, now. NOW!
Click to expand...

You get free room and board in jail if you follow the Freemen's legal advice.

Damn.Agatha Beat me to it...
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Uh, England has had an unelected monarch about as long as they have had your beloved common law, which grew up under the Monarchy.
Click to expand...

Slightly longer. Common law dates from 1066. Kings of england date to around 924.
 
Especially said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who elected Athelstan?
I don't recall Edward the Confessor exactly falling out with Rome.
 
geni said:
Slightly longer. Common law dates from 1066. Kings of england date to around 924.
Click to expand...
That's right, according to Especially, Æthelstan was elected in 924.
 
Especially said:
Agatha (and I hope you don't mind me calling you this ?),

I did NOT say all Englands kings were elected. 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.
Click to expand...

Who probably didn't exist. You want elected kings well there's the pope of course and the poles tried a version of it.
 
dudalb said:
Judge Dredd?
Click to expand...

The Law West of the Pecos.

Good story, bad way to plan society.

" According to the myth, Roy Bean named his saloon and town after the love of his life, Lily Langtry, a British actress he'd never met. Calling himself the "Law West of the Pecos," he is reputed to have kept a pet bear in his courtroom (see photo of courtroom above) and sentenced dozens to the gallows, saying "Hang 'em first, try 'em later." Like most such legends, separating fact from fiction is not always so easy. "



http://www.qsl.net/w5www/roybean.html
 
dudalb said:
Agreed. It would be like Monty Python was back....
Click to expand...

Not really. Such cases tend to be rather predictable outside of death penalty cases. Defendent is disruptive. Judge uses the various powers they have to deal with the problem of a disruptive defendent. Ruleing made against the defendent.
 
To be fair to Especially, King John (Lackland) was elected in a sense, in that after Richard I's death, Arthur of Brittanny (who was the next heir) was passed over due to being a child. A council of noblemen chose John. However, given that John was Richard's brother, it wasn't what we would understand by an election.

A similar thing happened (and for the same reason) on the death of Richard II. Henry IV, who had defeated Richard, was chosen over the (minor) heir to Richard's throne.

However, these are post-1066.
 
Especially said:
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.
Click to expand...


I see you have added a bit to that since I originally replied to it.

Since there have indubitably been absolute monarchies there is more than one answer to your question, and it depends on the system of government of the country in question.
 
Agatha said:
To be fair to Especially, King John (Lackland) was elected in a sense, in that after Richard I's death, Arthur of Brittanny (who was the next heir) was passed over due to being a child. A council of noblemen chose John. However, given that John was Richard's brother, it wasn't what we would understand by an election.

A similar thing happened (and for the same reason) on the death of Richard II. Henry IV, who had defeated Richard, was chosen over the (minor) heir to Richard's throne.

However, these are post-1066.
Click to expand...


Or more recently James II was thrown out by parliment as was Charles I. But aparently the laws passed by there parliments are not legit or something.
 
geni said:
Or more recently James II was thrown out by parliment as was Charles I. But aparently the laws passed by there parliments are not legit or something.
Click to expand...

They did a LOT more to Charles the I then simply remove him from the throne.......
 
dudalb said:
They did a LOT more to Charles the I then simply remove him from the throne.......
Click to expand...
Just a scratch*, a bit of playful banter between friends. ;)

James II & VII was deposed and Parliament chose William-and-Mary, so again in a sense they were elected but not as we would understand an election.

After Charles I we had no monarchy until the restoration. But neither Cromwell or Charles II were elected.


*Obligatory Monty Python reference
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom