The Freeman Movement and England

[volatile]

Don't be silly - what would happen is that the judge would recognise that she has based her career on a misunderstanding, dismiss the case and then resign.

Aaah! You're imagining more of a morally-driven "Ohhhh!"-type epiphany than a "Curses!" moment a la the bad guys at the end of Scooby Doo? "What have I done?!" rather than "Damn yooooou!"?

 

[Especially]

Actually under "common law" a contract does not have to written down or even explicitly stated, common practice alone can form a contract. So even if you were somehow right about "contract law" (and you aren't) the fact is that you have accepted a contract by simply living in the UK and availing yourself of the benefits etc. under "English common law".

That is wrong. A contract exists between two consenting parties. If one does not consent there is no contract. By definition.

 

[volatile]

That is wrong. A contract exists between two consenting parties. If one does not consent there is no contract. By definition.

Where is that definition codified? Show me the definition.

 

[Darat]

That is wrong. A contract exists between two consenting parties. If one does not consent there is no contract. By definition.

Pity you don't understand English common law.

 

[volatile]

Pity you don't understand English common law.

If you read the thread, you'll notice that his definition of "Common Law" and the way the rest of us define it are rather different...

 

[geni]

That is wrong. A contract exists between two consenting parties. If one does not consent there is no contract. By definition.

Common law isn't that clear cut. In particular it can mess around a fair bit on the consent isssue. For example Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.

 

[Especially]

Especially, where do you live?

I ask because we must follow your awesome lifestyle in Defeating the System, and because I am a cheapskate who would like to save money.

Now, tell me how this FOTL stuff saves me money. Not in ten years or next week - now, thanks.

The REAL system is the law of England. The fake system (the one which is messing up this nation with hardly any protest) is the corporate legal system, the corporate police forces, the corrupt politicians, the unelected monachy, the corporate bankers, the corporate local councils. And your defence is.... the Law of England. All else is corporatism. Including the courts themselves.

I can only recommend that you examine much material now on the websites TPUC and also on FMOTL, both good sites which explain in detail the difference between corporate statutes and the law of England.

You may also care to read these sites - they will surprise you

http://www.nocounciltax.com/?p=71

 

[Agatha]

'It doesn't matter' !!!!

You have got to be joking ! It doesn't matter if you pay in tax 10 times more than you receive back ? Spoken like a true Europhile !

Making strawman arguments hinders, rather than helps, your case.

Wow, you are in line for an award at the next cucumber party !

I may walk on public roads according to the Law of England.

So there !!!

But if you contend that you can refuse to take services from your local council, you clearly cannot walk on the roads or pavements, since the maintenance of said roads and pavements is a service provided by your local council.

Surely you are not advocating opting out of using services and then using the services?

 

[Especially]

Common law isn't that clear cut. In particular it can mess around a fair bit on the consent isssue. For example Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.

The law is clear cut. The legal profession specialise in obfuscation. Consent which is expressly NOT given is not consent.

And in this case consent is NOT given. It is said in writing. It is justified by the law. And it is indisputably a right in commercial law to decline a commercial contract. Indeed, a contract does not exist in commerce unless both parties consent to it.

That is so simple a child can understand it. Why, even lawyers themselves !!!

In the famous sketch with Graucho Marx -

Man - 'It's so simple a child could understand it'

Graucho Marx - 'Quick ! Fetch me a child' !!!

 

[volatile]

The REAL system is the law of England. The fake system (the one which is messing up this nation with hardly any protest) is the corporate legal system, the corporate police forces, the corrupt politicians, the unelected monachy, the corporate bankers, the corporate local councils. And your defence is.... the Law of England.

OK, I believe you. How can one call upon this law and ensure it is enforced if the corrupt judges and their corporate paymasters simply choose to ignore the Law of England? What are the consequences of a judge breaching the Law of England, if all the courts, legal system, politicians and police are in the same thrall? What, in other words (as I have asked numerous times) will happen should the evil judge simply ignore the Law of England?

 

[D'rok]

Surely you are not advocating opting out of using services and then using the services?

No, you misunderstand. He doesn't want to opt out of using services; he wants to opt of of paying for services.

Silly sheep. Don't you know your common law rights?

 

[Especially]

OK, I believe you. How can one call upon this law and ensure it is enforced if the corrupt judges and their corporate paymasters simply choose to ignore the Law of England? What are the consequences of a judge breaching the Law of England, if all the courts, legal system, politicians and police are in the same thrall? What, in other words (as I have asked numerous times) will happen should the evil judge simply ignore the Law of England?

It's a big and certainly a still growing problem. But we, the ordinary people, are waking up to the scale of the corruption. Every day. It's true that judges and our legal system are as prone to corruption as any other area of public life. In fact, we see policemen (so-called) being inducted now who do not know anything except how to act as revenue officers, corporate agents. The whole situation is in the balance.

 

[fromdownunder]

And in this case consent is NOT given. It is said in writing. It is justified by the law. And it is indisputably a right in commercial law to decline a commercial contract. Indeed, a contract does not exist in commerce unless both parties consent to it.

And as has already been pointed out, Council taxes have nothing to do with Contract law. Contract law is down the hall. ->

Norm

 

[jimbob]

Unfortunately the specific example I cited, which I bookmarked, appears to have been deleted - which is very unfortunate. Because it was hilarious.

Nonetheless, FOTL woo forums are filled with examples along the lines. Here is a good read:
http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=2302

Note that in this case the FOTL woo did everything that your supposed to. He refused to be addressed by Mr. (since in FOTL mythology Mr. relates to your legal strawman fiction and not flesh and blood human beings). He refused to stand/sit when asked (since doing so means you consent in FOTL mythology). He noticed the court with a barrage of FOTL legal documents which have no actual legal backing and are simply made up. And in the end, he was still ordered to pay council tax.

A sane human being would look at this sort of story and think that PERHAPS he lost because his arguments were based on woo that has no relationship to reality and that he should pay a tax he owes. But nope, not the FOTL woos, look at his conclusion:



Right - its not that FOTL woo has no basis in reality and that using it to make legal arguments results in you losing, the judges clearly just failed to consider his common law woo notice. And now he thinks hes going to be able to charge the court for complying with their order since its a "commercial transaction" - another part of FOTL mythology.

Thank you

for that link it was

good.

And although you

had pasted the full glory of

the paragraph formatting. I

hadn't appreciated it until l had looked at the actual site. It

somehow reminded me of haiku.

The other thing I noticed was that there do seem to be an awful lot of moderators for a forum with only 700 members, just looking at the posts on that thread.

I liked this exchange:

Re: My afternoon in court

by jonboy » Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:42 pm
Agreed

Why even go to court, just respectfully decline their "offer" and do not "attend their business premises". Non-compliance from the word go. That is more up my street.

Re: My afternoon in court

by IamallthatIam » Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:47 pm
bee there done that last year and they just grant the liability order in absentia and sen dthe bailiffs round anyway

and the earlier one that was mentioned before:

Re: My afternoon in court

by jonboy » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:36 pm
Well documented May I ask just one thing? If you never contracted with the court, ie. never agreed to be MR, DEFENDANT etc. how come they passed a judgement against you, the human??

Re: My afternoon in court

by jonboy » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:51 pm
Maybe serve a new NOUCUR, which specifically states your intention to withhold council tax. Make it clear that you, the human, are a completely seperate entity to the TAXPAYER/PERSON/MR....

 

[fromdownunder]

It's a big and certainly a still growing problem. But we, the ordinary people, are waking up to the scale of the corruption. Every day. It's true that judges and our legal system are as prone to corruption as any other area of public life. In fact, we see policemen (so-called) being inducted now who do not know anything except how to act as revenue officers, corporate agents. The whole situation is in the balance.

And its nice to see you doing something about it. Posting on Bulletin Boards is certainly the way to go. Hope you go to bed satisfied tonight that you are "doing your bit". You might also want to write a letter to some of the people who are in jail for doing what you propose here as a "supporter".

That will teach the NWO/Jewish Papist/Rothchilds a real lesson.

Norm

 

[volatile]

It's a big and certainly a still growing problem. But we, the ordinary people, are waking up to the scale of the corruption. Every day. It's true that judges and our legal system are as prone to corruption as any other area of public life. In fact, we see policemen (so-called) being inducted now who do not know anything except how to act as revenue officers, corporate agents. The whole situation is in the balance.

So.... what does that mean? Can you answer the question directly? What is the point of even going through the theatre of the FMOTL stuff if it can only, logically, be ineffective?

What is the point of all this FMOTL stuff if the powers that be can (and will) just ignore it? It does seem that the people on the forum (and you, too) believe that the words somehow magically compel adherence from otherwise evil judges. That's craziness. It's also crazy to think the the NWO are so evil that they will discard The Law of England, but not evil enough to simply ignore a bureaucratic inconvenience that might impede their evilness. Don't you agree?

So what are you advocating? Armed rebellion? Is that it? Anarchy? What do you suggest is the best course of action should a judge gaol a Freeman? If and when it is transgressed, how is the Common Law of England enforced, and by whom?

 

[geni]

The law is clear cut. The legal profession specialise in obfuscation. Consent which is expressly NOT given is not consent.

No the real world produces obfuscation. Puffery vs offer. Or more messy offer vs Invitation to treat.

And in this case consent is NOT given. It is said in writing. It is justified by the law. And it is indisputably a right in commercial law to decline a commercial contract. Indeed, a contract does not exist in commerce unless both parties consent to it.

Taxation is not commerce. Taxation does not require the consent of the person being taxed.

 

[Rolfe]

Am I imagining it, or has Especially not actually answered any questions or even elaborated on anything he's said, pretty much since the OP?

How can any thread grow this long this quickly when one side of the argument just keeps repeating the same preposterous assertions like a stuck record?

Hey Especially, if you don't PM me very soon to let me know you've figured out my location - as anyone educated in England would be able to figure out in a few minutes - I'll be forced to assume you have no clue, and have had to find somebody who really is English to explain it to you.

Maybe they could explain things like the law and the constitution to you at the same time, you don't seem to have much clue about that either.

Are you in London for long? Maybe someone here would be able to show you round. I'm sure you'd enjoy seeing places like the Tower of London and the Palace of Westminster. Stuff goes on in the latter that's more relevant than you know.

Rolfe.

 

[Agatha]

No, you misunderstand. He doesn't want to opt out of using services; he wants to opt of of paying for services.

Silly sheep. Don't you know your common law rights?

*Smacks head* how could I have been so daft? He's not a FreeMAN, he's a FreeLOADER. A Freeloader on the land.

 

[fromdownunder]

I wonder how many FOTL's were given an allowance/pocket money as a kid, and were never asked to do anything around the house in return for it. That would explain a lot.

Norm