The Freeman Movement and England

[Mojo]

I only came across UK column while reading about FOTL. They're running a story ('The cat's out of the bag') at the moment which is being touted as another mighty success for the freeloaders.

...snip...

Leaving aside the fact that this is one man's recollection of events, I cannot see how even FTOLs can view this is a triumph. Judge opens case. FTOL spouts rubbish. Judge ignores him. The end. Except it's not the end because, as usual, we don't get to hear what happened next - most likely: FTOL grips the oak. Judge throws book at FTOL.

Wasn't this in a County Court? If so, not usable as a precedent.

And remember that nobody speaks in BLOCK CAPS.

 

[gtm]

Wasn't this in a County Court? If so, not usable as a precedent.

And remember that nobody speaks in BLOCK CAPS.

Magistrates Court & there'll be no binding precedent.

 

[jeffwode]

Wasn't this in a County Court? If so, not usable as a precedent.

And remember that nobody speaks in BLOCK CAPS.

Roger the tax-dodger was back in court this morning, according to Icke's forum.

Roger Hayes is in court this morning (15/02/2011)for a continuation of the non-payment of council tax saga... now in its 3rd year. Good luck mate!

No word yet on whether his heroic stand has brought down the New World Order.

 

[tsig]

Have you actually viewed the video you posted?
Is that what you saw, the man being set free because he refused to give his name?
Are you sure about that?
I'll tell you what I saw.
Two officers had the man on the ground. The gentleman in question was told he was under arrest and he then started spouting some gibberish which the policemen ignored. As they brought him to his feet he managed to wrestle himself free and promptly ran away as fast as he could.
Is that video (in your opinion) an example of a success? Physically escaping from the police and running like ****?

Running from the law to be hunted down like a dog, that's the freeman way.


Freeman theme song.

(A') Breakin' rocks in the ... hot sun
I Fought the Law and the ... law won
I Fought the Law and the ... law won
I needed money, 'cause I ... had none
I Fought the Law and the ... law won
I Fought the Law and the ... law won



Bobby Fuller Four


Or for this occasion:

My little runaway, run-run-run-run-runaway
A-run-run-run-run-runaway.-



http://www.justsomelyrics.com/869583/The-Beatles-Runaway-Lyrics

 

[tsig]

Roger the tax-dodger was back in court this morning, according to Icke's forum.

Roger Hayes is in court this morning (15/02/2011)for a continuation of the non-payment of council tax saga... now in its 3rd year. Good luck mate!

No word yet on whether his heroic stand has brought down the New World Order.

I felt a distourbence in the Farce!

 

[grndslm]

Nonsense. Californians voted for it on a ballot proposition.

Why the presumption that I'm from California?? I don't understand.

Looks like it is only sort of decriminalized.

norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4546

And the change, such as it is, was enacted by your state legislature. You know, those folks you vote to represent you. In other words, you are governed by consent.

Why the presumption that I vote?

If you are above the law, then there is no rule of law. It's quite simple to understand really. Fortunately, you are not above the law.

The Law states.. I have the freedom of religion. Does it not?? If I'm following God's Law, then what makes you think I'm above it??

Indeed. Education is invaluable. You should try it.

You should try teaching.

If you remove your consent to the laws of your society, that action will have no force or effect. Shucks. If everyone does, that's another story. See Egypt.

Of course it will have an effect. Only a fool would think otherwise. It may not be the "perfect" effect, but perfect is the enemy of the good.

I'm not a lawyer. But even if I didn't have training in law, I would still know utter ******** when I see it.

Take it from the top again and teach us about the Law.

Are Rastafarians allowed to smoke herb??
Are Christian Scientists allowed to let their children die, because they don't believe in "conventional" health remedies??
Are Amish required to get licenses to "drive" their horse and buggies??

Why is it that they get to escape statutory legislation, but you don't??

 

[grndslm]

This has already got rather circular. People don't need "freeman" status (which is totally meaningless in reality anyway) to start saying, "WE AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT!", "WE DON'T ACCEPT YOUR DECISION; THE MAN IS OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT!" etc. They can say what they like now. As to what's legally effective, that's another matter.

They can, but they don't... because they're stupid sheeple!

If "freeman" status actually meant something, you'd be able to cite examples of its success in court, as LID has invited. You can't do that and you never will for the simple reasons that it isn't recognised in law and it never will be.

There are a dozen forums for freemen, most all with sub-forums titled "Success Stories".

And your point is...?

Well, we were conversing. And that was a response to this....

How fortunate we all are, then, that the FOTL understanding of what "corporate" means has no relationship to reality and governments are, in fact, not corporations.

......

What about those that cover consumption taxes?
How do you avoid paying taxes on your spending?
Or do you (conveniently) consent to those laws?

You are talking about the Law of the Sea, not the Law of the Land.

In that case, you must do as the captain says or jump overboard.

That doesn’t mean that FMOTL know what they are talking about when they talk about “corporate government”, to (many of?) them corporate is just a scary word.


*(some explicitly are corporations, for instance the Corporation of the City of London)

It's not "the Corporation of the City of London".

The corporation's, person's name is, exactly, THE CITY OF LONDON.

All to no effect, naturally. If evidence and reality swayed you, you wouldn't be promoting FOTL garbage in the first place.

Your right to own a gun is constitutional. So are certain laws restricting the use of that gun. Other laws restricting the use of that gun are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975

Indeed I do. Unfortunately, FOTLers with overblown senses of personal entitlement do not.

What good do those words do me??

I promise you... if you ring up ANY police officer, deputy, or whatever in MISSISSIPPI... and ask them if they can carry a gun without a permit, they will say no.

If you read them the Mississippi Bill of Rights, even... which states...

Article 3, Section 12... Right to Bear Arms

The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

They will not be able to provide you with one single possibility of carrying an "unconcealed weapon". You say, isn't a holster unconcealed? Nope. You say, what about a CLEAR holster... isn't that unconcealed? Nope. You could have your back toward them.

Even with these words, that they SWEAR to protect and defend... they still follow orders from their "higher ups", which ain't "the People".

PLEASE... Find me ONE Mississippi government agent that says I have the right to carry an unconcealed gun without a permit. WRITE HIS CONTACT INFO DOWN and then share.

Seriously, I triple dawg dare ya!

 

[D'rok]

What good do those words do me??

I promise you... if you ring up ANY police officer, deputy, or whatever in MISSISSIPPI... and ask them if they can carry a gun without a permit, they will say no.

If you read them the Mississippi Bill of Rights, even... which states...



They will not be able to provide you with one single possibility of carrying an "unconcealed weapon". You say, isn't a holster unconcealed? Nope. You say, what about a CLEAR holster... isn't that unconcealed? Nope. You could have your back toward them.

Even with these words, that they SWEAR to protect and defend... they still follow orders from their "higher ups", which ain't "the People".

PLEASE... Find me ONE Mississippi government agent that says I have the right to carry an unconcealed gun without a permit. WRITE HIS CONTACT INFO DOWN and then share.

Seriously, I triple dawg dare ya!

Sorry dude. The US Bill of Rights is supreme over the Mississippi Bill of Rights. And the US Supreme Court's decisions are binding over however your local lawmakers interpret the Bill of Rights, and certainly over your personal interpretation of what the law should be.

And, of course, I note that you conveniently ignore the fact that in the case I cited, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a gun control law.

How's the weather in fantasy land?

 

[jargon buster]

grndslm wrote

There are a dozen forums for freemen, most all with sub-forums titled "Success Stories".

And everyone totally devoid of any success.
I would love you to show us one, just one story that holds up to scrutiny.

 

[grndslm]

Sorry dude. The US Bill or Rights is supreme over the Mississippi Bill of Rights. And the US Supreme Court's decisions are binding over however your local lawmakers interpret the Bill of Rights, and certainly over your personal interpretation of what the law should be.

And, of course, I note that you conveniently ignore the fact that in the case I cited, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a gun control law.

How's the weather in fantasy land?

It is not Supreme until you're dealing with Federal Courts.

In State courts, you bring up State Law.

When dealing with State police, you bring up State Law.

WHY NOT just take the CHALLENGE?? Are you afraid to realize the Truth?

Ask them about both the U.S. _and_ MISSISSIPPI Constitutions. Ask them if you can carry a gun without a permit.

They will say no, you cannot. You say... "But the Miss. Constitution states my right shall not be called into question, and the legislature may only regulate concealed carry... what if it's not concealed??"

They will say, if you're turned away from me, it's concealed.

Just try it!!

It's 8:37 AM here. ANY Mississippi government agent, k?? You've got all day.

 

[D'rok]

Why the presumption that I'm from California?? I don't understand.

You responded to a point I made about California's pot laws. There could not be clearer evidence of governance by consent than Proposition 19. The Governator signed it into law over his own personal objections because it was the will of the people.

Oh, but wait. I forgot. We're all slaves. So that obviously couldn't have happened, right?

Why the presumption that I vote?

I try to assume the best about people. I guess I was wrong in your case.

The Law states.. I have the freedom of religion. Does it not?? If I'm following God's Law, then what makes you think I'm above it??

You don't live in a theocracy. The Constitution is the supreme law, not scripture.

You should try teaching.

Doing my best. You should try learning.

Of course it will have an effect. Only a fool would think otherwise. It may not be the "perfect" effect, but perfect is the enemy of the good.

You're right. It will have an effect. You will face punishment for disobeying the law. Is that the effect you were hoping for?

Take it from the top again and teach us about the Law.

Are Rastafarians allowed to smoke herb??

No. It is illegal, even if only a misdemeanor where you live. The only exceptions I am aware of anywhere are medical exceptions. Can you show me others?

Are Christian Scientists allowed to let their children die, because they don't believe in "conventional" health remedies??

No. The state will likely become involved.

Are Amish required to get licenses to "drive" their horse and buggies??

I doubt it. But I'm quite sure that act is regulated in some manner in every jurisdiction. You aren't comparing Amish buggies to driving a car, are you?

Why is it that they get to escape statutory legislation, but you don't??

They don't. Firstly, in the US, you have the unfortunate complication of 50 different criminal law jurisdictions, so laws regarding the same offence may be different from state to state. Secondly, exceptions provided for by statute (like medical marijuana) are not examples of escaping statutory legislation. They are examples of statutory legislation and the rule of law.

 

[grndslm]

grndslm wrote

And everyone totally devoid of any success.
I would love you to show us one, just one story that holds up to scrutiny.

Link me to a forum that you're referring to...

Or are you talking out your boothole again?

 

[D'rok]

It is not Supreme until you're dealing with Federal Courts.

In State courts, you bring up State Law.

When dealing with State police, you bring up State Law.

WHY NOT just take the CHALLENGE?? Are you afraid to realize the Truth?

Ask them about both the U.S. _and_ MISSISSIPPI Constitutions. Ask them if you can carry a gun without a permit.

They will say no, you cannot. You say... "But the Miss. Constitution states my right shall not be called into question, and the legislature may only regulate concealed carry... what if it's not concealed??"

They will say, if you're turned away from me, it's concealed.

Just try it!!

It's 8:37 AM here. ANY Mississippi government agent, k?? You've got all day.

If you think your police or government are applying the law unconstitutionally, take them to court. It worked in DC, as the case I cited showed.

Or, you could flail about helplessly on Internet forums. I'm sure that will continue to be super effective. (Note: when I say super effective, I mean not effective in the slightest).

 

[brodski]

It's not "the Corporation of the City of London".

The corporation's, person's name is, exactly, THE CITY OF LONDON.

You are quite, quite wrong.
The City of London (however capitalised) refers to a geographical boundary. The Corporation of (the City of) London (both names are used) refers to the body corporate responsible for the local governance of the area within that boundary.

 

[grndslm]

You responded to a point I made about California's pot laws. There could not be clearer evidence of governance by consent than Proposition 19. The Governator signed it into law over his own personal objections because it was the will of the people.

I dunno... I'd say Mississippi's Bill of Rights makes it fairly clear that the government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed, but like the rest of our rights, they are IGNORED...

Section 5
Government Originating in the People

All political power is vested in, and derived from, the people; all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Section 6
Regulation of Government; Right to Alter

The people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary to their safety and happiness; provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

As to the Cannabis dealy, it's still ILLLEGAL except for medicinal use. Cannabis has been used as medicine for THOUSANDS of years, yet just recently can Americans use it for those time-tested, medicinal reasons. There is not ONE nation in the world where Cannabis is flat-out legal. Not one. Mexico tried and then THE U.S. made them flip the script, because we can't let people run their own countries and all. World Police and ****...

Oh, but wait. I forgot. We're all slaves. So that obviously couldn't have happened, right?

Yes.. Mexico had to submit to the wishes of a few rich men. Yes they did.

I try to assume the best about people. I guess I was wrong in your case.

I'll vote as soon as there's another option besides the GOLD Party.

You don't live in a theocracy. The Constitution is the supreme law, not scripture.

How does the First Amendment contradict God's Law, or vice-versa??

You're right. It will have an effect. You will face punishment for disobeying the law. Is that the effect you were hoping for?

Lawful Rebellion is no joke.

No. It is illegal, even if only a misdemeanor where you live. The only exceptions I am aware of anywhere are medical exceptions. Can you show me others?

Thanks for proving my point. Decriminalized = Illegal without Jailtime. Learn something knew everyday, don't ya? So they can write me a ticket, but how?? Why would I give them my name??

No. The state will likely become involved.
I doubt it. But I'm quite sure that act is regulated in some manner in every jurisdiction. You aren't comparing Amish buggies to driving a car, are you?

You should try learning. The state cannot interfere with your freedom of religion. There's case law, but you already knew that didn't you??

And, yes I'm comparing Amish buggies to traveling in a car. The latter is FAR SAFER, so why would we need licenses and not the Amish??

Well.. the Amish aren't really apart of American society. They might live here, but they don't submit to statutory law. They submit to God's Law and Common Law.

They don't. Firstly, in the US, you have the unfortunate complication of 50 different criminal law jurisdictions, so laws regarding the same offence may be different from state to state. Secondly, exceptions provided for by statute (like medical marijuana) are not examples of escaping statutory legislation. They are examples of statutory legislation and the rule of law.

That's why Lawful Rebellion is no joke. We can appeal until we're blue in the face. At some point, somebody's going to realize that they swore an oath to protect the RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS to choose their own religion, to protect themselves, to possess property, etc. They will.

How far you're willing to go is only up to you. The lot of you seem to like bending over and taking it, tho.

 

[D'rok]

I dunno... I'd say Mississippi's Bill of Rights makes it fairly clear that the government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed, but like the rest of our rights, they are IGNORED...



As to the Cannabis dealy, it's still ILLLEGAL except for medicinal use. Cannabis has been used as medicine for THOUSANDS of years, yet just recently can Americans use it for those time-tested, medicinal reasons. There is not ONE nation in the world where Cannabis is flat-out legal. Not one. Mexico tried and then THE U.S. made them flip the script, because we can't let people run their own countries and all. World Police and ****...

Yes.. Mexico had to submit to the wishes of a few rich men. Yes they did.

I'll vote as soon as there's another option besides the GOLD Party.

How does the First Amendment contradict God's Law, or vice-versa??

Lawful Rebellion is no joke.

Thanks for proving my point. Decriminalized = Illegal without Jailtime. Learn something knew everyday, don't ya? So they can write me a ticket, but how?? Why would I give them my name??

You should try learning. The state cannot interfere with your freedom of religion. There's case law, but you already knew that didn't you??

And, yes I'm comparing Amish buggies to traveling in a car. The latter is FAR SAFER, so why would we need licenses and not the Amish??

Well.. the Amish aren't really apart of American society. They might live here, but they don't submit to statutory law. They submit to God's Law and Common Law.

That's why Lawful Rebellion is no joke. We can appeal until we're blue in the face. At some point, somebody's going to realize that they swore an oath to protect the RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS to choose their own religion, to protect themselves, to possess property, etc. They will.

How far you're willing to go is only up to you. The lot of you seem to like bending over and taking it, tho.

Here's my advice:

1. Go ahead and try your foolproof "I'm not telling you my name" defence when a police officer tries to give you a ticket for something. Film it. Put it on youtube. Laughing at idiots is what the internet is for.

2. Emigrate to a country where individual rights are NOT protected by the rule of law and see how you get on. Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

[Cocana The Second]

They can, but they don't... because they're stupid sheeple!

So, if you accept that you don't need to be a freeman to change the system, it makes the whole thing rather daft doesn't it, even if we assume that there is something in it? It has no practical benefit except to make fools look clever to the totally mentally vacant on the internet.

Also you might want to think about your attitude to others, it says rather a lot about you and not in a good way. It probably also explains why you rally against your peers in society.

There are a dozen forums for freemen, most all with sub-forums titled "Success Stories".

As per JB's post, there is not one verifiable case of a link between "freeman" status and success in court. Show me one, just one. While you're at it, show LID just one such case as well and you may even be in line for some money.

The corporation's, person's name is, exactly, THE CITY OF LONDON.

Before we head down a blind alley (as I can certainly think of three ways that this one could go) what is the basis for this view of yours?

 

[grndslm]

If you think your police or government are applying the law unconstitutionally, take them to court. It worked in DC, as the case I cited showed.

Thank you for proving that Lawful Rebellion most definitely has its place.

And I don't think it. I know it.

Why don't you call and just figure it out yourself...

This isn't about me. This is about YOU, claiming that pieces of paper are going to protect anyone. That people OBVIOUSLY have the "Right" to do something, just because it's written down. YOU made that claim and stated that I was full of it and then listed some Supreme Court cases, did you not??

So why don't you call ANY Miss. Gov't Agency and tell me the name of one person who says I have the right to carry an unconcealed weapon without a permit??

I don't understand why you just don't settle it instead of talking about things you're unaware of...

It's blatantly obvious that virtually everything our government does is unconstitutional. And your idea is, to sit back and take it?? .. or to lawfully rebel? Which one?

Or, you could flail about helplessly on Internet forums. I'm sure that will continue to be super effective. (Note: when I say super effective, I mean not effective in the slightest).

The only person flailing is yourself and j-busted.

Call THE MAN and ask him if Mississippians can carry an UNCONCEALED GUN without a permit.

You are quite, quite wrong.
The City of London (however capitalised) refers to a geographical boundary. The Corporation of (the City of) London (both names are used) refers to the body corporate responsible for the local governance of the area within that boundary.

Look up the definitions of a "state" in a law dictionary.

Look to this thread, where Buster was officially busted for the FIRST time...
http://freemen.freeforums.org/statute-t50.html

What was I wrong about, again???

THE CITY OF LONDON is a corporation. That's the person's name.
It *is* a corporation.

A body politic, a state, a corporation... all refer to the same thing -- a collective group of people. It has NOTHING to do with fictitious walls. Or you're at least not speaking in legalese anymore, and you're speaking modern English. We're gonna have to use a law dictionary here, however, since that's what we're talking about, right??

 

[grndslm]

Here's my advice:

1. Go ahead and try your foolproof "I'm not telling you my name" defence when a police officer tries to give you a ticket for something. Film it. Put it on youtube. Laughing at idiots is what the internet is for.

2. Emigrate to a country where individual rights are NOT protected by the rule of law and see how you get on. Go ahead. I'll wait.

1. You think he'll throw me on the ground and kick my teeth in?? You think he'll throw me in jail for 3 days under the name John Doe?? For smoking an herb, while not harming anybody or damaging anybody's property??

2. Why should I? Why don't you just worry about yourself? You don't know me.

You don't even know what a state, body politic, society are... so why would you immediately jump to GTFO??

So, if you accept that you don't need to be a freeman to change the system, it makes the whole thing rather daft doesn't it, even if we assume that there is something in it? It has no practical benefit except to make fools look clever to the totally mentally vacant on the internet.

You people have some amazingly daft jumps to conclusions...

I don't need to be a freeman to change the system, so it makes being a freeman pointless??
Well... it's NOT pointless.. because I cannot change the system by myself, and especially as long as the GOLD Party rules.
I have no interest in remaining in a society that does not benefit me in any way.

It is pointless for me to REMAIN in the system without seeing any benefit, don't you think?? Especially a system where obvious fraud is perpetuated... such as the right to carry an unconcealed weapon.

Also you might want to think about your attitude to others, it says rather a lot about you and not in a good way. It probably also explains why you rally against your peers in society.

When have I rallied against my peers?? Just one example, please.

Why do you people just make this junk up in your heads??

THE MAN is not a peer of mine, he is a legal fiction that is using fraud to deceive my peers. Do you UNDERSTAND?

As per JB's post, there is not one verifiable case of a link between "freeman" status and success in court. Show me one, just one. While you're at it, show LID just one such case as well and you may even be in line for some money.

Any success that Freemen, Nationals, State citizens, Sovereigns, Constitutional citizens, might see... will likely be dismissed and no court record. Take this one for example... http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm

There are many paths to freedom. You've just gotta open your eyes to see them.

http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

Before we head down a blind alley (as I can certainly think of three ways that this one could go) what is the basis for this view of yours?

The basis is that it's all TRUE.

I have the same rights as someone in China and everyone else in the world for that matter. Our rights do NOT come from pieces of paper.

The basis is in law dictionaries, it's in history, it's in supreme court cases, but most importantly... it's in our Spirit.

 

[Cocana The Second]

I don't need to be a freeman to change the system, so it makes being a freeman pointless??
Well... it's NOT pointless.. because I cannot change the system by myself, and especially as long as the GOLD Party rules.
I have no interest in remaining in a society that does not benefit me in any way.

So we come back to the core "freeman" principles in that case don't we? Prove that being a "freeman" actually works and extracts you from the society that you so despise. Come on.

When have I rallied against my peers?? Just one example, please.

I commented on your attitude towards your peers -

... because they're stupid sheeple!

Your attitude speaks volumes.

On 'successes' you state -

Any success that Freemen, Nationals, State citizens, Sovereigns, Constitutional citizens, might see... will likely be dismissed and no court record. Take this one for example... http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm

There are many paths to freedom. You've just gotta open your eyes to see them.

http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm

That classic CT chestnut once again of no evidence = evidence. And you wonder why people like us laugh at this stuff!!

I then asked you about your grounds for your conclusions about the City of London Corporation. You said-

The basis is that it's all TRUE.

I have the same rights as someone in China and everyone else in the world for that matter. Our rights do NOT come from pieces of paper.

The basis is in law dictionaries, it's in history, it's in supreme court cases, but most importantly... it's in our Spirit.

Come on, that doesn't even begin to give me a straight answer does it?