The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Entertaining stuff. I have to say the 'Mods' over here are very restrained. I would have long since infracted certain 'Freemen' off the board if they behaved in the same way over on BAUT.
Click to expand...

Welcome; all the best people come here from BAUT......
 
D'rok said:
But what if the downloaders (and uploader) withdrew their consent from the Copyright Act?

That would be the greatest FOTL fail ever. FOTL grand poobah sues for copyright infringement. FOTL downloader deploys FOTL defence that he learned from grand poobah. Grand poobah wins case in a default judgment because FOTL defence is frivolous and asinine.
Click to expand...


Nyet. FOTL can only sue for common law copyright infringement. The concept of common law copyright was found to be invalid a few centuries back.
 
geni said:
Nyet. FOTL can only sue for common law copyright infringement. The concept of common law copyright was found to be invalid a few centuries back.
Click to expand...
Ah, but Menard consents to the Copyright Act. It's right there on the WFS site. He also figures he can use statutes when it suits him and ignore them when it doesn't.
 
I can't wait to read the transcript of him explaining that to a judge.
 
One thing I've noticed lately is much of the FOTL legal woo seems to exist in these latin "legal maxims" that almost always come from a bible verse. I have been trying to figure out where in the world these people think that bible verses are the law, or that simply because you put something in latin that it becomes a legal maxim. As far as I am aware, there are no legal maxims and the entire concept seems to come from things like Hammurabi's code. I have no doubt that in ancient and medieval legal systems such maxims may have existed as a way to simplify the law and to enforce cultural norms, but they would never exist in a modern system.

They always act like these latin maxims are somehow the foundation of common law and that citing them will make judges do whatever you want - and they all seem to be made up from their interpretation of bible verses. For example, one is:

"Reprobata pecunia liberat solventum." - Money refused liberates the debtor. 9 Co. 79.

Which is what they use to claim that sending offers of "conditional acceptance" to governments with crazy conditions of acceptance means that they don't have to pay taxes because the government never responded within their usually crazy time frame. Its a routine thing on the David Icke threads:

Step 1: Someone gets a ticket/doesn't want to pay for something that they know they owe, so they decide to become a freeman on the land.
Step 2: They send a mountain of frivolous legal documents to government agency which issued the ticket/tax/whatever citing random legal maxims they found on google and state that they accept conditionally as long as the government can prove they owe the money in X days.
Step 3: Since the documents make no sense and because the government doesn't operate on time lines imposed by people who owe them money, they never get a response.
Step 4: Freeman declares victory. I'm sure later the government comes to collect, but they don't bother posting about that.
 
Last edited:
Jesus, if you are going use an archiac Latin version of the Bible, why stop there? Why not quote in the original Hebrew and Greek?
 
These aren't from the Vulgate, or any translation of scriptures. They're from the Corpus Juris Civilis, a collection of works on jurisprudence in Roman law that was compiled and given the force of law by Justinian I in the Byzantine Empire around the year 530 AD. In other words, they haven't had the force of law in any place on earth since the fall of Constantinople in 1453. They were, of course, hugely influential on the development of modern European civil law, and to a lesser extent common law, but in themselves they mean nothing.

I believe 9 Co. 79 is from the ninth book of the Codex Justinianus.
 
Last edited:
Slayhamlet said:
These aren't from the Vulgate, or any translation of scriptures. They're from the Corpus Juris Civilis, a collection of works on jurisprudence in Roman law that was compiled and given the force of law by Justinian I in the Byzantine Empire around the year 530 AD. In other words, they haven't had the force of law in any place on earth since the fall of Constantinople in 1453. They were, of course, hugely influential on the development of modern European civil law, and to a lesser extent common law, but in themselves they mean nothing.

I believe 9 Co. 79 is from the ninth book of the Corpus Justinianus.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I did not know this. I knew the one I was citing wasn't from the bible (since there is no 9th Corinthians :D) but I have seen them use bible verses for the legal maxims before - and now it looks like the rest from Roman law.

Interesting they agree to consent to obscure latin legal maxims that don't exist...
 
Slayhamlet said:
These aren't from the Vulgate, or any translation of scriptures. They're from the Corpus Juris Civilis, a collection of works on jurisprudence in Roman law that was compiled and given the force of law by Justinian I in the Byzantine Empire around the year 530 AD. In other words, they haven't had the force of law in any place on earth since the fall of Constantinople in 1453. They were, of course, hugely influential on the development of modern European civil law, and to a lesser extent common law, but in themselves they mean nothing.

I believe 9 Co. 79 is from the ninth book of the Corpus Justinianus.
Click to expand...

So, they like to quote from Justinian's Code, which is...wait for it...statutory law.
 
LightinDarkness said:
Interesting, I did not know this. I knew the one I was citing wasn't from the bible (since there is no 9th Corinthians :D) but I have seen them use bible verses for the legal maxims before - and now it looks like the rest from Roman law.

Interesting they agree to consent to obscure latin legal maxims that don't exist...
Click to expand...

The corpus was compiled from a broad range of Roman jurists, some of them pre-Christian, but much of what was codified by Justinian himself dealt with religious law in the Empire, so it's not unexpected that it often reflects the language of the bible.

In all actuality some of these maxims probably still exist in one form or another within the civil codes of many countries. The Napoleonic Code was based largely on the Corpus Juris Civilis, for example, and that's still the basis of the French civil code as well as the model code for most of the modern states in the territories Napoleon conqured. But whatever form they may survive in, they certainly don't act as individual statutes that can be divorced of any context. Rather, they were worked into these codes and informed them. The idea that any of these maxims are laws in themselves, or even natural laws with some sort of universal jurisdiction that can be called upon to annul actual law, is just one more example of magical thinking on the part of FotLers.


Edit: I meant to write "Codex Justinianus" in my previous post, not "Corpus".
 
Last edited:
Interesting comments Slayhamlet

You should visit some of the FOTL sites I'm sure your scholarship and knowledge would be as welcome as a can of spam in a French cooking school.
 
Slayhamlet said:
These aren't from the Vulgate, or any translation of scriptures. They're from the Corpus Juris Civilis, a collection of works on jurisprudence in Roman law that was compiled and given the force of law by Justinian I in the Byzantine Empire around the year 530 AD. In other words, they haven't had the force of law in any place on earth since the fall of Constantinople in 1453. They were, of course, hugely influential on the development of modern European civil law, and to a lesser extent common law, but in themselves they mean nothing.

I believe 9 Co. 79 is from the ninth book of the Codex Justinianus.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I never worked out where they were getting these Maxims from. I was only taught about Equitable Maxims & the Freemen weren't quoting those. Generally Freemen are very suspicious of Equity (because they don't understand it)
 
D'rok said:
So, they like to quote from Justinian's Code, which is...wait for it...statutory law.
Click to expand...

Even a cursory examination of Roman History shows Romans a) loved passing huge swathes of legislation b) were highly litigious c) very enthusiastic about real slavery as opposed to the fictitious kind promoted by freemen.
 
Slayhamlet said:
In all actuality some of these maxims probably still exist in one form or another within the civil codes of many countries.
Click to expand...


They persisted in this country until comparatively recently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/08/law.theguardian

There is a quiet little war being fought out in the alleys of the Temple and the corridors of the law courts. At stake is the whole body of sayings and maxims in a language no one can speak and very few can understand. The lawyers who use and abuse it call it legal Latin.
Click to expand...
 
Mojo said:
They persisted in this country until comparatively recently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/08/law.theguardian
Click to expand...

Thats an interesting article. It appears to be talking about the general use of latin words in the law. A bit different from the latin legal maxims that fmotlers use as undisputed legal commandments. They seem to think that you can effectively argue a court cases without putting them in context.

One that appears often is "An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce." which they use to demand governments respond to their frivolous legal filings in X days and, when they don't respond, consider it victory.

The Fmotlers seem to think that it is the very use of latin legal maxims that hold sway over the courts. Why they think that Roman era latin maxims stand alone in jurisprudence, and why they think that every other form of statue law requires consent EXCEPT their use of latin maxims which are themselves remnants of Roman statue law, intrigues me.

But then again, if the Fmotl made any sense it wouldn't be woo, I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom