The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
tobjai said:
I felt free to highlight the significant portions in your quote.
Click to expand...


"Includes a corporation" does not mean "does not include a natural person", in the same way as "ducks are birds" does not mean that chickens are not birds.

By the way, it was a bit revealing that you skipped the definition of "person" given by the dictionary you told us to consult:
Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) (1999) gives as the primary meaning of the word “person”, “a human being” and, as a secondary meaning, “an entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being”.
Click to expand...

Since this thread is nominally about English law, I suppose I'd better quote Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (7th ed 2006) as well:
PERSON. Even before the passage of the Interpretation Act 1889 (c.63) it was considered that prima facie the word "person", in a public statute, included a corporation as well as a natural person.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
In the UK if you are caught by a speeding camera or similar yuou are sent a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty. You have 28 days to name the driver and if it yourself pay the fine and send your license away for 3 points. If someone else was driving you name them and they get their own COFP. If you fail to name the driver inside 28 days you will be prosecuted for Failing to name the Driver that carries a bigger fine and 6 points.
If you reject the COFP and want to take it to court then you still have to name the driver within 28 days.

If you try and send any letters or mess around like Tobjai the offer will be withdrawn and you are on your way to court then you can try and persuade the Magistrates. I can guarantee that in the UK if you try your Freeman stuff you will be found guilty or they will just refer it to Crown Court.
Not a single person has had a speeding summons dropped because of Freeman claptrap.
 
Mojo said:
"Includes a corporation" does not mean "does not include a natural person", in the same way as "ducks are birds" does not mean that chickens are not birds.
Click to expand...

"...or any word or expression, descriptive of a person..."
 
Mojo said:
"Includes a corporation" does not mean "does not include a natural person", in the same way as "ducks are birds" does not mean that chickens are not birds.
Click to expand...

you say a chicken is a bird but who says? Did the chicken consent to being a bird, did it consent to being a chicken? Maybe it's a chick of god with all the inalienable rights god gives and merely a representative of the legal fiction 'a chicken', unless, the chicken comes from Kentucky then it's a corporation.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
In the UK if you are caught by a speeding camera or similar yuou are sent a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty. You have 28 days to name the driver and if it yourself pay the fine and send your license away for 3 points. If someone else was driving you name them and they get their own COFP. If you fail to name the driver inside 28 days you will be prosecuted for Failing to name the Driver that carries a bigger fine and 6 points.
If you reject the COFP and want to take it to court then you still have to name the driver within 28 days.

If you try and send any letters or mess around like Tobjai the offer will be withdrawn and you are on your way to court then you can try and persuade the Magistrates. I can guarantee that in the UK if you try your Freeman stuff you will be found guilty or they will just refer it to Crown Court.
Not a single person has had a speeding summons dropped because of Freeman claptrap.
Click to expand...

Well, at least in Guelph, Ontario freeman Keith got the judge to bow down on his way out.. I never saw that before either :)
 
tobjai said:
I felt free to highlight the significant portions in your quote.


Alone the fact that slaves couldn't be dealt with "as persons" proves this statement wrong. Persons are legal fictions that bear all duties and rights a government proclaims. Like the Latin origin gives away, it is a mask that one can wear if they want to slip into the roll play as "child of the state".

K... I'm done playing for today... but I will still attempt to post my pdf tonight.
Click to expand...

Women once weren't persons. Now they are. Slaves once weren't persons. When they were freed, they become persons.

All human beings are persons.

Oh, and you forgot to highlight the conclusion of that case:

I am, therefore, driven to the conclusion that in its ordinary meaning and in its common or popular sense, the word “person” in a statute includes both natural persons and corporations.
Click to expand...

All human beings are persons.
 
You cannot become a person... if anything you can be treated as one.

kk, thats it... night guys.
 
Last edited:
tobjai said:
Well, at least in Guelph, Ontario freeman Keith got the judge to bow down on his way out.. I never saw that before either :)
Click to expand...
You've got to be kidding me. Judges bow when they leave the courtroom. Keith was convicted despite his antics.

You've really gone all the way off the deep end, haven't you?
 
tobjai said:
You cannot become a person... if anything you can be treated as one.

kk, thats it... night guys.
Click to expand...
You are spectacularly, and pathetically wrong.

Women were not always considered "persons" in the legal sense of the term. To clarify the definition of the term, women appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and as a result, obtained rights similar to those of men.

http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=276
Click to expand...

I'd post the actual case, but I don't think you have the capacity to understand it.
 
Mojo said:
"Includes a corporation" does not mean "does not include a natural person", in the same way as "ducks are birds" does not mean that chickens are not birds.
Click to expand...
This is yet another hopeless FOTL strategy. Reverse the meaning of plain words, thus "includes" becomes "excludes".

Sometimes I wonder why we bother responding at all.
 
tobjai said:

"...or any word or expression, descriptive of a person..."
Click to expand...


That doesn't help you in the slightest.

And here's another definition from an English law dictionary, this time from Mozley and Whiteley's Law Dictionary 12th ed (2001):
Person. 1. a human being capable of rights, also called a natural person.
2. A corporation or legal person i.e. an artificial person (see the Interpretation Act 1978 s.5 Sch 1).
Click to expand...
 
tobjai said:
http://drop.io/nyblprk/asset/img-pdf
Click to expand...
Google translate is not very helpful:

The process is adjusted according to S 47 para 2 OI {iG.
The cost of the procedure with the Treasury. Necessary
Expenses of those affected are not refundable.
Ullenbruch
Judge of the District Court
Click to expand...

But it sure doesn't look like evidence of much of anything. Can you cite s. 47 para 2? What law does this refer to? Link please.
 
So in FOTLandia, speed limts are optional for all "non-corporations," which means that individuals operating motor vehicles can drive any speed they want? I can drive 80km/hour past an elementary school when the children are getting out?
 
tobjai said:
Guys... use a law dictionary... then make claims.... or at least provide a non-wikipedia poof of it... I can act "on behalf / in the name of my person"... but thats about it.
Click to expand...

You are getting more incoherent with every post.
 
tobjai said:
I felt free to highlight the significant portions in your quote.


Alone the fact that slaves couldn't be dealt with "as persons" proves this statement wrong. Persons are legal fictions that bear all duties and rights a government proclaims. Like the Latin origin gives away, it is a mask that one can wear if they want to slip into the roll play as "child of the state".

K... I'm done playing for today... but I will still attempt to post my pdf tonight.
Click to expand...

"Playing" Got your number now.
 
Ladewig said:
So in FOTLandia, speed limts are optional for all "non-corporations," which means that individuals operating motor vehicles can drive any speed they want? I can drive 80km/hour past an elementary school when the children are getting out?
Click to expand...

And with no insurance or driving license.Welcome to the wacky FOTL world.It will never happen,so no need to worry,just laugh at them.
 
tobjai said:
Guys... use a law dictionary... then make claims.... or at least provide a non-wikipedia poof of it... I can act "on behalf / in the name of my person"... but thats about it.
Click to expand...
Well, D'rok gave you some quotes from case law, I gave you some definitions from a dictionary of law, others have done similarly.

Do you have any response beyond a very poor attempt at word games?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom