• 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.
Please do. If we want to get FOTL info from the horse's mouth, we could find no better thoroughbred than you. :)
 
Over on the DI forums I have read people saying that they drive their cars [in the UK] with no insurance, and state that if they were to have a fault accident, they would pay.

FreemanMenard, what is your view on this?
 
FreemanMenard,

I watched a video of one of your presentations. You make the claim that Canada is a corporation and Canadian citizens can file papers to claim their share of the stock to the value of ~$10 million. You stated that a woman in Vancouver had done this some years ago and received her stock.

At the end of the presentation, a member of the audience asks the obvious question - have you claimed your share of the stock? You replied that you had just filed the papers. That was over a year ago. Are you now a wealthy man?
 
FreemanMenard said:
HI! May I join the fun?
Click to expand...

Sure.

Let's go right back to first principles. Do you think the FMOTL stuff is an "Is" or an "Ought"? That is to say, do you think that you really do have no obligations to follow statutory law, and that by the proper incantation, you can avoid paying taxes etc., or are you simply of the opinion that a world in which this were true would be better than the way things actually operate?
 
Agatha said:
Over on the DI forums I have read people saying that they drive their cars [in the UK] with no insurance, and state that if they were to have a fault accident, they would pay.

FreemanMenard, what is your view on this?
Click to expand...


If this false dilemma is anything to go by, he seems to prefer unlicensed (and therefore presumably uninsured) drivers to licensed ones.
 
Just to pick up quickly on the Council Tax issue - it's probably worth noting that local government is actually funded in the majority from central government. The exact balance varies, but on average I think only about 25-30% of local government funding comes from Council Tax. So the whole argument about services is really a bit moot.
 
Yes, yes they do. You provide them with consent by continuing to live within the borders of the country that passed those statutes.

In order to withdraw consent to be governed by said statutes, you have to leave the country. (and then move to a country that has statutes you can agree to abide by)
Click to expand...

This position is unreasonable, untenable and unsupported by logic. Let us examine it at the extreme. There is limited land on the planet. If all the land is governed as you say, then one would have to learn to fly or swim constantly. Here in Canada, the power exercised by say a government agent, is no greater then the source of that power, that being the people. Since there is no single human being in Canada who has the power to force me to leave merely because I refuse to contract with him or his representatives, what with EQUALITY BEING PARAMOUNT, and a group cannot claim authority that none possess individually, then your argument must fail. Who is gonna make me leave? No one has that power, and yet I do not consent to being governed by the statutes you believe are law. What can you or anyone else do about it? NOTHING is what. Not a single human being in Canada has the right or power to force me or anyone else to leave for exercising my right of association. Can you show me anywhere anything to support this position, that physical presence implies consent and grants authority in a common law jurisdiction where equality is paramount? I know you want to believe it is the case, and for those with a high school clique mentality it seems obvious, but who is going to kick me out? You? Your representatives, agents or employees? The courts? Who is going to remove me? I see no one, and so your position, that I have to leave, is way off the mark, because you simply can't enforce it regardless of if it is 'true' to you.

I have a question for you.

How many of the founders of the Freeman movement are currently imprisoned?
Click to expand...
Not I. And it is not like they would not like to spank me or that they have not tried either. And I know ALL the founders, and not a single one of us are presently imprisoned, facing charges or worried about them in the future.

and as a follow up, how many followers of Freeman philosophy are currently imprisoned, or have had property confiscated as a result of following said philosophy?
Click to expand...

That question is impossible to answer. How can I know how many across the globe are imprisoned, what their beliefs are or what they tried to use? How could anyone answer that question? It must have been rhetorical, right? However, if your argument is that people are in jail, they believe certain things, therefore they are in jail for those beliefs is simply faulty logic. I think it is called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. How many people in jail have previously voted, or are Christians, or did not try to use the Freeman knowledge at all? Weigh that number and you will see that statistically, it is those who do not use this information and have never heard of it that end up in jail.

oh and for a bonus point question how many Freeman advocates have been victorious within the courts of England and not had to pay car tax/get a driving licence/pay council tax/income tax/ etc.
Click to expand...
Again, you ask questions that are simply not answerable without investing a lot of time and research. Do that yourself if you want to know. Also to define victory by the past is to deny the power of claiming the future. I know in Canada, we have had numerous confirmations of these fundamental truths. There are travellers operating without license or permit. They have been stopped by the police and once identified as Freemen the police withdrew and went on their way, without attempting to enforce statutory obligations or restraints. People have successfully used their rights to have financial obligations discharged and bills paid. Thousands have successfully discharged their student loans. Police officers have be seen to act with respect to those who have claimed Freeman status and with acceptance of the limits of their authority to enforce statutes against said Freemen. But most importantly, many many people have been empowered to question authority and learn the law. Many I have spoken with were appreciative of being able to stand in court without the fear they would normally have experienced. From the perspective of enjoying greater control over ones life and acting without the burdens of fear, anger and shame, the Freeman knowledge is a grand and divine success.


Over on the DI forums I have read people saying that they drive their cars [in the UK] with no insurance, and state that if they were to have a fault accident, they would pay.

FreemanMenard, what is your view on this?
Click to expand...

I distinguish between travelling and driving, and these actions physically are identical to a third party observer. The difference is one is merely exercising a right and cannot engage in commerce by say delivering pizza, and the other has by way of application secured the privilege to drive or engage in commerce on the public roads. That concept requires one to be able to distinguish between two actions which although appear to be similar, are not. If one can't do that there is no need to try and further discuss this, as we would merely be wasting time. All elephants are grey, does not mean all grey things are elephants, and an action which is under one set of circumstances defined as driving is not defined the same under a different set of circumstances, and the difference here is whether the owner registered his auto and is engaging in commerce on the public roads. Insurance is a gambling scheme and defined as such, and although the truth is there is no requirement at law to gamble with insurance in order to exercise the right to t ravel, I do see it as prudent to have and have developed an idea that would address this issue. In Canada you can 'drive' without insurance and yes I refer to a registered motor vehicle. You do have to have proof of financial responsibility though.

Oh goody! It appears as though our previous FOTL woos have called in the cavalry! Yes, please do join in.
Click to expand...

It must be very handy for you to be able to label some perspective, idea, belief or argument as 'woo'. It means you do not have to address the concepts contained therein, let alone even treat the belief, idea or perspective as such. You get to label those as delusions and insanities without even looking at them and jump right to ridiculing the presenter of the opposing perspective. It is to me evidence that the one using such terminology sees opposing views as offensive and threatening and they act to see the ideas are suppressed, not examined properly and discarded if they fail to meet standards of logic and reason. I have read this thread, and have seen many people who use the same arguing tactic. It is akin to children who stick their fingers in their ears and yell “LALALALALALALALALALA” and when you leave because they are simply acting childishly, they claim victory in the argument.


Let's go right back to first principles. Do you think the FMOTL stuff is an "Is" or an "Ought"? That is to say, do you think that you really do have no obligations to follow statutory law, and that by the proper incantation, you can avoid paying taxes etc., or are you simply of the opinion that a world in which this were true would be better than the way things actually operate?
Click to expand...

It is an IS. It is truth and it does not care if you or others do not like the effect it has on your life or sense of well being. I have heard people reject these ideas because they do not like the effect. For instance people will argue against the right to travel without permit or license or insurance because they are scared of what might happen if it was the truth. They examine concepts and decide what is and is not the truth, or what should be the truth, based on the potential effect that perspective may have on their existence, and if negative, even the truth will be rejected. The truth simply does not care if you like it, if it has a positive or negative effect on your life, or if you agree with it. The truth is no man can govern me without my consent. I have the right and power to deny consent and be ungoverned. Regardless of it you like that or not, it is the truth, and you not liking it, or saying I should leave because I do not agree with you, does not change the truth. I am not governed by you or your representatives or your statutes, and I am not leaving. And there is nothing in the law that allows you directly or through your elected government to remove me for taking the stand I take. Sorry. Also, it does not matter one bit if you like this set of facts. They are the truth. So to answer your questions two, it is an is, and the world would be better if more people realized it as such. Of course that is merely my perspective.

I watched a video of one of your presentations. You make the claim that Canada is a corporation and Canadian citizens can file papers to claim their share of the stock to the value of ~$10 million. You stated that a woman in Vancouver had done this some years ago and received her stock.
Click to expand...

At the end of the presentation, a member of the audience asks the obvious question - have you claimed your share of the stock? You replied that you had just filed the papers. That was over a year ago. Are you now a wealthy man?
Click to expand...

I believe I said I was in the process of doing it. And I was. Had the paperwork all ready, and then due to time restrictions and travel opportunities, I did not get it done. I have yet to do it. I have my reasons for holding off. I realized I would be acting prematurely, and without all my pieces on the board so to speak. Also I am not motivated by money, though I too have obligations. You ask am I rich. I say yes I am. I am very rich. I feel very very blessed and enjoy much abundance. Have I claimed my security? Nope not yet. Do I still have the intent to do so? Absolutely. I hope you don't mind me deciding for myself what my actions will be, or when they will be, and I trust you are mature enough not to attempt to use dares or peer pressure to attempt to control or define my actions.

Well, I have much to do, chief of which presently is eating some tasty thanksgiving leftovers! Have a great day everybody!
Rob
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Please do. Feel free to pop back 'round to the other thread and answer some of the questions put to you. Like this one:



Originally Posted by LightinDarkness View Post


Now, here in reality we know that this isn't true because a "person" is NOT some mysterious legal fiction. IN reality we know we refer to people as persons due to the style of our language. In reality, we know there is no difference between a person and a human being. Therefore, if you try any of the FOTL woo you will end up with horrible credit and have the house taken from you eventually. But since when did FOTL let the silly facts get in the way?

Let's examine your statement as to what is reality and see if it holds. You say "In reality we know there is no differnece between a person and a human being." Using logic and math, this leads to:
All persons are human beings. [P=HB]
And its corollary all human beings are persons. [HB=P]
However we know also that corporations are in law persons. [C=P]
But we also know that corporations are NOT human beings. [C CANNOT= HB]

Thus simple unarguable logic reveals the truth.
Not all persons are human beings as some are corporations.
Thus your statement
"In reality we know there is no difference between a person and a human being."
Click to expand...
is clearly and demonstrably false and not supported by facts, reason or logic and has in fact been demolished by those tools.

Peace eh?
Rob
Click to expand...
 
Lots and lots of claims. Let's look at one in isolation:

FreemanMenard said:
I know in Canada, we have had numerous confirmations of these fundamental truths. There are travellers operating without license or permit. They have been stopped by the police and once identified as Freemen the police withdrew and went on their way, without attempting to enforce statutory obligations or restraints.
Click to expand...

Please present a documented case where an unlicensed, uninsured Canadian driving an unregistered car was let go without fines or other legal consequences after doing the FOTL song and dance when stopped by a police officer.

And please remember: Anecdotes are not evidence.
 
Last edited:
Right. Why did you start your reply to me with

FreemanMenard said:
It is an IS.
Click to expand...

...only to follow it up with this:

It is truth and it does not care if you or others do not like the effect it has on your life or sense of well being. I have heard people reject these ideas because they do not like the effect. For instance people will argue against the right to travel without permit or license or insurance because they are scared of what might happen if it was the truth. They examine concepts and decide what is and is not the truth, or what should be the truth, based on the potential effect that perspective may have on their existence, and if negative, even the truth will be rejected. The truth simply does not care if you like it, if it has a positive or negative effect on your life, or if you agree with it. The truth is no man can govern me without my consent. I have the right and power to deny consent and be ungoverned. Regardless of it you like that or not, it is the truth, and you not liking it, or saying I should leave because I do not agree with you, does not change the truth. I am not governed by you or your representatives or your statutes, and I am not leaving. And there is nothing in the law that allows you directly or through your elected government to remove me for taking the stand I take. Sorry. Also, it does not matter one bit if you like this set of facts. They are the truth. So to answer your questions two, it is an is, and the world would be better if more people realized it as such. Of course that is merely my perspective.
Click to expand...

Everything you've said here describes how you'd LIKE to live, or the moral and legal code you think society should follow. Fine. We can talk about that later. I'm more interested in the first principles from which many (especially, for example, those on the FMOTL forums at DavidIcke.com) start from.

So, I'll ask again, rephrasing slightly. No matter how you would like the legal system to operate, do you think that it does currently work per FMOTL principles? Do you think that the "magic words" aspects of FMOTL philosophy - the parts that talk about Admiralty flags and the loop-holes it claims to have uncovered - reflect the actual workings of any legal system FMOTL followers claim? In other words - do you believe that the aspects of FMOT philosophy that claim one can successfully avoid paying taxes simply by following the correct form of words are verifiable and true?

I'm less interested in whether you think such a state of affairs would be preferable as I am in trying to grasp if you think that state exists in the real world, today.
 
@FreemanMenard

When you get a minute, I'm interested in hearing more about your interpretation of s. 15 of the Criminal Code.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I distinguish between travelling and driving, and these actions physically are identical to a third party observer.
Click to expand...
And also to anyone not trying to play silly word games.


The difference is...
Click to expand...
One you have entirely invented because of your commercial law obsession.


an action which is under one set of circumstances defined as driving is not defined the same under a different set of circumstances
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

drive (drīv)
v. tr.

  1. To push, propel, or press onward forcibly; urge forward: drove the horses into the corral.
  2. To repulse or put to flight by force or influence: drove the attackers away; drove out any thought of failure.
  3. To guide, control, or direct (a vehicle).
drive. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drive (accessed: October 12, 2009).


Insurance is a gambling scheme and defined as such
Click to expand...
No it isn't.


there is no requirement at law to gamble with insurance in order to exercise the right to t ravel
Click to expand...
Yes there is:

'It is the law in Canada that you must have vehicle insurance to drive it legally. Insurance gives you financial protection if you are in an accident. Insurance costs are not the same across Canada. Prices are determined by your driving habits and the driving risks in your community.'​
http://www.goingtocanada.gc.ca/CIC/display-afficher.do?id=0000000000017&lang=eng
 
Hi Rob,

You are right that not all "persons" (as that term is used in English law - I'm guessing the same is true in Canada) are human beings. However, all human beings are persons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom