• 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.
linusrichard said:
This is outright false. A group (the government) can and does claim authority that no individuals possess. This is true pretty much wherever you go. I bet even in Somalia, there are groups (gangs, etc.) who claim authority that no individual possesses. I may be wrong, but throughout the civilized world this is of course true.
Click to expand...

Guess what:

You are correct:

Also, there was no coast guard to protect against trawlers from other countries illegally fishing in Somali waters. This led to the erosion of the fish stock. Local fishermen started to band together to protect their resources. Soon they discovered that piracy was an easier way to make money.[citation needed] Due to the clan-based organization of Somali society, the lack of a central government, and the country's strategic location at the Horn of Africa, conditions were ripe for the growth of piracy in the early 1990s.
Click to expand...


Some pirates are former fishermen, who argue that foreign ships are threatening their livelihood by illegally fishing in Somali waters.[21] After seeing the profitability of piracy, since ransoms are usually paid, warlords began to facilitate pirate activities, splitting the profits with the pirates.[22] In most of the hijackings, the bandits have not harmed their prisoners.[23] The attackers generally treat their hostages well in anticipation of a big payday to the point of hiring caterers on the shores of Somalia to cook spaghetti, grilled fish and roasted meat that will appeal to a Western palate. They also keep a steady supply of cigarettes and drinks from the shops on shore.[24]
Click to expand...
 
FreemanMenard said:
I have demanded proof repeatedly that anyone feels they are so superior that they can claim the right to govern their fellow man without the consent of their fellow man and no one has ever accepted that challenge. You ask for court proof, but this knowledge when used properly means you never go to court. So if that is the case, why would there be transcripts of something that was avoided and did not happen? So I have done my best to answer your questions without evasion even though they were clearly pointed. So now it is my turn.
Click to expand...
Hello! You may have spotted my posts dotted through this thread. Picking up where 'Especially' left off...
Especially has made claims that the 16th Amendment of The Constitution of The United States (the one legalising federal tax) was only ratified by 2 states. I did request that s/he provided evidence, but none was provided at the time. I would also like to ask as to whether you second his/her stance about the European Union being part of a conspiracy theory towards a one world government (commonly but confusingly labelled as 'New World Order'), and whether such views are relatively common within the Freeman Movement or whether these are the beliefs of just one individual. In response to your post above, I do admit being rather confused over the ethos of the Freeman Movement. I am looking for an 'official' view that the Freeman Movement takes. I understand your belief that Statutes of Parliament by definition require the consent of the governed, but not why this is interpreted as the consent of the governed individual, instead of the governed public (as represented by Members of Parliament). I do not understand how one declares consent to a statute as an individual (and I'd imagine this quite important), nor how one could, in a court of law, present the philosophy of the Freeman Movement as a legal defense. I was also under the impression that an agreement of consent to the statutes was given on your behalf with both
a) Your entry and permit to remain in the country(such as a visa)
b) Your citizenship
I also hold concern that some more malignant characters may use the Freeman Movement as a legal excuse for a bail out. For example, clause 54 of the Magna Carta of England states that no testimony of a woman can be held against a man unless that woman is the man's wife. This part of the Magna Carta has been repealed, along with most of the rest of it, but if The Freeman Philosophy were to stand in court, then I would imagine that quite a few cases of rape would be thrown out on account of that clause, which would be a terrible miscarriage of justice. How would the Freeman Movement account for this? How does it justify basing a legal defense on The Magan Carta, most of which has been repealed, and was originally created for a monarchy in which women and several minorities were treated unjustly? And if The Freeman Movement does not base itself on the Magna Carta, (as Especially had implied), then upon what, exactly, does it base itself? What would be defined as the Common Law of England?
FreemanMenard said:
Bear in mind that equality is paramount, and when abandoned you lose.
You say all humans are persons. However I have seen many definitions where the exact opposite is expressed. In Blacks 3rd it states "a human being is not a person because he is a human being but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him, specifically the person is that legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. But not all human beings are persons, as was the case in Olde England when there were slaves." So here we have a law dictionary clearly stating the opposite of your position, that being all human beings are persons. Now lets test it by examining it under the light of EQUALITY. Since the person is a result of rights and duties being ascribed to a human being, and we are equal, then who has the power to ascribe rights and duties to me to make me qualify as a person? You certainly do not, nor do your representatives. Logic will show that only we have the power to assign rights and duties, and although a group can agree on what those may be, that agreement does not affect those not a party to it. You may have agreed that the people in government and the courts have the power to define your rights. That is your right. I however do not allow others to ascribe rights and duties to me, for I do that myself. That too is my right. You don't like it too bad. Find someone, anyone willing to claim that they have the right to either govern me without my consent, or that their elected representatives may do so, or even that they have the power to provide adjudication services without consent. Or that they can punish me in any way for refusing to agree and accept their claim to authority. You will not find one in Canada. Additionally in the Criminal Code you will find that there are certain sections dealing with common law crimes such as murder where the term 'any one' is used and things like growing pot they use the term 'any person who'. If every one was a person automatically why the difference?
Click to expand...
I don't see what you are saying here. You claim that a person is only a human being that has been ascribed rights and duties. Yet claim that not all human beings are people. In what way would the Human Rights as documented by the United Nations in 1947 not qualify as rights ascribed to a human being? Or,for that matter, citizenship to your country? As a British citizen, you automatically recieve the legal right to free healthcare on the NHS. As part of your duties as a citizen, you must abide by the criminal laws layed out by the Government. Under the light of equality... all citizens share the same basic rights. Extra privileges are earned. The only difference between a privilege and a right is that a privilege can be taken away again. The privileges of running the country are given to one individual by the public. This individual, now with the privilege of authority, can decide on laws passed, international stance, etcetera, etcetera. This is how democracy works. Wherever you can see a change of power, this is a redistribution of privileges to individuals, as power is a privilege by its very nature. Politics is debate over the awarding of power. And every human being is a person. No, I wasn't calling Human Rights a privilege, just in case this is what you have read. I made a very distinct differentiation between power and right. To reiterate:I have stated that power can be legally taken away. Rights cannot. Every human being is subject to human rights, thus every human being is a person to which these legal human rights are attributed.This also goes the same for citizenship.By holding citizenship status you consent to abiding by criminal law of the country of which you are a citizen.

Apologies for being overcautious, but I did want to be quite clear as to what I was saying so that I may not be mistaken. In doing so I might have sounded slightly condescending or aggravated, and if that is the case then apologies again, for I didn't intend it.

FreemanMenard said:
Now if I could share links here I would, and you would see a short report (a video document or affidavit if you) will, attesting to the fact that a man was exercising his right to travel, was stopped by the police, used knowledge (that which the ignorant here refer to as 'magic words') and when all was said and done went on his way without charges, and is now regularly traveling without permit or license. Not sure how to post the link though and was informed last time that I can't post a link until I post more replies first. But it is there. My channel is mrmitee and I have a response to the video I was referring to, and you can follow the link to hear the guy recount his story in the public arena. My response is titled humorously enough RESPONSE
Click to expand...
Which website? Youtube?
FreemanMenard said:
There are many who demand proof and expect that since I believe in something, and share those beliefs with the world I have a duty to provide them with 'proof'. I don't see that. When you demand proof you are actually asking I educate you for free. I believe what I believe, and act upon what I believe in, and have no desire really to convince those who seem happy to reject this information and call it 'woo'. I believe what I believe because I invested tens of thousands of hours studying law and have found many truths that are often rejected outright by those who have never even read the Acts I refer to. Having read the Motor Vehicle Act I know there is nothing in there that removes the previously existing rights. But those who do have a license, but did not read the Act will claim I am at fault, cause everybody knows we all needs licenses to drive, and if you try to teach them to distinguish between the two, they call it word play. It is like telling someone there is a difference between the words 'their' and 'there' and they claim that pointing out the difference is 'word play'. It is not word play, it is law, and some wish to dismiss these concepts as word play or wishful thinking.

Well have a great day! Will answer more questions and duck barbs later.

Rob
Click to expand...
There is a great deal of misunderstanding here. I should think that many of the other people on this thread expected you to take the place of Especially. What we ask, is that while we respect your beliefs, we will not take the 'leap of faith' and start believing what you believe without proof. Or at the very least, solid hard evidence. Especially had taken up this post in trying to convince us towards the Freeman Movement. Now its your move. What do you want to do? Meanwhile, if you have a read again of the Motoring Act, it is in fact illegal to drive without a license in Canada. The reference placed by your government did indeed observe that Section 94 (2) of the British Columbian Motor Vehicles Act is in fact inconsistent with fundamental justice, but Section 94 (2) only regarded the absolute liability offence normally placed. The requirement of a license comes under Section 94 (1). And so, if stopped without a valid license, you may claim no knowledge to the suspension of your license or the lack of license, but you are still breaking the law.
 
Brainache said:
Wouldn't that be cruelty to animals?
Click to expand...


You're right... beating them up would be cruelty to animals. No reason not to keep them locked up and use them as a source of free labor as we do with animals. If they aren't willing to work, we could humanely "put them to sleep". After all, who knows what kind of ecological damage roaming packs of feral Freemen On The Land could do. :)
 
I think this Menard fellow might be right about this insurance thing. I seem to recall there is a provision for liability. If I remember you can basically go without 3rd party insurance if you can show you can cover the minimum liability ($250K or $500K?)
I think you are required to put the money in trust in order to have that "proof" of financial responsibility.
I again seem to recall this being a fools bet because they money in trust wasn't gaining any interest. The money in a savings account would accrue more interest than the cost of a similar insurance policy. In the event you were in an accident with an insured motorist the cost of processing a simple claim could easily bankrupt you.

Anyone with some Canadian insurance knowledge feel free to blow this one out of the water. I can't remember where I heard this, or if it was in relation to auto isurance at all (could have been home?) I seem to recall it coming out of a conversation with my grandfather about buying a car however. At one time you got your drivers licence with the car. Back then demonstrated experience meant having the money to buy the car.
 
3bodyproblem said:
I think this Menard fellow might be right about this insurance thing. I seem to recall there is a provision for liability. If I remember you can basically go without 3rd party insurance if you can show you can cover the minimum liability ($250K or $500K?)
I think you are required to put the money in trust in order to have that "proof" of financial responsibility.
I again seem to recall this being a fools bet because they money in trust wasn't gaining any interest. The money in a savings account would accrue more interest than the cost of a similar insurance policy. In the event you were in an accident with an insured motorist the cost of processing a simple claim could easily bankrupt you.

Anyone with some Canadian insurance knowledge feel free to blow this one out of the water. I can't remember where I heard this, or if it was in relation to auto isurance at all (could have been home?) I seem to recall it coming out of a conversation with my grandfather about buying a car however. At one time you got your drivers licence with the car. Back then demonstrated experience meant having the money to buy the car.
Click to expand...

In the UK it is £500,000 and it has to be in the form of a deposit with the court, so I suspect that the "freeman" would have the same objections to doing that as they do with taking out an insurance policy.

ETA:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910040_en_3#pt1-pb8-l1g20

(1)
Section 144 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.



(2)
In subsection (1) (which removes the requirement for third-party insurance or security where £15,000 is kept deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court) for “£15,000” there shall be substituted “£500,000”.



(3)
After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—



“(1A)
The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above.



(1B)
No order shall be made under subsection (1A) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What I don't understand is why the NWO or whoever would bother putting this "fake" legal system over the top of a "real" system and try to fool everyone into following it when they could just get rid of the "real" system in the first place.
 
Rogue1stclass said:
What I don't understand is why the NWO or whoever would bother putting this "fake" legal system over the top of a "real" system and try to fool everyone into following it when they could just get rid of the "real" system in the first place.
Click to expand...

Because......

































...er....















Sorry nope can't reconcile the idea of this all-powerful "corporation" that would find itself blocked by someone saying "I am Darat of the family Automodaction".
 
Darat said:
Sorry nope can't reconcile the idea of this all-powerful "corporation" that would find itself blocked by someone saying "I am Darat of the family Automodaction".
Click to expand...


Curses our entire legal, political, military, and police system can be thwarted by someone refusing to participate!

FOILED! FOILED! AGAIN!
 
Rogue1stclass said:
What I don't understand is why the NWO or whoever would bother putting this "fake" legal system over the top of a "real" system and try to fool everyone into following it when they could just get rid of the "real" system in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is my biggest question too. I liken the FOTL conception of "the legal system" to Rumpelstiltskin.
 
Rumpelstiltskin, eh? I was thinking of Swiper from Dora the Explorer. Which goes to show that I've been spending too much time with my youngest niece.
 
Darat said:
Because......

































...er....















Sorry nope can't reconcile the idea of this all-powerful "corporation" that would find itself blocked by someone saying "I am Darat of the family Automodaction".
Click to expand...

Just a heads up. I am D'rok of the family Barbarian and I do not contract with you should you choose to send me your offer of membership suspension.

Freedom for the forum!
 
3bodyproblem said:
I think this Menard fellow might be right about this insurance thing. I seem to recall there is a provision for liability. If I remember you can basically go without 3rd party insurance if you can show you can cover the minimum liability ($250K or $500K?)
I think you are required to put the money in trust in order to have that "proof" of financial responsibility.
I again seem to recall this being a fools bet because they money in trust wasn't gaining any interest. The money in a savings account would accrue more interest than the cost of a similar insurance policy. In the event you were in an accident with an insured motorist the cost of processing a simple claim could easily bankrupt you.

Anyone with some Canadian insurance knowledge feel free to blow this one out of the water. I can't remember where I heard this, or if it was in relation to auto isurance at all (could have been home?) I seem to recall it coming out of a conversation with my grandfather about buying a car however. At one time you got your drivers licence with the car. Back then demonstrated experience meant having the money to buy the car.
Click to expand...

The amount and how is going to vary from province to province but it should be spelled out in their Motor Vehicle Act. Here's the relevant section for Nova Scotia:

http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/statutes/motorv.htm

...
236 (1) Subject to subsection (3), proof of financial responsibility may be given in any one of the following forms:

(a) the written certificate or certificates, filed with the Registrar, of any authorized insurer that it has issued, to or for the benefit of the person named therein, a motor vehicle liability policy or policies in form hereinafter prescribed that, at the date of the certificate or certificates, is in full force and effect and that designates therein, by explicit description, or by other adequate reference, all motor vehicles to which the policy applies, and any such certificate or certificates shall be in the form approved by the Registrar and shall cover all motor vehicles registered in the name of the person furnishing such proof, and the said certificate or certificates, shall certify that the motor vehicle liability policy or policies therein mentioned shall not be cancelled or expire, except upon ten days prior written notice thereof to the Registrar, and until such notice is duly given the said certificate or certificates shall be valid and sufficient to cover the term of any renewal of such motor vehicle liability policy by the insurer, or any renewal or extension of the term of such driver's license or owner's permit by the Minister or the Department;

(b) the bond of an approved guarantee or surety company, or a bond with personal sureties, approved as adequate security hereunder;

(c) the certificate of the Treasurer that the person named therein has deposited with him a sum of money or securities for money approved by him in the amount or value of five hundred thousand dollars for each motor vehicle registered in the name of such person, the Treasurer shall accept any such deposits and issue a certificate therefor, if such deposit is accompanied by evidence that there are no unsatisfied executions against the depositor registered in the office of the sheriff for the county in which the depositor resides;
...
Click to expand...

As you noted, if you have the money to self insure it's probably better spent elsewhere.
 
Darat said:
In the UK it is £500,000 and it has to be in the form of a deposit with the court, so I suspect that the "freeman" would have the same objections to doing that as they do with taking out an insurance policy.
Click to expand...

Yes, I suspect they would. I'm sure the seminar trails off well before the mention that going without insurance requires contracting large sums of money with the courts.

Here in Canada we aren't required to produce identification upon request by a police officer. You are only required to identify yourself. (unless in the operation of a motor vehicle on the roadways) I'm surprised these Freeman don't have a video of a police officer walking up to a citizen and asking them for ID, to which the reply goes "I am Freeman Bob Menard, I am not required to show ID" Then the cops go "nevermind" and walk off.

Magic words? Not really. The police can't require you to show ID unless they feel you have not properly identified yourself. If they do think your lying they then have the right to detain you until such time as your identity can be confirmed.

Same thing goes with Customs. Once you declare your citizenship they can't refuse you entry into Canada. But they have the right to detain you (and do other things using flashlights and latex exam gloves) until they verify your citizenship.

I get the feeling this Freeman BS uses bits of the law like this to make outrageous claims in order to appear above the law. Cheesy conartists IMHO.
 
D'rok said:
Just a heads up. I am D'rok of the family Barbarian and I do not contract with you should you choose to send me your offer of membership suspension.

Freedom for the forum!
Click to expand...

Sure. That is how it starts.

Next thing we know you are going to paint yourself blue and start wearing kilts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom