The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
So on the David Icke forum I've been posting in the Freeman area...and its been hilarious. There are a grand total of 2 posters there who identify themselves as Freemen-on-the-land who appear to be sane.

The rest of them? Absolutely nuts. My favorite example - there are several freeman forums, and most of them ban the evil skeptics who tell them the truth about their legal theories. Another skeptic got banned from one of the forums recently and posted on the David Icke forum about it.

Then, using Freeman-on-the-land principles, I demonstrate how he cannot be banned. That is because the user agreement for that forum refers to members as YOU, and YOU in the dictionary means a PERSON, and we know from Freeman-on-the-land that PERSONS are not real. Therefore, you cannot ban a flesh and blood poster who declines to be a person (or "you" in the agreement!) A completely retarded line of logic, but I was using Freeman on the land logic!

The response from the local Freemen?

Absolute hysterics. I mean..foaming at the mouth hysterics. Cognitive dissonance before our very eyes. For your enjoyment:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101190&page=2

I have to say I haven't had this much fun on the internet in months.
 
LightinDarkness said:
The response from the local Freemen?

Absolute hysterics. I mean..foaming at the mouth hysterics. Cognitive dissonance before our very eyes. For your enjoyment:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101190&page=2

I have to say I haven't had this much fun on the internet in months.
Click to expand...

Holy ****, this is a Stundie gold mine.

yozhik said:
A word NOT being in Black's makes it non-existant in legal terms.
It can still be relevant in lawful terms.
Click to expand...

I love it.

Dave
 
Its amazing the power they give to Black's law dictionary, isn't it? As if every court in the land made rulings based on it and that precedent and every other legal principle was secondary behind the definitions give to us by Black's law.

But hey, no worries, even when its not in Black's law we'll just MAKE UP the meaning even when its contrary to the regular dictionary definition of the word!.
 
dudalb said:
Nice to know that the US is not the only country with "Freeman" wackjobs.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid he is an American. The writing style is throughly American, not English; he calls London "London, England" -- about as likely as a New Yorker calling his home town "New York, New York State, USA"; and he seems to have problems distinguishing England from the UK. Not too likely for someone who really lives there.
 
Skeptic said:
I'm afraid he is an American. The writing style is throughly American, not English; he calls London "London, England" -- about as likely as a New Yorker calling his home town "New York, New York State, USA"; and he seems to have problems distinguishing England from the UK. Not too likely for someone who really lives there.
Click to expand...

I am aware the Suddenly was faking it, but my point holds since in this thread several descriptions of legal antics by REAL British "Freeman" have been posted.
 
Good work over there lightindarkness

by the way Im asky ;)

JB

PS A few more likeminded souls would be nice over there for a while ;)
 
Last edited:
They're organising a national meetup according to another thread in the Icke forum. But they don't want TROLLS or TROUBLE CAUSERS (says girlgye).

I wonder what the position is on trolls, though. Or trouble causers. Or trouble causing trolls.
 
commandlinegamer said:
They're organising a national meetup according to another thread in the Icke forum. But they don't want TROLLS or TROUBLE CAUSERS (says girlgye).

I wonder what the position is on trolls, though. Or trouble causers. Or trouble causing trolls.
Click to expand...

What sort of conference center is going to agree to contract with a bunch of people who think they can get out of the contracts they agreed to for any reason by a simple "decline to contract" notice? You'd have to be insane to want to deal with that - after they have their little propaganda fest all the vendors would get notices of decline to contract in the mail.
 
LightinDarkness said:
What sort of conference center is going to agree to contract with a bunch of people who think they can get out of the contracts they agreed to for any reason by a simple "decline to contract" notice?
Click to expand...

One that takes a nonrefundable payment in full in advance?
 
LightinDarkness said:
Good point, but then they'll just start a barrage of frivolous legal documents and fee schedules. None of them enforceable by courts, but it would get annoying I think :)
Click to expand...

They never seem to notice the invalidity of contracts til after they've got the goods. Then their rights hang heavy on them and they cannot in good conscience pay what they owe.

Pitcairn Island stands as an example of a true freeman on the land settlement.

No governing authority of any kind each man free to do exactly as he pleased.

It didn't end well.
 
tsig said:
They never seem to notice the invalidity of contracts til after they've got the goods. Then their rights hang heavy on them and they cannot in good conscience pay what they owe.
Click to expand...

Apparently they believe they can get out of paying their mortgage and have it written off, but of course still keep the house. Their argument is that the money was created by their signature and does not exist, so they have recieved no consideration making any contract unlawful.

On Ickes thread "Mortgages where is the consideration?

yozik wrote:
Getting back to the original question re: mortgages - where is the consideration?
There is none.
Mortgage is done by deed.
Deeds do not require consideration.
Begs the questions;
why do banks have use deed and not contract?
why is 'no consideration' necessary?
I would love to be a fly on the wall if this was asked directly, next time pen was poised over mortgage documents

"Ummm ... just out of interest Mr Banker ... I see that you're providing me with a mortgage deed ... I'm not comfortable with that given you don't provide any consideration in this agreement ... and if you're not actually providing any consideration, then what exactly ARE you asking me to make payments on? Do you not have a mortgage contract we could both agree to?"
Click to expand...
 
Stacey Grove said:
Apparently they believe they can get out of paying their mortgage and have it written off, but of course still keep the house. Their argument is that the money was created by their signature and does not exist, so they have recieved no consideration making any contract unlawful.

On Ickes thread "Mortgages where is the consideration?

yozik wrote:
Click to expand...


The house seems to be a considerable "consideration" so the money seems to be a red herring.
 
Stacey Grove said:
Apparently they believe they can get out of paying their mortgage and have it written off, but of course still keep the house. Their argument is that the money was created by their signature and does not exist, so they have recieved no consideration making any contract unlawful.

On Ickes thread "Mortgages where is the consideration?

yozik wrote:
Click to expand...

Which is highly amusing, of course, because there is no part of the law (Freeman common law or otherwise) that REQUIRES all contracts have consideration.

But we won't let the facts get in the way of trying to get out of paying our mortgage ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom