The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolfe said:
Been to jail, served her time, released yesterday.

Poor girl. She's swallowed the entire thing; hook, line, sinker and rowboat, and she's busy ruining her life over it.
Click to expand...

Not quite (as far as I can tell.)

The jail sentence was for contempt -- basically because the FOTL manure was getting in the way of a smooth procedural disposition of the original road tax case. I think that case is still hanging over her head.

Courts are usually pretty reasonable about tax cases; they don't want to jail you, they just want their money. So they've got a streamlined system where you walk in, apologize pay up, and walk out. Or where you walk in, explain why you didn't/couldn't pay, set up a payment schedule, and walk out.

All with proper decorum.

In extreme cases, you walk in, tell the judge (with proper decorum) that you do not intend to pay, because the tax was not properly assessed ("I don't even live in Burble-on-Hock!"/ "Yes, but you own property there") and it goes to trial. But that takes time and effort and they prefer to avoid that.

She's going one step further. She's walking in and telling the judge to go sodomize himself with a rusty shovel. Which means she draws a week for contempt before the trial even starts.
 
Hmmm, yes, I see.

I wonder what the Courts make of all this the first time they encounter it? It must feel as if they've walked into an episode of Monty Python or something like that.

Rolfe.
 
This is great to hear - the more people we have systematically debunking FOTL woo the better. It seems to be the next big thing in conspiracy. Can't wait to read it and I'm sure it does a great job putting this silliness to rest (not that the woos would ever believe you).
Click to expand...

I'd prefer to have it proof read by someone who knows a bit more about this stuff...Would you be so kind? I've just got a lit student doing it for me right now, but I'd like someone to check over my facts before I submit it.
 
Rolfe said:
Hmmm, yes, I see.

I wonder what the Courts make of all this the first time they encounter it? It must feel as if they've walked into an episode of Monty Python or something like that.
Click to expand...

My bet -- and my understanding -- is that the courts deal with the clinically insane and paranoiac all the time. I doubt that FOTL particularly stand out as any particularly notable brand of crazy-stupid in comparison with your common or garden variety of "my neighbor poisoned my cat because I wouldn't give her lawn mower back" dispute or "I am the rightful Duke of Marmalade and therefore don't need a TV license."
 
Rolfe said:
Hmmm, yes, I see.

I wonder what the Courts make of all this the first time they encounter it? It must feel as if they've walked into an episode of Monty Python or something like that.
Click to expand...


I haven't had the stamina to wade through the whole of this thread and so this may have been mentioned before, but most of the legal arguments (I use the term loosely) presented by the FOTLers remind me of nothing so much as the Misleading Cases in the Common Law reports written by the wonderful A. P. Herbert early in the last century. In particular, the instance on being bound by maritime law reminds me of a case where a driver in a flooded street argued that as the road was under water, the rules of the sea applied and London traffic should pass on the right.
 
Another one that may be relevant it R v. Haddock, a common law decision which established that this is not a free country, which can be found here (scroll down to the contents and it should link to it).

It cannot be too clearly understood that this is not a free country, and it will be an evil day for the legal profession when it is. The citizens of London must realise that there is almost nothing that they are allowed to do. Prima facie all actions are illegal, if not by Act of Parliament, by Order in Council; and if not by Order in Council, by Departmental or Police Regulations, or by-laws. They may not eat where they like, drink where they like, walk where they like, drive where they like, sit where they like, or sleep where they like. And least of all may they do unusual actions 'for fun'. People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. If anything is said in this Court to encourage a belief that Englishmen are entitled to jump off bridges for their own amusement the next thing to go will be the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
drkitten said:
My bet -- and my understanding -- is that the courts deal with the clinically insane and paranoiac all the time. I doubt that FOTL particularly stand out as any particularly notable brand of crazy-stupid in comparison with your common or garden variety of "my neighbor poisoned my cat because I wouldn't give her lawn mower back" dispute or "I am the rightful Duke of Marmalade and therefore don't need a TV license."
Click to expand...


Considering John Hill, AKA Muad Didb, the creator of the "The 7/7 Ripple Effect" is facing extradition from Ireland to the UK, for perversion of the course of justice, has authored a petition in the UK courts, claiming he his the true king of England and Israeli, I can see him mounting a robust and completely bat guano defence.
 
I think the case malbui is alluding to is that of Rumpleheimer v. Haddock, which can be found in Herbert's Uncommon Law (1935) at page 237, although while the plaintiff was indeed driving a motor car on a flooded road, the defendant who successfully argued that the law of the sea should apply was in fact in a small boat.

Fardell v. Potts, another case involving water craft, makes what many consider to be a valid point. :boxedin:
 
PB2007 said:
Perhaps i should have said "proven" then?

Hope you didn't take all that the wrong way BTW. Looking back it's just meant to be a light hearted comment and perhaps not as sarcastic as it sounds....
Click to expand...


Pray think nothing of it. The misunderstanding was mine. :)

Rolfe.
 
drkitten said:
My bet -- and my understanding -- is that the courts deal with the clinically insane and paranoiac all the time. I doubt that FOTL particularly stand out as any particularly notable brand of crazy-stupid in comparison with your common or garden variety of "my neighbor poisoned my cat because I wouldn't give her lawn mower back" dispute or "I am the rightful Duke of Marmalade and therefore don't need a TV license."
Click to expand...

Depends on the type of case. For something like council tax it should be fairly easy to railroad. For something like US murder cases FOTL stuff has been know to cause issues (although it tends to be called the "fesh and blood defence" in that context).
 
Sunray Breaker said:
I'd prefer to have it proof read by someone who knows a bit more about this stuff...Would you be so kind? I've just got a lit student doing it for me right now, but I'd like someone to check over my facts before I submit it.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to proof read it, just send it in a PM or contact me via PM and I'll give you my email. I just stumbled onto the FOTL woo like the rest of us by sheer accident and I'm not a lawyer, but I get the basic FOTL woo tenets. There are some parts of it that I think they deliberately choose to not make any logical sense whatsoever (like the STRAWMAN thing - it seems to be related to their misunderstanding that law dictionaries cannot include every synonym for human being in its definition, but its still not clear where it comes from really).
 
Mojo said:
I think the case malbui is alluding to is that of Rumpleheimer v. Haddock, which can be found in Herbert's Uncommon Law (1935) at page 237, although while the plaintiff was indeed driving a motor car on a flooded road, the defendant who successfully argued that the law of the sea should apply was in fact in a small boat.

Fardell v. Potts, another case involving water craft, makes what many consider to be a valid point. :boxedin:
Click to expand...


I bow to your erudition. I've spent the last couple of hours looking for my ancient omnibus copy of Uncommon Law and can't find it - I have a nasty feeling it's in a box in an attic in Wokingham :( .
 
Pantaz said:
Here's a really fun one... http://www.teamlaw.net/Mythology.htm

They lay out the faults in many of the FOTL arguments, such as the "Strawman" and "U.C.C.-1", but then they advocate some equally weird beliefs, such as "there are only 48 states":


They also, apparently, embrace NLP (Neuro-linguistic programmingWP).

More...
Quatloos covers financial scams in general. They have a forum section for tax fraud, which includes FOTL woo.

Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments

The Tax Protester FAQ

And of course, the IRS has a few things to say: The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments
Click to expand...


Thanks Pantaz.

Reading up on this I notice a common trend, the writers of this "Freeman" garbage pretend to have a grasp of the law but fail to present any case law in support.

I wouldn't say I'm particularly astute, but after reading only a few lines my mind is screaming "Con".

As for the Birth Certificate thing, that's going around here in Canada as well. I walked up to a friend and he was going on about how your birth certificate was issued as a contract and the government had to have gold in some account for each one issued (don't ask me to make sense of it). He pointed to the fine print that says "CANADIAN BANK NOTE COMPANY LIMITED" and said it was essentially a bank note. I laughed it off and told him that it was the Bank Note Company that printed the birth certificates and had the water marked rag paper they use.

Needless to say people were much less responsive to my explanation than tales of treasures owed to the lucky sould that be born on Canadian soil.
 
I'd be happy to proof read it, just send it in a PM or contact me via PM and I'll give you my email. I just stumbled onto the FOTL woo like the rest of us by sheer accident and I'm not a lawyer, but I get the basic FOTL woo tenets. There are some parts of it that I think they deliberately choose to not make any logical sense whatsoever (like the STRAWMAN thing - it seems to be related to their misunderstanding that law dictionaries cannot include every synonym for human being in its definition, but its still not clear where it comes from really).
Click to expand...

Too late, I just basically looked around a few different areas to confirm my data and I think it's pretty solid, I posted the link for you guys to check out. Spread the word as much as you can, so I can start establishing some support.
 
Sunray Breaker said:
Here's my article debunking the freeman movement. Thanks for your help in helping me put together an article I can be proud of. I used to buy into this stuff and a lot of other woo, and although I'm quite new at this skepticism thing...I'll do my best to represent you guys honestly...Let me know what you think.

http://www.examiner.com/x-23787-Den...09m10d7-The-Freeman-on-the-Land-myth-Debunked
Click to expand...

P7 L1 "The theory claims that your name in all capitol letters represents a “corporation"

Capitol should read "capital"

As a suggestion:
P6 L1 "The theory, in a nutshell, suggests that we are owned and operated as a bankrupt nation"

should read

"The theory, in a nutshell (pun intended), suggests that we are owned and operated as a bankrupt nation"

;)
 
3bodyproblem said:
I wouldn't say I'm particularly astute, but after reading only a few lines my mind is screaming "Con".
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've noticed that each of the websites usually has a book or service to sell in support of their particular interpretation.
 
Darat said:
I feel really, really sorry for her - it's bad enough to be someone spouting off about all this "freeman" nonsense but to actually listen and then act on it...
Click to expand...


My gut feeling is that the members of that forum are using poor girlgye as a lab test rat, simply pushing her along to see what happens and that most of them are like eunuchs in a harem. They can watch others do it, but cannot do it themselves.

Norm
 
As a suggestion:
P6 L1 "The theory, in a nutshell, suggests that we are owned and operated as a bankrupt nation"

should read

"The theory, in a nutshell (pun intended), suggests that we are owned and operated as a bankrupt nation"
Click to expand...

nice...

Hey guys...Whats the best way to insult a truther?

Call him a truther...

This joke also works for hipsters, goths, chads and Alex Jones Fans...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom