The Freeman Movement and England

[Ladewig]

FOTL "common law" is synonymous with natural law. Also, they sometimes boil it all down to the harm principle.

That's what I have heard as well, but even then, I think they sometimes intentionally blur the line. Is perjury in a murder trial permitted or prohibited in FMOTL-land? Are FMOTL allowed to shoot unarmed trespassers in the back as they are fleeing?

 

[zooterkin]

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.

Interesting point; can you be a FOTL if you're an atheist?

 

[Cocana The Second]

This is priceless. Take a look at post 47 here - http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=150894&page=5

 

[Vladd]

I liked Micklemus' reply

 

[Horatius]

Interesting point; can you be a FOTL if you're an atheist?

I've tried asking them that question, and never gotten a response. It would seem to me this, if statute law requires consent, and I don't believe in the power of god-given laws, in that I'm an atheist, and don't believe in god, that, under Freeman principles, I'd be entirely unconstrained.

Well, unconstrained that is, until they decided they needed to force me to comply with their "god laws" against my will. At which point, they'd be no better than those they rail against.

 

[D'rok]

That's what I have heard as well, but even then, I think they sometimes intentionally blur the line. Is perjury in a murder trial permitted or prohibited in FMOTL-land? Are FMOTL allowed to shoot unarmed trespassers in the back as they are fleeing?

FOTLism breaks down at the slightest attempt to apply it to real world fact patterns. It isn't even internally consistent, because, as you say, they pick and choose the existing laws that they "consent" to and that they don't. Self-serving jackasses.

 

[drkitten]

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?

To be fair, a lot of what the Freemen consider "common law" is really "customary law"; i.e. it's a practice that has existed since time immemorial; they're just using the wrong term (surprise....)

And yes, customary law does have the force of law in most jurisdictions, but it is inferior to both statute and common law. (E.g., the law on easements -- if you can show that a footpath in common use crosses and has always crossed a piece of land, you can use that footpath to establish a public easement that trumps the landowner's right to control the land.)

And that's why they worship the Magna Carta; the Magna Carta was among the first codifications of existing customary law (e.g., clause 9, guaranteeing "ancient liberties," is almost a definition) in the form of a document that could be pointed to and quoted from.

 

[D'rok]

And yes, customary law does have the force of law in most jurisdictions, but it is inferior to both statute and common law. (E.g., the law on easements -- if you can show that a footpath in common use crosses and has always crossed a piece of land, you can use that footpath to establish a public easement that trumps the landowner's right to control the land.)

Easements are common law. The origins of the concept are no doubt customary, but to the best of my knowledge, the whole of easement rights are now contained in common law.

 

[drkitten]

Easements are common law. The origins of the concept are no doubt customary, but to the best of my knowledge, the whole of easement rights are now contained in common law.

We may be talking at cross purposes. The concept of an easement has been adopted into common law (and indeed, in some jurisdictions, has been formalized by statute). But the existence of a particular easement can be shown by reference to custom -- we've always done this, therefore we have a legal right to do this.

You don't need to dig up court cases to prove that the annual Procession of the Festival of St. Dogswood has always crossed this field, as you would if it were an instance of common law. Monastic records would be sufficient evidence of "customs."

Of course, this is much easier to do in England than in the colonies, because nothing in the colonies predates the 17th century; it's hard to claim that the festival of St Dogswood has always been held at the north end of Vancouver Island when Vancouver Island itself was only discovered in 1778.

 

[D'rok]

We may be talking at cross purposes. The concept of an easement has been adopted into common law (and indeed, in some jurisdictions, has been formalized by statute). But the existence of a particular easement can be shown by reference to custom -- we've always done this, therefore we have a legal right to do this.

You don't need to dig up court cases to prove that the annual Procession of the Festival of St. Dogswood has always crossed this field, as you would if it were an instance of common law. Monastic records would be sufficient evidence of "customs."

Of course, this is much easier to do in England than in the colonies, because nothing in the colonies predates the 17th century; it's hard to claim that the festival of St Dogswood has always been held at the north end of Vancouver Island when Vancouver Island itself was only discovered in 1778.

Roger that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We may be talking at cross purposes. The concept of an easement has been adopted into common law (and indeed, in some jurisdictions, has been formalized by statute). But the existence of a particular easement can be shown by reference to custom -- we've always done this, therefore we have a legal right to do this.

You don't need to dig up court cases to prove that the annual Procession of the Festival of St. Dogswood has always crossed this field, as you would if it were an instance of common law. Monastic records would be sufficient evidence of "customs."

Of course, this is much easier to do in England than in the colonies, because nothing in the colonies predates the 17th century; it's hard to claim that the festival of St Dogswood has always been held at the north end of Vancouver Island when Vancouver Island itself was only discovered in 1778.

In England if the right of way isn't on the 'Definative Map' then it's up to you to prove you have a right of way. It is strictly controlled by Statute. Because you claim a 'Custom' and some old Monstic Record wouldn't be enough. It would help you in establishing the right of way but in itself it's not enough.

Here is a good quick primer on English Law.
http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/8760/1113/

 

[Ladewig]

Easements are common law. The origins of the concept are no doubt customary, but to the best of my knowledge, the whole of easement rights are now contained in common law.

But in terms of the big picture, I suspect that every FMOTL would acknowledge his right to use easements on other people's land and that every FMOTL would fight the right of other people to use easements on the FMOTLer's land. I am willing to be shown that I am wrong in this suspicion, but I will want to see hard evidence before changing my view.

 

[jargon buster]

advice from merlincove the former FMOTL MOD on Ickes for someone wishing to stop paying his rent and use freeman tactics
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059612733&postcount=3

i don't understand the question: are you trying to be free of obligation of rent / rates / tv license / bills?

Bear in mind that if you withold rent that you agreed to pay the landlord will produce a copy of the contract at his local court who will issue recovery notices via bailiff attendance. The land lord may wish to employ his own collection team and these may choose to act both within and out side of the law in respect of retrieving monies owed.

I really would not advice dodging rent agreements. it is not only unlawful in respect of the breaking of contractual obligations but also diss-honorable of freeman values.

In respect of council tax and tv license, you can go down the freeman route without any issue in regard to your landlord, however many rental agreements stipulate that the tenant is responsible for payment of rates and bills and general upkeep etc.

It would appear the landlord can override freeman magic?????
Maybe its something to do with the fact he/she will simply ignore your nonsense and evict you.
Wake up call Merlincove, thats what the courts and legal system are doing as well.

its intersting to note he feels dodging rent is dishonourable but speeding tickets and parking fines, council tax isnt???

 

[Cocana The Second]

advice from merlincove the former FMOTL MOD on Ickes for someone wishing to stop paying his rent and use freeman tactics
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059612733&postcount=3


It would appear the landlord can override freeman magic?????
Maybe its something to do with the fact he/she will simply ignore your nonsense and evict you.
Wake up call Merlincove, thats what the courts and legal system are doing as well.

its intersting to note he feels dodging rent is dishonourable but speeding tickets and parking fines, council tax isnt???

Well said, particularly your last paragraph. How freemen can square that stance with acting honourably is beyond me.

They are total hypocrites.

 

[Ladewig]

its intersting to note he feels dodging rent is dishonourable but speeding tickets and parking fines, council tax isnt???

I don't see an issue with this viewpoint (when looked at from their perspective). If a law enforcement agency or a a taxing body has no jurisdiction over you at all, then it is not inappropriate to avoid paying invoices sent to you. Rent on the other hand, is part of an agreed upon transaction where both parties went into the contract with a clear understanding of the deal.


ETA: If the Freedonian government sent you a tax bill, you would not pay it because they have no jurisdiction over you. The FMOTL are mistaken when they claim that no local, county, state, regional, provincial, or federal taxing agency has authority, but the ones who sincerely believe that are not hypocrites. MORE ETA: at least they are not hypocrites until they use any service, product, goods, funds, or durables provided by the government behind the taxing agency. and protection, I forgot protection. and infrastructure, I forgot that too.

 

[tsig]

advice from merlincove the former FMOTL MOD on Ickes for someone wishing to stop paying his rent and use freeman tactics
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059612733&postcount=3


It would appear the landlord can override freeman magic?????
Maybe its something to do with the fact he/she will simply ignore your nonsense and evict you.
Wake up call Merlincove, thats what the courts and legal system are doing as well.

its intersting to note he feels dodging rent is dishonourable but speeding tickets and parking fines, council tax isnt???

Why not file a quitclaim deed on the property and take it from the landlord (LORD!! NO MAN IS MY LORD) if he doesn't reply in 5 seconds.

 

[jargon buster]

If a law enforcement agency or a a taxing body has no jurisdiction over you at all, then it is not inappropriate to avoid paying invoices sent to you. Rent on the other hand, is part of an agreed upon transaction where both parties went into the contract with a clear understanding of the deal.

wrong.. you go into a contract with a law enforcement agency and taxing body by living within the confines of the country of jurisdiction.
If you think you have got a raw deal then you can opt out of the contract by finding another country with laws you like.

 

[Stacey Grove]

MORE ETA: at least they are not hypocrites until they use any service, product, goods, funds, or durables provided by the government behind the taxing agency. and protection, I forgot protection. and infrastructure, I forgot that too.

The problem is they say that they never asked for these benefits to be "thrust" upon them.
They say is it their fault that the government decided to build a road on the same piece of ground on which they wish to travel?

 

[Ladewig]

wrong.. you go into a contract with a law enforcement agency and taxing body by living within the confines of the country of jurisdiction.
If you think you have got a raw deal then you can opt out of the contract by finding another country with laws you like.

You are arguing that there is no difference between a business contract between a tenant and landlord and a social contract between citizens and law enforcement agencies?

In addition, many professional and amateur philosophers address the concept of unjust laws (e.g. helping runaway slaves). The FMOTL have ridiculously bad judgement in determining which laws are just and unjust, but that bad judgement does not, per se make them hypocrites. [although I do need some clarification here: do FMOTLers believe that the police have a valid right to arrest a murderer? Do they believe that there are just laws which should be enforced?]

 

[drkitten]

wrong.. you go into a contract with a law enforcement agency and taxing body by living within the confines of the country of jurisdiction.

Well, that's the part they disagree with. (And it's actually wrong in detail; "contract" has bugger-all to do with "jurisdiction" for precisely this reason. You don't need to enter into a contract to be subject to a government's jurisdiction.)

For example, just because I'm walking on Harvard's campus doesn't mean I'm a student. And, in fact, unless Harvard's campus police are appropriately deputized by the city of Cambridge -- which I think they are -- they don't actually have any authority over me. If I were throwing rocks through windows, they wouldn't have any more authority to stop and question me, or demand ID, or arrest me, than would any private citizen under similar circumstances. The best they could do would be to chase me away for trespassing, or to place me under citizen's arrest and wait for the "real" cops to arrive.

In theory, that's the FOTL position. Unless you contract with the city of Cambridge, the Cambridge police are no more than a different company's rent-a-cop security guards.