The Freeman Movement and England

[LightinDarkness]

Fair enough: so he revoked the contract and the mortgage company did too: and took the house they owned. What is the problem??

Ah but you see, in FOTL mythology, the "company" is a "corporate person" and has lower status than a "real flesh and blood human being." This is part of the reason why they make such a big deal about there being a difference between a human being and a person in the law (even though there is no such difference). Thus, a corporation cannot declare they do not consent to contract because they are not a sovereign freeman-on-the-land.

Yeah I know, it doesn't make any sense for those of us operating in reality...

 

[Toke]

Thus, a corporation cannot declare they do not consent to contract because they are not a sovereign freeman-on-the-land.

I see.
That add some to the internal consistency.

 

[fromdownunder]

The hilarity continues:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=91747

girlgye, who started this thread has talked herself into jail several times. Her latest post on the thread is probably one of the better examples of word salad I have seen in a long time. But from what I can gather from it, she almost talked him into jail. Some friend!

In a few thousand badly chosen and meandering words, her response can be summed up as "He stopped paying the Mortgage and was evicted".

Norm

 

[LightinDarkness]

girlgye, who started this thread has talked herself into jail several times. Her latest post on the thread is probably one of the better examples of word salad I have seen in a long time. But from what I can gather from it, she almost talked him into jail. Some friend!

In a few thousand badly chosen and meandering words, her response can be summed up as "He stopped paying the Mortgage and was evicted".

Norm

Yeah, girlgye seems to be the main FOTL woo on those boards. Shes the one whose shenanigans we analyzed here when she got herself thrown into jail for contempt of court for pulling FOTL woo and the judge got tired of it.

You notice in her explanation of events how she carefully followed every single fake FOTL woo form and concept. And it still didn't work. I just don't understand people like this - and its a common trait to all woos - when you practice the woo you believe in perfectly, and it fails every single time, they never stop to consider that the woo is wrong. In the case of FOTL woo, even though every fake legal form and concept they try fails in a spectacular manner, they always claim its because the courts didn't know the law - its never because FOTL woo is made up on laws that don't exist.

 

[drkitten]

Yeah, girlgye seems to be the main FOTL woo on those boards. Shes the one whose shenanigans we analyzed here when she got herself thrown into jail for contempt of court for pulling FOTL woo and the judge got tired of it.

Is there a more recent set of links detailing her contempt trial? I don't really feel like lookign back through twenty pages of thread here only to go to hunt through a lot of drivel on the icke forum....

 

[Audible Click]

Is there a more recent set of links detailing her contempt trial? I don't really feel like lookign back through twenty pages of thread here only to go to hunt through a lot of drivel on the icke forum....

Don't want to overdose?

 

[dudalb]

Yeah, girlgye seems to be the main FOTL woo on those boards. Shes the one whose shenanigans we analyzed here when she got herself thrown into jail for contempt of court for pulling FOTL woo and the judge got tired of it.

You notice in her explanation of events how she carefully followed every single fake FOTL woo form and concept. And it still didn't work. I just don't understand people like this - and its a common trait to all woos - when you practice the woo you believe in perfectly, and it fails every single time, they never stop to consider that the woo is wrong. In the case of FOTL woo, even though every fake legal form and concept they try fails in a spectacular manner, they always claim its because the courts didn't know the law - its never because FOTL woo is made up on laws that don't exist.

A lot of us call this "The Magic Words". If you say the Magic Words in EXACTLY the right way, you won't have to pay any Taxes. Every time this fails, the excuse is that the defendent did not present his case in exactly the right manner..ie, did not say the Magic Word correctly. These people are a perfect example of a standard defination of idiocy..doing the exact same thing in the exact same way under the same circumstances and expecting different results.

 

[tsig]

I still don't get why the contract with the bank or mortgage company does not count as "contracting with" ?

Because banks are teh Evil and engage in fractional-financing to create fiat money.

Bad news-they lose their houses. Good news-the state provides alternate lodgings.

 

[tsig]

I realise it would look rather silly, and it may not be a place with much room for jokes.

There's no joking in banking.

 

[drkitten]

Don't want to overdose?

Something like that. Also, God has granted me only about thirty-five million minutes in this world and I have (more) valuable things to do with most of those.

 

[Elizabeth I]

They have covered it up of course

That is, of course, THEY .

You know, the Ones who do It to Us.

 

[BobHaulk]

go watch darren pollard 1st on youtube for some freeman lunacy. But i warn you he uses the word "mate" so much that you'll feel like driving over to his council house (paid for by housing benefit) just to prove you're not his mate'
On one of his er...cough "films" he's not wearing a seat belt, the policeman in the film tells him to put it on, he argues with him and eventually says he'll put it on under duress.The policeman looks in the car says "good you've got your belt on" and walks away. I asked him if he believed in this freeman rubbish why did you put your belt on, he replied he didn't put it on and i'm an idiot. Even though you can see the police man checking the belt is on and say good it's on he denies this happens. You can't argue with that kind of delusion

 

[gumboot]

My first major thread here. Greetings from London, England !

There are a number of things you might care to know about the UK these days. And they are all quite serious. First is the fact that our government (so-called) are a bunch of hypocrites, paid stooges of the globalist 'New World Order' and that our national sovereignty is only a few months away from being surrendered to the European Union. The television and printed media here is completely controlled and the state of law and order is not good.

The reason I'm posting is to introduce you to the Freeman movement here.

What do I mean by 'Freeman' movement ? I mean, simply, that things are not what they seem in this country. Our Parliament is little more than a theatre. Political parties are elected by the people and the political system is headed up by a dynasty of elites, the Monarchy. 'What's new ?' you might ask ? Well, the political candidates are all elected by the people. But on Day 1 of sitting in the Parliament they must swear an oath. To who ? To the Monarchy. Now, notice this closely. They do NOT swear an oath to the nation, or to the people who elected them. No, they swear an oath to the 'head of state'. To the elite dynasty of the Windsors. The same unelected 'head of state' who has agreed that England should become part of the EU empire.

Now, that's illegal. It's illegal (according to the Constitution of England) to negotiate with any foreign power on our own national sovereignty. That's point number 1.

Point Number 2 is even worse. The 'laws' made by the British Parliament in Westminster are NOT laws. They are Acts of Parliament. Statutes. And this is very important. These 'Acts of Parliament' are NOT the Law. They are in fact Statutes. They require your CONSENT before they are valid against you. In fact, the Law of this nation is the Common Law of England and politicians here do NOT make the laws. Our laws (as said) are the Common Law of England, and they always have been throughout our long history).

But the public here hardly know what real law is. They believe all the stuff coming out of Parliament is Law. More and more 'laws' are being passed which make people confused about what the law really is. This ignorance is also found in the police. Who hardly know the difference between these Statutes of Parliament and the Laws. And we have more and more people now who are confused.

Traffic police here genuinely believe they have the power to arrest people if they do not give their name and address on request. But that 'law' is only a Statute. It is contrary to the actual Law.

Large tax bills are routinely sent out by local government offices for public services. But these too are not supported by the laws of England. They too are only Statutes. Once again, the people believe these bills are 'laws of England'. In fact, they are not valid unless we accept them. Unless we consent to them.

All politicians in England are now hypocrites. And a shadow government now rules over much of the UK. The 'New World Order' is not a conspiracy theory but a plain fact. Supported by the puppets now in Westminster's parliament.

In a few months from now the EU will take over the government of this nation. And this was done without giving the people of England a vote on European integration ! Imagine that ! Imagine the USA joining in a union with, say, Canada when the people do not get to vote about it ! But its already happened here.

It is now not acceptable to fly the national flag of England here. The police here can and do ask you to remove it.

There are, today, 9 regional government offices of the EU in England. England, as a nation, does not exist. It's shortly to become only a region of the European Union.

There is great concern here in the UK at all of the evils which are done in the name of our government and people are at last fighting back. They are refusing to pay tax bills for services which they do not negotiate. They are switching off the state media channels and are not voting for these hypocrite political parties in Westminster. They are taking back control of their own lives. Because we know the elite families and the elitist bankers are all hypocrites.

In the USA the banker bailouts were very unpopular. Same here in England.

The Freeman movement are not anarchists. We are people who rely on the real law of England. English Common Law. Not on commercial statutes produced by the Westminster elites in Parliament. Our policemen have become like revenue collecting officers. They should be defending the Common Law. That was their duty. But this has all changed. Our police today are corporate agents to fine you, to bill you, to collect bucks for their employers.

And more and more people in England consider themselves to be free of the system of Parliament. We don't believe in political parties. We don't believe in the EU, or the promises of politicians. We don't believe in the bankers or the globalist movement. And we are no more fooled by the 'laws' coming out of Parliament which are, as already said, only 'statutes' and which require the consent of the governed to be binding on us.

The commercial law has infiltrated and taken over good government and we are fighting back in the best possible way. By appealing in our courts to the Common Law of England. The real England.

Regards

Is this really an example of the state of education in the UK? Jesus wept...

 

[gumboot]

However that isn't supported by the actual law. While I have no idea what the legal status of the saltire is neither england or the UK strickly speaking have an official flag. There is a royal standard of the united kingdom but that is rather different and there still hasn't been a royal standard of england in centuries.

Both the Royal Standard and the Union Jack are official flags of the crown, as per First Article of An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Jan 1st, 1801.

 

[gumboot]

The British pseudo-constitution has no such authority. Indeed, I don't think I've ever gotten a straight answer about what documents are and are not part of the British constitution. But more importantly, it is accepted that Parliament and the Crown jointly have the authority to change any part of this "constitution" on a whim. The right to a jury trial? The need for a warrant to arrest or search a suspect? There is nothing in British law that prevents Parliament from eliminating those rights.

That's a bit misleading. The US Constitution doesn't have any rights in it either. The Bill of Rights are amendments to the US Constitution, which demonstrates that US government can change their constitution.

Secondly, the UK Constitution is considered to consist of two fundamental concepts.

1) Parliamentary supremacy
2) Rule of law

The reason the UK parliament has the authority to overturn any laws or rights it likes is because that's the entire principle of the UK constitution. Don't make the mistake of assuming the UK constitution has to have the same principles as the US constitution, because it doesn't.

All a constitution is, is a set of rules that dictates how a government is supposed to operate, and to establish where authority resides. There is nothing about rights inherent in a constitution.

There's a fundamental difference between a country like the USA and nations with parliamentary supremacy such as the UK and New Zealand. In such countries, the basic constitutional principle is that parliament is the absolute supreme authority, and that absolutely nothing can stand above it. You could not have a US style constitutional document in the UK or NZ, because such a document would, in fact, be unconstitutional.

 

[gumboot]

As a Yank, I have no love for hereditary monarchy, but to make out Queen Liz 2 as a powerful tyrant is drop dead funny.

Just one little nitpick. It's often stated by people - typically Americans - that the UK monarchy (and monarchy of various commonwealth states) is an entirely hereditary position where an accident of birth or the imagined will of an imaginary sky daddy dictates who is in charge.

This is a common perception, but it's actually false. Succession to the Crown is determined by an Act of Parliament (in the case of the UK - the Succession to the Crown Act 1707) and is thus determined by law, not by birth or religion. As it happens, this act currently dictates that the heir of certain persons automatically becomes the next monarch, but there's no reason whatsoever why this need continue.

Under the principles of parliamentary supremacy, the Act could be amended so that succession to the crown was determined some other way (such as by popular vote, or by whoever wins Miss UK that year).

Most interestingly, another Commonwealth country that has its own succession laws could amend them, meaning when Liz dies there would be a divergence and, say the monarch of New Zealand could cease to be the same person as the monarch of the UK.

Of course the monarch might be inclined to withhold her Royal Assent to an amendment which cuts her son out of a job as King, but that doesn't change the basic principle, it merely makes it all potentially messy.

 

[Agatha]

Is this really an example of the state of education in the UK? Jesus wept...

While our education system has many faults, I don't think Especially was educated here.

 

[linusrichard]

That's a bit misleading. The US Constitution doesn't have any rights in it either. The Bill of Rights are amendments to the US Constitution, which demonstrates that US government can change their constitution.

Very minor point, but there are a few rights in the original US Constitution. Not as many as were added by amendment, but there are some.

Just one little nitpick. It's often stated by people - typically Americans - that the UK monarchy (and monarchy of various commonwealth states) is an entirely hereditary position where an accident of birth or the imagined will of an imaginary sky daddy dictates who is in charge.

This is a common perception, but it's actually false.

I'll nitpick this nitpick: It's not really false then to say that the UK monarchy is hereditary. It's just that it's hereditary by Act of Parliament, and thus theoretically subject to change.

 

[drkitten]

That's a bit misleading. The US Constitution doesn't have any rights in it either. The Bill of Rights are amendments to the US Constitution, which demonstrates that US government can change their constitution.

Well, amendments are part of the Constitution.

More importantly, the procedure for making those amendments is itself spelled out in the Constitution, which gives a certain amount of protection from whims.

Secondly, the UK Constitution is considered to consist of two fundamental concepts.

1) Parliamentary supremacy
2) Rule of law

Okay, stop right there. A "constitution" is a document or set of documents. Already, if you're saying that a UK constitution is a set of "concepts," you've more or less proven my point about the absence of "unconstitutional" having any real meaning under UK law.

The other problem, of course, is that "rule of law" is somewhat meaningless when the lawmakers themselves are not bound by that same rule -- which under the UK system, they are not. That's been a traditional problem of the various banana republic governments (and for that matter, the authoritarian L'etat, c'est moi divine right emperors), which is more or less the system against which the idea of "constitution" was created.

The UK does have a constitution in the stronger sense that I've described, but it's not clear what it is or what powers it actually possesses. In particular, the Magna Carta explicitly destroyed the idea of a limitless royal executive of the sort Louis XIV would later embody, precisely because there are/were things that the king could not do. UK court case have similarly held that there are, in fact, limits on Parliamentary supremacy (in particular, look at the "mischief rule, and more importantly the doctrine of "implied repeal" -- while Parliament could in theory overturn the Bill of Rights 1689, it could not do so implicitly by merely passing a law that conflicted with it.) In this sense, Parliamentary supremacy has been reduced (a judge could overturn a recent law as being incompatible with the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights 1689, which is a pretty good description of "unconstutional.")

But this is a relatively new legal development, and there's no definitive statement about which laws cannot be repealed by implication and which laws can, or the limits to how much of a law can be overturned on this basis, or even what the procedure is (which judges get to make that decision).....

 

[RHolmes]

while Parliament could in theory overturn the Bill of Rights 1689, it could not do so implicitly by merely passing a law that conflicted with it.) In this sense, Parliamentary supremacy has been reduced (a judge could overturn a recent law as being incompatible with the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights 1689, which is a pretty good description of "unconstutional.")

But this is a relatively new legal development, and there's no definitive statement about which laws cannot be repealed by implication and which laws can, or the limits to how much of a law can be overturned on this basis, or even what the procedure is (which judges get to make that decision).....

I've only ever seen this point made in one case, and it was only a High Court case. If that's all there is, then although it can't be brushed aside completely it's hardly authoritative in the way that a series of Court of Appeal/House of Lords judgments would be. Of course, there's also academic commentary to the same effect, but that's not binding.

Are you aware of any other instances of the courts applying this principle?