The Freeman Movement and England

[geni]

They did a LOT more to Charles the I then simply remove him from the throne.......

The cout did the rest. Heh Charle's arguments against the court have quite a bit in common with Especially's claims. I don't think they worked for him.

 

[Ysidro]

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 ?

Wait... WHUT? England invaded the U.S.A. and violated it's constitution during the War of Independence? Really?

I guess you don't realize that there wasn't a United States of America or a constitution for it until years after the war. The war that is also known as "The Revolution" over here in the states. Because that's what it was. A bunch of english colonists fighting then legitimate forces due to perceived injustice. We won and formed a pretty kick-ass country, but it didn't exist until AFTER the war. There was no "invasion", unless you count the colonial powers pushing back native american tribes. But those folks weren't the USA either.

And on top of that, you think every English king before 1066 was ELECTED?

Please, someone tell me this is just a cunning troll and not someone who has no sense of history! Please! Call it a poe, someone!

 

[Agatha]

Wait... WHUT? England invaded the U.S.A. and violated it's constitution during the War of Independence? Really?

I guess you don't realize that there wasn't a United States of America or a constitution for it until years after the war. The war that is also known as "The Revolution" over here in the states. Because that's what it was. A bunch of english colonists fighting then legitimate forces due to perceived injustice. We won and formed a pretty kick-ass country, but it didn't exist until AFTER the war. There was no "invasion", unless you count the colonial powers pushing back native american tribes. But those folks weren't the USA either.

And on top of that, you think every English king before 1066 was ELECTED?

Please, someone tell me this is just a cunning troll and not someone who has no sense of history! Please! Call it a poe, someone!

Also, someone who seems to find it difficult to distinguish England from the UK.

I'm waiting for him to come back and explain about this judge.

 

[fromdownunder]

When you are sent your Council Tax bill from a council are you aware the Council itself is a registered corporation ? Are you aware they NEVER tell you exactly what goods and services they are offering you in the first place ? Now, what sort of contract is it they are they offering you ? Exactly ? You never ask them. So they chase you and take you to their place of business.

I do not know how Councils in England work, but where I live I can, if I ask, get Annual Reports from my local council which contains completely audited records of all income and expenditure, including details of what the money was spent on, plus narratives and pretty pictures of major projects and improvements made over the past year. I can also attend council meetings as a ratepayer if I wish, and lobby my elected counciller, who will plead my case if it makes sense.

Federal and State governments are the same, if you are not too lazy to read the budget papers, or contact your local and Federal member.

Of course, if you are not registered to vote, you should not avail yourself of these services.

Norm

 

[Suddenly]

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

See what I mean?

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).

Now you've got it!!! Next step is to find old court cases and such and cobble together totally out of context passages to support your position.

After that, a website where you apply virtually every visual emphesis DEVICE there is to show you are telling the real truth and that people need to listen because you are really serious.

 

[dudalb]

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

Ever hear Monty Python's song about Oliver Cromwell?
Great stuff.

 

[Elizabeth I]

A generation ago nobody could have predicted such a generation of couch potatoes could possibly exist. And you voted it in. And you will do it again. Don't you just love governments who make you bailout the entire system ?

I'm pretty sure couch potatoes don't get elected, they just kind of sit around until they turn out that way.

The head of state IS an unelected dynasty, yes?

Wow, Queen Elizabeth is a whole dynasty all by herself? Perhaps you could take some of that money you're going to save by not paying your taxes and usage fees and buy a dictionary.

For your sake, I hope you never find yourself in front of a judge.

I'd pay to read the transcripts...

I'd like the franchise to sell tickets to the trial.

 

[Lucian]

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.

My guess is that he is referring to the power of the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot (or Witan, the king's advisory council) to ceosan to cyninge (choose [someone] as king). Mind you, they couldn't choose Eadwacer the butcher because everyone liked him and he was a great guy. It pretty much had to be a member of the royal family. Some historians suggest that this power was rather ceremonial and that the Witan only really had the ability to confirm whoever was next according to primogeniture or whoever the dead king had chosen. Regardless, these kings were hardly elected democratically. Nor was the Witan elected democratically: it was full of temporal and ecclesiastic elites (and those ecclesiastic elites would have been Papists, of course, as Protestants would not be invented for centuries).

For more on the Witan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witan

 

[RHolmes]

Especially,

"Legalese" is a slang word for technical legal terms. End of story - no shadowy conspiracy to obfuscate. And really - you need to look at what The Law Society does if you think that it invented these technical terms. FOTLer ideas about The Law Society are so wrong it's hilarious.

