The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there a decent place to get a concise summary of the FoTL stuff? I have a few friends who fiend on the CT whispers and the youtube vids are starting to get passed around of fat blokes standing on tables. They just kind of storm a local courthouse and shout stuff. Laughably, the vid comes with the assertion that the UK Government doesn't want you to see it and "IT WILL BE BLOCKED". The one I got sent has now been up for a fortnight and I quickly found another copy of the same vid which has been up for two months...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tictgGAE30

...which makes a bit of a mockery of the claims that the video is particularly terrifying to these sinister masters of ours :D


Anyway, I was trying to read a bit but I don't really have any legal experience or knowledge whatsoever so it can be slow going as I'm not sure exactly what some of the wordings mean in their context.

I know there's meant to be an assertion that Common Law is true law. From what I gathered, Common Law in the UK is determined by the establishing of precedents. By nature, this would mean it is a law which accommodates an evolution of sorts, keeping it relevant to the conditions of the time? If that's the case then harking back to a 700+ year old version must be almost redundant.

I also got as far as finding out that a lot is made of at least the Magna Carta. One FoTL site listed a series of old 'legal' documents and various versions of Magna Carta were amongst this, including the original version which was never turned into law, which surely makes that pointless? Newer versions were there but the fact that the oldest version was featured with highlighted passageways led me to believe the site author felt it perhaps was an actual legal document.

I'd like to see exactly what their point is supposed to be. I find many of the claims to be rather unfocussed and plentiful so would like to whittle down if possible. Is it merely this 'consent' issue that is being contested, and if so, do the Freemen wish to exclude themselves from other laws and features of our system, or just the ones that ask them for money? I'm no expert in medieval law, but I do imagine it wouldn't be much of a set of rules to work to in 2011. Maybe they wish to dump their pee onto the streets, settle disputes by duels and give up the use of their electricity and water supplies too?

Any clarifying help much appreciated, ta.
 
If I understand it correctly, they generally believe that no law is valid unless they consent to that particular law. Even the common law is not valid unless they consent to that particular law. Essentially what it boils down to is that there is no law, and that any action is acceptable so long as that action does not harm another person. So when they don't pay their taxes this is all kosher because they are not doing anyone any harm, in their minds.

If a Freeman is reading this and wishes to correct me, feel free to do so.

For some examples of how this argument has worked in court, see this post. There is a list of case after case where their arguments are completely dismissed over and over. Those cases are Canadian, but it's the same in American and English courts. There is simply no truth to these claims.
 
Scoot Meevo said:
I know there's meant to be an assertion that Common Law is true law. From what I gathered, Common Law in the UK is determined by the establishing of precedents. By nature, this would mean it is a law which accommodates an evolution of sorts, keeping it relevant to the conditions of the time? If that's the case then harking back to a 700+ year old version must be almost redundant.
Click to expand...



Part of the problem with pinning down what these guys really believe is that they don't use terms the same way everyone else does. For example, your description of "Common Law", while accurate in the real world, isn't what the Fotlers mean when they say "Common Law". Getting them to actually define what they do mean when they say "Common Law", though, is like pulling teeth.

Some of them have gone on about "Laws" that come from God, or Nature, but it's really not clear.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it's the same in the US, but in the UK, these ideas seem to be spouted by people who'd consider themselves to be left wingers so it's interesting that they often have extreme right wing origins.

Is there a gap in general CT'ist demographics on either side of the Atlantic?
 
one thing that still confuses me with FOTL in England is the claim by people like John Harris that Members of Parliament, Labour Party, courts and police stations are publicly traded companies.

Here's a screenshot from Small Business solutions listing them as companies. (From 3:40 to 4:30) Also claim that UK is a publicly traded corporation (From 9:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k

House of Lords - Corporation? (1:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E

Has anyone else looked into these claims?
 
Last edited:
therival58 said:
one thing that still confuses me with FOTL in England is the claim by people like John Harris that Members of Parliament, Labour Party, courts and police stations are publicly traded companies.

Here's a screenshot from Small Business solutions listing them as companies. (From 3:40 to 4:30) Also claim that UK is a publicly traded corporation (From 9:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k

House of Lords - Corporation? (1:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E

Has anyone else looked into these claims?
Click to expand...

Before I respond to this, I'd just like to point out TheRival that we all know you are on here to troll us. You've been playing the role of the "inquiring skeptic" since your arrival and have continually posted things like the above even though you know those questions have been answered and the notions behind them debunked half a dozen times in this thread alone. I realize by responding to you I am encouraging you to keep this up, but I am only doing so because we have some new posters in this thread and they should know what you are up to.

Anyways, as you know TheRival, the idea that the House of Commons, the UK, or any government agency is a corporation is wrong. It is, however, true that governments and government bodies have a corporation. The House of Commons indeed has a corporation (this is different from the House of Commons BEING a corporation). The FOTL woo is that you should freak out about that because in FOTL land corporations are evil for-profit enterprises out to enslave you.

But in reality, corporations are good things legally speaking. They are simply a legal structure. The House of Commons has a corporation because it enables it to operate and allows people to seek redress with the institution. The corporation allows people to work at the house of commons without being dragged into every law suit against an MP (employee immunity). It allows citizens to be able to file suit against the House of Commons as a whole if they have a problem but can't pinpoint a specific person to file suit against (which you can't do without a corporation).

Yes, for the love of the gods, governments have corporations. Lots of them. And thats not only A-OK, its a terrific thing for citizens and the people who work for the government because it allows us to actually function as a society.
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
+1
I pointed that out when he first started posting,hes a closet freeman trying to get people to read the garbage he links to.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7082970&postcount=5417
Click to expand...

namecall all you want its a ridiculous accusation.

LightinDarkness, maybe my question was already answered, however, for time's sake, I prefer be direct with a question that's still puzzling me as opposed to sifting through 139 pages. If by posting links that makes me a closet FOTLer, well believe what you want.
 
Last edited:
LightinDarkness, maybe my question was already answered, however, for time's sake, I prefer be direct with a question that's still puzzling me as opposed to sifting through 139 pages. If by posting links that makes me a closet FOTLer, well believe what you want.
Click to expand...

Come on now rival freeman, you must know you have to do your own research.

By the way, I'm not name calling Im stating facts.
(the question mark in your sig gives you away,and your reluctance to bring up the issue of consent is also glaringly obvious)
 
therival58 said:
namecall all you want its a ridiculous accusation.

LightinDarkness, maybe my question was already answered, however, for time's sake, I prefer be direct with a question that's still puzzling me as opposed to sifting through 139 pages. If by posting links that makes me a closet FOTLer, well believe what you want.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for your extensive post history and time here this would be believable. But no one is buying it, dear. You asked a "debunking freeman 101 question" that anyone whose looked at this for more than 5 minutes can answer. And you've been here far longer than 5 minutes. Thats why your name is "TheRival" - you are here to stir things up.
 
LightinDarkness said:
If it wasn't for your extensive post history and time here this would be believable. But no one is buying it, dear. You asked a "debunking freeman 101 question" that anyone whose looked at this for more than 5 minutes can answer. And you've been here far longer than 5 minutes. Thats why your name is "TheRival" - you are here to stir things up.
Click to expand...

What is the goal of being a closet freeman - to secretly spread FOTL doctrine?:p

the truth is I was completely new to the FOTL theory back in january/february, but after doing some research, and viewing/asking questions on JREF, I am no longer convinced being a FOTL has any basis in law or makes any sense. the corporation thing was one of the last things I needed clarification with - this CT is very extensive and combines so much info it takes awhile to sift through it all. I'm in the process of clearing out my favorites now.
 
I am no longer convinced being a FOTL has any basis in law or makes any sense.
Click to expand...
Good, now maybe you can stop posting idiotic freeman links and youtube videos and asking inane questions which 2 minutes of googling will give you the answer to.
 
jargon buster said:
Good, now maybe you can stop posting idiotic freeman links and youtube videos and asking inane questions which 2 minutes of googling will give you the answer to.
Click to expand...

actually I did try googling the answer to the question from post #5527 before posting. I couldn't find any answers - perhaps I was using insufficient search terms.
 
Last edited:
the only question in that post was you asking if anyone else had looked into the claims.
the rest was a statement which can be researched by searching the freeman threads on this forum (try the search function)

happy hunting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom