The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pantaz said:
Be sure to read "i. Civil Action No. 09-2518" on the linked page
Here's a sample...
"Upon exiting the Mobile Vessel, JOHN DOE, and another unidentified agent for the Defendant the NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE, grabbed the arms of my Solar Vessel and chained the Carpomedicarpols of my Solar Vessel together."​
:boggled:​
Click to expand...

"My solar vessel"? Is he saying that his body is a ship, his soul is the captain, and therefore maritime law should apply? Isn't the point of "on the land" vs "Admiralty" that maritime law doesn't apply to someone who isn't at sea?
 
Matthew Cline said:
"My solar vessel"? Is he saying that his body is a ship, his soul is the captain, and therefore maritime law should apply? Isn't the point of "on the land" vs "Admiralty" that maritime law doesn't apply to someone who isn't at sea?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't matter. He undoubtedly refused to consent and was therefore not subject to their jurisdiction, and all records of the case burned so that no proof could be provided that his legal woo worked!
 
Since this appears to be the de facto thread to post FOTL stupidity on, I will add this here.

http://www.truthmovementaustralia.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3103




Im glad people are supporting what i have said. and to everyone else attacking me, pity on you stupid fools. im using my pubic internet for 20 mins i dont hve all day to argue back and forth and pick through threads. but i know what im talking about.
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight. This person who in theory is against taxation and laws, thinks that Freemen should be utterly free, completely opposes any discussion that is against his personal view, and then uses public infrastructure (I am guessing he lives in Australia (it's an Australian Board), so it would be a free to user Public Library or local Community Centre connection) paid for by the eeevvviillll taxes to use the "public internet" (his term).

I am glad I do not own irony meters - I could not afford to replace them all.

Norm
 
Matthew Cline said:
"My solar vessel"? Is he saying that his body is a ship, his soul is the captain, and therefore maritime law should apply? Isn't the point of "on the land" vs "Admiralty" that maritime law doesn't apply to someone who isn't at sea?
Click to expand...
It does not appear to be relate the the maritime law argument. The terms are addressed by the court in the footnotes of the opinion.

For instance, same as in other actions initiated by the Marrakush Society,"the phrase "Solar Vessel" was used to designate the plaintiff's body, "Solar Plexus" seemed to designate the plaintiff's head, the term "Carpomedicarpols" appeared to designate the plaintiff's arms, the phrase "Five Star Traveler"was utilized to designate the plaintiff's companions, while the "Vessel of Conveyance" seemed to designate a police car, and the expression "commandeering the Mobile Vessel" seemed to imply that the plaintiff was driving, while the expression "drenching my Solar Vessel in unnatural water" appeared to state that the plaintiff was directed to take a shower, etc. See Marrakush Society v. Township of Mount Laurel, 09-2520 Docket Entries Nos. 1 to 1-4.
Click to expand...
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Matthew Cline said:
"My solar vessel"? Is he saying that his body is a ship, his soul is the captain, and therefore maritime law should apply? Isn't the point of "on the land" vs "Admiralty" that maritime law doesn't apply to someone who isn't at sea?
Click to expand...
It does not appear to be relate the the maritime law argument. The terms are addressed by the court in the footnotes of the opinion.

For instance, same as in other actions initiated by the Marrakush Society,"the phrase "Solar Vessel" was used to designate the plaintiff's body, "Solar Plexus" seemed to designate the plaintiff's head, the term "Carpomedicarpols" appeared to designate the plaintiff's arms, the phrase "Five Star Traveler"was utilized to designate the plaintiff's companions, while the "Vessel of Conveyance" seemed to designate a police car, and the expression "commandeering the Mobile Vessel" seemed to imply that the plaintiff was driving, while the expression "drenching my Solar Vessel in unnatural water" appeared to state that the plaintiff was directed to take a shower, etc. See Marrakush Society v. Township of Mount Laurel, 09-2520 Docket Entries Nos. 1 to 1-4.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I love the use of the word "seemed" in those notes.
 
I just got this link in a discussion on another board: http://www.prisonplanet.com/man-successfully-fights-unlawful-council-tax-in-uk.html
Now, i have no or little knowledge of british law so the finer points in this desiscion are lost to me.
I can see two reasons.
1. The staff got utterly bored by his nonsence and decided to let him off.
2. There are some perfectly normal legal reasons they decided to withdraw the case. Perhaps he actually didn't own the property at hand?
 
Something is missing in that exchange of letters and emails above.

The first letter is dated 20 July 2009, and the narrative states that this letter was sent (by email) "about three weeks before the hearing date". However, it's clear from the following that the hearing date was 21 July.

It is then claimed that Jim received a telephone call the day before the hearing date, and in support of this, there is an email dated 20 July referring to a telephone call which took place on the 21 July [though I accept this could be an error and mean 20 July, given that the writer of the email confuses your and you're], which appears to be replying to the emailed letter above, about two hours later.

There is then a letter, again dated 20 July, confirming that the council will withdraw their application for a liability order in the hearing on the 21st July, which was originally scheduled for 16th June. If 16 June was the original liability hearing date, where is the correspondence relating to that? Why was the hearing postponed?

The next item is a letter from the council dated 23 July, confirming that Jim did in fact appear at the magistrate's court on the 21 July, and stating that the liability application was withdrawn, the costs were cancelled and there is nothing for Jim to pay.

It is now claimed that Jim didn't believe this letter of the 23rd July and in consequence went to the hearing (the one scheduled for the 21 July? I think the story is slightly out of chronological order here) where he applied for costs against the council. This has so far been refused.

My best guess is that there are several pieces of correspondence missing, and that Jim has successfully argued that he is not liable for council tax at that property for whatever reason, or that he has paid.
 
Agatha said:
My best guess is that there are several pieces of correspondence missing, and that Jim has successfully argued that he is not liable for council tax at that property for whatever reason, or that he has paid.
Click to expand...

The bolded is the correct bit.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.u...tax/218038-wirral-council-admits-council.html

We already dealt with that incident in this thread. The FOTL moron paid his council tax and the council removed the liability order. The last letter confirms that the admin costs for the liability order do not need to be paid.

This is how it works in FOTL woo-land:

1. Freeman withdraws consent to council tax
2. Council initiates legal action
3. Freeman recites magic words and phrases
4. Council escalates legal action
5. Freeman consents to council tax
6. Freeman pays council tax
7. Council ceases legal action
8. Success!
 
Mojo said:
Which one?
Click to expand...

Which incident, or which thread?

I'm too lazy to track down exactly where it first showed up, but this "success story" was trumpeted by Especially as evidence that FTOL woo works. He didn't bother trying to defend it afterwards. I'm pretty sure it happened in this very thread.
 
jargon buster said:
I busted this cack on TPUC front page a while ago
Heres the thread
http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6490

by the way its still front page news even though they know its debunked :rolleyes:

JB
Click to expand...

I just saw this. Excellent debunking work!

By the way, the David Icke Freeman on the Land meeting they were all planning got canceled! Apparently only 8 people signed up and they couldn't get the shills to come out for such a small group.

They offer legal advice telling you how to beat the system (which fails every time someone tries), but they can't put together a 8 person Freeman meeting.
 
When the British elites funded both sides of the American revolutionary war (through France) they knew the newly created USA would soon be bankrupt. Didn't know that, right ? That's right. The British elites loaned money to the American revolutionary forces before their independence !!!! Plain and documentary fact. (See below).

The people of the new USA would soon be paying these elites of England (shareholders in their empire) back for those loans with lots of American dollars. Plus interest. Of course. Forever. By tax. And they, these British elites of their empire, arranged before they left the USA in 1796 for their bogus legal system ('English Common Law') to be successfully transplanted in to control of the legal system in all the States of the USA. And have controlled them ever since. Want to get justice. OK, why not go to the legal industry. All oath swearing members of the same fraternity.

As for Common Law, it was of course impersonated. By the legal system. And it had been impersonated ever since 1066 back in England. It's the legal industry versus the Common Law, in fact. Laugh about that ! Common Law versus the corporate legal industry -aka 'English Common Law'.

There are only two kinds of government. Government served by people or people served by government.

Judge for yourself which you have !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRXS1jlAr5g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGaYPxEPbf0
 
Last edited:
You've got a lot of questions in this thread that still need answering, Especially. Mind going back and finding some of them, and, say... answering them?
 
Especially said:
When the British elites funded both sides of the American revolutionary war (through France) they knew the newly created USA would soon be bankrupt. Didn't know that, right ? That's right. The British elites loaned money to the American revolutionary forces before their independence !!!! Plain and documentary fact. (See below).

. . . .

As for Common Law, it was of course impersonated. By the legal system. And it had been impersonated ever since 1066 back in England.
Click to expand...

Could you provide the contemporary sources you are using to support these claims please, particularly the 1066 one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom