The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
jargon buster said:
I love this from the ever reliable yozhik
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059832180&postcount=38

Yozhiks response


Simple? not if freeman number 2 is Menard.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just spotted that one. I think Rob had better have a word with Yozhik because he has just bolloxed up Rob's consent theory.

FFS (< Yozhik likes that shorthand, he uses it a lot*) you can't have a court of law or even a functioning legal system if Rob's consent theory holds sway. Both parties must consent to the law and the jurisdiction of the court for it to work.

As you say, JB, Menard comes along in the guise of freeman number 2, says "I don't consent" and walks away.

Thanks again Yozhik for illustrating the idiocy of this stuff through your own stupidity. You rarely fail to come up to the mark.







*However, I'm surprised that he hasn't used the full words and included a footnote explaining their derivations by now.




EDIT

PS - Sorry Toke, I've now seen your post. Exactly.
 
Last edited:
therival58 said:
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?
Click to expand...


That's pretty much it. They've redefined terms such as "common law", "consent", "constitution", "strawman", "person", "statute" and "corporation" so as to support their own fantasy version of how they think the world is. Any intersection between their claims and the real world is entirely accidental.
 
they seem to put a lot of emphasis on using a UCC-1 financing statement form as a first step in their quest for freedom. For those more familiar than I, how exactly do FOTL people believe this form can aid them in their freedom quest?:confused:
 
Horatius said:
That's pretty much it. They've redefined terms such as "common law", "consent", "constitution", "strawman", "person", "statute" and "corporation" so as to support their own fantasy version of how they think the world is. Any intersection between their claims and the real world is entirely accidental.
Click to expand...


That's as good a summation as I've seen.
 
With the cutbacks in legal Aid and the Govt plans to stop 'No Win No Fee' arrangements with Law firms, I think we can expect a lot more FMOTL cases in the future. There will be a lot more Litigants in person, they are going to look to the Internet for help and info. Some are bound to come across FMOTL and their seductive promises.
 
therival58 said:
they seem to put a lot of emphasis on using a UCC-1 financing statement form as a first step in their quest for freedom. For those more familiar than I, how exactly do FOTL people believe this form can aid them in their freedom quest?:confused:
Click to expand...

In order to understand the mythology of the UCC-1 power you have to remember that FOTLers rely on completely redefining legal terms into things that they are not. Concurrently, you must also recall that for FOTlers the law is nothing but magic and ritual, and if you do the right ritual dance and say the magic words the judges flee from the court and you can do whatever you want.

So, within the context of magical mythology, they think that the birth certificate is in reality a bond that the government sells for your lifetime "labor." By filing a UCC-1, they place a lien against that bond, with the amount varying based on whatever mythology they are following tells them (its usually a hysterically large amount of money). From then on forward, they write off all of their debts and bills as being paid for by money from that birth bond.

Of course back in reality, it doesn't work since there is no birth bond, and the UCC-1 simply gives notice to someone the state that someone owes money to you and you have a interest in their personal property. So they file a fake lien against a debt that doesn't exist (their birth bond). Some states are getting tired of dealing with this woo so they refuse to let them file anymore, in other states they still get away with it because no one looks at it and its just filed away.
 
Last edited:
All very nice but it doesn't relate to the Freeman Movement and England. UCC_1 etc is American.
 
Im quite sure lightindarkness was aware of that.

With regards the no win no fee subject, didn't that process rise up from the abolition of legal aid in certain circumstances and as such if no win no fee disappears then legal aid is likely to replace it again?
Or are you suggesting people will not be able to access legal assistance in the future unless they pay up first?
 
It's proposed to get rid of legal aid for individual damages, debt, education, employment, immigration, housing, social welfare, personal injury, clinical negligence, family cases and Judicial Reviews.
Effectively it will only be available in Criminal cases and even here it is being cut.

At the same time the Free Citizens Advice Bureau is to have it's funding cut back.

As for 'No Win No Fee' the Got blames it for driving up legal costs and causing people to bring 'Sprious Cases'
Cases involving claims of up to £15,000 are to be referred to mediation services rather than court, they also plan to raise the minimum value of a case thatcan be sent to High Court to £100,000.

The justice secretary said he believed "no win, no fee" was one of the reasons for recent increases in the cost of car insurance, and he hoped the planned changes would help drive premiums down.

They plan to restrict claims for costs from the defendant and make the plaintiff pay costs out of damages awarded, this iwll discourage people from bringing cases and encourage them to keep the legal costs to a minimum.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
All very nice but it doesn't relate to the Freeman Movement and England. UCC_1 etc is American.
Click to expand...

Actually it does, because part of Freeman mythology is that UCC is the super-secret universal law of the world. I'm not kidding: they even file UCC-1's in England. Remember, they are just making it up as they go along anyways.
 
That whole "spurious case" and no legal aid thing makes me suspicious, it is just what I would say if I wanted to limit the legal system to help the moneyed.
 
One of the aims is to cut the ammountthe NHS pays out every year in compensation for medical negligence. NHS pays out nearly £800m in costs and compensation, while the legal aid bill is £19m.
By stopping Legal Aid and getting rid of No Win No Fee they hope to cut this in half.
It means of course that only people with money will be able to get compensation in future.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
One of the aims is to cut the ammount the NHS pays out every year in compensation for medical negligence. NHS pays out nearly £800m in costs and compensation, while the legal aid bill is £19m.
By stopping Legal Aid and getting rid of No Win No Fee they hope to cut this in half.
It means of course that only people with money will be able to get compensation in future.
Click to expand...

That particular problem could be solved by setting up a complaints system with fixed rates of compensation for NHS mistakes.
Like e.g. £10.000 for a leg plus help with the paperwork for disability pension.

You just have to declare NHS mistakes not subject to lawsuits providing they are covered by the complaints system.
There are plenty of private enterprises that can provide examples of "mandatory arbitration" clauses, the software industry have some nice product disclaimers too.

It sounds more like something that will screwer the legal system in other areas than the NHS. Many companies would likely find their lifes much easier if only a few of their customers could afford legal help.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
One of the aims is to cut the ammountthe NHS pays out every year in compensation for medical negligence. NHS pays out nearly £800m in costs and compensation, while the legal aid bill is £19m.
By stopping Legal Aid and getting rid of No Win No Fee they hope to cut this in half.
It means of course that only people with money will be able to get compensation in future.
Click to expand...
Yes, it seems kind of hard on poor people who suffer from the negligence of NHS doctors.
 
Elizabeth I said:
Yes, it seems kind of hard on poor people who suffer from the negligence of NHS doctors.
Click to expand...

Well, Cameron's friends presumably all have private health insurance so don't use the NHS (or so they think) and probably are or can afford lawyers.

So, no problem. ;)
 
Toke said:
That particular problem could be solved by setting up a complaints system with fixed rates of compensation for NHS mistakes.
Like e.g. £10.000 for a leg plus help with the paperwork for disability pension.

You just have to declare NHS mistakes not subject to lawsuits providing they are covered by the complaints system.
There are plenty of private enterprises that can provide examples of "mandatory arbitration" clauses, the software industry have some nice product disclaimers too.

It sounds more like something that will screwer the legal system in other areas than the NHS. Many companies would likely find their lifes much easier if only a few of their customers could afford legal help.
Click to expand...

£10,ooo for a leg what does that mean? the loss of a leg like injury compensation?

How do you work out the fixed rate of compensation for someone that needs care for the rest of their lives by specialist nurses due to brain damage? It's not that simple.
If there is a fixed system that doles out a fixed ammount of cash where is the incentive to improve care or resolve systemic deficiencies?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom