• 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.
The poor woman seems to be getting worse, is it drink or mental illness I wonder. When the truth of FOTL hits her one day something is going to crack.
 
Vladd said:
The poor woman seems to be getting worse, is it drink or mental illness I wonder. When the truth of FOTL hits her one day something is going to crack.
Click to expand...

She's already cracked, of that I'm sure. Some of her ramblings are positively insane. In recent weeks I particularly enjoyed her Road Traffic Act rant - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6703146&postcount=4684.

Of the options that you've pondered, I suspect that both apply.

She will never face facts. If she is prepared to remain indoctrinated by freeman rubbish despite applying it herself and getting ruined and incarcerated for it, she will never move on. She has dug the most enormous hole for herself, jumped in and now spends her time shouting up from down there about how the rest of the world is in a pit and she's the one who has got it good.
 
Last edited:
What's with the claim being made there that "The last time a fused court was used in equity in the US is in 1968"? Have there been no injunctions issued in the US (outside Delaware) in over 40 years?
 
Mojo said:
What's with the claim being made there that "The last time a fused court was used in equity in the US is in 1968"? Have there been no injunctions issued in the US (outside Delaware) in over 40 years?
Click to expand...

I know. They're so incredibly thick that it's worrying.

Hopefully someone will post up some cases for them to chew on. Only trouble is that rather than accept that this is another thing they've got wrong, they will probably invent a conspiracy that involves court reporters or something, so that law reports can be discredited as not recording what actually happened.
 
cocana said:
Yes, I've read through the cases she's cited and I don't see the relevance to freeman snake oil.
Click to expand...



It's quite simple really. Because some people, some where, were able to win against the banks in a foreclosure case, that means everyone, everywhere can win against them.


And don't go giving me that "Different situations call for different resolutions" nonsense! :mad:
 
Horatius said:
It's quite simple really. Because some people, some where, were able to win against the banks in a foreclosure case, that means everyone, everywhere can win against them.


And don't go giving me that "Different situations call for different resolutions" nonsense! :mad:
Click to expand...

Damn it you've exposed the flaw in my thinking!!

It's all so obvious now - some random wins a case somewhere in the world and that's proof that freemanery works! O god it was so simple after all! Blimey, it must mean that I'm a freeman as well. :eek:
 
cocana said:
Damn it you've exposed the flaw in my thinking!!

It's all so obvious now - some random wins a case somewhere in the world and that's proof that freemanery works! O god it was so simple after all! Blimey, it must mean that I'm a freeman as well. :eek:
Click to expand...



Well, if you have the mental capacity needed to believe that, you're well on your way!
 
cocana said:
I know. They're so incredibly thick that it's worrying.

Hopefully someone will post up some cases for them to chew on. Only trouble is that rather than accept that this is another thing they've got wrong, they will probably invent a conspiracy that involves court reporters or something, so that law reports can be discredited as not recording what actually happened.
Click to expand...


They'll probably just claim that injunctions aren't anything to do with equity. Remember that their definition of "common law" has very little to do with what common law actually is.
 
Mojo said:
They'll probably just claim that injunctions aren't anything to do with equity. Remember that their definition of "common law" has very little to do with what common law actually is.
Click to expand...

Well, we have a new move from girlgye now - EVERYTHING is equity -

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059596444&postcount=27

So according to her common law doesn't even exist now, unless of course it's one of her 'common law statutes' - whatever they are.

Listen out for more girlgye pronouncements coming to your town soon. :)
 
I honestly can't understand a word she says. Something is just not wired correctly in that head.
 
Just had a look at the John Harris manifesto & it sounds like a blueprint for a totalitarian, communist dystopia. I've been aware of the Freeman movement's existence for a while but hadn't really read up on it- I always assumed it was an offshoot of the libertarian right.I knew they were into some wacky ideas but before reading some of the threads here & on the Icke forum I never realized just how detached from reality this lot were.
 
Triskelion said:
JI've been aware of the Freeman movement's existence for a while but hadn't really read up on it- I always assumed it was an offshoot of the libertarian right.
Click to expand...

The Libertarian Right isn't nearly as principled as it likes to claim to be, or perhaps it's simply that the principled core is a relatively small group in it. The Freeman movement, in particular, draws not only from the libertarian right, but also from the Christian right who attempt to conflate "natural law" with "God-given law" and thereby codify their prejudices into legal axioms that can't be overturned by mere legislative actions.

In practical terms, libertarianism is more defined among its supporters in terms of what I'm not allowed to restrict them from doing than in terms of how they're not allowed to restrict them, and in fact almost any kind of restriction on me seems to be allowed, as long as they can justify it in terms of preventing me from limiting them.

So the corporatist/fascist tendencies are quite real, but it's very rare that you will see as clear a statement as in Harris' manifesto....
 
taken from the text
He said it would take 40 days to process his concerns, to which Judge Wisbey quipped: ``And 40 nights?''
Click to expand...

Brilliant, I wish more judges took this line with them.

O'Connell told the visibly shocked jury that he knew the law and was ``not a fool''.
Click to expand...
Stundie maybe?
 
This case has me wondering about what the Freeman definition of "common law" is.

I just find this interesting because it's so at variance with the real-world definition of "common law." Common law is judge-made law that creates future precedents - but if those judges never had jurisdiction to begin with, then that law would never have existed. So how can Freemen worship at the altar of common law if they think the people who created it had no authority to do so?

I know that in practice the Freeman definition of common law is "whatever I say the law is," and their definition of statutory law is "whatever law(s) I don't like." What I am wondering is if any Freemen has articulated specifically what they mean by "common law" and what that concept includes. I tried to Google this, but all of the Freeman sites I found were completely incomprehensible.
 
Bosozoku said:
This case has me wondering about what the Freeman definition of "common law" is.

I just find this interesting because it's so at variance with the real-world definition of "common law." Common law is judge-made law that creates future precedents - but if those judges never had jurisdiction to begin with, then that law would never have existed. So how can Freemen worship at the altar of common law if they think the people who created it had no authority to do so?

I know that in practice the Freeman definition of common law is "whatever I say the law is," and their definition of statutory law is "whatever law(s) I don't like." What I am wondering is if any Freemen has articulated specifically what they mean by "common law" and what that concept includes. I tried to Google this, but all of the Freeman sites I found were completely incomprehensible.
Click to expand...
FOTL "common law" is synonymous with natural law. Also, they sometimes boil it all down to the harm principle.
 
Bosozoku said:
This case has me wondering about what the Freeman definition of "common law" is.

I just find this interesting because it's so at variance with the real-world definition of "common law." Common law is judge-made law that creates future precedents - but if those judges never had jurisdiction to begin with, then that law would never have existed. So how can Freemen worship at the altar of common law if they think the people who created it had no authority to do so?

I know that in practice the Freeman definition of common law is "whatever I say the law is," and their definition of statutory law is "whatever law(s) I don't like." What I am wondering is if any Freemen has articulated specifically what they mean by "common law" and what that concept includes. I tried to Google this, but all of the Freeman sites I found were completely incomprehensible.
Click to expand...

You pretty much answered your own question. If a Freeman is cornered, she may mumble something about the Magna Carta and if that fails use the Bible, and if this fails we get back to "God's Natural Law", whatever that is supposed to mean.

The goalposts do not move, they are not there in the first place.

Norm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom