• 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:
But you are not interested in facts, are you ? There are THOUSANDS of examples every day of people NOT consenting to paying for goods and services which they never asked for in the first place.

Try the websites

TPUC

and again -

FMOTL

in England

And then tell me the same thing.

Because you must understand something rather quickly. The courts do not sit to hear such cases under any other law than Admiralty Law (commecial law) and their game is so clever that you, an ordinary person, are hardly aware of it. I repeat that every person has a right to consent or not to consent to statutes, according to the law of the land.

Get used to it. The rest is a scam.
Click to expand...

How many of those thousands have won their case in a UK court. Cite one please.
 
Architect said:
Especially, whether you are currently resident in London is academic. I asked why you were pretending to be from the UK, and why you seemed unable to understand the important distinction - generally acknowledged on this side of the pond - between "England" and the "UK".
Click to expand...


England is a nation. It has its own law. It has centuries of documented evidence of what the law is. The UK is a political union nobody voted for. Ruled over by a head of state nobody voted for. And to which all politicians are in sworn allegiance to. The theatre of Westminster. The Common Law of England is the law of England. The rest are statutes, binding on the governed only with their consent.

Simple, right ?
 
Lothian said:
How many of those thousands have won their case in a UK court. Cite one please.
Click to expand...


I have already answered you.

Go to websites such as

TPUC

and

FMOTL

You as a human being have the right to consent, or not to consent, to statute laws. So says the Law of England. And for a contract to be binding it must have the consent of both parties. Is this simple, or what ?

Get it yet ?

p.s. Notice our lawyer friends won't tell us they are operating under the Admiralty Law (commercial law) in their industry ? Just a coincidence, of course.
 
Last edited:
Maja said:
Are you saying that you are only able to have a conversation with people who have already agreed with your views before it has started?
Click to expand...


No, not at all. Before we have a conversation on issues where we hold different views it's reasonable to ask for us to define our terms. And this I have done. Since the Law of England makes it clear that no contract exists unless both parties consent to it. This is so simple a lawyer can understand it.

I say the courts in England on such cases operate as private, profit making commercial organisations and that they run according to Admiralty (commercial) law. Not the law of England.

And you say ?
 
Last edited:
Especially said:
England is a nation. It has its own law. It has centuries of documented evidence of what the law is. The UK is a political union nobody voted for. Ruled over by a head of state nobody voted for. And to which all politicians are in sworn allegiance to. The theatre of Westminster. The Common Law of England is the law of England. The rest are statutes, binding on the governed only with their consent.

Simple, right ?
Click to expand...


What you say is not, in fact, all correct. However the point I'm pressing you is, quite specifically, your incorrect use of the terms "England" and "UK" when considering constitutional and legal issues. These are not errors that those from the UK would normally make.

You also make very basic errors in understanding English history - history which even those of us from the other home nations can follow.

I therefore call your bluff. Your are not, in fact, English - although it may be that you are temporarily resident here - and are merely trying to port FOTL arguments to the UK scenario.
 
Caustic Logic said:
He doesn't consent to the American Revolution! That was won under the terms of Admiralty (ie wartime) law, and hence nullified by lack of statutory volition... and such. Look it up!
Click to expand...

That he thinks "England" was one of the parties to the US War of Independence suggests to me that his grasp of history is less than perfect, yes.
 
Architect said:
What you say is not, in fact, all correct. However the point I'm pressing you is, quite specifically, your incorrect use of the terms "England" and "UK" when considering constitutional and legal issues. These are not errors that those from the UK would normally make.

You also make very basic errors in understanding English history - history which even those of us from the other home nations can follow.

I therefore call your bluff. Your are not, in fact, English - although it may be that you are temporarily resident here - and are merely trying to port FOTL arguments to the UK scenario.
Click to expand...


And I say that our courts are being run under Admiralty (commercial law) and not the law of England.

Your reply to this is............................. ?
 
Especially said:
And I say that our courts are being run under Admiralty (commercial law) and not the law of England.

Your reply to this is............................. ?
Click to expand...

1. You cite no evidence.

2. "Our"? I don't live in England. Or are you applying the same arguments to Scots Law as well?
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
1. You cite no evidence.

2. I don't live in England.
Click to expand...


Since you do not live in England you are forgiven for not knowing the basics of the legal industry here in England.

I have directed you to two different English websites, filled with evidence.

TPUC

FMOTL

When you have visited them and read the details there please post again and I will be glad to answer any questions.

Regards
 
Lothian said:
I would rather read the official court decisions. Go to your websites, pick out a single case, your best one and come back here with the court case reference.
Click to expand...

No, I do not consent to your offer. I offer you instead to agree that our court cases are a commercial industry operating under Admiralty Law (commercial law) and not under the law of England.

And since you are sending me away let me send you away too. By recommending you to visit to easy websites -

TPUC

and also -

FMOTL

Do yourself the great favour, lady, of hearing things from at least two sides. Which is, after all, the very basis of a fair lawful hearing. Yes ?

Thank You
 
Lothian said:
I am not the person claiming that you can avoid a statue law by claiming that you never consented to it.
Click to expand...

Lothian,

Government, by definition, operates (only) with the consent of the governed. Unless of course you live in a tyranny.

The Statutes of Parliament require the CONSENT of the governed.

These are such simple facts I can only assume you are a lawyer. Or are close to being married to one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom