The Freeman Movement and England

[geni]

I tell you the Common Law is NOT 'made' by anyone. Not by judges, not by lawyers.

It was made by judges starting 1066.

Let me repeat this also. The Common Law has nothing, nothing to do with judges, lawyers or politicians. It is the condensed wisdom of all ages. It is the Golden Rule. Applied as a general principle from time immemorial.

Under common law 1066 is time immemorial. This was later modifed to 1189.

The principle of 'doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves'. That principle does not belong to you. It belongs to the people. It is their law. Not the law of the legal industry. The hallmark of the common law (its DNA, if you like) is that it is an expression of that great principle.

Common law accepts no such principles and amougn other things allowed matters to be settled through wager of battle.

 

[Especially]

How many times have you failed to pay the taxes the Collecting authority that covers the area where you reside claims are due from you?




Argument by assertion logical fallacy.

You use the word 'claim' and you are right. If a person claims taxes from me which I have not consented to pay you have my answer. And since I always, always reply to such demands lawfully after considering them you have your answer. Under the law.

As far as the difference between civil law and criminal law is concerned, you may not know they are different things.

But a websearch will confirm this to you. Just type

CIVIL LAW

and

CRIMINAL LAW

They are different parts of the same legal INDUSTRY.

Regards

 

[Especially]

It was made by judges starting 1066.



Under common law 1066 is time immemorial. This was later modifed to 1189.



Common law accepts no such principles and amougn other things allowed matters to be settled through wager of battle.

No, the opposite is true. In 1066 the FEUDAL system began in England. With its slaves, serfs and stooges to the papally approved, tax gathering, unelected monarchy and its elites. That is NOT the Common Law.

Common Law existed before the time of Christ. In fact, the Golden Rule was so compatible with the Common Law it became part of the Law of England. And still is. But don't tell the legal industry - they have forgotten it and only exist to pervert it.

As for battle, that is boring. Try the Golden Rule and put your toy soldiers in their box.

 

[Lothian]

If you have contracted with them to pay tax you must pay tax. Is that difficult to accept ? If you have declined their offer of business and have said so, you are, under the law, not liable for it. Because you have declined their contract.

So, unless you can be specific you have the best answer your question deserves.

Can you specifically point to someone who has declined the offer to pay a tax required under statute and who has had their case upheld in court.

 

[geni]

No, the opposite is true. In 1066 the FEUDAL system began in England. With its slaves, serfs and stooges to the papally approved, tax gathering, unelected monarchy and its elites. That is NOT the Common Law.

Common Law existed before the time of Christ. In fact, the Golden Rule was so compatible with the Common Law it became part of the Law of England. And still is. But don't tell the legal industry - they have forgotten it and only exist to pervert it.

Before the time of christ means celtic law. Which allowed for kings, taxes, slavery amoung prisoners of war, and elites in various forms (such as say druids). It also appears to have allowed for human sacrifice.

As for battle, that is boring.

But allowed under common law. Quite effective by all accounts even if it did tend to result in draws.

Try the Golden Rule and put your toy soldiers in their box.

"the Golden Rule" doesn't feature in celtic law.

 

[geni]

You use the word 'claim' and you are right. If a person claims taxes from me which I have not consented to pay you have my answer. And since I always, always reply to such demands lawfully after considering them you have your answer. Under the law.

How many times have you not paid them?

As far as the difference between civil law and criminal law is concerned, you may not know they are different things.

But a websearch will confirm this to you. Just type

CIVIL LAW

and

CRIMINAL LAW

They are different parts of the same legal INDUSTRY.

Nope. I am legaly free to defend myself under criminal law and plead my own case under civil. There is no requirement that I employ a lawyer.

 

[D'rok]

Yes, this thread just gets better. Your Pavlovian servitude is really wonderful. And you pay it all. Because you never stopped to give your consent, did you ?

I give my consent every time I cast my vote. And I cast my vote every time. I also give my implied consent every time I use any public works like roads, bridges and schools.

Since you have withheld your consent for these things, I expect you to place yourself under voluntary isolation in whatever private property you own and subsist entirely under your own labour or from the charity of other individuals. This means that you must disconnect yourself from the grid if it is publicly owned where you live. It also means no garbage pickup. But if you live off of your land alone, as you must seeing as how you did not consent to help pay for the road outside your property, composting can go a long way. It will be a hard life, but simple, and you will be free.

I also expect you to get the hell off the Internet. You are spewing your nonsense over a global communications network that is, in no small part, a public work of infrastructure in each country.

If you do not do at least these basic things to remain consistent with your rhetoric of "consent", we can all safely conclude that Freeman means freeloader, or, more accurately, ignorant sociopath.

Or you could pay your taxes and enjoy the benefits of civilization.

We get the government we deserve. Because we choose to remain ignorant.

Willfully ignorant in many cases. Let's have an example.

From you:

1. The common law = the golden rule
2. Judges review and adhere to the common law
3. The tort of negligence is derived from the golden rule

But, also from you:

1. Judges have nothing to do with the common law
2. All judges are rogues
3. The golden rule expressed legally as the duty of care is not the common law

Can't you at least keep your delusions internally logically consistent?

 

[volatile]

At the risk of repeating myself: what I should do if, having failed to pay my council tax and demanded I be tried "under the Law of England", I end up in gaol anyway?

 

[Especially]

Before the time of christ means celtic law. Which allowed for kings, taxes, slavery amoung prisoners of war, and elites in various forms (such as say druids). It also appears to have allowed for human sacrifice.




But allowed under common law. Quite effective by all accounts even if it did tend to result in draws.



"the Golden Rule" doesn't feature in celtic law.

No, 'before the time of Christ' did not mean Celtic Law. And what was Celtic Law anyway ? I am saying that the Common Law existed widely before the Christian era. Because that is a plain fact. The Saxons lived under the Common Law. So did large areas of Denmark. Both of which lived in England long, long before 1066. In fact, large areas of England were under Danelaw. And others under the Anglo/Saxons. They too were 'freemen' and were not bound to any lord. Until, gradually, serfdom was forced on them. Entire areas of England were made up of free men.

The Norman Conquest was resisted by entire areas of Britain. Such as the North of England. Wales another. The Normans were not interested in Common Law. They wanted lordship of England through their own elites. That's not Common Law either. They wanted lots of taxes to be collected and sent to their master in Rome. That's not Common Law either. It's feudalism. And if you can't tell the difference between feudalism and common law, well, what can I say ?

The Common Law was in England long, long before the papally approved invasion and occupation of England. The monarchy made a deal with the papacy to stay in power. It's called Magna Carta and its a record of the corporate takeover of England. It has nothing to do with freedom. In fact it made men subjects of their own land. Ever read your own passport ? You are a SUBJECT of the unelected monarchy. The successors of the Norman Invasion.

 

[volatile]

"'Doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves', but don't pay taxes, ever. Does that sound like it has a moral quandry in there somewhere?

 

[Lothian]

At the risk of repeating myself: what I should do if, having failed to pay my council tax and demanded I be tried "under the Law of England", I end up in gaol anyway?

Reflect on the FACT that it was YOUR RIGHT to demand trail by the GOD GIVEN common law and your ignorant jailers are thieves who fail to understand the LAW of the common united states of England and the UK as laid out in the Great Britain constitution.

 

[volatile]

Reflect on the FACT that it was YOUR RIGHT to demand trail by the GOD GIVEN common law and your ignorant jailers are thieves who fail to understand the LAW of the common united states of England and the UK as laid out in the Great Britain constitution.

So I'm screwed, then?

Thanks a lot, Essentially.

 

[Especially]

"'Doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves', but don't pay taxes, ever. Does that sound like it has a moral quandry in there somewhere?

Volatile,

Let me not be vague in my reply. Let me be specific.

Can you show me the exact law in the USA which says that a man/woman must pay federal income tax ?

And can you show me the law in England which says a man/woman must pay Council Tax ?

I promise to give you a lawful reply if you will justify these two basic cases with the law that relates to them.

 

[Especially]

Reflect on the FACT that it was YOUR RIGHT to demand trail by the GOD GIVEN common law and your ignorant jailers are thieves who fail to understand the LAW of the common united states of England and the UK as laid out in the Great Britain constitution.

The solution is simple. Next time you are given a bill do yourself the favour of asking what, exactly, you are being asked to pay for. And, when you have received the reply, and when you have considered whether you want those goods and services, you can consent to having them, or not, as the case may be.

Which, unless I am much mistaken, is fair and reasonable, yes ? I mean, you want to have consent, don't you ?

Nothing like observing the law of England is there ?

 

[volatile]

Volatile,

Let me not be vague in my reply. Let me be specific.

Can you show me the exact law in the USA which says that a man/woman must pay federal income tax ?

And can you show me the law in England which says a man/woman must pay Council Tax ?

I promise to give you a lawful reply if you will justify these two basic cases with the law that relates to them.

What law says a man/woman must pay Council Tax? The Local Government and Finance Act 1992, as it happens (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920014_en_1.htm). I suppose you're going to tell me that this a STATUTE and not a LAW, though. Awesome. Can you tell me what I should do if, having failed to pay the tax the court said was due, they lock me away (even after stating that I wish to "be tried under English law")? Seriously, if I try this and end up in prison, who do I call to report the judges to?

Anyway: that wasn't what I was asking. The point is this: how can you consistently and coherently be in favour of "doing unto others...", but against the means by which it gets done? That's a fundamental contradiction.

 

[RHolmes]

Aw, come on Especially - I think it's only fair that you point us to some documentary evidence showing us what is contained in this mythical "common law" to which you keep referring.

Are Alfred the Great's Dooms still enforceable as "common law" or were they horrid statutes as well?

Oh, and if I end in court on a criminal charge, do you recommend ordeal by fire or ordeal by water? Or were they not part of the proper "common law" either?

 

[Especially]

Reflect on the FACT that it was YOUR RIGHT to demand trail by the GOD GIVEN common law and your ignorant jailers are thieves who fail to understand the LAW of the common united states of England and the UK as laid out in the Great Britain constitution.

God forbid that we should think commerce is ruling things these days, right ?

 

[Lothian]

The solution is simple. Next time you are given a bill do yourself the favour of asking what, exactly, you are being asked to pay for. And, when you have received the reply, and when you have considered whether you want those goods and services, you can consent to having them, or not, as the case may be.

And what happens to people liable under section 6 of Local Government Finance Act 1992 who decides not to consent to pay the council tax charge?

 

[Especially]

Aw, come on Especially - I think it's only fair that you point us to some documentary evidence showing us what is contained in this mythical "common law" to which you keep referring.

Are Alfred the Great's Dooms still enforceable as "common law" or were they horrid statutes as well?

Oh, and if I end in court on a criminal charge, do you recommend ordeal by fire or ordeal by water? Or were they not part of the proper "common law" either?

It's not worth arguing about. Do you want to contract with these people who are sending you bills for goods and services or not ? If you do, great. But if you do not, that's fine too. The choice is yours. It's called consent.

Now, is that fair and reasonable or not ?

 

[jimbob]

Ever read your own passport ? You are a SUBJECT of the unelected monarchy. The successors of the Norman Invasion.