The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sledge said:
:D

I seem to have inadvertantly started a... argument may be too strong a word. Anyhoo, I'll see if I can explain my problem, aside from the fact that trying to think like a FotL makes me feel like a robot in a Star Trek episode being shut down with a logic puzzle.

Ok, if I buy a house with my own money, it's mine. I give the money to the previous owner, end of story. If I take out a mortgage, the bank loans me the money secured against the house and the money is paid to the previous owner. The problem I'm having (and I'm not gonna be surprised if the answer to this is "exactly") is how would I as a Freeloaderman on the Land own the house? The two arguments I can think of are:
1) The money doesn't really exist because it's just electronic transfers, or some similar rubbish
or
2) The money does exist, but the bank has no ability to enforce the contract saying I have to pay it back.

The first one is just silly, as if the money doesn't exist, no one has paid for the house so it still belongs to the original owner. I get the feeling that the second one is what FotL'ers are pushing, but I can't follow the logic. If the contract with the bank isn't binding, why is the contract with the guy who sold the house?

I'm overthinking this, aren't I?
Click to expand...

Try reading this:

"Since dd/mm/yyyy it has come to the attention of us, via the Bank of England website and reading of the Gold Standard Act 1925, that the pound is no longer linked to a standard or anything else of value. By this we mean that if a man or woman carrying a promissory note (bank note) issued by the Bank of England with the wording written across it that states “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of…” attempts to exchange this with the issuer for something of value, they cannot, and will only be provided with a similar promissory note. Therefore money has no true value."


ETA: I see you have seen this. Money has no value so even though it's good enough to get you the house in the first place it's not good enough to be used to pay your debt.

Hey we're free man, on the land.
 
Last edited:
"At the time of signing the aforementioned form neither of us fully grasped exactly what was occurring by way of signing the document, and to be honest we still cannot say for certain that we do."
Click to expand...
And their ignorance is on a different level than they think. :D
 
Sledge said:
:D

I seem to have inadvertantly started a... argument may be too strong a word. Anyhoo, I'll see if I can explain my problem, aside from the fact that trying to think like a FotL makes me feel like a robot in a Star Trek episode being shut down with a logic puzzle.

Ok, if I buy a house with my own money, it's mine. I give the money to the previous owner, end of story. If I take out a mortgage, the bank loans me the money secured against the house and the money is paid to the previous owner. The problem I'm having (and I'm not gonna be surprised if the answer to this is "exactly") is how would I as a Freeloaderman on the Land own the house? The two arguments I can think of are:
1) The money doesn't really exist because it's just electronic transfers, or some similar rubbish
or
2) The money does exist, but the bank has no ability to enforce the contract saying I have to pay it back.

The first one is just silly, as if the money doesn't exist, no one has paid for the house so it still belongs to the original owner. I get the feeling that the second one is what FotL'ers are pushing, but I can't follow the logic. If the contract with the bank isn't binding, why is the contract with the guy who sold the house?

I'm overthinking this, aren't I?
Click to expand...

Its both (1) and (2) but they ignore (1) because it highlights one of many obvious flaws in their propaganda. They want to believe that money is not real because its not linked to gold, but then when you point out this means that there is no CONSIDERATION for the home seller in their contract they go ******* nuts and start foaming at the mouth. This is because Freeman-on-the-land woo also pushes that all contracts MUST have consideration (even though that's not true either).

For (2) its quite simple. Since Freeloaders on the land say that any reference to a person in a contract cannot be them since they are LIVING FLESH AND BLOOD SOULS, they can decline to contract with any mortgage using the word person (and all of them will use the word somewhere). Thus, they claim by "God's law" they have a right to the home. Since all of the previous contracts would have referred to persons, they as a flesh and blood soul would have claim to the property over strawman corporate fictions like persons.

Does it make sense? No.

But thats the freeloader on the land way.
 
Last edited:
It's just so glorious. The more you look at it, the less sense it makes. From a distance, you could almost see something reasonable in it: the law IS confusing. Maybe there is a conspiracy to make sure the little guy can't use the law, but has to use a lawyer who's in on the whole thing and will make sure "The Man" always wins. Then you get closer and see they're talking about admiralty law and insisting that we're all ships. Then you look at the details and they flat out contradict themselves in the FotLs' rush to avoid paying anything unless they want to.

If someone told me the whole thing had been started as an experiment to see if people would subscribe to an idea no matter how batsqueak insane it was, I'd believe them.
 
They want to believe that money is not real because its not linked to gold, but then when you point out this means that there is no CONSIDERATION for the home seller in their contract they go ******* nuts and start foaming at the mouth.
Click to expand...

Do you have an example of a FOTL try to reconcile the "money isn't consideration" assertion in their mortgage argument with the "money is consideration" assertion in their analysis (I use the term loosely) of the underlying land transaction?

This is because Freeman-on-the-land woo also pushes that all contracts MUST have consideration (even though that's not true either).
Click to expand...

Depends where you are. Consideration is necessary in England and Wales.
 
Sledge said:
If someone told me the whole thing had been started as an experiment to see if people would subscribe to an idea no matter how batsqueak insane it was, I'd believe them.
Click to expand...


I wondered that about David Icke for a while, but nah. He really is batsqueak insane.

Rolfe.
 
LightinDarkness said:
They want to believe that money is not real because its not linked to gold, but then when you point out this means that there is no CONSIDERATION for the home seller in their contract they go ******* nuts and start foaming at the mouth. This is because Freeman-on-the-land woo also pushes that all contracts MUST have consideration (even though that's not true either).
Click to expand...

Not to quibble, but from what I recall, under U.S. law (at least) consideration of some kind is required for a contract to exist. Now, of course, consideration isn't restricted to money, it can be anything of value, including a promise to do something in the future. The courts in the U.S. won't look to whether the bargain is fair in terms of the amount of consideration given by each party (except that consideration can't be "nominal;" under common law it had to have the value of a "peppercorn," usually in the U.S. it should be worth $1.)

An agreement that is found not to be binding for lack of consideration could still be enforcable by other legal principles, such as "in quantum meruit," but it is still technically not a contract.

The FOTLers, like with everything, seem to have taken the basic idea of required consideration and stretched it out of any semblence of reality.
 
Ricomise said:
Not to quibble, but from what I recall, under U.S. law (at least) consideration of some kind is required for a contract to exist. Now, of course, consideration isn't restricted to money, it can be anything of value, including a promise to do something in the future. The courts in the U.S. won't look to whether the bargain is fair in terms of the amount of consideration given by each party (except that consideration can't be "nominal;" under common law it had to have the value of a "peppercorn," usually in the U.S. it should be worth $1.)

An agreement that is found not to be binding for lack of consideration could still be enforcable by other legal principles, such as "in quantum meruit," but it is still technically not a contract.

The FOTLers, like with everything, seem to have taken the basic idea of required consideration and stretched it out of any semblence of reality.
Click to expand...

This is only true if you broaden the definition of consideration to include things like "intent to pay". This is not something people normally think of as consideration, because my intention to pay cannot be taken by the opposing party if I decide not to pay.
 
There are some numpties on TPUC as well :D

Its gone dead at the moment as the sceptics have been banned or stopped posting.

It was the debates that people were tuning in for and now that its stopped its just a load of people nodding in agreement:rolleyes:

JB
 
It is rather amazing that there is no ready made answer to such an essential part of the woo as the admiralty court question.
 
LightinDarkness said:
Its both (1) and (2) but they ignore (1) because it highlights one of many obvious flaws in their propaganda. They want to believe that money is not real because its not linked to gold, but then when you point out this means that there is no CONSIDERATION for the home seller in their contract they go ******* nuts and start foaming at the mouth. This is because Freeman-on-the-land woo also pushes that all contracts MUST have consideration (even though that's not true either).

For (2) its quite simple. Since Freeloaders on the land say that any reference to a person in a contract cannot be them since they are LIVING FLESH AND BLOOD SOULS, they can decline to contract with any mortgage using the word person (and all of them will use the word somewhere). Thus, they claim by "God's law" they have a right to the home. Since all of the previous contracts would have referred to persons, they as a flesh and blood soul would have claim to the property over strawman corporate fictions like persons.

Does it make sense? No.

But thats the freeloader on the land way.
Click to expand...

Some Freeman who are not religious use "Natural Law" instead of "God's Law", but it the same malarky with different labels.
 
Natural law
# The sixteenth law is that they that are at controversie, submit their Right to the judgement of an Arbitrator.
# The seventeenth law is that no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause.


Submit?? a freeman, never

That sort of puts their sovereignty stance in a bit of trouble.

All men are equal and all that;)

JB
 
LightinDarkness said:
There are only a handful of places on the web where one can witness such a stunning ignorance of the law IN ACTION..the DI forum is one of them. Thank you, Daivd Icke.
Click to expand...

This seems to worry them a lot:

"It has to be better than simply bending over and taking it up the arse like a good boy, as you advocate."
 
Oh! Really.

To drkitten only at the moment! No one else please as for now you will be ignored!

drkitten said:
Something like that. Also, God has granted me only about thirty-five million minutes in this world and I have (more) valuable things to do with most of those.
Click to expand...

Like make over 17,000 posts. By the way, which "God" granted you this? Your time I mean. How did you know you were granted this? Do you have proof of this granting and documentation?;)

I hope you have because what a ridiculous claim to make!:jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
To jargonbuster only at the moment please. All others will be ignored for now.

jargon buster said:
Natural law
# The sixteenth law is that they that are at controversie, submit their Right to the judgement of an Arbitrator.
# The seventeenth law is that no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause.


Submit?? a freeman, never

That sort of puts their sovereignty stance in a bit of trouble.

All men are equal and all that;)

JB
Click to expand...

So JB, are all men not equal? Have you been reading Mein Kampf at night?

Can you please show how all men are not equal?;)
 
Folks I've moved some posts to AAH as they were really not discussing the topic to hand so lets try to keep on-topic- thanks.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom