The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
I had a little foray over on FMOTL.com a couple of days ago, I managed 14 posts and am now permanently banned without any reason.
I cant post a link to my posts because they have banned my IP, if anyone wants to see my posts I was lucifer and I posted in the general section and the freeman related questions section.
I think it was the "withdrawal of consent theory" that did it again :D

It doesn't half frighten the freemen when they realise its just words and has no basis in law and that without the withdrawal of consent being accepted then the rest of it is pointless.
 
jargon buster said:
I had a little foray over on FMOTL.com a couple of days ago, I managed 14 posts and am now permanently banned without any reason.
I cant post a link to my posts because they have banned my IP, if anyone wants to see my posts I was lucifer and I posted in the general section and the freeman related questions section.
I think it was the "withdrawal of consent theory" that did it again :D

It doesn't half frighten the freemen when they realise its just words and has no basis in law and that without the withdrawal of consent being accepted then the rest of it is pointless.
Click to expand...

They're such wallies.

Looks like Rob is about to embark on the same old consent argument over on Ickes, for the umpteenth time.

Damn it, my new year's resolution is blown. I won't be hard on myself though. I managed to avoid commenting on their stupidity for weeks.

I'll have a look at what's happening over on FMOTL.com. Thought that site was no longer running.
 
jargon buster said:
Its simple now to bust him, just turn his own argument around on him and the only way for him to prove his point is to have it debunk his point, its perfect.
Click to expand...

The ultimate freeman stundie. Nice one Rob!

PS - even the freeman sympathetic Icke site (theoretically so anyway) has revealed a lack of support for freeman on the land. Check out Weeman's poll.
 
And while we're at it, take a look at this idiot's deductive reasoning by first reviewing his post and then checking back through the thread and the source that he's referring to:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059831697&postcount=96

Blackstone J stated that persons were natural, that is to say man, or artifical legal entities, such as corporations. According to Yozhik, he also stated that man had an artificial person for the purposes of his legal rights. If anyone can find where Blackstone said that then they can have 5 housepoints from me. I think we're supposed to ignore the insertion in square brackets that hangs Yozhik's theory together.

I think someone needs to come up with another scene for the Yozhik play. There has never been someone more baffled by his native tongue.
 
Last edited:
cocana said:
And while we're at it, take a look at this idiot's deductive reasoning by first reviewing his post and then checking back through the thread and the source that he's referring to:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059831697&postcount=96

Blackstone J stated that persons were natural, that is to say man, or artifical legal entities, such as corporations. According to Yozhik, he also stated that man had an artificial person for the purposes of his legal rights. If anyone can find where Blackstone said that then they can have 5 housepoints from me. I think we're supposed to ignore the insertion in square brackets that hangs Yozhik's theory together.

I think someone needs to come up with another scene for the Yozhik play. There has never been someone more baffled by his native tongue.
Click to expand...

He's just re written the source that he's referring to.
What an idiot.
 
Stacey Grove said:
He's just re written the source that he's referring to.
What an idiot.
Click to expand...

Stunning proof isn't it?!

"Take a look at this dictionary, it shows that the word "idiot" means you're not an idiot"
"Shut up, what rubbish"
"Look, see"
[Produces the dictionary page with the words "not an" inserted before "idiot" in crayon]
"Very well Yozhik, you're an idiot"
 
If anyone wants to see a photograph of Yozhik, just look up "Idiot" in a copy of Blacks Law Dictionary. (2nd Edition) :D
 
I love this from the ever reliable yozhik
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059832180&postcount=38
Originally Posted by lizardlover
And your version will be exactly the same as everyone else's version right? There is no way ever two freeman will disagree on what is right in "their hearts"?

Freeman 1: You shouldn't have did that, its not right in my heart
Freeman 2: Too bad, its perfectly fine in my heart

Who's right?
Click to expand...
Yozhiks response
Awesome point.
Let's go with it for a moment.

I suggest what we're referring to here is 'custom' and tradition.
Yes?

So, oh ****, I don't know ... why don't we assemble a cross section of those living in the same community as the two 'Freemen' that you use in your example ... those would be an assembly of people in the same community that both Freemen have consented to both being in and agreeing to rules of conduct ... and just to make it easy to refer to, let's call this assembly ... ummm ... oh, I don't know ... what about a 'jury of their peers' ... yeah - thats got a nice ring to it.

So we assemble a jury of their peers, ordinary members of the community they have consented to being amongst - consent given with full disclosure and free will, without coercion, threat or deception - and the two Freemen argue their position.

We could even throw an independent witness to proceedings who could ensure that the debate was fair and respectful; someone who could pass judgement on the process of argument ... a referee ... **** - let's call him a judge.

The judge would ensure the debate was fair and respectful; the jury of peers would decide the outcome of the argument.

Seems pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...

Simple? not if freeman number 2 is Menard.:rolleyes:
 
I just came across this and have read many "success" stories on the net as I'm sure others of you have. My question is, are these people making their stories up, and if so, what would the motivations be?
 
therival58 said:
I just came across this and have read many "success" stories on the net as I'm sure others of you have. My question is, are these people making their stories up, and if so, what would the motivations be?
Click to expand...

There is a thread for success stories here. Perhaps you could add a few to it?
 
has anyone seen this video? The narrator sounds like Bill Still from the "Money Masters" film. It basically talks about the whole US is an evil corporation and how the 13th and 14th amendments were the shift from "rights" to "privileges" for US citizens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4xV4MTnCdc

Highly recommended for this topic

and here's a more humorous video, also relevant for this topic. Its called "Meet Your Strawman"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0hUY_3DREo
 
Last edited:
therival58
Rather than post stupid Youtube videos why don't you give us your opinion on the content and explain if you think they are valid or not.
People don't have time to watch idiotic videos spotting the same nonsense over and over again.
I'm sure I and others will give you some feedback.
Could you post at least one success story in the success stories section as well (thats if you can find one)
 
jargon buster said:
therival58
Rather than post stupid Youtube videos why don't you give us your opinion on the content and explain if you think they are valid or not.
People don't have time to watch idiotic videos spotting the same nonsense over and over again.
I'm sure I and others will give you some feedback.
Could you post at least one success story in the success stories section as well (thats if you can find one)
Click to expand...

Ok my mistake but no need to get irritated. The vids are only 8 and 5 mins in length not 100 like other FOTL stuff.

I was intrigued by the claims, so I spent a lot of time online, mostly on FOTL sources. The claim about the US being a municipal corporation is apparently how its always been, the act of 1871 was just a merging of all 3 municipal corporations in DC if I have that down right.

The statutes vs common law stuff is interesting too. According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 edition,
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm

the constitution authorizes the legislature to make statutes, so I am not sure where the FOTL guys are getting this "statues are not laws and only work by consent" jargon. In fact, consent of the people is specified in the common law definition, so are the FOTL people getting their definitions mixed up?

As far as "Success stories" go, here are some interesting ones...

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=16627

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread596591/pg1

This one acts more like an instruction guide to beating the system and mentions a case
http://spiritualeconomicsnow.net/?p=176
I know of a woman who was being transported from jail to prison. When she arrived, she was asked her name. As a body, she was worthless to them; they needed the name and they needed her to BE the name. She surprised them by saying, “If you don’t know who I am, how can you imprison me?” and they let her go because she refused to give them the name of the account which they intended to charge and against which to float the bond.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I was intrigued by the claims, so I spent a lot of time online, mostly on FOTL sources.
Click to expand...
therein lies your problem
As far as "Success stories" go, here are some interesting ones...
Click to expand...
First one man thrown out of court and then charged with making threats, yes thats a success for sure
Second one is about someone living off grid
Third one..well the quote you posted makes me wonder about your state of mind if you think that has any basis in reality.
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
therein lies your problem

First one man thrown out of court and then charged with making threats, yes thats a success for sure
Second one is about someone living off grid
Third one..well the quote you posted makes me wonder about your state of mind if you think that has any basis in reality.
Click to expand...

I was not restricting myself to FOTL sources, thats just where the bulk of the information was, as you can imagine. It was like yanking teeth trying to trace the legal backing behind their claims.

Second one is about living off the grid, but then she goes into general detail about what she did to become a "freewoman" of the land - talking about how its not for everyone and you need to know exactly what you're doing legally or youll mess up -- something to that extent.

And the third, well, I was going to comment how these FOTL people sound more like magicians than lawyers. So it was mainly posted to elicit a reaction
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom