The Freeman Movement and England

[volatile]

You have not told us under what law a judge would lock a person up who simply declines the goods and services being offered to them.

Yes, we have.

The corrupt and evil judge locks you up for tax evasion, ignoring your magic Freeman words. You can make whatever choice you like, but given that this malicious agent of the Admiralty Court and his Jesuit Masonic Papal Puppetmasters in Parliament is, in fact, malicious, he will ignore it. Won't he?

So. You do your FOTL-spiel. It doesn't work. What do you do then? Enlighten me.

----

It really does seem to me that you think that although the system is evil and Jesuit and all the rest, it is not evil enough - that is, it retains enough decency to respect any loopholes it happens to have left in its evil plan. You think the world is run by evil, cackling bureaucrats, whose capacity for evil is only outdone by their fidelity to respecting the bureaucracy they have created. That's the only conditions under which what you're saying could possibly be true.

 

[jimbob]

But we have established no such thing ! I am not in jail because I have broken no law. And nor are you. Those who break the law are in jail. So can we stop arguing about irrelevancies ?

Under the law a person is entitled to consent or not consent to commercial contracts being offered to them, even those which come in the form of a bill. You seem to accept this. Which is great. In that case what law has been broken ? None.

You have to invent some malicious system. Because only a malicious system would jail a person who is appealing to the law. Yes ?

In that case, don't you see you are arguing in circles ? If the malicious system exists we should not contract with it. But if it does not exist why should we worry about it ?

It also seems to me that people have the right to contract to have their bins opened, or to use the NHS, or to swim in swimming pools, or use public libraries if they wish to pay for them in that way and do not have their own alternatives. Isn't that fair and reasonable ?

What exactly is the problem here ?

A man or a woman can choose these things. They may consent to them. Great ! But they may not. Great ! In that case, what's the problem ? Why the coercion ? Why the fiction of it being 'the law' when, in fact, it is nothing but a commercial contract dressed up as 'the law' ?

You see my point ? We are living in the Nanny State and I don't want to live in the Nanny State.

OK:

So show me any case where someone successfully used the claim that they should be tried "under the common law of England"* to defend themselves (or their client) against charges of tax evasion.



*or whatever it is you are claiming?

So:

1) Do you pay taxes?

2) If no, does HMRC know about this?

3) If yes, have they tried to claim taxes from you?

4) If not, why? If yes, did you go to Court, argue your case and win?

5) If you did win, why haven't I heard about it on the news, as there must be some independent journalists out there.

 

[volatile]

Do you wish to live in a society where a person can be locked up simply by declining a commercial offer ?

Do you want to discuss what type of society we should have, or do you wish to discuss the society as it is currently? You've quite resolutely been doing the latter; indeed, the FOTL stuff relies on you having been doing the latter. This thread is about whether or not the loopholes you claim exist, really do exist.

Whether or not I want to live in a society without taxes is an entirely different conversation to the one we're currently having. If you wish to have it, I suggest you start another thread.

 

[Especially]

Ok, we have established that your arguments don't work (as in don't keep you out of jail). Some people may elect to exchange their liberty for their sovereignty but I don't see it a big vote winner.

There is an argument that we are all imprisoned and that the law (as commonly applied) keeps us captive, but most people want the laws we have and don't want people sponging off the rest of us. They are happy to exchange a loss of freedom for the benefits.

If you were right and there is no legal justification for taxes people would soon insist that taxes were enforced. I don't know if you have had the chance to speak to many Brits but we like or free education, our NHS, our bins emptied etc. and we think that people should, subject to means testing contribute to them if they are to remain at liberty in our society.

Perhaps rather than wasting time arguing over your understanding of a law that you accept is not applied you tell us what your alternative is to compulsory taxation.

What is 'compulsory taxation' ?

We have many taxes in this country. Dozens of them. I do not pay taxes for keeping a boat because I do not own a boat. Nobody compels me to pay a boat tax.

And will you tell us the lawful basis for imposing US federal income tax and also Community Charge, since none really exists. Unless you can show us differently, of course.

 

[Elizabeth I]

But you are completely ignoring the point.

Do you wish to live in a society where a person can be locked up simply by declining a commercial offer ? When his/her appeal is based on his/her right under the law to consent or not to that same offer ?

Do we ever stop to think about the automaton-style arguments being advanced here which remove from you your own liberty ?

OK, one more time. (I keep banging my head against this brick wall because it feels so good when I stop...)

We are not talking about what I want or what you want.

We are talking about what is.

The fact is that, right now, if you do not obey what you choose to call statute or Admiralty law, it is likely that sooner or later someone will arrest you, try you in a court which (whether you agree that it has jurisdiction over you or not) may quite easily find you guilty, and then the statute-ists will lock you up.

The charge does not matter. It could be serial jaywalking, it could be refusal to pay taxes, it could be driving without a license.

The odds are that, even if you call it statute or Admiralty law or commercial law, if you flout it, there will be a penalty. It does not matter whether you agree that the penalty is just or enforceable, there are people who can and will enforce it.

This could happen, even if you speak the words Freemanism tells you to speak and take the actions it tells you to take.

We all understand that you do not like this. We all understand that you believe it to be cruel, capricious and unjust.

What we are asking is, given that this is the situation as it exists right now, if you find yourself crushed under the wheel of Admiralty law, who can you appeal to? What can you do? How does Freemanism say you can escape?

Because the system simply will not allow you to assert your Freeman rights. The system doesn't even believe in or acknowledge your Freeman rights. It will keep right on going and take you with it.

 

[Lothian]

What is 'compulsory taxation' ?

We have many taxes in this country. Dozens of them. I do not pay taxes for keeping a boat because I do not own a boat. Nobody compels me to pay a boat tax.

If you choose to own a house here you pay council tax. If you chose to ean money here you pay income tax.

If you choose own a car and drive it you choose to pay road tax and you choose to pay insurance. If you choose to speed in you car you pay a fine.

Choose, compel call it what you want. All the above laws come from statute and not one of your common law arguments will keep you out of jail if you refuse to pay, irrespective of any lack of contract. Your freeman arguments are totally useless.

 

[uk_dave]

The fact is that, right now, if you do not obey what you choose to call statute or Admiralty law, it is likely that sooner or later someone will arrest you, try you in a court which (whether you agree that it has jurisdiction over you or not) may quite easily find you guilty, and then the statute-ists will lock you up.

You're missing the scam.

The tax evading FOTLer believes that no prosecution will follow if they say the magic words.

Because they believe this to be true (or rather, desperately want everyone else to believe it) they cannot cite case history because none exists.... the magic words work and all FOTLers walk free!!

How do we know this is true?

Well, some guy on the internet said so.........

 

[volatile]

You're missing the scam.

The tax evading FOTLer believes that no prosecution will follow if they say the magic words.

Because they believe this to be true (or rather, desperately want everyone else to believe it) they cannot cite case history because none exists.... the magic words work and all FOTLers walk free!!

How do we know this is true?

Well, some guy on the internet said so.........

But that's the very core of the problem, right? The Admiralty Courts are corrupt and evil and self-serving, but they are also honour-bound to abide by any loopholes they happen to have left in their nefarious plan! The only thing greater than their boundless malice is their unwavering fastidiousness!

This whole thing is like a cross between Perry Mason, Arabian Nights, Wizard of Oz and Brazil.

 

[uk_dave]

But that's the very core of the problem, right? The Admiralty Courts are corrupt and evil and self-serving, but they are also honour-bound to abide by any loopholes they happen to have left in their nefarious plan!

Ahhhh but words are magic!! Just like the oath to liz. If you say it and then act independantly of the monarch you will be struck by lightening by the big guy upstairs, coz although he is no doubt on the side of the good christian FOTLers, he can't ignore magic words either....otherwise he'll....ummmmmm..... ermmmmmmm.... no, lost it now, sorry.

 

[jimbob]

From the link (I think) Volatile posted

http://www.fmotl.com/SOCPAScam.htm

So. If you get stopped under Section 165, ask a few pertinent questions, such as:
<snip>
"And I'm telling you something else. That you need to ascertain the truth of this matter, before taking an irrevocable step. Because, put quite simply, if you seize my car, without the authority of a Court of Law, you - personally - will be committing a serious offence. Actually a crime."

" A crime for which you can be fined, and possibly imprisoned. You see officer, if you check up - and I seriously suggest you do for your own sake - you'll see that Common Law does not recognise uniforms. Common Law does not recognise the uniform you are wearing. The one you think protects you. I can assure you it doesn't. Under Common Law each is responsible for their own actions, whatever clothes they may be wearing at the time."

I can't be bothered to copy over the italicisation and underlining, which "adds" to the effect of the whole screed of text, but.you could get a similar effect from randomly underlining any words which appeal to you.

 

[Elizabeth I]

The only thing greater than their boundless malice is their unwavering fastidiousness!

That's a great line and describes so many wacked-out, screwed up worldviews.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Here's the question: what do you do now? What is the next step under the Freeman plan? To whom do you appeal?

Although this sort of scenario actually happens quite a bit for the FOTL faithful, the answer is always the same. Either (1) the FOTLer failed to use the PRECISE magical legal word to make the court tremble and do their bid, or (2) the judge/jury/whoever clearly lied and did not act in accordance with admiralty law like they are supposed to.

You see variations of the (1) excuse all over the freeman forums whenever one of the woos gets taken to court. As FOTL is based on legal woo that doesn't actually exist practicing it often gets the FOTLers held in contempt of court and results in the FOTL faithful being sent for mental evaluations by judges. When the FOTL report this to the message boards they are often told they made some sort of mistake and the devious and cunning judge forced them to contract, and that is why they lost the case (since you can't lose if you don't consent to contract, after all!).

My favorite one was one of the FOTLers got taken to court and played their little "I am a human being, not a person" game and would not respond to the judge calling them Mr. SoandSo. As they were leaving, the woo reported that the judge was threatening to hold them in contempt for a mental evaluation and as they walked out of the court room (admiralty court, of course) that the judge said "Mr. SoandSo, you forgot your files on the bench." - and when the FOTLer turned around, thus acknowledging the judge who called him Mr., the cunning and devious judge had forced him to contract! Thus, the FOTL forum woos stated that THIS was the reason why he lost and was held in contempt, not that FOTL woo was made up and didn't have any basis in reality.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Ahhhh but words are magic!! Just like the oath to liz. If you say it and then act independantly of the monarch you will be struck by lightening by the big guy upstairs, coz although he is no doubt on the side of the good christian FOTLers, he can't ignore magic words either....otherwise he'll....ummmmmm..... ermmmmmmm.... no, lost it now, sorry.

That's okay, I know you all adore me. I don't insist on a formal oath.

 

[jimbob]

LightinDarkness,

Linkys, please?


They sound quite amusing....

 

[volatile]

Although this sort of scenario actually happens quite a bit for the FOTL faithful, the answer is always the same.

You're right, of course, but that's not really the question I (and I think Elizabeth) was asking... What you've described is the rationalisation as to why it didn't work. What I'm interested in is how the FOTLers think they can get recognition for their point of view in the face of such nefarious opposition.

After all, law is, as the sane amongst us understand, all about application. If this Common Law of England is never and can never be applied, it's no kind of law at all, is it? I mean, if it "exists", in some sense, but can never called upon, what good is it? Even if the FOTLers are correct (!!!), it doesn't make a blind bit of difference in any real sense. It seems really silly to base your strategy for overthrowing the evil, merciless NWO on looking for loopholes in their bureaucracy which you think they're bound to acknowledge, imploding when they do. As I said, it assumes a sadistically evil opponent whose malice is only outdone by their slavish adherence to the bureaucracy it has created for itself, even if such adherence leads to its self-destruction!

 

[Lothian]

I found this in the FTOLs handbook

If you do (somehow) end up in Prison.

You will be asked to bend over, touch you toes and take it like a man.

The correct reply is "If I bend over, will I have a contract with you?"

If the answer is "No", then you say "Under Common Law it all very well for two lonely sailors to engage in sex; that is the law-of-the-sea but we are on dry land"

If the answer is "Yes" then you can say "Then you need to provide me with FULL DISCLOSURE, some CONSIDERATION, the LAWFUL TERMS AND CONDITIONS, and we would both need to SIGN. Is that not so?".

If they threatened 'violence' (a trick they often use), then the response is "Is that CIVIL or CRIMINAL violence".

 

[volatile]

I found this in the FTOLs handbook

Who wants to be at TAM anyway? The fun's right here on the forum! Hahaha!

 

[LashL]

The plain fact is our courts here in the UK are run as commercial corporations and sit under Admiralty (commercial law).

No, they are not.

It's the job of the public to teach you people in the legal industry what the LAW ACTUALLY IS.

Emphatically no, it is not.

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.

No, this is nonsense.

Who is 'hilarious' ?

Nah, that's just too easy.

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

No, FOTLers are deceiving people stupid enough and/or gullible enough to believe their uneducated (and dangerous) drivel.

May I suggest you obtain (or consult) a standard law dictionary. Take, for example, 'Black's Law Dictionary'.

I have a copy at my office, thanks.

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.

No, this is unadulterated nonsense.

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

No, this is more unadulterated nonsense.

And this is crucially important.

No, this is almost comically ridiculous.

When you enter a court you must understand they are operating commercially. Under the Admiralty Law.

No, this is untrue.

If you do not understand this you will lose.

No, if you try to invoke this unmitigated drivel, you will lose.

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.

No, despite the very impressive use of ALL CAPS.

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.

He is equally likely to consider sending you for a psychiatric evaluation.

Please reference a case in the UK where a breach of statute law has been won by a defendant citing that statute law doesn't applay as they never consented.

I want you to cite a single case. Got it yet ?

....and you cite one case. The clock has been ticking for quite some time.

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.

So give me one case where refusing to consent to be judged by statute has allowed the defendant to walk free.

One case. Isn't this fair and reasonable ?

So am I correct there is not a single case of someone in the UK successfully arguing that they have not consented to a statute law.

I am asking for you to provide one case where someone has successfully argued this in court.

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.

I have asked you lots of times to show me a court case where someone has won with the argument you suggest is legally valid.

Is anyone the least bit surprised that Especially has failed and refused to accede to these very reasonable requests that he provide a single example in support of his claims?

Let's dissect this a little shall we? How about we take a look at one area of common law. Let's say we look at torts. In particular, let's look at the tort of negligence. Even more particularly, let's look at the concept of duty of care within the tort of negligence.

Can you tell me when and how the concept of duty of care entered into the tort of negligence in English common law?

Oh, pick me, pick me!

The stupid is strong with this one.

Indeed.

 

[volatile]

This is seriously the funniest thing I've read online for months!!!

"First of all: How do you know your name? Your parents told you. And, of course, you believed that. No doubt they showed you a Birth Certificate ... but how do you - actually - know that is you? How do you know that the Certificate you think is yours is not that of a twin? Or a previously birthed person who died?" (http://www.fmotl.com/BackToSquare1.htm)

ZOMG!!! Maybe my name is NOT REALLY MY NAME! Maybe I'm ACTUALLY DEAD! ZOMGGG!!!!

 

[volatile]

Oh. My. Word. THEY HAVE A FORUM!.