Many disciplines use technical terms, e.g. medics, physicists, engineers. These terms are not created to confuse; they are useful as a shorthand for those within the discipline. Even FOTLers have their own language: "common law" (which doesn't mean what it means to anyone else), "NOUICOR", the term "freeman on the land" itself. Are these meant to exclude and confuse non-FOTLers, or are they just a useful shorthand?

The use of the word "legalese" can even be seen as a playful bit of self-deprecation on the part of lawyers, who chide themselves for using technical terms instead of making the effort to explain things in everyday language. There is actually a fairly stong movement within the legal community for plain English to be used as much as possible, both in statutes and in dealing with the public. There are good reasons for making the law as understandable and accessible as possible. And on that - I imagine - we'll agree.

 

[RHolmes]

Mind you, they couldn't choose Eadwacer the butcher because everyone liked him and he was a great guy. It pretty much had to be a member of the royal family.

In a former life, I ran a sterling election campaign for Eadwacer. I masterfully covered over that incident with Beaudurinc the miller's daughters and we were miles ahead in the polls just two days before the election. I was gutted when that Aethelred got in. I always felt he was unready for the job and history has vindicated me.

 

[Ambrosia]

In a former life, I ran a sterling election campaign for Eadwacer.

People have always tried to buy power I guess.

240 pieces of silver bought you how much back then?

 

[RHolmes]

Reincarnation.

 

[Especially]

I get an extra chuckle out of this UK brand of FOTL woo. Elevating the common law to the supreme law of the land really just means that the unelected judiciary is supreme. Who makes common law? Judges. Who does judicial review? Judges. Who appoints judges in the UK? The Queen on the advice of the PM. Some freedom!

What are you talking about ? A Constitution should be made by the people themselves. Not by elected politicians or lawyers or judges. That's fact number 1. Judges do not write the Common Law. They merely review it and adhere to it.

Forget the queen. We are talking here about national soverignty. And it's with the PEOPLE.

Is this so difficult to understand ?

 

[Especially]

Especially,

"Legalese" is a slang word for technical legal terms. End of story - no shadowy conspiracy to obfuscate. And really - you need to look at what The Law Society does if you think that it invented these technical terms. FOTLer ideas about The Law Society are so wrong it's hilarious.

Many disciplines use technical terms, e.g. medics, physicists, engineers. These terms are not created to confuse; they are useful as a shorthand for those within the discipline. Even FOTLers have their own language: "common law" (which doesn't mean what it means to anyone else), "NOUICOR", the term "freeman on the land" itself. Are these meant to exclude and confuse non-FOTLers, or are they just a useful shorthand?

The use of the word "legalese" can even be seen as a playful bit of self-deprecation on the part of lawyers, who chide themselves for using technical terms instead of making the effort to explain things in everyday language. There is actually a fairly stong movement within the legal community for plain English to be used as much as possible, both in statutes and in dealing with the public. There are good reasons for making the law as understandable and accessible as possible. And on that - I imagine - we'll agree.

With respect, the legalese used by the Law Society is a tin of verbal spaghetti. Let the public read for themselves the 'Black's Law Dictionary' and they will see just how devious, how misleading, ordinary words become in the legal industry. It's a theatre. The real sovereignty of the people is with themselves under the Common Law and they do NOT want to be under Commercial Law in their courts on issues where they have NOT consented to statutes.

Take a simple example, the word 'Understand'. In Legalese you must understand this means you 'stand under'. That you 'give way to'. But in ordinary English it means very differently. If you are asked if you 'understand' and you say 'yes' this means you are voluntarily consenting to be under the authority of that system. THIS IS DEVIOUS. The same is true of the police these days. Those revenue offficers. The legal profession is a bunch of money grabbing sharks.

The plain fact is our courts here in the UK are run as commercial corporations and sit under Admiralty (commercial law). Why don't people know this ?

The Common Law of England is not the commercial law of courts - it's the LAW OF ENGLAND ! It is superior to the courts of commerce run by the Law Society. And every honest lawyer and judge knows it.

It's the job of the public to teach you people in the legal industry what the LAW ACTUALLY IS. To warn people everywhere they should know our courts are run not on the law of the land but on COMMERCIAL LAW. Appeal should always be made in such matters to the Common Law of England and the fact that CONSENT is required for each and every Statute made by our parliament.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Take a simple example, the word 'Understand'. In Legalese this means you stand under. That you give way to. But in English it means very differently. If you are asked if you 'understand' and you say 'yes' this means you are under the authority of that system. THIS IS DEVIOUS.

Fascinating. Can you explain this point in a little more detail? How did you learn of these definitions and how can you illustrate them? Are you under the system upon answering "yes" to "do you understand?" no matter what it is they're asking if you understand? And what happens if you escape their control by sticking to the code? The judge has to honor it, since it's law, right? Sorry, you probably already covered these points, but for the stragglers, huh?

 

[Lothian]

What is your point with all this. Are you suggesting that people can ignore any written law and escape prosecution by saying that they refuse to consent to be judged. I just don't see where this is going.

 

[Especially]

Especially,

"Legalese" is a slang word for technical legal terms. End of story - no shadowy conspiracy to obfuscate. And really - you need to look at what The Law Society does if you think that it invented these technical terms. FOTLer ideas about The Law Society are so wrong it's hilarious.

Many disciplines use technical terms, e.g. medics, physicists, engineers. These terms are not created to confuse; they are useful as a shorthand for those within the discipline. Even FOTLers have their own language: "common law" (which doesn't mean what it means to anyone else), "NOUICOR", the term "freeman on the land" itself. Are these meant to exclude and confuse non-FOTLers, or are they just a useful shorthand?

The use of the word "legalese" can even be seen as a playful bit of self-deprecation on the part of lawyers, who chide themselves for using technical terms instead of making the effort to explain things in everyday language. There is actually a fairly stong movement within the legal community for plain English to be used as much as possible, both in statutes and in dealing with the public. There are good reasons for making the law as understandable and accessible as possible. And on that - I imagine - we'll agree.

'Hilarious' ?

OK, let's see. The courts of our land are run by corporations. They operate under Commercial (Admiralty) law. You appear in the 'dock'. A nautical term. You are not being heard under the law of England but under international maritime law. You 'stand under' their authority unless you expressly say you wish to be heard under the law of the land, the Common Law of England.

Who is 'hilarious' ? A person has every right to refuse a commercial contract. He may or may not choose to CONSENT to it. Under the Common Law of England.

Now, correct me if you can. You guys have a real nerve. The legal industry is not operating according to the Common Law of England. It is operating according to the commercial law. Very, very, different.

 

[volatile]

Funniest thread for months! Thanks, Especially!

 

[volatile]

There are not enough laughing dogs in the world...

 

[Especially]

Fascinating. Can you explain this point in a little more detail? How did you learn of these definitions and how can you illustrate them? Are you under the system upon answering "yes" to "do you understand?" no matter what it is they're asking if you understand? And what happens if you escape their control by sticking to the code? The judge has to honor it, since it's law, right? Sorry, you probably already covered these points, but for the stragglers, huh?

Yes Sir,

You are being scammed, swindled, conned, deceived by the legal industry.

There are things you should be aware of. Basic things. One of them is that the law of the land is NOT the law being used in our courts. They are very, very different.

The courts use a system of COMMERCIAL LAW. Now commercial law is also called 'Admiralty Law'. The law of the sea. If you are not aware of this fact you can be and will be deceived. Because their system is deceptive.

May I suggest you obtain (or consult) a standard law dictionary. Take, for example, 'Black's Law Dictionary'. This contains the legalise (and it's not often that the general public see it). This legalise is a form of hiding the fact that the terms you and I use in ordinary life are changed in meaning in their courts. It's amazing stuff.

The word 'understand' is one such case. It means to 'stand under', 'to submit to' in their legalise system. And this is crucially important.

When you enter a court you must understand they are operating commercially. Under the Admiralty Law. If you do not understand this you will lose.

The law of the land is the Common Law and you, innocent person, are appearing in their place of business. Notice how impressive they look in their robes ? Notice how you are called to the 'dock' to testify ? These are admiralty law terms. And you must be aware of them.

Now, these courts have a process. They conduct hearings according to their own law, their 'commercial law'. Vital that you realise this. They do not operate according to the law of the land, the Common Law. I cannot stress this enough.

Therefore, when you appear before them the case will start and will be concluded UNLESS YOU SAY FROM THE START THAT YOU WISH YOUR CASE TO BE HEARD UNDER THE COMMON LAW. BECAUSE THE COMMON LAW, ON MATTERS SUCH AS TAX, BILLS, ETC. IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

A magistrate or judge who is told that he wants the case to be heard by the Common Law (the real law) will not like it. He will throw up his hands in disgust. He may accuse you of bringing the court into disrepute. He may even accuse you of bringing the court in to contempt etc. in extreme cases. Because his world is the world of Admiralty Law NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND, THE COMMON LAW.

You insist that you, under the common law, have a right to CONSENT OR NOT CONSENT to any commercial contract being forced on you. That you do NOT consent to the bill. That you are appealing to the Common Law. And are exercising your right NOT to pay the bill, BECAUSE YOU NEVER CONSENTED TO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Regards