The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
religious nut outofstate has already bettered yozhik and hes now on ignore.
When they were posting it reminded me of two kids when I was at school, both had personal hygine issues and the got into a fight and were hurling insults along the lines of "you stink" , "well, you stink more" etc...
 
jargon buster said:
religious nut outofstate has already bettered yozhik and hes now on ignore.
When they were posting it reminded me of two kids when I was at school, both had personal hygine issues and the got into a fight and were hurling insults along the lines of "you stink" , "well, you stink more" etc...
Click to expand...

I am fast coming to the conclusion that there is no point in anyone trying to engage with these sorts on any kind rational level, they simply won't be reasoned with. They would rather sit at a computer almost 24/7 with their heads in the clouds while they type out drivel. What amazing revolutionaries they are. :rolleyes:

I wonder what Yozhik actually does during those odd moments of the day when he isn't managing the Ucadian thought police or looking at a dictionary. Probably it's just a case of him taking a visit to the loo before heading back to his PC. Maybe someone should recommend a commode for him and then his research can continue uninterrupted by the call of nature.

Having failed badly with my new years resolution to step away from this stuff, I am going to try again. Your playground analogy is spot on, so it's probably best to leave them all to punch each other until they're worn out; they're not exactly a danger to anyone else, nor will they ever be.

It's hard not to feed the addiction once in a while though and man there are some proper village idiots in there.

I wonder how long I can go this time.
 
I'm with you there cocana as I posted earlier
For the whole theory to have any foundation and basis they have to show that they can successfully withdraw consent to be governed AND show that they have had it accepted by the government.
Click to expand...

Its easy to debate with them as long as you keep that in mind, just dont let them take the lead ;)
 
i think this part pretty much sums up their attitude.

When given the opportunity to speak, Charles refused to enter a plea, claiming that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch.He believed that his own authority to rule had been given to him by God and by the traditions and laws of England when he was crowned and anointed, and that the power wielded by those trying him was simply that of force of arms.* Charles insisted that the trial was illegal, explaining, "No learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King... one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong."* Charles asked "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful". Charles maintained that the House of Commons on its own could not try anybody, and so he refused to plead.

*of course anyone who doesn't let him do whatever he wants is obviously an aggressor.

*of course he can never do wrong.
 
Last edited:
Jake Dale said:
i think this part pretty much sums up their attitude.

When given the opportunity to speak, Charles refused to enter a plea, claiming that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch.He believed that his own authority to rule had been given to him by God and by the traditions and laws of England when he was crowned and anointed, and that the power wielded by those trying him was simply that of force of arms.* Charles insisted that the trial was illegal, explaining, "No learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King... one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong."* Charles asked "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful". Charles maintained that the House of Commons on its own could not try anybody, and so he refused to plead.

*of course anyone who doesn't let him do whatever he wants is obviously an aggressor.

*of course he can never do wrong.
Click to expand...

Since Charles lost his head does that make him the ultimate freeman victor?

BTW: The DI forum is becoming more and more incomprehensible each time I go there. I think they're fighting over whose god could beat up the others god but the prose has gotten so dense I can't wade thru it.
 
jargon buster said:
posted by Donal very early on in this thread about "especially" how very perceptive.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5159931&postcount=8
Click to expand...

They should put their money where their mouths are.

I would like to see FMOTL 'marches' on Washington DC, Ottawa & Whitehall etc to overthrow the 'corrupt' governments that are maintaining the 'corrupt' system. Basically, thats all thats left for the FMOTL 'movement' - the courts have rejected their arguments, they refuse to form political parties because the system is 'corrupt'. We can then enjoy the spectacle of Frank O'Collins being annointed as World 'Architect' or something.
 
gtm said:
They should put their money where their mouths are.

I would like to see FMOTL 'marches' on Washington DC, Ottawa & Whitehall etc to overthrow the 'corrupt' governments that are maintaining the 'corrupt' system. Basically, thats all thats left for the FMOTL 'movement' - the courts have rejected their arguments, they refuse to form political parties because the system is 'corrupt'. We can then enjoy the spectacle of Frank O'Collins being annointed as World 'Architect' or something.
Click to expand...

Yes, it all happens this December apparently. Estoppel by acquiesence don't you know! :D

Damn it, I've posted again. Then again, I think a little bit of light conversation here doesn't break my resolution.
 
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157920

thread title: Who wants an 'easy' $5k?

"Marc Stevens has been running a simple competition for 2+ years.
$5k up for grabs ... should be easy for legal eagles.".....
"All you have to do is produce empirical evidence of a 'state' and 'citizens', the money is yours."

uhm, the $5k he's offering is not evidence of a state? where's my $5k?
 
Last edited:
Jake Dale said:
why of course, freedom can only be found in death. lol
Click to expand...

Ah, I see.

Freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose
Nothing, I mean nothing honey if it ain't free, no no
Yeah feeling good was easy Lord when he sang the blues
You know feeling good was good enough for me
Good enough for me and my Bobby Menard
 
Jake Dale said:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157920

thread title: Who wants an 'easy' $5k?

"Marc Stevens has been running a simple competition for 2+ years.
$5k up for grabs ... should be easy for legal eagles.".....
"All you have to do is produce empirical evidence of a 'state' and 'citizens', the money is yours."

uhm, the $5k he's offering is not evidence of a state? where's my $5k?
Click to expand...

If you're saying that the money issued by the state and guaranteed by the state is 'empirical' evidence for the state you're going to have to ring it out more for the FOTL's.

Protip: always put words in 'scare quotes' so you can change the definition at will. :D:):(:mad:
 
cocana said:
Having failed badly with my new years resolution to step away from this stuff, I am going to try again. Your playground analogy is spot on, so it's probably best to leave them all to punch each other until they're worn out; they're not exactly a danger to anyone else, nor will they ever be.

It's hard not to feed the addiction once in a while though and man there are some proper village idiots in there.

I wonder how long I can go this time.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you cocana. I think they are a danger to others, for a number of reasons. The first is that they are a danger to any desperate or naive person who stumbles upon their freeman forums and youtube videos. Second, they are a danger to the entire justice system. Their paper terrorism of senseless applications, actions, fraudulent liens, etc. waste hours of court and government time (I can attest personally to this). Lastly, while most of them are fairly peaceful, there is definitely an undercurrent of hate (see yozhik) and violence (several incidents in the US, for example) among some of them.
 
Our friend grndslm is branching out;he is now posting 9/11 Truth crap in the 9/11 Conspriacy section.
Why are we not surprised?
 
solzhenitsyn said:
I disagree with you cocana. I think they are a danger to others, for a number of reasons. The first is that they are a danger to any desperate or naive person who stumbles upon their freeman forums and youtube videos. Second, they are a danger to the entire justice system. Their paper terrorism of senseless applications, actions, fraudulent liens, etc. waste hours of court and government time (I can attest personally to this). Lastly, while most of them are fairly peaceful, there is definitely an undercurrent of hate (see yozhik) and violence (several incidents in the US, for example) among some of them.
Click to expand...

Some very solid points from you there, solzhenitsyn.

They could well be a danger to the naive. Hang on, there is no "could" about it; they are a danger to the naive as we see from the websites. But if it wasn't the freeman movement and Ucadia, it would be something else and occasionally some of the foolish ones realise that they are being sold a package of attractive lies and they learn from it. Consequently, I don't see any need to interfere on that front, other than purely for personal entertainment.

The justice system can cope. I've dealt with a freeman in my professional capacity and it was great fun actually! The UK civil courts have a much more 'hands on' approach to litigation these days as well and that can be very effective at quickly weeding out the idiots and trouble makers. I can however sympathise with your point about wasted government time (freedom of information requests etc). I'm with you there completely.

I completely agree with you on your hatred point. I never had the highest opinion of that yozhik, but his recent outbursts have totally disgusted me and my disgust has been compounded by his recent efforts to play to the crowd with his reverse psychology. There is something deeply unpleasant about him.

The difficulty with those sorts is that they crave attention and people like us give it to them. We also give their warped minds the personal justification that they must be onto something because the "pay and obey" crowd are trying to shut them up or discredit them. With the focus removed they start looking more like what they are - a rag tag fringe of total barnpots.

As to violence, people either have it in them or they don't. To me it's no surprise that the US has seen some flashpoints but if it wasn't this it would be something else.

Consequently, I am stepping back a bit. I am still going to enjoy a good laugh about it - and here is an excellent place to do it but other forays shall be few and far between.

...in theory!
 
Last edited:
Why is it that everytime I offer this simple way for self-proclaimed "Freeman" to silence every critic and have everyone agree with them, they always seem to leave the thread or ignore me?

Lets try again. Grndslm, it would be VERY easy for you to prove that your belief system has any basis in law. Please do so:

LightinDarkness said:
All you have to do to prove your case is something that time and again we've seen every self-proclaimed FOTL fail to do:

Cite one single court case from any country on any statute law where a self-proclaimed freeman on the land was allowed to ignore statute law because of he declined to consent to it.

Thats it. Thats all you have to do. It cannot get anymore simple. If the world operates as you believe it does, where as long as you do the right tap dance in court and refuse to do certain things to "decline" consent, then this should be so easy to find. The world cannot be as you believe it is if you can't offer even one case like this.

And don't tell me that the court would never issue such an opinion. Courts issue opinions like this all the time for real, valid exemptions from statute law (like sovereign Native American tribes).
Click to expand...

If you cannot provide even 1 court citation from any country on any matter about anything that shows this, then you should admit your worldview is a delusion and come back to reality.
 
TSR said:
.
Lillybet, to save you the research in case you don't know it off the top of your head, it's Luke 12:47-48.

I'll split the $100 with you, m'kay? Altho he didn't specify the denomination of the "Federal Reserve Note," so we *could* argue zie owes us $10,000 -- not that zie has any intention of paying up, anyway.

And BTW, grndslm, can you point me to a definition, anywhere, from any source, which says "indigent" has "naked" as the sole qualification?
Click to expand...
.
Ummmmm. gs? Any response?
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom