The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I find most strange about grndslm is that when you debunk point by point and he replies, what he says doesn't actually refute what you just said. Its like 99% of the things hes typing is the equivalent of "I DUN WANNA OBEY LAWS I DONT LIKE AND YOU CANT MAKE ME!" in the voice of a three year old whiny voice. I mean, how do you respond to that really?

So lets just make this simple, grndslm. 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).
 
Last edited:
What I find most strange about grndslm is that when you debunk point by point and he replies, what he says doesn't actually refute what you just said. Its like 99% of the things hes typing is the equivalent of "I DUN WANNA OBEY LAWS I DONT LIKE AND YOU CANT MAKE ME!" in the voice of a three year old whiny voice. I mean, how do you respond to that really?
Click to expand...

+1
Hes getting on my nerves as well
 
LightinDarkness said:
What I find most strange about grndslm is that when you debunk point by point and he replies, what he says doesn't actually refute what you just said. Its like 99% of the things hes typing is the equivalent of "I DUN WANNA OBEY LAWS I DONT LIKE AND YOU CANT MAKE ME!" in the voice of a three year old whiny voice. I mean, how do you respond to that really?
Click to expand...
what i did with menard was to tell him that i don't have to obey his laws and he's got no legitimate recourse, since he said his laws don't apply to me.

retribution? for what? i never broke any laws.
 
Last edited:
grndslm said:
Do you realize that if a statute contains the definition, you MUST use that definition??

What is a person in law dictionaries isn't important if the statute has the definition for person within, which it usually does. The answer is in the statute!!
Click to expand...

I raised this on the last page, but you may have missed (which is completely understandable considering the number of criticisms you're trying to respond to!) Anyway, I'd like to raise it again in response to this last comment of yours. I've reposted it below:


originally Posted by grndslm
And I cannot mediate with you when it comes to Canadian statutes or cases. Not my specialty.
Click to expand...
Point taken. I didn't realize that you had a specialty. You've only trained and practiced in Mississippi law I presume? Well, I'm only familiar with Canadian law, so you'll have to bear with me as I wade into your specialty (although, as we have both trained and practiced, I'm sure you'll agree that legal research and reasoning are really skills that transcend jurisdictional boundaries, no?)

Anyway, after a quick search I found this decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court in the matter of Coleman v. State of Mississippi, NO. 2004-CT-00346-SCT.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Randolph (this passage is collateral to the point on which Randolph J. is dissenting) states as follows:

¶35. Additionally, Miss. Code Ann. Section 1-3-65 instructs, “All words and phrases contained in the statutes are used according to their common and ordinary acceptation and meaning; but technical words and phrases according to their technical meaning.” As my esteemed colleague, Justice Dickinson, recognizes those who may be prosecuted for embezzlement are “limited to certain persons who steal from 'any private person,'” let us examine the common meanings of “private” and “person” as defined by Webster's Dictionary.

Private is defined as “(4) Belonging to a specific person or persons; (5)
Not in an official or public position; (6) Not public.” Webster's further provides the core meaning: belonging or confined to a particular person or group....” Webster's II New College Dictionary 880 (2001).

The definition of person is as follows: “(7) Law A human being or
organization with legal rights and duties.” Webster's II New College Dictionary 820 (2001).
Click to expand...
I've bolded the relevant bits. Of course, the Court (understandably, I would argue) doesn't feel the need to also examine the common meaning of "human being", but I imagine that you will, so please find it below, also from Webster's Dictionary:


Definition of HUMAN

: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : man; broadly : hominid
Click to expand...

Now I've also found a piece of Mississippi legislation entitled the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

You can find it here: mslawyer.com/statutes/landlord.html (I know this isn't an official source, but I think its good enough for our purposes).

Now, the definitions are set out in s. 89-8-7 as follows:

Sec. 89-8-7. Definitions; Notice to Landlord's Agent

(1) Subject to additional definitions contained in subsequent sections of this chapter which apply to specific sections or parts thereof, and unless the context otherwise requires, in this chapter:

(a) "Building and housing codes" includes any law, ordinance, or governmental regulation concerning fitness for habitation, construction, maintenance, operation, occupancy or use of any premises or dwelling unit;

(b) "Dwelling unit" means a structure or the part of a structure that is used as a home, residence or sleeping place by one (1) person who maintains a household or by two (2) or more persons who maintain a common household;

(c) "Good faith" means honesty in fact in the conduct of the transaction concerned and observation of reasonable community standards of fair dealing;

(d) "Landlord" means the owner, lessor or sublessor of the dwelling unit or the building of which it is a part, or the agent representing such owner, lessor or sublessor;

(e) "Organization" includes a corporation, government, governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership or association, two (2) or more persons having a joint or common interest, and any other legal or commercial entity;

(f) "Owner" means one or more persons, jointly or severally, in whom is vested (i) all or part of the legal title to property or (ii) all or part of the beneficial ownership and a right to present use and enjoyment of the premises, and the term includes a mortgagee in possession;

(g) "Premises" means a dwelling unit and the structure of which it is a part,facilities and appurtenances therein, and grounds, areas and facilities held out for the use of tenants generally or whose use is promised to the tenant;

(h) "Rent" means all payments to be made to the landlord under the rental agreement;

(i) "Rental agreement" means all agreements, written or oral, and valid rules and regulations adopted under Section 89-8-11 embodying the terms and conditions concerning the use and occupancy of a dwelling unit and premises;

(j) "Tenant" means a person entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others;

(k) "Qualified tenant management organizations" means any organization incorporated under the Mississippi Nonprofit Corporation Act, a majority of the directors of which are tenants of the housing project to be managed under a contract authorized by this section and which is able to conform to standards set by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development as capable of satisfactorily performing the operational and management functions delegated to it by the contract.
Click to expand...

Please note that the word "person" is not defined in this section of the statute (nor in any other section of the statute). Now, based on that fact, and on the decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court I cited above, would you say that you are, for the purposes of this Act, a person, and as such, it applies to you?
 
Last edited:
Jake Dale said:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157798, post 10

grndslm at ickes:The folks at jref are not incredibly objective...
Click to expand...

Excellent! He doesn't want to be a part of a society he gains no benefits from, so he'll

- Stop posting on the internet since its government subsidized.
- Never drive on anything but a toll road.
- Move out into the wilderness away from all police and fire stations.

I'm just absolutely sure he'll be leaving and not posting anymore since hes a honest freeman and is 100% consistent..right?
 
What I find most strange about grndslm is that when you debunk point by point and he replies, what he says doesn't actually refute what you just said. Its like 99% of the things hes typing is the equivalent of "I DUN WANNA OBEY LAWS I DONT LIKE AND YOU CANT MAKE ME!" in the voice of a three year old whiny voice. I mean, how do you respond to that really?
Click to expand...

This was his response on his own forum when I threatened to expose FMOTL on his site
http://freemen.freeforums.org/hello-all-t126.html
I wrote
Do you want to do the withdrawl of consent here or can you start a main topic on it where everyone can see it.
I would prefer the latter if possible.
Your whole philosophy can come crashing down in a couple of posts, are you up for it?
Click to expand...

he wrote
I reject your reality and substitute my own.

You're free to do the same.

You clearly know how to start new topics in the proper forums, so get to it.
Click to expand...

As you can see no matter how many facts you place at his door , he will simply say, "I reject them because they are not my reality".

Maybe he is just a troll after all
 
I thought that was a main plank of FOTL
Click to expand...
It is ,and this is the crux of the entire FMOTL argument.
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.

I have learned now just to keep them on this topic and ignore all the arm waving and mouth frothing, and they just fall down, or ban me which is what happens quite often :)

Keep them on this topic and they are screwed, dont get into any other arguments until this proof has been provided.
 
A strange part of the consent thing is that they refer back to times before representative government.
What do they think a feudal lord did to people who did not acknowledge his authority?
 
let this be a lesson to any FMOTLer attempting silly shenanigans in court.
This was a true sovereign claiming the court had no authourity over him.
The trial began on 20 January 1649 in Westminster Hall, with a moment of high drama. After the proceedings were declared open, Solicitor General John Cooke rose to announce the indictment; standing immediately to the right of the King, he began to speak, but he had uttered only a few words when Charles attempted to stop him by tapping him sharply on the shoulder with his cane and ordering him to "Hold". Cooke ignored this and continued, so Charles poked him a second time and rose to speak; despite this, Cooke continued. At this point Charles, incensed at being thus ignored, struck Cooke across the shoulder so forcefully that the ornate silver tip of the cane broke off, rolled down Cooke's gown and clattered onto the floor between them. Charles then ordered Cooke to pick it up, but Cooke again ignored him, and after a long pause, Charles stooped to retrieve it.[9] [10]

When given the opportunity to speak, Charles refused to enter a plea, claiming that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch.[11] 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.[11] 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."[11] Charles asked "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful".[12] Charles maintained that the House of Commons on its own could not try anybody, and so he refused to plead.

The court proceeded as if the king had pleaded guilty (pro confesso), as was the standard legal practice in case of a refusal to plead. However, witnesses were heard by the judges for 'the further and clearer satisfaction of their own judgement and consciences.' [13] Thirty witnesses were summoned, but some were later excused. The evidence was heard in the Painted Chamber rather than Westminster Hall. King Charles was not present to hear the evidence against him and he had no opportunity to question witnesses.

The King was declared guilty at a public session on Saturday 27 January 1649 and sentenced to death. To show their agreement with the sentence, all of the 67 Commissioners who were present rose to their feet. During the rest of that day and on the following day, signatures were collected for his death warrant. This was eventually signed by 59 of the Commissioners, including 2 who had not been present when the sentence was passed.[14]
Click to expand...
 
jargon buster said:
let this be a lesson to any FMOTLer attempting silly shenanigans in court.
This was a true sovereign claiming the court had no authourity over him.
Click to expand...


Look what happened to Edward 11. Thats another salutory lesson for Freemen. He was stripped of his power by Parliament (although not technically deposed) & thereafter abdicated. This is an early indication of the way Parliament could deal with Sovereigns whose conduct displeased them.

Aside from freemen being dreadful 'lawyers' they're also pretty poor historians :D
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
let this be a lesson to any FMOTLer attempting silly shenanigans in court.
This was a true sovereign claiming the court had no authourity over him.
Click to expand...

I think you are overlooking something.
Charles put his head on the block after saying a prayer and signalled the executioner when he was ready; he was then beheaded with one clean stroke.
Click to expand...
He were at last tricked into consenting and lost his magic woo legal protection/immunity to axes. :D
 
Charles refused to put his head on the block after saying a prayer "I do not consent to this" and signalled the executioner when he was ready; a two fingered salute, he was then beheaded with one clean stroke released without charge as the axeman had no authourity over him.

If only he hadnt lost faith in the woo, history would have been re-written.
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
Charles refused to put his head on the block after saying a prayer "I do not consent to this" and signalled the executioner when he was ready; a two fingered salute, he was then beheaded with one clean stroke released without charge as the axeman had no authourity over him.

If only he hadnt lost faith in the woo, history would have been re-written.
Click to expand...


I do believe there were something like that in some witch trials.
They could not be burned before they had confessed and repented, that led to some quite inventive interrogation techniques. :(
 
gtm said:
Look what happened to Edward 11. Thats another salutory lesson for Freemen. He was stripped of his power by Parliament (although not technically deposed) & thereafter abdicated.
Click to expand...


That was by no means the worst thing that is supposed to have happened to Edward II.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom