The Freeman Movement and England

[remirol]

No, not really. Since I was in no position to answer them. Why not summarise them for us here and I will gladly reply.

Evasion noted. There's a whole thread you should be reading, starting from the time you ran away from it last time. You'll find a bunch of questions directed specifically at you. You should answer those...

In the meantime, you have seen my last post, right ?

...before posting random Youtube fluff and unsupported, irrelevant assertions.

[remirol]

No, not evasion. Let's stick to my post.

Your post itself is evasion.

Or, if you don't want to talk about it post some questions here from the 51 pages made in my absence.

It's your job to read those yourself. I already read them, and I'm not going to spoon-feed you. Get readin'.

[Especially]

I already have. Got any questions on what I wrote there ?

[remirol]

I already have.

Now you should respond to some of them. I will not be responding to any of your evasion attempts; you ran away from this thread long ago in an effort to avoid the points being made, and I am calling you out on it.

Further posts from you that do not contain responses to those questions will be left unread by me and/or called out for the evasions they are.

[garethdjb]

Sure. But first, if I may, can I ask if you saw my post above ?

Yes, I saw the post. That's why I asked for the relavant sources. I highly doubt that the youtube videos are going to reference contemporary documents, if they do, could you just tell me which ones?

[Especially]

Remirol,

It won't work this time.

If you have questions to ask me about this thread and my posts here I will happily answer you.

If you have no questions, fine.



Now you should respond to some of them. I will not be responding to any of your evasion attempts; you ran away from this thread long ago in an effort to avoid the points being made, and I am calling you out on it.

Further posts from you that do not contain responses to those questions will be left unread by me and/or called out for the evasions they are.

[remirol]

If you have questions to ask me about this thread and my posts here I will happily answer you.

Yes, I have one question: Why are you evading answering all the questions posed to you earlier in this thread?

[Especially]

Which questions ? I haven't been on this forum for months.

Try again.

Why not ask me some ? I will happily answer any on my posts. Or shall I just ignore you ?


Yes, I have one question: Why are you evading answering all the questions posed to you earlier in this thread?

[garethdjb]

GarethDJB,

OK, contemporary documents. Let's try, for a start, S.I. 1997 No. 1778 (Social Security) - United States of America) Order of 1997

Made in London at Buckingham Palace.

You can see it right here at 2 minutes 36 seconds onwards.

Any comments ?



The document cited is here. (http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1997/19971778.htm) This refers to an agreement on Social Security as far as I can tell. The USA has such agreements with numerous countries, as can be seen here. (http://www.ssa.gov/international/status.html) It seems that Italy got their agreement 10 years before the UK. . . .

What do you think this document means?

[Especially]

And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ? Since this document (as you see) is an Order.

An Order is an 'Order', isn't it ? Who is actually giving the Order ? The text says it's an Order made by the UK Crown, doesn't it ? And it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ? It was issued from Buckingham Palace. Last time I checked Buckingham Palace is in London, England. Right ? An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? There IS a difference between an agreement and an order, isn't there ? And what is the UK Crown doing issuing Orders on US Social Security ?


The document cited is here. (http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1997/19971778.htm) This refers to an agreement on Social Security as far as I can tell. The USA has such agreements with numerous countries, as can be seen here. (http://www.ssa.gov/international/status.html) It seems that Italy got their agreement 10 years before the UK. . . .

What do you think this document means?

[Mojo]

And what is the nature of the Agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ? Since this document (as you see) is an Order.

An Order is an Order, isn't it ? Who is giving the Order ? Since it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ? And it was issued from Buckingham Palace. Last time I checked Buckingham Palace is in London, England. Right ? An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ?


It is an order amending a number of pieces of UK legislation so as to take into account a treaty between the USA and the UK. Last time I checked, the UK and the USA were different countries.

[Especially]

Great. Please tell us what the Social Security system of the USA has to do with the UK Crown.

This will be really interesting to know !


It is an order amending a number of pieces of UK legislation so as to take into account a treaty between the USA and the UK. Last time I checked, the UK and the USA were different countries.

[Mojo]

And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ?

As far as the document you have cited is concerned, it is set out as Schedule 1 to the document itself.

[Dave Rogers]

Great. Please tell us what the Social Security system of the USA has to do with the UK Crown.

This will be really interesting to know !

Again, are you really this stupid, or is it just an act?

Dave

[Mojo]

Great. Please tell us what the Social Security system of the USA has to do with the UK Crown.


There are a number of treaties between the UK and the USA relating to social security. Two of them are actually set out as schedules to the document you have cited. Note that they are agreed to and signed by representatives of both the UK and the USA. The original agreement seems to have been concluded on 13th February 1984.

These are mutual agreements between the governments of the two countries to do certain things in relation to social security, if necessary by making legislation. Each country is expected to amend its own legislation as necessary. They cannot amend each other's legislation.

The UK Statutory Instrument you have cited amends only UK legislation, not US legislation.

[Mojo]

What do you think this document means?


Not what Especially's Youtube video says it means.

Note to Especially - if you want to know what a document means, reading it is always a good start.

[Mojo]

OK, and what has the Social Security of the USA got to do with the UK Crown.

(Sorry to repeat the question but you don't seem to have answered it when I first asked).


The fact that you can't understand the answer does not mean it hasn't been answered. I suggest that you find out what a treaty is.

[commandlinegamer]

IIRC, bilateral arrangements between countries regarding social security payments exist so that workers of one nation can be employed in the other without paying two lots of tax on one set of earnings. If you feel the that foreign employees should pay tax twice, I'd like to hear your (Especially) justification.

[AvalonXQ]

OK, and what has the Social Security of the USA got to do with the UK Crown.

As the document itself says, the US and the UK entered into a treaty of reciprocity which required an amendment of certain UK social security regulations.
I'm sorry, what was it that the document is being used to prove?

[Mashuna]

OK, and what has the Social Security of the USA got to do with the UK Crown.

(Sorry to repeat the question but you don't seem to have answered it when I first asked).

Regards

Well, I know it's a stretch, but you could try reading the document.

As an example, it looks to deal with how pensioners are entitled to benefit if they have made their contributions in the UK but are now resident in the US.

[remirol]

The fact that you can't understand the answer does not mean it hasn't been answered. I suggest that you find out what a treaty is.

As the document itself says, the US and the UK entered into a treaty of reciprocity which required an amendment of certain UK social security regulations.

And I have to repeat my question.

What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

Your question has been answered. Please stop further evasions.

[Mashuna]

And I have to repeat my question.

What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

Just explain it to us please.

They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !

Your inability to understand answers does not mean that they have not been provided.

But please carry on with the comedy goodness!

[Mojo]

Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !


Nope. Check out the signatories to the agreements. And remember that "The Crown" effectively only enacts the legislation made by Parliament these days.

[Mojo]

Well, I know it's a stretch, but you could try reading the document.


Why should he bother reading the document for himself when a video posted on YouTube has told him what it means? He needs to maintain his "sheeple" status.

[cwalner]

And I have to repeat my question.

What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

Just explain it to us please.

They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !

Especially, I have not read your links but have read the responses and they are very clear.

The laws regarding Social Security are entirely in the hands of the elected goverment in the US. However, some time after they were passed, the US and UK voluntarily entered into a treaty pertaining to how each country withholds from workers from the other country. The UK therefore had to ammend UK law in order to comply with its treaty obligations. I am fairly certain that if one looked there are similar laws on the US books ensuring that we uphold our end of the treaty as well.

This is not one country imposing its will on another, but two countries deciding that coordinatiing thier systems is in both of thier best interests, and each passing laws in its own country to accomplish that.

[Mashuna]

Why should he bother reading the document for himself when a video posted on YouTube has told him what it means? He needs to maintain his "sheeple" status.

I really should keep up to date with these things. I only just found out that YouTube had recently replaced Hansard.

[AvalonXQ]

They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !

If you had bothered to actually READ the document, you would see that this is done under the authority of the legislators, not outside of it:

And Whereas by section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 it is provided that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for modifying or adapting that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 in their application to cases affected by agreements with other Governments providing for reciprocity in matters specified in the said section:

In other words, Her Majesty doesn't just get to amend legislation willy-nilly. The UK legislators provided for Her to be allowed to make reciprocity agreements. Perfectly sensible, perfectly above-board, and nothing conspiracyish anywhere here.

[Dave Rogers]

The laws regarding Social Security are entirely in the hands of the elected goverment in the US. However, some time after they were passed, the US and UK voluntarily entered into a treaty pertaining to how each country withholds from workers from the other country. The UK therefore had to ammend UK law in order to comply with its treaty obligations.

Yes, but apart from that, what has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

:duck:

Dave

[AvalonXQ]

Yes, but apart from that, what has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

:duck:

Dave

Apart from that? Bollocks.

[Paul]

And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ?So that you can't claim any further ignorance, here is part of a relevant parliamentary answer from 2002:


The main purpose of such reciprocal agreements is to protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from having to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time and ensure that such workers' rights to certain benefits are maintained.


An Order is an 'Order', isn't it ?No


Who is actually giving the Order?It's not that kind of order, it's a Statutory Instrument.


The text says it's an Order made by the UK Crown, doesn't it ?The text says it's an agreement:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Supplementary Agreement.


DONE in duplicate at London on 6th June 1996.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND:

William Marsden,
(Americas Director, FCO)


FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:


Timothy E. Deal,
(Minister, Embassy of the United States of America)



And it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ?So? All works produced by the British government are crown copyright, it refers to the office and not the specific sovereign.


An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? There IS a difference between an agreement and an order, isn't there ? And what is the UK Crown doing issuing Orders on US Social Security ?A little reading before ranting would provide all the information you require.

[Mashuna]

And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ?So that you can't claim any further ignorance, here is part of a relevant parliamentary answer from 2002:


The main purpose of such reciprocal agreements is to protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from having to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time and ensure that such workers' rights to certain benefits are maintained.


An Order is an 'Order', isn't it ?No


Who is actually giving the Order?It's not that kind of order, it's a Statutory Instrument.


The text says it's an Order made by the UK Crown, doesn't it ?The text says it's an agreement:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Supplementary Agreement.


DONE in duplicate at London on 6th June 1996.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND:

William Marsden,
(Americas Director, FCO)


FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:


Timothy E. Deal,
(Minister, Embassy of the United States of America)



And it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ?So? All works produced by the British government are crown copyright, it refers to the office and not the specific sovereign.


An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? There IS a difference between an agreement and an order, isn't there ? And what is the UK Crown doing issuing Orders on US Social Security ?A little reading before ranting would provide all the information you require.

I'm sorry, but until you produce all this information as a YouTube clip, it is not valid as evidence. Probably.

[Dave Rogers]

Apart from that? Bollocks.

So you're saying that the USA has the UK by the bollocks?

Not disagreeing, just asking.

Dave

[Mojo]

So you're saying that the USA has the UK by the bollocks?


Have you seen the extradition treaty?

[Dave Rogers]

Have you seen the extradition treaty?

Like I said, not disagreeing.

Dave

[Especially]

You ask me to 'remember' ?

I wonder if you remember that the Rule of Law in this country is superior to the monarchy and to parliamentary statutes. Didn't know that, right ? Statutes are statutes and are ALL subject to the Law of this land.

So too is the Monarchy. Ever read the oath of the Queen ?

Parliaments make STATUTES. Acts of Parliament. These are all subject to THE LAW OF THIS LAND. They are NOT the law of this land.

There is a big difference.

Statutes go on the 'Statute Book'. Acts of Parliament are NOT laws.





Nope. Check out the signatories to the agreements. And remember that "The Crown" effectively only enacts the legislation made by Parliament these days.

[Especially]

So, why are matters related to the Social Security System of the USA an issue for the UNELECTED monarchy of the UK ?

Still no answer !

[drkitten]

So, why are matters related to the Social Security System of the USA an issue for the UNELECTED monarchy of the UK ?

Because treaties between the elected parliament of the UK and other states are negotiated in the name of the unelected monarchy.

Because a treaty exists on the subject of retirement planning between the United States and the UK.



Still no answer !

Still no content. No exclamation point, because it's not surprising. FOTL never has content, just ignorance and outrage.

[Especially]

A treaty to do what, exactly ?

Because treaties between the elected parliament of the UK and other states are negotiated in the name of the unelected monarchy.

Because a treaty exists on the subject of retirement planning between the United States and the UK.




Still no content. No exclamation point, because it's not surprising. FOTL never has content, just ignorance and outrage.

[cwalner]

So, why are matters related to the Social Security System of the USA an issue for the UNELECTED monarchy of the UK ?

Still no answer !

Fine, your persistance paid off and I can't evade any further. The TRUTH is that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya, which at the time was part of the British Commonwealth. Therefore President Obama was, and still is, a subject of the British Crown and is 100% loyal to the monarchy. Therefore, all US legislation is must pass royal approval before the president signs it into law.

Because they are also both part of the NWO and time travelling reptilians, this also applies to all legislation passed even prior to Obama's appointment as president.

[remirol]

If you have a point to make, please just state it. I'm not watching any Youtube crap bolted together by a bunch of barking nutters and spammed repeatedly by an FOTLer who spends all his time evading questions; I have better things to do with my time, such as alphabetize my socks.

[TjW]

So, why are matters related to the Social Security System of the USA an issue for the UNELECTED monarchy of the UK ?

Still no answer !
Some US citizens work in the UK. While there, they are under the authority of the UK. Whether the authority in the UK is elected or not really doesn't matter. Now, being US citizens, they need to pay a portion of their earnings to the US Social Security so they can collect the benefits when they retire.
Now, the UK has a system which is also called Social Security. Two systems.
Both called "Social Security". One in the US, and one in the UK.
Ordinarily, a portion of earnings in the UK is set aside for the UK Social Security.
A US citizen working in the UK would have to pay twice: once under the US Social Security rules, once under the UK Social Security rules. That's not fair.
Both governments have decided that this was not fair, and have agreed to keep their laws coordinated so that US citizens working in the UK and UK citizens working in the US don't have to pay twice.
The US makes the rules for US Social Security, and the UK makes the rules for UK Social Security. So the UK may have a Social Security Act, and the US can have a Social Security Act, and they can be completely separate things.
Because of the agreement, one government may voluntarily change its own rules to more closely align with the rules of the other government.
But the UK government has an interest in the US Social Security because they host US citizens working there, and have UK citizens working in the US. They don't want their citizens to have to pay into a system they won't be using.
But there are two systems. The UK government makes the rules for the UK Social Security, and the US makes the rules for the US Social Security.
The fact that they have the same name does not make them the same system, any more than two guys named John are the same person.

[Especially]

Remirol,

Great ! The world will be grateful if you will alphabetize your socks instead of advertising your inability to discuss the subject here.

Great having a 'conversation' with you. Didn't mean to challenge your 'education'.

Bye

[remirol]

Great ! The world will be grateful if you will alphabetize your socks instead of advertising your inability to discuss the subject here.


Until you state your point, there is nothing to discuss; just another FOTLer spamming Youtube noise.

Please state your point.

[drkitten]

Great.

And what has that to do with this ?

Absolutely nothing.

You see, what he posted was relevant to an actual discussion of a real international issue that has been the subject of discussion by diplomats and later ratified into law.

In broader terms, it's based on reason, evidence, .... and reality.

Whereas this
You see, it's a little bit of Anglo/American history isn't it ? Documenting the fact that British elites funded BOTH SIDES of the American revolutionary war. Which made the new USA subject to the British crown.

Is not based in reason, evidence, reality, or even coherence.

[remirol]

And what has that to do with this ? You see, it's a little bit of Anglo/American history isn't it ? Documenting the fact that British elites funded BOTH SIDES of the American revolutionary war. Which made the new USA subject to the British crown.

What has that to do with anything at all? Again, what is your point?

If you are unable to state your point, then I will be forced to conclude that you have no point and are just another FOTLer spamming links without content.

[Dave Rogers]

I have better things to do with my time, such as alphabetize my socks.

Are you in the UK? Marks and Spencers are currently selling black socks in colour-coded pairs, in packs of seven pairs, where the coloured parts are inside the shoe when you wear them. It's the ideal way for the obsessive-compulsive among us to make certain that all pairs of socks wear equally. The colour selection is even sufficiently well chosen that my teenage daughter complimented me on my socks the other day, possibly a unique occurrence in the history of the world for a 50-year-old man.

They do ones that are labelled with the days of the week too, but I'm not that obsessive. I've got a set, sure, but all but the Saturday ones are still in the packet, and I make sure I never wear them on a Saturday.

Dave

[Especially]

Great !

Are you in the UK? Marks and Spencers are currently selling black socks in colour-coded pairs, in packs of seven pairs, where the coloured parts are inside the shoe when you wear them. It's the ideal way for the obsessive-compulsive among us to make certain that all pairs of socks wear equally. The colour selection is even sufficiently well chosen that my teenage daughter complimented me on my socks the other day, possibly a unique occurrence in the history of the world for a 50-year-old man.

They do ones that are labelled with the days of the week too, but I'm not that obsessive. I've got a set, sure, but all but the Saturday ones are still in the packet, and I make sure I never wear them on a Saturday.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Great !

I'm not so sure. How come these Marks and Spencers socks use all seven names of the days of the week, and get them all right? Who told Marks and Spencers what the names of the days of the week were? Unless you can come up with that crucial piece of evidence, I'll have to conclude that Marks and Spencers are part of an international conspiracy to rule the world, because there's no other way that they could know what names I use for the seven days of the week.

At this point a sane person would recognise the analogy between this piece of stupidity and something they just said, give an embarrassed laugh, and admit that they made a bit of a fool of themself. Somehow, I don't think this is going to happen.

Dave

[drkitten]

Wow ! That seems to be contradicted by documentary evidence, doesn't it ?

No, it doesn't. Your youtube videos are neither documentaries, nor, frankly, are they evidence.

[Especially]

Of course they're not evidence. They are only historical documents. How could anyone possibly think that historical documents are evidence worthy of your education ?

Forgive me.

Take me to your leader.

LOL !!!!



No, it doesn't. Your youtube videos are neither documentaries, nor, frankly, are they evidence.

[Agatha]

It's like déjà vu, all over again.

Youtube videos, apart from being useless to people at work, or who are deaf, are not documents.

If you have a point, please make it.

[Mojo]

I wonder if you remember that the Rule of Law in this country is superior to the monarchy and to parliamentary statutes. Didn't know that, right ? Statutes are statutes and are ALL subject to the Law of this land.


Please define "the Rule of Law" and "the Law of this land". It obviously isn't common law, since that can be over-ridden by statute law, and it obviously isn't the constitution, since that consists of documents that are themselves statutes.

What is this "Rule of Law" you are invoking?

[Mojo]

Acts of Parliament are NOT laws.


Yes, they are, by definition.

[remirol]

This is sad. One day you wake up and you stop believing the nonsense.

Here is documentary evidence.


We can only hope that one day you will. Again, Youtube videos are neither documentary nor evidence. I refuse to waste my time watching them. Do you have any real evidence to provide?

[Agatha]

I can't listen to youtube videos. If you have a point, for the love of strawberries and cream, please make it.

[Mojo]

So, why are matters related to the Social Security System of the USA an issue for the UNELECTED monarchy of the UK ? Because treaties between the elected parliament of the UK and other states are negotiated in the name of the unelected monarchy.

Because a treaty exists on the subject of retirement planning between the United States and the UK.


And because Parliament has, by provisions of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, delegated power to the Crown to amend legislation for the express purpose of implementing changes that are necessary as a result of such negotiated agreements.

[Toke]

I don't have the bandwidth here for video.
If a point can not be made without, it is likely not very good.

[Agatha]

You know, Especially, we get that the monarchy is unelected in this country. We already understand that. Most of us here in the UK also fully understand the principle of Royal Assent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent)

What is the point you are trying to make? Instead of posting all caps bullet points of things we already know, and youtube videos, how about attempting to lay out your argument clearly and concisely? At least then we'd have a chance of a discussion.

[remirol]

Since the people have the power of consent to them. They are not laws.

This is both factually untrue and does not ever actually work in practice.

Laws do not require consent. I understand that this is a central tenet of FOTL woo, but it has never been supported by either documentation or any actual examples of it working. It appears that it would be time to abandon FOTL and return to reality, yes?

[Agatha]

Agatha,

The unelected monarchy, all members of Parliament, all governments, all rulers, and all men and women in this country are SUBJECT to the same Law. The Rule of Law.

The same is true of all Acts of Parliament. Since the people have the power of consent to them. They are not laws. They are Acts of Parliament. Subject to the Law of this land. So too is the monarchy. And the politicians.

Parliaments do not make laws. They make Statutes. A big difference. And, as a stone may sharpen a knife (but not the other way round) so also all power is subject to the Rule of Law.

The Common Law.

Not the legal industry. But the Common Law. The Rule of Law, in fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9gTjvcK8to I just told you I can't listen to youtube videos. I do you the courtesy of reading your posts, it would be nice if you did me the same courtesy.

You have not shown that laws require consent. Assertion is not evidence.

[Mashuna]

You know, Especially, we get that the monarchy is unelected in this country. We already understand that. Most of us here in the UK also fully understand the principle of Royal Assent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent)

What is the point you are trying to make? Instead of posting all caps bullet points of things we already know, and youtube videos, how about attempting to lay out your argument clearly and concisely? At least then we'd have a chance of a discussion.

Agatha,

The unelected monarchy, all members of Parliament, all governments, all rulers, and all men and women in this country are SUBJECT to the same Law. The Rule of Law.

The same is true of all Acts of Parliament. Since the people have the power of consent to them. They are not laws. They are Acts of Parliament. Subject to the Law of this land. So too is the monarchy. And the politicians.

Parliaments do not make laws. They make Statutes. A big difference. And, as a stone may sharpen a knife (but not the other way round) so also all power is subject to the Rule of Law.

The Common Law.

Not the legal industry. But the Common Law. The Rule of Law, in fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9gTjvcK8to

Bet you're glad you asked now, aren't you Agatha? It's back to the crazy Freeman Common Law talk!

Now with added YouTube.

[Mojo]

Sorry to disappoint you. Get a legal dictionary. A Statute is 'a legislative rule of a society'. What society ?

The Parliament itself.


Nope; the society of which the parliament is the representative body.

[Mojo]

These Parliamentary Statutes (also known as Acts of Parliament) are all subject to the supreme law. They are all kept in the 'Statute Book'. And are all subject to the Law of the Land. Statutes, you see, are NOT the Laws of this land.


Please state what this "Law of the Land" consists of.

[dafydd]

Please state what this "Law of the Land" consists of.

That interests me too.Where can I read these laws?

[dudalb]

When the British elites funded both sides of the American revolutionary war (through France) they knew the newly created USA would soon be bankrupt. Didn't know that, right ? That's right. The British elites loaned money to the American revolutionary forces before their independence !!!! Plain and documentary fact. (See below).

The people of the new USA would soon be paying these elites of England (shareholders in their empire) back for those loans with lots of American dollars. Plus interest. Of course. Forever. By tax. And they, these British elites of their empire, arranged before they left the USA in 1796 for their bogus legal system ('English Common Law') to be successfully transplanted in to control of the legal system in all the States of the USA. And have controlled them ever since. Want to get justice. OK, why not go to the legal industry. All oath swearing members of the same fraternity.

As for Common Law, it was of course impersonated. By the legal system. And it had been impersonated ever since 1066 back in England. It's the legal industry versus the Common Law, in fact. Laugh about that ! Common Law versus the corporate legal industry -aka 'English Common Law'.

There are only two kinds of government. Government served by people or people served by government.

Judge for yourself which you have !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRXS1jlAr5g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGaYPxEPbf0



So William The Conqueror and those Damn Normans are to blame for everything?
Well, at least this crackpot theory give the Jews a break.......

[garethdjb]

Especially. Please link to or reference the specific documents, not the youtube videos that may or may not mention them.

[Especially]

Remirol,

You are showing your ignorance again.

I didn't say laws need our consent. I said that STATUTES do.

OMG - where do these people get their education from ?

This is both factually untrue and does not ever actually work in practice.

Laws do not require consent. I understand that this is a central tenet of FOTL woo, but it has never been supported by either documentation or any actual examples of it working. It appears that it would be time to abandon FOTL and return to reality, yes?

[Especially]

Why not join a library and read the documents for yourself.

In the meantime examine the Youtube videos. Which are supported by numerous articles online.

Can't do better than that, can we ?


Especially. Please link to or reference the specific documents, not the youtube videos that may or may not mention them.

[cwalner]

So William The Conqueror and those Damn Normans are to blame for everything?
Well, at least this crackpot theory give the Jews a break.......

not so sure about that. I know quite a few Jews named Norman, a few are even relatives.

[dudalb]

That interests me too.Where can I read these laws?

On You Tube, Probably.

[remirol]

I didn't say laws need our consent. I said that STATUTES do.

That, too, is factually untrue.

[remirol]

Why not join a library and read the documents for yourself.

What documents are those?

In the meantime examine the Youtube videos. Which are supported by numerous articles online.

What articles are those?

Can't do better than that, can we ?

Youtube videos are the bottom shelf of 'evidence'; in other words, not evidence at all. We can do much better than that. Well... maybe YOU can't. But that's not at issue, now is it?

[Tricky]

Keep it on topic and do not flood the forum with the same links in many places.

[Chaos]

Not what Especially's Youtube video says it means.

Note to Especially - if you want to know what a document means, reading it is always a good start.

That´s the problem. Especially doesn´t want to know, he enjoys the delusion of already knowing.

(I would have said "suffered from the delusion", but he doesn´t really appear to be suffering)

[jimbob]

We'd be the ones suffering from that delusion if weren't so entertaining.

[Pikachu]

Freeman on the land turned up in court (criminal) yesterday in front of our most irascible Judge. Brought the usual claque along. I understand the Judge was surprisingly patient - only threw him out of court once.
The Judge did tell him and the fan club that they were being pathetic and they should grow up get jobs and stop wasting everyone's time.
Finally he's given his bail sheet with the next hearing date on it and proceeds to pretend he doesn't recognise the name on it, theatrically turning to the public gallery and demanding to know if anyone there recognises the name. Of course this means turning his back on the Judge - who immediately pounces and has him arrested for contempt of court (ironically a common law offence)...

(In two weeks I'm hoping to watch a FMOTL trial)

[dudalb]

I see that Especially's appetite for THIS:


:spam1:

has given him a vacation from JREF.

[Paul]

(In two weeks I'm hoping to watch a FMOTL trial)Ooh, you absolutely must keep us informed :popcorn1

[jargon buster]

(In two weeks I'm hoping to watch a FMOTL trial)
Which Court?
I might come along and give them a youtube video to remember:)

JB

[Mojo]

I see that Especially's appetite for THIS:


:spam1

has given him a vacation from JREF.


Spoilsports! :mad:

[Pikachu]

Which Court?
I might come along and give them a youtube video to remember

JB
Unfortunately -for I'd love to see you there you can't video UK court proceedings (pesky statutes). If you want I can PM you date & time.

[AvalonXQ]

Unfortunately -for I'd love to see you there you can't video UK court proceedings (pesky statutes).

So get a FotL to do it under the common law.

[jargon buster]

Yes PM me
I would love to report back to TPUC and Ickes with the result:D

JB

[Rogue1stclass]

*snip*. And they, these British elites of their empire, arranged before they left the USA in 1796 for their bogus legal system ('English Common Law') to be successfully transplanted in to control of the legal system in all the States of the USA.*snip*

There is no "English Common Law" in Louisiana.

[Architect]

Non? Pourquoi pas?

[Rogue1stclass]

Non? Pourquoi pas?

Exactly.

When Louisiana became a state, it brought with it a lot of the French traditions, including courts based on Civil Code, instead of Common Law. While it general conforms to the common laws of the other states (and, of course, the Federal Government), it doesn't actually practice them itself. This gives judges in Lousiana a LOT more leeway with what they can do.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Louisiana is also one of the most corrupt states in the union. I have a buddy that works on the state board of ethics there, and you wouldn't believe the kind of stuff that goes on.

[dudalb]

Non? Pourquoi pas?

You have never seen "A Streetcar Name Desire" where one of Marlon Brando's great lines is "Blanche, in Lousiana we have the Napoleonic Code".....

[LightinDarkness]

Freeman on the land turned up in court (criminal) yesterday in front of our most irascible Judge. Brought the usual claque along. I understand the Judge was surprisingly patient - only threw him out of court once.
The Judge did tell him and the fan club that they were being pathetic and they should grow up get jobs and stop wasting everyone's time.
Finally he's given his bail sheet with the next hearing date on it and proceeds to pretend he doesn't recognise the name on it, theatrically turning to the public gallery and demanding to know if anyone there recognises the name. Of course this means turning his back on the Judge - who immediately pounces and has him arrested for contempt of court (ironically a common law offence)...

(In two weeks I'm hoping to watch a FMOTL trial)

I love it when FMOTL get slapped by the common law like this. What they claim is common law actually isn't, so the irony is divine.

[Matthew Cline]

Finally he's given his bail sheet with the next hearing date on it and proceeds to pretend he doesn't recognise the name on it, theatrically turning to the public gallery and demanding to know if anyone there recognises the name.

Ah, was that the whole "capitalization makes names different" crap?

[Dave Rogers]

(In two weeks I'm hoping to watch a FMOTL trial)

I think all the participants in this thread would be very interested in a description of the proceedings, if you have the time to produce one. It would be extremely germane to the thread topic.

Dave

[Mojo]

Unfortunately -for I'd love to see you there you can't video UK court proceedings (pesky statutes).So get a FotL to do it under the common law.


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66453

See also: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84422

Although that was, apparently, because she took a tape recorder into court (see post no 15).

[jargon buster]

It looks like Especially is notwattyler over on TPUC and he appears to be bad mouthing this site:eek:
http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12455

Im banned from there at the moment twice in ten minutes (thank goodness for proxy servers ;))anyone up for having a visit

JB

[Toke]

Cant see any mention of you being banned ? just suspended, they played with you like cats with a mouse and then left you bruised batter and defeated

You really let the freeman movement down there, come to think of it who said you were our spokesman, some of the things you say are nonsensical, no wonder they laughed at you, for gods sake man do some research before opening your mouth or you get all of us a bad name

At least there is one accurate post there. :)

[dudalb]

It looks like Especially is notwattyler over on TPUC and he appears to be bad mouthing this site:eek:
http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12455

Im banned from there at the moment twice in ten minutes (thank goodness for proxy servers ;))anyone up for having a visit

JB

Especially is bad mouthing us at the self proclaimed "most seriously lunatic forum on the Internet".
It's always heartwarming when somebody discovers where they really belong.

[jimbob]

My first major thread here. Greetings from Mars, England !

There are a number of things you might care to know about the UK these days. And they are all quite serious. First is the fact that minicabs have blue (sometimes flashing) lights on top and the drivers all wear a uniform.

The television and printed media here is completely controlled and the state of our railways is not good.

When buying small items it is considered rude to use any denomination smaller than a £50 note, Especially if there is a large queue of people behind you.

The reason I'm posting is to introduce you to the Freemans movement here (Freemans.com/Online-Catalogue).


Point Number 2 is even worse.

These taxi drivers like being referred to as "Rozzers".

Regards

I think this has about as much correct in it as the OP

[neocenturion]

At least there is one accurate post there. :)

Priceless

[jargon buster]

Im surprised none of them has latched on to the fact if a policeman tries to arrest you, just knock his hat off and then he is technically out of uniform and cannot arrest you.

Its true some bloke in the pub told me :D

JB

[Blue Mountain]

I'm surprised none of them has latched on to the fact if a policeman tries to arrest you, just knock his hat off and then he is technically out of uniform and cannot arrest you.

It's true—some bloke in the pub told me :D
Assuming the "out of uniform" thing is true—and I don't think for even a second it is—does that mean a plain-clothes officer can't arrest you at all?

Knocking off a uniformed officer's hat would probably net you an assault charge in addition to whatever the officer was trying to arrest you for in the first place.

[Toke]

Knocking off a uniformed officer's hat would probably net you an assault charge in addition to whatever the officer was trying to arrest you for in the first place.

I wonder if a FMOTL would try it? :D

[Pikachu]

Sorry but there's caselaw that a policeman doesn't have to be wearing a hat/helmet to be considered in uniform - one of the other kind of obsessive nutcases* - a middle-aged driver already tried that one!

*Pepipoo used to be the best internet site to find them but because they're not actually bona-fide conspiracy nuts running that site, they've actually learnt the law over the years and now give reasonably rational advice most of the time**. So different to our own dear Jammonius, Especially etc
** The same is not true of all the posters there

[Hans]

but, but, but what if the FMOTL'ers WEARS a hat. The special hat of 'freeloading' garnished with the feather of anarchy? Might that make a difference? Unless of course they are from Somerset then all bets are off.

[Sledge]

If I knock off the policeman's hat then put it on, would that make me a policeman? Or possibly an admiral?

[Toke]

If I knock off the policeman's hat then put it on, would that make me a policeman?
Yes, absolutely, and you can then arrest him for being out of uniform.

Or possibly an admiral?
Only if you do it inside a courtroom.

[Sledge]

Suddenly, I really want a reality TV show where a small island is governed by FOTL law.

[Toke]

:D
Good thing I just finished my coffee.

[tsig]

but, but, but what if the FMOTL'ers WEARS a hat. The special hat of 'freeloading' garnished with the feather of anarchy? Might that make a difference? Unless of course they are from Somerset then all bets are off.

In the USA that would be the macaroni of anarchy.

[cwalner]

In the USA that would be the macaroni of anarchy.

No it would just be called the macaroni of anarchy. it would still be a feather.

[remirol]

Suddenly, I really want a reality TV show where a small island is governed by FOTL law.

Pitcairn Island?

[Hans]

Remirol

In some ways that is true (about Pitcarin) having some aspects of FMOTL in how it is run. With some bad consequences for the female half.

[jargon buster]

Banned again from TPUC :D
I have left the moderators rear ends twitching and they now ban every new poster who asks a difficult question.

I even signed up as rob menard;) and gave them a bit of a boost
Site in turmoil, Job done

JB

[Horatius]

Suddenly, I really want a reality TV show where a small island is governed by FOTL law.



http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/3005/freemenisland.png (http://img188.imageshack.us/my.php?image=freemenisland.png)

[Sledge]

:D It would be the hit of the season.

[ktesibios]

If I knock off the policeman's hat then put it on, would that make me a policeman? Or possibly an admiral?

Under common law the pinchification of policemen's hats is invalid unless done on Boat Race night.

[Elizabeth I]

Under common law the pinchification of policemen's hats is invalid unless done on Boat Race night.

I thought that was good only for Bertie Wooster? (and maybe Tuppy Glossop and Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright...)

[Pikachu]

http://vimeo.com/10211543
Don't know if this one's been posted before?

(Wimpiest police & magistrates I've ever seen)

[jargon buster]

Its been posted a few times and still gets a laugh:)

The council got its liability order so it wasnt a victory at all.
By the way it was that barnpot conman Ray St Clair doing all the shouting.

By the way how do you attach a photo I have a good one of Ray St Clair with someone special
JB
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=820087
http://www.baronage.co.uk/2001/faq901.html

[dudalb]

Pitcairn Island?

You win the thread.

[joe911]

I really don't know what to think about this :eye-poppi:. It looks like he's watched V for vendetta way to many times.

http://jakemaverick.blogspot.com/




IN THE NOTTINGHAM COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO.:

BETWEEN


Jake Maverick King of the Maverickians
Claimant
And

Sycamore Assessment Unit, the so-called National Health Service, Torturers Anonymous, yobs with no names and any of the names that they ‘trade’ under!

Defendant



PARTICULARS OF CLAIM/ WITNESS STATEMENT


I, Jake Maverick King of the Maverickians, enemy of the state and an innocent, persecuted and honourable man, Claimant will state as follows: -

Towards the end of June 2006 I was abducted, beaten, sexually assaulted (legally raped, apparently) and repeatedly violated by yobs that I believe/ presume to be either serving Police Officers or CSOs/ browncoats. That is a matter for a separate case and full details have been provided within that. When they had finished with me I was handed over to what I later learned to be called ‘Sycamore Assessment Unit’ (apparently) where I was held without trial and routinely tortured and abused for around 8-9 weeks (felt like six months or longer- certainly longer than 28 days) in total (I believe). From what I can gather the ‘reason’ for doing this to me was for my political beliefs/ expressing those views, although they will probably deny this (make something else up), presumably for ‘legal reasons’. I simply can not believe/ accept that it is actually legal to do such things to people because of their political views (at least in this country). Having ‘weird, paranoid evil conspiracy theories about the government’ was their initial justification for doing what was done to me. They (I mean Ferguson) do keep changing their ‘official story’ and persistently refuse to put anything in writing. I also presume that they will also deny the systematic physical, mental and sexual abuse that routinely goes on there. I am not their only victim. Death is actually preferable to what they routinely do to people there. I am NOT being melodramatic or even exaggerating. Although I was eventually released without charge the harassment, threats and abuse have continued to this very day! I do not believe that it will ever end until I am dead!

After I had been ‘handed over’ I was interrogated (with regard to my political views) by someone claiming to be ‘Paul’ and an Asian lady who refused to tell me her name. Several days later she did claim to be a Doctor although she still refused to tell me her name/ show any ID. The majority of the people involved in my torture and detention refused to give full names and ALL refused to show ID, although I believe them to be who they claim to be. Apart from those who refuse to give ANY name, those in charge only give surnames whilst the more ‘lowly’ only give forenames, for the most part (from what I can gather). The only exception to this was John Bishop. These two people weren’t initially violent to me and they did initially allow me my basic human right of being able to smoke. I was ‘gasping’. I have no idea what the Police/ browncoats had told them as they refused to tell me. My initial impression of them was that they were something to do with the Police/ browncoats and I did wonder if they were some kind of ‘unofficial’ officials of some sort, although a part of me also doubted that such ‘unofficial’ facilities would be located in the area. I also suspected that it might be an ‘army based’ interrogation/ torture centre, considering Paul’s tattoos. I really had no idea who or what they were and I didn’t get any indication of what they were until late in the following day! I have been friends with many Muslims in the past but I am actually WHITE and I have no religion- I don’t believe that such abuse has been ‘legalised’ for people such as myself, although I believe it has been for non-whites/ those who are Muslim (effectively). I hate to oversimplify the point, but that is basically the kind of society that we are living in now! If saying that makes me a crazy man I must be a crazy man! I was in quite a distressed state considering what the Police/ browncoats had just done to me and I was somewhat confused as to who those people were and they were obviously concealing information. Throughout that first hour or so in their ‘custody’ I was repeatedly interrogated with leading questions such as ‘you believe in conspiracies about the government, don’t you?’ and the ‘government is evil, isn’t it?’. The interrogation continued for sometime along that general theme. I refused to co-operate with the ‘interrogation’.

I repeatedly asked/ begged for medical treatment regarding my injuries. Mr wrists were so cut and swollen I could barely move my hands. My legs and back were also covered in bruises from the beating I had received (I would guess) quite a few hours earlier and there were also cuts and grazes to my face and arms. My eyes were also very sore and I was still having trouble breathing with the dust/ dirt inhalation and the fact that I am asthmatic. They wouldn’t let me have any water. My testicles were also extremely swollen to the extent that I had trouble walking. I could not walk properly for many days after. This was what was certainly causing me the most pain. One of my fillings in my teeth had also been knocked out during the violence, which also made it difficult to speak or eat properly. I was unable to get treatment for this until March 2007. I was also denied a drink of water. NO medical treatment/ pain relief etc was forthcoming at any time then or after or since. Suspecting that they might be separate from the Police/ browncoats I asked them if they would be prepared to take photographs/ secure the evidence of what had been done to me. They refused claiming they did not have a digital camera. It did not require a digital camera, any camera would have done. They could also have had a proper look at the injuries I had sustained and written a statement to that effect, although I am unsure whether that would qualify as ‘evidence’. I wasn’t given any medical attention/ treatment whatsoever. It was perfectly obvious from the outset that what they were doing/ did to me was on the instigation of whom I still presume (best guess) to be Police/ browncoats and at the time I had absolutely no idea of who or what these people were. They certainly weren’t wearing uniforms of any description! They were all complicit in what was done to me from the start.

After a while they stopped interrogating me/ trying to put words into my mouth. I was then shown to my ‘cell’ (I believe they would call it a bedroom) where another member of staff ‘nosed’ through all my personal possessions which the Police/ browncoats (presumably) had handed over to them. It is possible that one of them stole the sum of £10 from me at this point. £10 definitely went missing although I don’t know if it was stolen by them or by the Police/ browncoats. I still find it difficult to believe that someone would jeopardise his or her job for the sake of £10, but that sum did definitely go missing. G-men (that IS an officially accepted term, it is even programmed into the spellchecker!), for all intensive purposes, are above the law. Even Judges refuse to confirm whether or not they are unofficially or officially above the law. I have asked repeatedly. After writing out a list of some (but not all) of my personal possessions they tried to force me to sign it but I refused. Eventually I was allowed to go to sleep. I didn’t feel ‘safe’ sleeping in that environment but I was totally exhausted and the ‘peace and quiet’ was some small relief at the time.

<Snip>

You can read the rest here [its very long]:http://jakemaverick.blogspot.com/

[Sledge]

I thought he was mentally ill until I read
PPS I swear it's all true!!! I do not make things up!!!!Those statements alone deny the possibility that he's suffering delusions, but the multiple exclamation marks? You just don't get stronger evidence than that.

[dudalb]

Looks as if some American FOTLers have made the news bigtime:


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5783884#post5783884

The following rant that is from the group in question's website is pure FOTL looniness.

End the use of covert contracts such as Form 1040, car registrations, birth certificate applications, and bank signature cards which confess the signer to be a legal fiction subject of the

End the hijacking of automobile ownership through DMV registrations which covertly exchange the divine rights of travel and ownership for the state-issued “privileges” of “driving” and “title.”

In place of all of the above, substitute sovereign identification, diplomatic immunity and sovereign passports to facilitate safe passage throughout the world free from corporate State molestation and terror.

Restore the People’s money and wealth from the banking institutions, war profiteers, and international loan sharks.

Instantly vest all mortgages, auto loans and personal business loans “issued” by members of the Fed. The state shall hold no paper on, or debts against, the sovereign People, directly or through its agencies and licensed banking institutions.

Instantly end all non-consensual and unlawful taxation including all taxes on the sacred rights of labor and privacy.

End the perverse act of requiring the People to pray to “courts” as is now required under corporate rules and traditions.

[cwalner]

Looks as if some American FOTLers have made the news bigtime:


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5783884#post5783884

The following rant that is from the group in question's website is pure FOTL looniness.

While that entire quote was fun, this was my favorite bit
Instantly vest all mortgages, auto loans and personal business loans “issued” by members of the Fed. The state shall hold no paper on, or debts against, the sovereign People, directly or through its agencies and licensed banking institutions.
Yeah, the financial collapse due to the credit crisis was not quite complete, lets just implement this and finish it once and for all.

[fromdownunder]

Looks as if some American FOTLers have made the news bigtime:

In place of all of the above, substitute sovereign identification, diplomatic immunity and sovereign passports to facilitate safe passage throughout the world free from corporate State molestation and terror.





In the famous words of Danny Glover "It's just been revoked!"

Norm

[D'rok]

I'm continually fascinated by the bizarre FOTLer re-imagining of the common law. (And I missed Especially's brief return. Dammit!). I don't know if it's been mentioned previously in this thread, but there are strong echoes in the FOTLer common law/statute dichotomy of the historical equity/common law dichotomy.

The courts of equity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28law%29) (also known as the Court of Chancery) were a forum where subjects could appeal to things like natural law and natural justice and get an equitable remedy from the King's Chancellor. This was necessary because the rigidity of stare decisis - i.e., precedent - meant that sometimes the common law produced unjust results. Equity allowed the Chancellor to craft a remedy based on the discretion of his conscience or on whatever higher principle was adverted to rather than the constraints of common law precedent. Common law and equity have been merged in modern common law jurisdictions, which is why we can seek equitable remedies in civil proceedings.

The interesting thing for FOTL woo is that common law was the problem to which equity was the solution. When the common law went against natural justice, one had to appeal to equity. These days, FOTLers have a make-believe quasi-natural justice idea of the common law that is the solution to the "problem" of statutory law. But the rhetoric (besides all the magical secret language jargon) is strikingly similar. They are seeking an equitable remedy to what are perceived injustices in the status quo legal system.

These folks are a legal sociologist's wet dream.

[jargon buster]

(And I missed Especially's brief return. Dammit!).

Hes over on TPUC posting as notwattyler and he is as daft as ever.
Apparently we are all roman citizens in the eyes of the law :rolleyes:

JB

[the_snowpooch]

54 pages.

At first I was like: successful troll is successful.

Now I'm like...one sec, phonecall - brb.

[Pikachu]

Well, I've had a fun afternoon with a FOTL trial. Highlights include:-
Defendant trying to introduce an enormously long document that by tortuous logic "proves" the court don't have jurisdiction. There is no basis for its admission so it doesn't go in.
Defendant declaring that he's making the court a court of record which turns out to be the signal for his mate to turn on the tape recorder. When this is later discovered and confiscated the defendant accuses everyone of various crimes.
Defendant's fanclub refusing to stand up when magistrates enter and leave. They are a little subdued when both the usher and the chair describe them as lacking in common courtesy. A lot more subdued when every spare chair is occupied by a burly police officer.
When the defendant is asked to identify himself and begins the usual spiel waving his birth-certificate the prosecutor interrupts him and says as everyone knows who he is why don't we begin the trial. Magistrates agree and leave the defendant nonplused for a bit. He soon starts shouting "objection" every few words and is treated by the prosecutor with crushing disdain.
Somehow the first police officer's examination in chief is concluded. This should be the defendant's chance to cross-examine. But no he decides to challenge the court's jurisdiction instead and starts demanding the names of the magistrates and whether the court is common-law or admiralty.
Upshot is the case has gone part-heard halfway through the first witness...

[remirol]

Well, I've had a fun afternoon with a FOTL trial. Highlights include:-
Defendant trying to introduce an enormously long document that by tortuous logic "proves" the court don't have jurisdiction. There is no basis for its admission so it doesn't go in.
Defendant declaring that he's making the court a court of record which turns out to be the signal for his mate to turn on the tape recorder. When this is later discovered and confiscated the defendant accuses everyone of various crimes.
Defendant's fanclub refusing to stand up when magistrates enter and leave. They are a little subdued when both the usher and the chair describe them as lacking in common courtesy. A lot more subdued when every spare chair is occupied by a burly police officer.
When the defendant is asked to identify himself and begins the usual spiel waving his birth-certificate the prosecutor interrupts him and says as everyone knows who he is why don't we begin the trial. Magistrates agree and leave the defendant nonplused for a bit. He soon starts shouting "objection" every few words and is treated by the prosecutor with crushing disdain.
Somehow the first police officer's examination in chief is concluded. This should be the defendant's chance to cross-examine. But no he decides to challenge the court's jurisdiction instead and starts demanding the names of the magistrates and whether the court is common-law or admiralty.
Upshot is the case has gone part-heard halfway through the first witness...

I wish it were permissible to record scenes like this. It would serve as an excellent example to budding FOTLers of what actually happens when they try to put their noise into practice. :/

[dudalb]

I wish it were permissible to record scenes like this. It would serve as an excellent example to budding FOTLers of what actually happens when they try to put their noise into practice. :/

THey take that old saying about "A person who acts as their own attorney has a fool for a client" to a whole new level.

[The Platypus]

For the last 5 days, there has been a forum battle going on at this address between Rob Menard and his freemen cult and some locals.

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/boards/thread.aspx?thrid=509096&topid=121&action=msgsvd&pg=27

It is the forum of a small city newspaper in Canada, The St Catherines Standard, where one of these freemen was just shot down in court and then ranted about it to the local paper and remains super arrogant and defiant. Menard (Canadian freeman leader) and his cult are in there obsessed for some reason with trying to harrass and convert everyone there and is relentlessly attacking everyone on the forums. He's even supposedly using this for his next movie in production, he claims.

A friend of mind, knowing i'm a skeptic asked me for help, I wish I could help them but personally I don't know much about these freemen yet. If any of you that are well versed in this freemen nonsense, or on Menard, could help them, I'm sure they would appreciate it because they don't want this cult taking hold in their community. These freemen are crazy and for some reason they are obsessed with convert on this small town newspaper forum and it's getting totally out of hand with 700 posts in just days.

[Pantaz]

I wish it were permissible to record scenes like this. It would serve as an excellent example to budding FOTLers of what actually happens when they try to put their noise into practice. :/

There are a few on YouTube. I don't have any direct links at hand, but I've watched at least three or four of 'em. Definitely good for a giggle. Although, it bugs me that these knuckleheads waste so much time of an already over-burdened court system.

[D'rok]

For the last 5 days, there has been a forum battle going on at this address between Rob Menard and his freemen cult and some locals.

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/boards/thread.aspx?thrid=509096&topid=121&action=msgsvd&pg=27

It is the forum of a small city newspaper in Canada, The St Catherines Standard, where one of these freemen was just shot down in court and then ranted about it to the local paper and remains super arrogant and defiant. Menard (Canadian freeman leader) and his cult are in there obsessed for some reason with trying to harrass and convert everyone there and is relentlessly attacking everyone on the forums. He's even supposedly using this for his next movie in production, he claims.

A friend of mind, knowing i'm a skeptic asked me for help, I wish I could help them but personally I don't know much about these freemen yet. If any of you that are well versed in this freemen nonsense, or on Menard, could help them, I'm sure they would appreciate it because they don't want this cult taking hold in their community. These freemen are crazy and for some reason they are obsessed with convert on this small town newspaper forum and it's getting totally out of hand with 700 posts in just days.

You could point them to Rob's first substantive post in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5196518#post5196518

They can read the successful debunking results for themselves. He didn't last long until declaring victory and fleeing.

[commandlinegamer]

I really don't know what to think about this :eye-poppi:. It looks like he's watched V for vendetta way to many times.


I was abducted.. by yobs that I believe/ presume to be either serving Police Officers or CSOs/ browncoats

Now, I love Firefly. But I do realise that's it's fiction, is set several hundred years in the future, in a different solar system, and most importantly that browncoats were not exactly on the side of the establishment.

[jargon buster]

A friend of mind, knowing i'm a skeptic asked me for help, I wish I could help them but personally I don't know much about these freemen yet.

Im on it as asky

JB

[Horatius]

Now, I love Firefly. But I do realise that's it's fiction, is set several hundred years in the future, in a different solar system, and most importantly that browncoats were not exactly on the side of the establishment.


Coats, shirts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung), what's the difference?

[ktesibios]

Hes over on TPUC posting as notwattyler and he is as daft as ever.
Apparently we are all roman citizens in the eyes of the law :rolleyes:

JB

Well I am a fan of Lindsey Davis' Marcus Didius Falco mystery novels. ;)

[Pikachu]

Today I watched something very sad. A FOTL clutching his birth certificate standing in the secure dock.
A few months ago when he was a "normal" criminal he'd been sentenced to a community sentence. Probation supervision and some unpaid work. Apparently he'd been doing very well on the order. Then about halfway through he was converted to FOTL. No longer did he recognise that Probation had any jurisdiction over a sovereign citizen such as himself. He only turned up to preach FOTL to them.
Probation had to take him back to court. But he felt himself free not to turn up. So a warrant was issued and the police had to bring him (and his birth-certificate).
Probation can't cope with him any more so he has to be resentenced. He can't be fined because he'd have to sign permission for the money to come out of his benefits.
So the Judge has to do the only thing left - send him to prison.
This was sad. The defendant while technically sane (the judge had him examined) is clearly not playing with a full deck. He kept getting the FOTL responses wrong (I found myself biting my tongue not to jump up and correct him).
Probation supervision was helping this man, he was getting work experience and sorting his life out. Now he's been infected with FOTL, he's a jailbird and his chances of sorting his life out are ruined.

[drkitten]

Today I watched something very sad. A FOTL clutching his birth certificate standing in the secure dock [...] Now he's been infected with FOTL, he's a jailbird and his chances of sorting his life out are ruined.

That is sad. If you don't mind my asking, where was this and in what context were you watching it?

Is there any possibility he could come back and tell the judge that he's sorry he was being an idiot?

[Pikachu]

drkitten
It was a magistrates' court in the UK. I was prosecuting other matters in the same court.
The Judge in question is known for being compassionate but he'd tried everything - psychiatric checks, even appointed the guy a solicitor to represent his point of view and try to talk to him. Not a wet-behind-the-ears solicitor either a really senior one from a top criminal defence firm. So no I think the sentence will stand.
You have to be in court with these people to realise how deep it goes. At the trial I witnessed a few days ago a very experienced advocate who hadn't seen them before was spooked by the claque describing their behaviour as "brainwashed". They react almost as one - this may be hyperbolic - but I'm reminded of descriptions of the Manson trial where the girls echoed whatever Charlie did.
Drink the Koolaid (is that like Ribena by the way?), remove your genitals its an internet cult.

[cwalner]

Today I watched something very sad. A FOTL clutching his birth certificate standing in the secure dock.
A few months ago when he was a "normal" criminal he'd been sentenced to a community sentence. Probation supervision and some unpaid work. Apparently he'd been doing very well on the order. Then about halfway through he was converted to FOTL. No longer did he recognise that Probation had any jurisdiction over a sovereign citizen such as himself. He only turned up to preach FOTL to them.
Probation had to take him back to court. But he felt himself free not to turn up. So a warrant was issued and the police had to bring him (and his birth-certificate).
Probation can't cope with him any more so he has to be resentenced. He can't be fined because he'd have to sign permission for the money to come out of his benefits.
So the Judge has to do the only thing left - send him to prison.
This was sad. The defendant while technically sane (the judge had him examined) is clearly not playing with a full deck. He kept getting the FOTL responses wrong (I found myself biting my tongue not to jump up and correct him).
Probation supervision was helping this man, he was getting work experience and sorting his life out. Now he's been infected with FOTL, he's a jailbird and his chances of sorting his life out are ruined.

This story makes me angry. Not at the guy you describe, but at the people who infected his mind.

[jargon buster]

And Rob Menard and John Harris remain free while another "guinea pig" bites the dust.
Will the others learn from it, of course not, they will say the courts and judges are criminals and acted unlawfully.

This SH##E needs stopping ASAP

JB

[LightinDarkness]

Well, I've had a fun afternoon with a FOTL trial. Highlights include:-
Defendant trying to introduce an enormously long document that by tortuous logic "proves" the court don't have jurisdiction. There is no basis for its admission so it doesn't go in.
Defendant declaring that he's making the court a court of record which turns out to be the signal for his mate to turn on the tape recorder. When this is later discovered and confiscated the defendant accuses everyone of various crimes.
Defendant's fanclub refusing to stand up when magistrates enter and leave. They are a little subdued when both the usher and the chair describe them as lacking in common courtesy. A lot more subdued when every spare chair is occupied by a burly police officer.
When the defendant is asked to identify himself and begins the usual spiel waving his birth-certificate the prosecutor interrupts him and says as everyone knows who he is why don't we begin the trial. Magistrates agree and leave the defendant nonplused for a bit. He soon starts shouting "objection" every few words and is treated by the prosecutor with crushing disdain.
Somehow the first police officer's examination in chief is concluded. This should be the defendant's chance to cross-examine. But no he decides to challenge the court's jurisdiction instead and starts demanding the names of the magistrates and whether the court is common-law or admiralty.
Upshot is the case has gone part-heard halfway through the first witness...

And I am sure this guy reports back to Rob Menard and it will be posted as a success.

Court obstruction and ensuring that FOTL woos get a end result much more harsh than they would have ended up with - another FOTL success!

[drkitten]

The Judge in question is known for being compassionate but he'd tried everything - psychiatric checks, even appointed the guy a solicitor to represent his point of view and try to talk to him. Not a wet-behind-the-ears solicitor either a really senior one from a top criminal defence firm. So no I think the sentence will stand.

That's a pity.


You have to be in court with these people to realise how deep it goes. At the trial I witnessed a few days ago a very experienced advocate who hadn't seen them before was spooked by the claque describing their behaviour as "brainwashed". They react almost as one - this may be hyperbolic - but I'm reminded of descriptions of the Manson trial where the girls echoed whatever Charlie did.
Drink the Koolaid (is that like Ribena by the way?), remove your genitals its an internet cult.

Koolaid is a US soft-drink mix. It typically comes in little envelopes and you add water to it. It is similar to Ribena in that the only way to make either drinkable is to add enough booze to it....

[Rolfe]

Creamola Foam? Really???

Rolfe.

[cwalner]

Creamola Foam? Really???

Rolfe.

I doubt it, Kool-Aid is neither creamy nor foamy. It is sickly sweet 'fruit' flavors

[BNRT]

That's a pity.

Just to be sure...Is it a pity the sentence will probably stand, or that the judge tried everything?

Kind of getting to know the (nice, friendly, compassionate, intelligent) people on this forum, I'd guess the latter one. But you can't be sure enough, I guess.

[Elizabeth I]

I doubt it, Kool-Aid is neither creamy nor foamy. It is sickly sweet 'fruit' flavors

Well, to be fair, if you get the kind you mix yourself, you can add as much or as little sugar as you want.

[Horatius]

I doubt it, Kool-Aid is neither creamy nor foamy. It is sickly sweet 'fruit' flavors



The Green flavour is the best!

[drkitten]

Just to be sure...Is it a pity the sentence will probably stand, or that the judge tried everything?

It's a pity there are people on this forum with such poor reading skills.

[BobHaulk]

I thought you might like this nugget from the very dim Darren Pollard 1st, it's a reply to a comment on one of his er......cough films on youtube, make sure you're sitting down first, here it is
"First of all no-one taxes pay for anyone on the dole. All benefits come from the bond set up in trust via your birth certificate. Same as medical bills. You are living in a dream world mate. Clearly you haven/t got a clue what's really going on. Go back to sleep!"

[tobjai]

Lots and lots of claims. Let's look at one in isolation:

Please present a documented case where an unlicensed, uninsured Canadian driving an unregistered car was let go without fines or other legal consequences after doing the FOTL song and dance when stopped by a police officer.

And please remember: Anecdotes are not evidence.

How about a video documentation from London, Ontario?
Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post URLs in this Forum yet (cos' I'm new).
So, just go to youtube and find the channel "awkword519". It will be his featured video.

[jargon buster]

I had some fun with Pollard over on TPUC.
The guys a barnpot, if he is the freeman movement personified then theres no hope at all for them.
He came on and tried to goad me into an argument at the behest of the site Admin Dan Hughes, and after our thread went into the "Rant Room" I resonded to his insults and Dan moved the thread back into the open forums and gave me a ban.
He did the same with Girlgye to ban me but it backfired and she got a life ban:D
the threads going well over here
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/boards/thread.aspx?thrid=509096&topid=121&action=msgsvd&pg=77
Menard is floundering without his site moderators to protect him.

JB

[LightinDarkness]

How about a video documentation from London, Ontario?
Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post URLs in this Forum yet (cos' I'm new).
So, just go to youtube and find the channel "awkword519". It will be his featured video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cci5MSvsSmc

This is something Freeman always try to pass off as proof, but if you actually watch the video you'll notice AT NO POINT do you ever see or hear the policeman stating that this guy is free to go since he has status as a sovereign citizen. Conveniently, all of that is edited out.

What most likely happened is this freeman performed all the correct FOTL rituals and the police, being polite gentlemen, just gave him a ticket and didn't want to tell him he was nuts. He is "free to go" since he got his ticket, but reviving the ticket was edited out of course.

[jargon buster]

TOBJAI
This video has been disected here
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99068

By the way Joshua is currently facing numerous motoring charges in Canada ;)

JB

[D'rok]

How about a video documentation from London, Ontario?
Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post URLs in this Forum yet (cos' I'm new).
So, just go to youtube and find the channel "awkword519". It will be his featured video.

Here it is:

hfbfpz4iYDU

...and the video cuts off before we see the end result.

Was this supposed to prove something?

[jargon buster]

Its enough proof for them DROK.
Thats just it, they will cling onto anything that gives them a ray of hope.
Its just another fail to add to the list

JB

[D'rok]

Its enough proof for them DROK.
Thats just it, they will cling onto anything that gives them a ray of hope.
Its just another fail to add to the list

JB

Meanwhile, Menard keeps selling DVDs, bogus legal documents, and collecting speaking fees.

Is this story related to the video?

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/03/16/13243101.html?comments_page=4&id=13243101#/news/london/2010/03/15/pf-13241071.html

[jargon buster]

The guy in the video is Joshua
Hes got his own court date pending
Theres a guy called mika over on the thread I posted earlier posting as Sentinal this may be the guy in your link but Im not sure.
They sure are coming out of the woodwork at the moment.
The guys over in Canada are pointing the police Menards way and believe it or not Menards calling them grasses and is blowing a gasket.
Strange behaviour indeed for someone who statutory legislation does not apply:D

JB

[D'rok]

The guy in the video is Joshua
Hes got his own court date pending
Theres a guy called mika over on the thread I posted earlier posting as Sentinal this may be the guy in your link but Im not sure.
They sure are coming out of the woodwork at the moment.
The guys over in Canada are pointing the police Menards way and believe it or not Menards calling them grasses and is blowing a gasket.
Strange behaviour indeed for someone who statutory legislation does not apply:D

JB

Maybe he's worried that he might have to rely on one of his own remedies. :D

[jargon buster]

I set him a test on the Canadian thread.
Drive around with a film crew in an unlicenced untaxed uninsured car smoking pot until you come across the police and film the result.
That would prove once and for all if his theories actually held water.
Surprise surprise he refused to answer it:D

JB

[D'rok]

I just watched a bunch of those videos from London, Ont. I'm actually really impressed with how calm and professional the cops are. These FOTLers should thank their lucky stars that they aren't trying to pull this crap in L.A. County or something.

[remirol]

How about a video documentation from London, Ontario?
Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post URLs in this Forum yet (cos' I'm new).
So, just go to youtube and find the channel "awkword519". It will be his featured video.

This is the video I found (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cci5MSvsSmc).

What I see is typical of Freeman "video evidence". They begin recording, the police officers explain on video that all the criminal codes still apply no matter what a person pretends he is, and mysteriously (right at the point where the police officers normally tell him "You're not driving this car anymore without insurance, period" and give him a few tickets), the camera... automatically shuts off, and we are presented with a completely evidenceless assertion on the part of the purported Freeman that "They thanked him for his time and went their separate ways."

Then the camera turns on and he claims "see? There's my car, I win."

Again, this is very typical. There is no actual evidence of anything other than that he had an encounter with police and his car has an illegal tag on the back -- and he admits to no drivers' license and no insurance. This sort of thing is the propaganda that keeps FOTL going to jail -- I just wonder why none of them seem bright enough to understand that the video-maker has lied to them about what happened.

[remirol]

Again, this is very typical. There is no actual evidence of anything other than that he had an encounter with police and his car has an illegal tag on the back -- and he admits to no drivers' license and no insurance. This sort of thing is the propaganda that keeps FOTL going to jail -- I just wonder why none of them seem bright enough to understand that the video-maker has lied to them about what happened.

Aww. I found another one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR8ganE8sG0).

Doesn't look so good for the video-maker in this one; the camera stays on and he gets a bunch of tickets. Looks like another FOTL fail.

Hey, you know something? It looks like this video is from the same traffic stop as the first. Same angle of two police cars, same angle of his own car. Interesting, isn't it?

[Horatius]

"They thanked him for his time and went their separate ways."



Actually, that part I believe. Canadian cops tend to be much more polite than US cops from what I've seen, and I have little doubt that they thanked him for his time - after giving him a ticket. I recently got a ticket, and the cop was nice enough to explain to me what I needed to do to get it reduced to a city offense instead of a provincial, so as to not get points on my license.

And of course, what he told me actually worked.....:D


Aww. I found another one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR8ganE8sG0).

Doesn't look so good for the video-maker in this one; the camera stays on and he gets a bunch of tickets. Looks like another FOTL fail.

Hey, you know something? It looks like this video is from the same traffic stop as the first. Same angle of two police cars, same angle of his own car. Interesting, isn't it?



It's not the same, in this one at least three cops showed up, in the first there were only two. Do we know when these stops happened? It would be interesting to see how their reactions evolve over time.

[TjW]

The guy in the video is Joshua
Hes got his own court date pending
Theres a guy called mika over on the thread I posted earlier posting as Sentinal this may be the guy in your link but Im not sure.
They sure are coming out of the woodwork at the moment.
The guys over in Canada are pointing the police Menards way and believe it or not Menards calling them grasses and is blowing a gasket.
Strange behaviour indeed for someone who statutory legislation does not apply:D

JB

I'm sorry, I thought "to grass" was a slang term meaning to report unlawful behavior to the authorities. How could anyone "grass" on Menard if he's only doing perfectly legal things?

[D'rok]

Hoser cops rule!

I'm highly entertained by Josh and his faimly's adventures with the Ontario justice system. Read about how his Mom goes to jail for the cause here:

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=4289

Josh is paid-up member of the World Freeman Society. Unfortunately, that doesn't help him much! Extra funny: his pleas to Rob to help him. Sorry, dude! He's got your money. Mission accomplished!

[tsig]

Maybe he's worried that he might have to rely on one of his own remedies. :D

He'll probably hire a lawyer and still claim FOTL works.

[tsig]

I just watched a bunch of those videos from London, Ont. I'm actually really impressed with how calm and professional the cops are. These FOTLers should thank their lucky stars that they aren't trying to pull this crap in L.A. County or something.

Or Texas.

[D'rok]

He'll probably hire a lawyer and still claim FOTL works.
He'll probably spin it as a total victory for FOTL. The man has no shame at all.

Or Texas.

Indeed.

[LightinDarkness]

Hoser cops rule!

I'm highly entertained by Josh and his faimly's adventures with the Ontario justice system. Read about how his Mom goes to jail for the cause here:

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=4289

Josh is paid-up member of the World Freeman Society. Unfortunately, that doesn't help him much! Extra funny: his pleas to Rob to help him. Sorry, dude! He's got your money. Mission accomplished!

I notice the FOTL ritual seems to get more elaborate over time. Not not only do you have to write the magic words and cite the proper UCC code (which doesn't apply to US criminal cases, but hey what do we care about facts) - but you also have to write it at a 45 degree angle!


write on the 45 degree angle in red pen "Refused for cause without dishonour, without recourse, without prejudice UCC 1 -207


And yet even after doing the proper ritual, the legal system still carries on as if the ritual had no impact. To us, this is more evidence that FOTL fails. To the brainwashed...it just means that the police aren't playing by the rules.

If you follow that thread to the end, after his mom goes to jail, he goes to court again on behalf of his mom and does all the proper FOTL ritual (doesn't pass the bar, makes loud proclamations about his rights, etc.). The state decided to move the court date forward, and now hes celebrating as if hes won..I don't quite think he understood all that happened was they moved the court date and none of his rituals had an impact...

[Horatius]

I don't quite think he understood all that happened was they moved the court date and none of his rituals had an impact...


And this is one of the weaknesses (or strengths, if you're not a whack job) of our system that these guys exploit. The courts will usually bend over backwards to allow people to have the time they need to present a proper defense. These delays, which have no real impact on the application of the law, are taken as "victories" by the whack jobs, who never seem to follow up on what happens later.

Notice in that thread, his last update was over a month ago. Is his mother still in jail? Was the case dismissed? Why hasn't he said anything about what's happened since that court date?

[fromdownunder]

Why hasn't he said anything about what's happened since that court date?

He is probably packed his toothbrush, and is making little ones out of big ones.

Norm

[tobjai]

What I see is typical of Freeman "video evidence". They begin recording, the police officers explain on video that all the criminal codes still apply no matter what a person pretends he is, and mysteriously (right at the point where the police officers normally tell him "You're not driving this car anymore without insurance, period" and give him a few tickets), the camera... automatically shuts off, and we are presented with a completely evidenceless assertion on the part of the purported Freeman that "They thanked him for his time and went their separate ways."

Then the camera turns on and he claims "see? There's my car, I win."

Again, this is very typical. There is no actual evidence of anything other than that he had an encounter with police and his car has an illegal tag on the back -- and he admits to no drivers' license and no insurance. This sort of thing is the propaganda that keeps FOTL going to jail -- I just wonder why none of them seem bright enough to understand that the video-maker has lied to them about what happened.


You guys must be in denial.

Several times the one cop says "k, perfect"... and then even goes on to say "once you go on to the highway you need to have insurance".

With other words they've just agreed to Joshua being clear for travelling around in his automobile anywhere but on the highway (AND stand yet to be corrected on this account).

As the video comes to an end the cops are merely having a conversation with Josh, learning some more about individual sovereignty.
Cop: "So you are going for common law right to transit... essentially, right?... It's not something we deal with very frequently"
"Do you guys have OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan)".... NO
"Do you have any provincial benefits".... NO
At this point the cop is confirming, that Josh doesn't just pick and choose from the system.

BTW: Another very interesting video on Josh's channel is the one where he is being barred from entering the supposed public court room by a bunch of armed thugs.

I understand you guys are trying hard to justify un-natural state coercion while padding each others shoulders. But I'm sorry guys. This is proof. It's indisputable that these Police officers have taken their job seriously and indeed acted as peace officers on behalf of the people, and not on behalf of the crown corporation!

[Agatha]

What do you contend "the highway" means in this context?

[lionking]

What do you contend "the highway" means in this context?
Oh please don't ask sensible questions. These are lost on FOTL kooks.

[tobjai]

What do you contend "the highway" means in this context?

You might be pointing your finger at the definition out of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (addressing persons only!), which is as follows:

“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”)

Now, when using the words "highway", "freeway", or "motorway" on a colloquial basis, people in Ontario generally regard to roads which are usually outside cities and have much higher speed limits. Go use a common dictionary and compare this with city streets, country- or rural roads etc. Subsequently, it is more than likely that this police officer spoke in this context.

Obviously I cant prove that this is true. But I don't have to, either. After all, it is not me or the FMOTL movement that wants to control and coerce human beings without the God/Nature given right to do so. YOU, dear friend (a supporter of the system I suppose) carry the burden of prove. So go ahead, prove me wrong.

[Agatha]

I would suspect it is a great deal more likely that the police officer meant highway to mean any road, than he was using a very narrow, colloquial definition.

In Britain highway would be understood to be any road maintained at the public cost - "the public highway".

And no, you intruduced this video as supposed proof that this freeloaderontheland nonsense "works". The burden of proof remains on you.

[cwalner]

BTW: Another very interesting video on Josh's channel is the one where he is being barred from entering the supposed public court room by a bunch of armed thugs.


FYI: most of us same persons call them Bailiffs. We understand that it is their job to provide security for the public courthouses, and that duty does sometimes entail barring entry to people. Now, I am not certain about Canada, but I know in the US, cameras are generally not allowed inside courtrooms, so if you have a video of them barring Josh entry, it might have to do with him trying to bring a camera into a room in which they are not allowed.

[remirol]

You guys must be in denial.

Given that the maker of the video is currently facing charges, I think it better to say that you and FOTLers are the ones in denial.

Once again, there is no evidence that the statement made by the videomaker is remotely true. Every piece of conversation you have quoted is a perfectly reasonable prelude to "OK, we're going to give you some tickets now. You need to have a license and insurance before driving; do not drive the car until then."

The simple reality is that, as with all Freeman "evidence", there isn't any actual evidence involved. No video of the cops saying "You're free to go", no video of the cops leaving and the video-owner driving off -- just another half-assed edited piece of crap on Youtube that (conveniently) cuts out before the parts that would really prove something.

[Horatius]

You might be pointing your finger at the definition out of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (addressing persons only!), which is as follows:

“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”)




Here's the really sad part. I was going to post that very definition, in hopes that you were just plain ignorant of the meaning of the term as used by police in their official capacity.

But here you are, in full possession of all the relevant facts, and you still don't get it.

So I'm done. There's nothing anyone could say or do that will convince you you're wrong. You'll simple have to stand as yet another example of how deluded some people can be, in hopes that you can act as a warning to others who might be tempted down this path.

[D'rok]

Hey tobjai:

How much of your money does Rob have? Which part of this fee schedule did you agree to:

http://worldfreemansociety.org/tiki-index.php?page=Payments

I notice that Josh didn't have much luck when he presented his WFS ID to the cop. (That was in a follow-up vid, BTW). How's that working for you? Do you have one? Any successes? Josh is facing serious legal consequences for his FOTL shenanigans (as are other London hosers like Terry). How about you?

Or maybe you just buy Menard's materials:

http://shop.worldfreemansociety.org/

Relied on any of that in court yet? Please tell us how it went.

Oh, and the WFS site is subject to Canadian Copyright:

http://worldfreemansociety.org/tiki-index.php?page=Copyright&copyrightpage=Payments

The Copyright Act is a statute. Did you consent to that? Hmmmm...

Every wondered what the "cunning" bit is in "Rob's Very Cunning Plan"? (Hint: we're not the only ones laughing at you.)

[D'rok]

Given that the maker of the video is currently facing charges, I think it better to say that you and FOTLers are the ones in denial.

Bingo.

[D'rok]

And this is one of the weaknesses (or strengths, if you're not a whack job) of our system that these guys exploit. The courts will usually bend over backwards to allow people to have the time they need to present a proper defense. These delays, which have no real impact on the application of the law, are taken as "victories" by the whack jobs, who never seem to follow up on what happens later.

Notice in that thread, his last update was over a month ago. Is his mother still in jail? Was the case dismissed? Why hasn't he said anything about what's happened since that court date?

His Mom was held over the weekend and let go on Monday on a promise to appear. Of course, she didn't appear, so now things are worse. (First strategy was to ignore the summons - yeah, that's a good strategy).

[jargon buster]

Drok wrote
Oh, and the WFS site is subject to Canadian Copyright:

http://worldfreemansociety.org/tiki-...tpage=Payments

I pointed this out to Rob and freemanpete (his sidekick) on ickes and they seemed happy to take someone to court for breech of copyright as Menard said "We have a right to protect our material"
You couldnt make it up drok

ROB BELIEVES THAT AS A FREEMAN HE IS NOT BOUND BY THE STATUTES BUT THE COURTS ARE BECAUSE ITS THEIR SOCIETY AND AS SUCH HE CAN USE STATUTES AGAINST THEM:D

oh and for the record he has a lso said that it is only Canadian statutes he is not bound by as he has put in a claim of right.
If he moves somewhere else he is bound by statute?????

JB

[D'rok]

Drok wrote


I pointed this out to Rob and freemanpete (his sidekick) on ickes and they seemed happy to take someone to court for breech of copyright as Menard said "We have a right to protect our material"
You couldnt make it up drok

ROB BELIEVES THAT AS A FREEMAN HE IS NOT BOUND BY THE STATUTES BUT THE COURTS ARE BECAUSE ITS THEIR SOCIETY AND AS SUCH HE CAN USE STATUTES AGAINST THEM:D

oh and for the record he has a lso said that it is only Canadian statutes he is not bound by as he has put in a claim of right.
If he moves somewhere else he is bound by statute?????

JB

Hypocrisy, thy name is freeman.

[tobjai]

Once again, there is no evidence that the statement made by the videomaker is remotely true. Every piece of conversation you have quoted is a perfectly reasonable prelude to "OK, we're going to give you some tickets now. You need to have a license and insurance before driving; do not drive the car until then."

Dude,
they had already come back from the cruiser after examining everything for an extensive amount of time! If you've ever been pulled over in Ontario you'll know that if they come back and return your documents without a ticked, you are good to go. They will NEVER return anything before closing off the encounter. I've made that experience many times as I lived there for 8 years (and no, I'm not a FOTL... not yet, anyways). It is very clear to see in this video, that the documents where returned without a ticket. So I can guarantee you there was no ticked involved.

Besides, the fundamental question of this thread isn't the question of "does it work or not?" or "how many times has he or she been to jail?". Fundamentally, it's the question of legitimacy. What legitimacy does the FOTL-movement have and where is the legitimacy to be found on the other side?!?

Undoubtedly the natural/god given state of things represents the origin on which everything else builds upon. In this original state there is nothing but man kind (and other living beings of course) living absolutely free and unrestricted on the land with no boarders. Everything else (States, Boarders, Laws etc.) is a posterior invention by man. I think so far we can agree.

"Now all of the sudden there comes along this FOTL group and claims to be better and above everybody else. That can't be, can it? They must be wrong. How come I'm stuck here with all these laws and they get to be above it all?". I can imagine, some folks think like that.

Well, if they are in fact wrong, then it should be an easy task to naturally legitimize state governance and with it the restriction of unalienable rights (like doing whatever one wants to do with their body without hurting or harming the property ie. bodies of others - eg. smoking a joint in privacy).

So tell me guys, wherein lies the legitimate, god/nature given right of a state to govern human beings without their consent? In the majority? If so, how is the majority legitimized to foist their will over the minority? Does the majority have a higher standing before nature/god as opposed to the individual? Simple answer: No! Nobody (not one, nor a group of many) has the god/nature given right to rule over another human's property (incl. their own body) without their consent, period. Every human has (amongst others) the inalienable right to live for their own sake and no state has the right to define this right deceivingly, in order to match it nicely to their "laws" (eg. "Every human has the right to privacy UNLESS an act states otherwise". This was made up but the technique is being used).

Don't get me wrong: What I say doesn't mean we'd all be going on ego-trips. Social communities are a necessity of human live. Only few people can last truly on their own (which is for example why Josh has been "caught" asking for help). But it can't be coercion that keeps us together. It has to be common-law cohabitation where wisdom and the true drive to abundant living makes people FREELY want to join.

Now, of course the bashing in this thread is gonna go on. We won't really achieve an agreement (Not as long as you guys don't accept anything outside the power of man-made words!) because, many of you don't allow yourselves to be unbiased. For job related reasons these kind of people especially concentrate in and around court houses. Understandably they don't want their house of cards to collapse. So, of course there is going to be times where the FOTL clash against a wall of ignorance - probably quite frequently. That however doesn't mean they've been wrong. The power of physical force has simply been on the other side.

Pure freedom only ever works as long as one isn't confronted with a hardhead who is unable or unwilling to operate outside the matrix he or she has grown in to and is preserving. Unfortunately they keep us behind as they are willing to totally enslave themselves in order to maintain this elaborate environment "free of fear". But just because you're in fear of standing up for your freedom (as you could end up in jail like Josh's mom), you have no right to set the brave ones on the front line - who pave the way for others to come - in a derogatory light.

[remirol]

Dude,
they had already come back from the cruiser after examining everything for an extensive amount of time! If you've ever been pulled over in Ontario you'll know that if they come back and return your documents without a ticked, you are good to go. They will NEVER return anything before closing off the encounter. I've made that experience many times as I lived there for 8 years (and no, I'm not a FOTL... not yet, anyways). It is very clear to see in this video, that the documents where returned without a ticket. So I can guarantee you there was no ticked involved.

Your personal guarantee does not make the lack of evidence suddenly become evidence, nor does your hyperbole in protesting that this "NEVER" happens. There remains no evidence whatsoever to support the video-maker's claims, and as we can see in my second-linked video, he does indeed receive tickets for the same offenses cited in the first video.

In short: After the camera conveniently shut off, none of us can say what happened. Maybe he didn't get tickets, maybe he did -- but that video holds no evidence for the assertion that he didn't.

Besides, the fundamental question of this thread isn't the question of "does it work or not?" or "how many times has he or she been to jail?". Fundamentally, it's the question of legitimacy. What legitimacy does the FOTL-movement have and where is the legitimacy to be found on the other side?!?Actually, that's not really true. In practice, if reciting the magical FOTL words gets you thrown in jail, then that would be evidence to assume that the FOTL theories are not legitimate and should be discarded as worthless.

As discussed elsewhere in this thread, in the end might does make right. Modern society came together, discussed the issues, and decided that certain laws should be made and all should follow those laws. They then empowered representatives of themselves ("police") to enforce those laws, and provided them with the appropriate tools to do so. You are given two choices; comply with the laws or leave that society.

FOTL are trying to create a third version where they "leave the society", but still receive all the benefits of residing with that society -- police protection, fire protection, etc.; in other words, they just want to not have to deal with all the obligations. Doesn't work that way, of course, and so they recite their magical phrases, get tickets, get their cars impounded, and get thrown in jail on a routine basis.

[cwalner]

<snip>
Pure freedom only ever works as long as one isn't confronted with a hardhead who is unable or unwilling to operate outside the matrix he or she has grown in to and is preserving. Unfortunately they keep us behind as they are willing to totally enslave themselves in order to maintain this elaborate environment "free of fear". But just because you're in fear of standing up for your freedom (as you could end up in jail like Josh's mom), you have no right to set the brave ones on the front line - who pave the way for others to come - in a derogatory light.

Tobjai. The problem that you, and other FOTL'ers seem to have is not being able to distinguish between the way you want the world to be and the way it actually is, as your post clearly demonstrates.

We understand your philosophical view on how society should work. While I agree it would be nice if it did work that way, I also understand human nature and in any society some people will try to impose their will on others. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. It will happen as surely as the Sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Majority rule, has the advantage of using that inevitability to create a social structure that benifits more people than in puts out.

The problem with the piece of your post that I quoted, is that you seem to be making an obique refence to compare FOTL with other civil disobedience movements, such as those led by Mohatma Gahndi in India and Martin Luther King, jr in the US. The difference is they did not object to the rule of law, but objected to the specific laws themselves being unfair. They peacefully protested unfair laws, with the full knowledge that they would be arrested. They accepted their punishment and used it to highlight the unfairness of the laws being protested. You object to the rule of law in its entirety. Whether laws are in the form of common law or statutes is irrelevant. society needs the rule of law to function. You make claims to natural law or God's law, but that is a smokescreen. What FOTL is pushing is anarchy and lawlessness.

[TjW]

So tell me guys, wherein lies the legitimate, god/nature given right of a state to govern human beings without their consent?

First I'd like to see evidence that this is required. In fact, states do govern human beings without their consent. In the more free states, you may leave to find a place more to your liking. In less free societies, you may be prevented from doing this.

In making a claim as to whether or not some particular procedure works, you need to consider the conditions under which it will be operating.

[D'rok]

Dude,
they had already come back from the cruiser after examining everything for an extensive amount of time! If you've ever been pulled over in Ontario you'll know that if they come back and return your documents without a ticked, you are good to go. They will NEVER return anything before closing off the encounter. I've made that experience many times as I lived there for 8 years (and no, I'm not a FOTL... not yet, anyways). It is very clear to see in this video, that the documents where returned without a ticket. So I can guarantee you there was no ticked involved.
You can guarantee, can you? Pray tell, what were the documents that were returned - were they driver's license and registration? No. Of course not. They were his worthless FOTL fantasy documents. Why would the cops care about those? Lack of proper ID was precisely the problem and exactly why he is in such legal difficulty now.

Besides, the fundamental question of this thread isn't the question of "does it work or not?" or "how many times has he or she been to jail?". Fundamentally, it's the question of legitimacy. What legitimacy does the FOTL-movement have and where is the legitimacy to be found on the other side?!?
Goalposts moved. That didn't take long. Your first post here was addressing my request for evidence that FOTL works. You failed spectacularly. You know it doesn't work, I know it doesn't work, now we all know it doesn't work. Cue the switch to ought where is fails.

Undoubtedly the natural/god given state of things represents the origin on which everything else builds upon. In this original state there is nothing but man kind (and other living beings of course) living absolutely free and unrestricted on the land with no boarders. Everything else (States, Boarders, Laws etc.) is a posterior invention by man. I think so far we can agree.

You're asking a sceptic site to agree with you that "god" exists and has revealed to you a list of rights? Or that "nature" is hard-wired with social constructions like rights and ethics? C'mon. You can do better than that.

"Now all of the sudden there comes along this FOTL group and claims to be better and above everybody else. That can't be, can it? They must be wrong. How come I'm stuck here with all these laws and they get to be above it all?". I can imagine, some folks think like that.

They don't get to be above it all. When they try, they fail. As you have shown with the evidence you have presented. And being "above it all" for FOTLers only means that FOTLers don't want any of the duties or responsiblities of citizenship - they only want the benefits. They want to use public resources without contributing to them. They want to be free of statutory law, but apply it when it suits them. They are socipathic freeeloaders. Hopefully, the pot-smoking means they won't eventually turn violent.

Well, if they are in fact wrong, then it should be an easy task to naturally legitimize state governance and with it the restriction of unalienable rights (like doing whatever one wants to do with their body without hurting or harming the property ie. bodies of others - eg. smoking a joint in privacy).

I sincerely hope you fools manage to grab some land and set up your own society. I will watch with interest as you develop a body of law that restricts some individudal rights for the sake of the common good, at the same time as you continue to call these rights "god-given" and "natural". I will laugh as you come to realize that the practical requirements of governance force you to rely on the principle of implied consent. And when you succumb to the need to codify your laws, I will laugh as you create a new generation of malcontents that cry "I do not consent to be bound by your statutes!".

So tell me guys, wherein lies the legitimate, god/nature given right of a state to govern human beings without their consent? In the majority? If so, how is the majority legitimized to foist their will over the minority? Does the majority have a higher standing before nature/god as opposed to the individual? Simple answer: No! Nobody (not one, nor a group of many) has the god/nature given right to rule over another human's property (incl. their own body) without their consent, period. Every human has (amongst others) the inalienable right to live for their own sake and no state has the right to define this right deceivingly, in order to match it nicely to their "laws" (eg. "Every human has the right to privacy UNLESS an act states otherwise". This was made up but the technique is being used).

Rights are not god-given. God is a delusion. Natural rights are a fiction - they are a rhetorical device for you to sanctify your hopes and dreams for the way the world ought to be. Be glad you live in a country where minority group rights are written in to the constitution. Not even the USA has that. Be glad you live in a society where everyone has the ability to affect, to some degree or another, the content of the rights that we democratically grant ourselves. You have a voice. Use it.

Don't get me wrong: What I say doesn't mean we'd all be going on ego-trips. Social communities are a necessity of human live. Only few people can last truly on their one (which is for example why Josh has been "caught" asking for help). But it can't be coercion that keeps us together. It has to be common-law cohabitation where wisdom and the true drive to abundant living makes people FREELY want to join.

You have no clue what the common law is. Seriously. You are profoundly ignorant.

And when you establish freetopia, what will be the mechanism for establishing consent? How about for the 2nd generation of freepers? The 20th? The 100th? Will there be a mechanism for them to consent when they come of age? What will it look like? Will it look something like a constitutional democracy?

Now, of course bashing in this thread is gonna go on. We won't really achieve an agreement (Not as long as you guys don't accept anything outside the power of man-made words!) because, many of you don't allow yourselves to be unbiased. For job related reasons these kind of people especially concentrate in and around court houses. Understandably they don't want their house of cards to collapse. So, of course there is going to be times where the FOTL clash against a wall of ignorance - probably quite frequently. That however doesn't mean they've been wrong. The power of physical force has simply been on the other side.

Man-made words are what FOTL morons put into Claims of Right and Notices of Understanding and all the other snake oil that Rob sells you. Rob's Very CUnning Plan includes a police force and a court system. What will they use to enforce contracts? A comfy chair? Or, goodness me...maybe force of some kind?

Pure freedom only ever works as long as one isn't confronted with a hardhead who is unable or unwilling to operate outside the matrix he or she has grown in to and is preserving. Unfortunately they keep us behind as they are willing to totally enslave themselves in order to maintain this elaborate environment "free of fear". But just because you're in fear of standing up for your freedom (as you could end up in jail like Josh's mom), you have no right to set the brave ones on the front line - who pave the way for others to come - in a derogatory light.

Listen, Neo. Here are five women who stood up for freedom for the benefit of you, me and Josh's Mom:

http://www.abheritage.ca/famous5/achievements/persons_case.html

You have stood up for nothing other than your own selfish desire to get free benefits from Canada. Begone with you.

[Horatius]

In short: After the camera conveniently shut off, none of us can say what happened. Maybe he didn't get tickets, maybe he did -- but that video holds no evidence for the assertion that he didn't.




In one of the linked threads above, someone pointed out that it looked like, in that case, he was in the parking lot or driveway of his house/apartment building. If that's the case, he probably wouldn't have gotten a ticket, as it's not necessary to have plates on purely private property. If the cops hadn't seen him on the road, they would have just warned him about not taking the car on the road without the proper documents - which is what we did see, when the cops referred to "the highway".

Of course, now that they know who he is, and that he really does believe this nonsense about not needing plates or a driver's license, you can be sure they have an eye out for him whenever they pass that way. As soon as he moves that car off his driveway, he'll likely get nailed - which we also see in the other videos posted. That's why I was asking if anyone knew when they were taken relative to each other.

[D'rok]

In one of the linked threads above, someone pointed out that it looked like, in that case, he was in the parking lot or driveway of his house/apartment building. If that's the case, he probably wouldn't have gotten a ticket, as it's not necessary to have plates on purely private property. If the cops hadn't seen him on the road, they would have just warned him about not taking the car on the road without the proper documents - which is what we did see, when the cops referred to "the highway".

Of course, now that they know who he is, and that he really does believe this nonsense about not needing plates or a driver's license, you can be sure they have an eye out for him whenever they pass that way. As soon as he moves that car off his driveway, he'll likely get nailed - which we also see in the other videos posted. That's why I was asking if anyone knew when they were taken relative to each other.

I read another thread over on WFS where exactly that happened. The London cops were aware of the phony FOTL license plates on another FOTLer's van as it was parked in his driveway. They monitored it and took notice of when it wasn't in his driveway. This was a factor in his eventual arrest.

[BobHaulk]

You guys must be in denial.

Several times the one cop says "k, perfect"... and then even goes on to say "once you go on to the highway you need to have insurance".

With other words they've just agreed to Joshua being clear for travelling around in his automobile anywhere but on the highway (AND stand yet to be corrected on this account).

As the video comes to an end the cops are merely having a conversation with Josh, learning some more about individual sovereignty.
Cop: "So you are going for common law right to transit... essentially, right?... It's not something we deal with very frequently"
"Do you guys have OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan)".... NO
"Do you have any provincial benefits".... NO
At this point the cop is confirming, that Josh doesn't just pick and choose from the system.

BTW: Another very interesting video on Josh's channel is the one where he is being barred from entering the supposed public court room by a bunch of armed thugs.

I understand you guys are trying hard to justify un-natural state coercion while padding each others shoulders. But I'm sorry guys. This is proof. It's indisputable that these Police officers have taken their job seriously and indeed acted as peace officers on behalf of the people, and not on behalf of the crown corporation!
brilliant, no really this is spectacular.
Basically he can drive his car anywhere he wants as long as it's not on the roads, so all he needs to do now is plan his route through fields, gardens and disused railway tracks etc and he's good to go.

[Horatius]

brilliant, no really this is spectacular.
Basically he can drive his car anywhere he wants as long as it's not on the roads, so all he needs to do now is plan his route through fields, gardens and disused railway tracks etc and he's good to go.


....until he's arrested for trespassing!

[tsig]

....until he's arrested for trespassing!

Unless he contracts with all the landowners.:rolleyes:

[magellan]

Yes.
In that thread on the st cahtarines standard board (It has unfortuanately dissappeared. Guess the admins there really didn't like random RL Name dropping, clearly done to intimidate) Menard added a new funny twist to his magical thinking:
All statutes apply, except for those of the country you are born in. And thats because you didn't enter voluntarily, but where born there. Freemen are not free to travel it seems, and their god given right to travel must come from some obscure canadian deity, not worshipped anywhere else it seems...

[remirol]

Freemen are not free to travel it seems,

Can't see as that can be true. They visit Cloud Cuckoo Land all the time,...

[cwalner]

Yes.
In that thread on the st cahtarines standard board (It has unfortuanately dissappeared. Guess the admins there really didn't like random RL Name dropping, clearly done to intimidate) Menard added a new funny twist to his magical thinking:
All statutes apply, except for those of the country you are born in. And thats because you didn't enter voluntarily, but where born there. Freemen are not free to travel it seems, and their god given right to travel must come from some obscure canadian deity, not worshipped anywhere else it seems...

That would be Canook the Frozen. Often depicted as a man with a Moose's head holding a flat wooden staff with a bend at the top.

[Horatius]

Yes.
In that thread on the st cahtarines standard board (It has unfortuanately dissappeared. Guess the admins there really didn't like random RL Name dropping, clearly done to intimidate) Menard added a new funny twist to his magical thinking:
All statutes apply, except for those of the country you are born in. And thats because you didn't enter voluntarily, but where born there. Freemen are not free to travel it seems, and their god given right to travel must come from some obscure canadian deity, not worshipped anywhere else it seems...



Well, that actually makes a kind of twisted sense. They make a big to-do about "consent", and how they haven't consented to the laws of the land they were born into. However, the voluntary act of entering another jurisdiction with clearly defined laws could be reasonably construed as consenting to those laws. They're just upset they were never given a choice about the Canadian Laws, I guess.

Under this reasoning , if we were to eject them from Canada, they wouldn't then be subject to the other country's laws, as their "travel" would have been involuntary.

Now, if they do go on vacation to, say, Florida, can we refuse to let them back in unless they consent to the laws? Can returning to Canada be construed as consent?

[remirol]

Now, if they do go on vacation to, say, Florida, can we refuse to let them back in

Oh, no you don't. We do not consent to any importation of gator-bait.

[cwalner]

Oh, no you don't. We do not consent to any importation of gator-bait.

Yeah, if you want to send 'em to the US, send 'em northwest. They might actually ge along with the ex-Governor there.

[neocenturion]

55 page in, and still none of the FOTL'ers can provide a simple answer to a simple question.

Especially and tobjal can come in and preach about moral authority and consent of the governed. I don't even disagree with many of their points in that regard.

The problem is this: Governments do exist and they do have the power to send you to jail. The unforunate followers of FOTL woo believe that they have found loopholes that allow them to live under the moral authority of god (or whatever source they DO feel has authority), and not have to answer to the government. Fantastic.

So, when those that have been drawn into this theory end up in prison because the loopholes they believe in do not exist, to what authority do they appeal? If you are wrongly imprisoned by the government for violating a statute you feel does not apply, what do you do? Who do you call with your one phone call that is going to make things right?

I don't mind FOTLers preaching their theories on moral authority, consent and governance. What I DO have a problem with is their types providing advice to people who end up in jail because of it.

[cwalner]

So, when those that have been drawn into this theory end up in prison because the loopholes they believe in do not exist, to what authority do they appeal? If you are wrongly imprisoned by the government for violating a statute you feel does not apply, what do you do? Who do you call?

Ghostbusters!

[D'rok]

I don't mind FOTLers preaching their theories on moral authority, consent and governance. What I DO have a problem with is their types providing advice to people who end up in jail because of it.
Exactly. Not only that, but the peddlers of "advice" at the top of the pyramid are selling it for profit to the unfortunates at the bottom who end up in jail. Despicable.

[Sledge]

I still can't get my head around how this is supposed to work. So there's supposedly a conspiracy of NWO/Jews/gnomes/whatever who have created this legal system that only applies if you let it. "They" don't tell people about this, or what the real laws are, so "they" can keep "us" down. Even if this were true, why would "they" admit it when some nerk rocks up with a sheaf of internet printouts and refuses to contract with the court?

I know, I know, I'm looking for logic in lunacy, but I can't get past how fundamentally stupid the whole thing is. Some part of me keeps saying "You MUST have misunderstood, no one could be this stupid."

[neocenturion]

I know, I know, I'm looking for logic in lunacy, but I can't get past how fundamentally stupid the whole thing is. Some part of me keeps saying "You MUST have misunderstood, no one could be this stupid."


This is what drew me in so deeply to this mess of a theory. I've spent more time than I care to admit studying it, and the conclusion I have come to is: Yes, lots and lots of people can most definitely be this stupid.

[BobHaulk]

....until he's arrested for trespassing!

arrested for trespassing as a freeman on the land, now that would be funny

[D'rok]

I still can't get my head around how this is supposed to work. So there's supposedly a conspiracy of NWO/Jews/gnomes/whatever who have created this legal system that only applies if you let it. "They" don't tell people about this, or what the real laws are, so "they" can keep "us" down. Even if this were true, why would "they" admit it when some nerk rocks up with a sheaf of internet printouts and refuses to contract with the court?

I know, I know, I'm looking for logic in lunacy, but I can't get past how fundamentally stupid the whole thing is. Some part of me keeps saying "You MUST have misunderstood, no one could be this stupid."

The mind boggles, doesn't it. The evil slave-masters (govt) have created this huge legal edifice designed to enslave us while tricking us into believing we are free and have rights. This is de facto law based on "statutes" and is actually illegitimate. Yet there's this other parallell but hidden de jure legal system based on "common law" that, when invoked, completely nullifies the de facto system and is supposed to bind the evil slave-masters to its rules. This is the true and legitimate law.

It really is like casting a magic spell or something. They even have their own complex chants and rituals that they use to bind the de facto devils.

[Toke]

I still can't get my head around how this is supposed to work. So there's supposedly a conspiracy of NWO/Jews/gnomes/whatever who have created this legal system that only applies if you let it. "They" don't tell people about this, or what the real laws are, so "they" can keep "us" down. Even if this were true, why would "they" admit it when some nerk rocks up with a sheaf of internet printouts and refuses to contract with the court?

I know, I know, I'm looking for logic in lunacy, but I can't get past how fundamentally stupid the whole thing is. Some part of me keeps saying "You MUST have misunderstood, no one could be this stupid."

I have the same problem.
The claim is that there are real/natural/common/whatever laws that are kept secret except for the freemen in the know.
What does not follow is why our "evil overlords" should respect them just because some freeman want them to.

What do you call it when the conclusion does not follow from the premises?


(Actually I did once see an Elvis movie about a squater under a bridge where ancient law (homesteading) worked)

[Sledge]

It really is like casting a magic spell or something. They even have their own complex chants and rituals that they use to bind the de facto devils.
It really is. They're like children trying to recreate a magic trick: they think the magic words and hand gestures are how it works, whilst missing completely the actual mechanism of pulling endless scarves from your sleeve. The difference being that a child can be taught how the trick really works. I remain staggered at the stupidity required to watch the same technique fail again and again, but still proclaim other people are in denial.

[geni]

The mind boggles, doesn't it. The evil slave-masters (govt) have created this huge legal edifice designed to enslave us while tricking us into believing we are free and have rights. This is de facto law based on "statutes" and is actually illegitimate. Yet there's this other parallell but hidden de jure legal system based on "common law" that, when invoked, completely nullifies the de facto system and is supposed to bind the evil slave-masters to its rules. This is the true and legitimate law.

It really is like casting a magic spell or something. They even have their own complex chants and rituals that they use to bind the de facto devils.

There are large areas of law that tend to look indistinguishable from magic. Those strange chants of "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company" and the like and the rituals of the court and the weird clothing.

Even ignoring that, on the suface much of it will appear no stranger than say Ashford v Thornton.

One of the reasons why "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is forever becoming a sicker joke.

[D'rok]

There are large areas of law that tend to look indistinguishable from magic. Those strange chants of "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company" and the like and the rituals of the court and the weird clothing.

Even ignoring that, on the suface much of it will appear no stranger than say Ashford v Thornton.

One of the reasons why "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is forever becoming a sicker joke.

What's magical about Carbolic? Besides the effect it has on 1st year Contract Law students. It was the right decision and is good law.

I'll give you the fancy dress and court rituals. Although, we don't do wigs here in the colonies.

[geni]

What's magical about Carbolic? Besides the effect it has on 1st year Contract Law students.

It was the first english law case to come to mind. The point is that bringing up some random 19th century case has significant elements of ritual and magic. Sure the law students and lawyers will know what is going on behind the scenes as it were but the general public less so.

Heh there is also the minority critism that it has become exactly that with it's heavy use in teaching law has resulted in it becoming ritualised to the point where it is hard to form an objective judgement on it's validity. I doubt there is a practicing english lawyer today who wasn't taught that it was extremely valid.

[Hans]

As I noted before the fotl'ers are like 'natives' who have come to believe they can use 'magic' to make them immune to bullets.

[Aitch]

There are large areas of law that tend to look indistinguishable from magic. Those strange chants of "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company" and the like and the rituals of the court and the weird clothing.


Ooh, that caused a memory twitch - one of the two cases I remember from the short law course I did 30-odd years ago. The other being Rylands v Fletcher.

I may never forgive you! ;)

[akama1]

thx, have bookmarked http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=4289&start=160 in my calendar for the 23rd of April. Lets see if she ends up back in the slammer.

[tobjai]

K, D'rok and cwalner. This is the last time I'll bother. My time is too precious... may you guys become marry and happy slaves of the state.
Corrected username as per rule 0.

You can guarantee, can you?
Call the London Police for confirmation: +1 519-661-5670

Pray tell, what were the documents that were returned - were they driver's license and registration? No. Of course not. They were his worthless FOTL fantasy documents.
You call a notarized affidavit of truth a "worthless fantasy document"? Dude, what are you on? What do you think "propper ID" is?

Goalposts moved. That didn't take long. Your first post here was addressing my request for evidence that FOTL works. You failed spectacularly.
That is the biased claim of someone who under no circumstances would allow "authority" to fail, when it is us humans who form authority, which makes it everything but perfect. Even if the camera would have stayed on till the end. You wouldn't allow it as prove. The answer would have been like: "This cop must have been new" or "he'll probably get a ticket in the mail".

You know it doesn't work, I know it doesn't work, now we all know it doesn't work.
It is only ever the things we push ahead that will work. Us humans constitute our own environment, which is only ever as perfect as the scope of granted individual freedom. Again: Right and wrong cannot be distinguished based on which side has the force of weapons. And the more the force is abused, the more people will stand up for the right (thats a historical fact).

You're asking a sceptic site to agree with you that "god" exists and has revealed to you a list of rights? Or that "nature" is hard-wired with social constructions like rights and ethics? C'mon. You can do better than that.
I'm sorry to have gone over you head. All I said is that there is natura/god-given/call it whatever state of things, that constitutes natural law: That every human is equal and has to mutually respect others the way they are. That no living being is to be hurt (except for survival. BTW, I'm surviving almost 10 years as a vegetarian). Simple reasoning. Or do you claim that you as a human have no capacity for that?

And being "above it all" for FOTLers only means that FOTLers don't want any of the duties or responsiblities of citizenship - they only want the benefits.
How do you figure? Being truly free IS being truly responsible! No (State-defined) duties, and definitely no benefits!

They want to use public resources without contributing to them.
I assume you're pertaining to public roads. Are they not paying taxes on gas? Not to mention the hidden tax of inflation. Show me how that can be avoided. It would be interesting to see.

They want to be free of statutory law, but apply it when it suits them. They are socipathic freeeloaders.
They apply it only to remind "persons" they deal with to abide by it. For example they may use whatever statute grants a fair hearing.

By using the term "freeloader" you have confirmed the feelings of your kind, that I attempted to describe before. You feel that you are working hard and "paying in for them", when in fact they aint getting nothing. Or you feel that "we all need to pay in". Do we? Who are the people to decide that? Are they better in any way than the people who are against this idea?

I sincerely hope you fools manage to grab some land and set up your own society. I will watch with interest as you develop a body of law that restricts some individudal rights for the sake of the common good, at the same time as you continue to call these rights "god-given" and "natural".
Maybe some day you will understand that "the sake of the common good" flourishes best where there is individual freedom, not coercion. Truly free people and self-responsible people recognize that solidarity and love is a necessity of human live. Of course, some will never learn. These people are definitely better of staying where they are, being nannied and taken care of by some supervising state.

...And when you succumb to the need to codify your laws, I will laugh as you create a new generation of malcontents that cry "I do not consent to be bound by your statutes!".
Oh, so you recognize that things are the way they are, but still stand for deceiving codification? Wow.

Be glad you live in a country where minority group rights are written in to the constitution. Not even the USA has that.
You don't need "minority group rights" when you have natural individual rights (which in the case of the US have been constitutionalized).

Be glad you live in a society where everyone has the ability to affect, to some degree or another, the content of the rights that we democratically grant ourselves. You have a voice. Use it.
Do you honestly believe that in a world of party-dictatorship, the left-right-paradigm, backroom deals, and massive lobbyism my voice or anyone elses really matters? Wake up! Look at Ireland who clearly said NO to the Lisbon treaty. Well, lets make them vote again, till we have what we want... meanwhile we bombard them a bit more with propaganda material. Then there's the German government elected by not even 30% of the people who entitled to vote, who gave a **** about their constitution (the "basic law") and simply ratified the Lisbon-decision over their people's heads. This is how "democracy" works.Edited for rule 10.

And when you establish freetopia, what will be the mechanism for establishing consent? How about for the 2nd generation of freepers? The 20th? The 100th? Will there be a mechanism for them to consent when they come of age? What will it look like? Will it look something like a constitutional democracy?
Purely natural right and necessity driven... that simple. What you live is what we teach. The same applies to our "society", or shall I call it ideocracy?

What will they use to enforce contracts?
There can only ever be one thing at stake. And that's the grant of being part of the community. Nobody is forced to stay and those who don't respect natural law or are unsolidary can go and try elsewhere. Mind you, that wouldn't mean they'd have to move.


You object to the rule of law in its entirety. Whether laws are in the form of common law or statutes is irrelevant. society needs the rule of law to function. You make claims to natural law or God's law, but that is a smokescreen. What FOTL is pushing is anarchy and lawlessness.

Learn the difference between lawful and legal. Once you understand it, you will also understand the difference between statutes and actual law.
Actual law isn't man made but is merely based on the natural state of life and the capacity of human reason. Personally I'm not into the common law. Although it does interpret natural law fairly well, it is none the less a man-written version. I repeat: UNALIENABLE RIGHTS (that is un-saleable un-negotiable, and un-modifiable nature given rights!) cannot be defined by man. They are divine and the very opposite of lawlessness. Sorry for taking your conventional reasoning to capacity.

Not all humans but the vast amount of today's "society" needs the rule of law - that I agree with you. This however must not be an eternal state and is only the case, because they have (intentionally) been raised to be un-response-able (irresponsible), conform and fearful.

The following could be from me, but unfortunately isn't:

"
A man's RIGHT to exist for his own sake

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators - the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors - stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won!

Edited for rule 4.

Edited for rule 0, rule 4 and rule 10. Would suggest re-reading the Membership Agreement (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744).

[Sledge]

In much the way one can come to newly appreciate a flavour that was always present, I'm very much enjoying the assertion that rights are "God/nature-given," as if a forest one day wrote down some laws for us all to live by after consulting with the squirrels.

[tobjai]

And maybe a last closing point for those who ridicule natural law:

Go and study some legal philosophy.

Locke, Rawls, Kant, Fichte are a good start for beginners.

[Sledge]

Or maybe these laws were carried across the ocean by a herring, written on paper from sustainably harvested trees.

[uk_dave]

And maybe a last closing point for those who ridicule natural law:

Go and study some legal philosophy.

Locke, Rawls, Kant, Fichte are a good start for beginners.


You mean those 'natural' laws are defined by.....men?
Where'd they get the authority from?

And so on, down the chain......

[D'rok]

And maybe a last closing point for those who ridicule natural law:

Go and study some legal philosophy.

Locke, Rawls, Kant, Fichte are a good start for beginners.

Who has the laughing dog smiley? I've never used it before, but boy do I need it now.

You've just cemented your ignorance into an ironclad monument of stupidity. Congratulations. Citing those thinkers as authority for FOTLism could not be any clearer proof that you have either never actually read them, or you have utterly failed to grasp their ideas.

Take it away, Jamie!

E5IQnQhzMSI


ETA: Found it!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/139414bc44bcb1818c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19700)

[tobjai]

You mean those 'natural' laws are defined by.....men?

No, all they do is prove the existence of natural law.

[D'rok]

K, D'rok and cwalner. This is the last time I'll bother. My time is too precious... may you guys become marry and happy slaves of the state.


Call the London Police for confirmation: +1 519-661-5670


You call a notarized affidavit of truth a "worthless fantasy document"? Dude, what are you on? What do you think "propper ID" is?


That is the biased claim of someone who under no circumstances would allow "authority" to fail, when it is us humans who form authority, which makes it everything but perfect. Even if the camera would have stayed on till the end. You wouldn't allow it as prove. The answer would have been like: "This cop must have been new" or "he'll probably get a ticket in the mail".


It is only ever the things we push ahead that will work. Us humans constitute our own environment, which is only ever as perfect as the scope of granted individual freedom. Again: Right and wrong cannot be distinguished based on which side has the force of weapons. And the more the force is abused, the more people will stand up for the right (thats a historical fact).


I'm sorry to have gone over you head. All I said is that there is natura/god-given/call it whatever state of things, that constitutes natural law: That every human is equal and has to mutually respect others the way they are. That no living being is to be hurt (except for survival. BTW, I'm surviving almost 10 years as a vegetarian). Simple reasoning. Or do you claim that you as a human have no capacity for that?


How do you figure? Being truly free IS being truly responsible! No (State-defined) duties, and definitely no benefits!


I assume you're pertaining to public roads. Are they not paying taxes on gas? Not to mention the hidden tax of inflation. Show me how that can be avoided. It would be interesting to see.


They apply it only to remind "persons" they deal with to abide by it. For example they may use whatever statute grants a fair hearing.

By using the term "freeloader" you have confirmed the feelings of your kind, that I attempted to describe before. You feel that you are working hard and "paying in for them", when in fact they aint getting nothing. Or you feel that "we all need to pay in". Do we? Who are the people to decide that? Are they better in any way than the people who are against this idea?


Maybe some day you will understand that "the sake of the common good" flourishes best where there is individual freedom, not coercion. Truly free people and self-responsible people recognize that solidarity and love is a necessity of human live. Of course, some will never learn. These people are definitely better of staying where they are, being nannied and taken care of by some supervising state.


Oh, so you recognize that things are the way they are, but still stand for deceiving codification? Wow.


You don't need "minority group rights" when you have natural individual rights (which in the case of the US have been constitutionalized).


Do you honestly believe that in a world of party-dictatorship, the left-right-paradigm, backroom deals, and massive lobbyism my voice or anyone elses really matters? Wake up! Look at Ireland who clearly said NO to the Lisbon treaty. Well, lets make them vote again, till we have what we want... meanwhile we bombard them a bit more with propaganda material. Then there's the German government elected by not even 30% of the people who entitled to vote, who gave a **** about their constitution (the "basic law") and simply ratified the Lisbon-decision over their people's heads. This is how "democracy" works.


Purely natural right and necessity driven... that simple. What you live is what we teach. The same applies to our "society", or shall I call it ideocracy?


There can only ever be one thing at stake. And that's the grant of being part of the community. Nobody is forced to stay and those who don't respect natural law or are unsolidary can go and try elsewhere. Mind you, that wouldn't mean they'd have to move.



Learn the difference between lawful and legal. Once you understand it, you will also understand the difference between statutes and actual law.
Actual law isn't man made but is merely based on the natural state of life and the capacity of human reason. Personally I'm not into the common law. Although it does interpret natural law fairly well, it is none the less a man-written version. I repeat: UNALIENABLE RIGHTS (that is un-saleable un-negotiable, and un-modifiable nature given rights!) cannot be defined by man. They are divine and the very opposite of lawlessness. Sorry for taking your conventional reasoning to capacity.

Not all humans but the vast amount of today's "society" needs the rule of law - that I agree with you. This however must not be an eternal state and is only the case, because they have (intentionally) been raised to be un-response-able (irresponsible), conform and fearful.

The following could be from me, but unfortunately isn't:

"
A man's RIGHT to exist for his own sake

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators - the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors - stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won!


It is an ancient conflict. It has another name: "The individual against the collective." "
Removed moderated content

Ayn Rand! Oh that's so precious. You are a gem.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/139414bc44bcb1818c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19700)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/139414bc44bcb1818c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19700)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/139414bc44bcb1818c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19700)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/139414bc44bcb1818c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19700)[q

[D'rok]

Or maybe these laws were carried across the ocean by a herring, written on paper from sustainably harvested trees.Sounds plausible. Can I buy your DVD?

[Sledge]

I was going to make a DVD, but the production company kept trying to contract with me.

[cwalner]

K, D'rok and cwalner. This is the last time I'll bother. My time is too precious... may you guys become marry and happy slaves of the state.
< edited to remove the inanity >


Well, you have me there. Even if I wanted to excersice my natural law rights to marry D'rok, I can't because in the USA there are statutes prohibiting that. But he lives in Canada, so I can just move there and it would be both legal and lawful.

Hmm maybe there is something to this Freeman thing?

[D'rok]

Fabulous Men on The Land: A Love Story.

[cwalner]

Fabulous Men on The Land: A Love Story.

Brokeback Mountain, eh?

[Darat]

Brokeback Mountain, eh?

More like Brokencontract Mountain.

[D'rok]

Brokeback Mountain, eh?

Love is a force of nature. (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/36/104966450_35d4a0af6a.jpg) No statute can tame it!

[tobjai]

Well, you have me there. Even if I wanted to excersice my natural law rights to marry D'rok, I can't because in the USA there are statutes prohibiting that. But he lives in Canada, so I can just move there and it would be both legal and lawful.

Hmm maybe there is something to this Freeman thing?

excuse the spelling error. "merry" of course.

[remirol]

The problem is this: Governments do exist and they do have the power to send you to jail. The unforunate followers of FOTL woo believe that they have found loopholes that allow them to live under the moral authority of god (or whatever source they DO feel has authority), and not have to answer to the government. Fantastic.

So, when those that have been drawn into this theory end up in prison because the loopholes they believe in do not exist, to what authority do they appeal? If you are wrongly imprisoned by the government for violating a statute you feel does not apply, what do you do? Who do you call with your one phone call that is going to make things right?


I still can't get my head around how this is supposed to work. So there's supposedly a conspiracy of NWO/Jews/gnomes/whatever who have created this legal system that only applies if you let it. "They" don't tell people about this, or what the real laws are, so "they" can keep "us" down. Even if this were true, why would "they" admit it when some nerk rocks up with a sheaf of internet printouts and refuses to contract with the court?


excuse the spelling error. "merry" of course.

You appear to have ignored both these posts, tobjai. Could you respond to one or both of them, please?

Talking philosophy is all well and good, but there's this little matter of actually making it happen. And every time an FOTLer tries to make it work, they seem to end up in jail or having their car crushed or getting evicted and that sort of thing. So, in practice, it seems that FOTL philosophy is a load of dogs' bollocks. But you have an excellent opportunity to demonstrate otherwise by responding to one or the other post above and explaining how this can actually work.

[neocenturion]

And maybe a last closing point for those who ridicule natural law:

Go and study some legal philosophy.

Locke, Rawls, Kant, Fichte are a good start for beginners.

Don't you see the problem with this statement? There is absolutely nothing wrong with studying legal philosophy, but the forums that are frequented by FOTL'ers are preaching more than philosophy. They are preaching system of evading the legal system we have established in this country and others.

Legal philosophy is fantastic. I don't even disagree with a good deal of what you said about where moral authority originates. I have my own opinions that differ, but I can't say that yours are incorrect.

What IS incorrect, is the legal practices that the FOTL forums - particularly the Icke forums - advise people to follow. If you want to stand up for your philosophy and debate it on merits on some internet forums, that is fantastic. But as soon as the FOTL'ers start throwing out plainly false theories (fringe on a flag means admiralty court, refusing to contract with the court gets you off the hook, etc.), I then have a problem with you.

Perhaps you do not provide the advice that some on those forums do. If that is the case, fantastic, don't start. If you do, then you have no right to come on these forums and try to claim moral superiority.

What is being discussed on this forum is not legal philosophy. We are not debating where moral authority comes from and who has the right to enforce laws upon humanity. What we are debating are the lunatic theories on the legal system that DOES exist (as opposed to the one the FOTL'ers WISHED existed), and how blatantly false they are.

[Horatius]

FOTL: Libertarianism's unemployed brother-in-law.


It's like they've heard everything about how libertarians want the world to be, but have somehow concluded that is how it really is.

[tobjai]

Guys. I dont have time for this. I should really just not come back, cos' every time I do, I feel compelled to say something.


You appear to have ignored both these posts, tobjai. Could you respond to one or both of them, please?

So, when those that have been drawn into this theory end up in prison because the loopholes they believe in do not exist, to what authority do they appeal? If you are wrongly imprisoned by the government for violating a statute you feel does not apply, what do you do? Who do you call with your one phone call that is going to make things right?
Hold on! Appealing equals begging. The FOTL-folks don't beg to anyone as they are their own authority. Like I said before, the use of force doesn't make things right. And if it takes the ultimate sacrifice, some FOTL say "so be it". I take my hat off to those people, as I'm not sure if I could go all the way. It is all about doing what feels right though - cos' when it truly feels right, it usually is.


Even if this were true, why would "they" admit it when some nerk rocks up with a sheaf of internet printouts and refuses to contract with the court?

"They" don't because they can't, If they did they'd destroy their own house of cards. They simply either drop the case or walk away like they did at the filmed occasion you can find, when you go to vimeo dot com and then type /10211543 behind the URL.

[tsig]

Can't see as that can be true. They visit Cloud Cuckoo Land all the time,...

Actually they live there and have to be extradited to reality.

[tsig]

Exactly. Not only that, but the peddlers of "advice" at the top of the pyramid are selling it for profit to the unfortunates at the bottom who end up in jail. Despicable.

Consider it evolution in action.

[cwalner]

More like Brokencontract Mountain.

Brokencontract Mountain, Eh.

We are talking about Canada here.

[tsig]

K, D'rok and cwalner. This is the last time I'll bother. My time is too precious... may you guys become marry and happy slaves of the state.
Corrected username as per rule 0.


Call the London Police for confirmation: +1 519-661-5670


You call a notarized affidavit of truth a "worthless fantasy document"? Dude, what are you on? What do you think "propper ID" is?


That is the biased claim of someone who under no circumstances would allow "authority" to fail, when it is us humans who form authority, which makes it everything but perfect. Even if the camera would have stayed on till the end. You wouldn't allow it as prove. The answer would have been like: "This cop must have been new" or "he'll probably get a ticket in the mail".


It is only ever the things we push ahead that will work. Us humans constitute our own environment, which is only ever as perfect as the scope of granted individual freedom. Again: Right and wrong cannot be distinguished based on which side has the force of weapons. And the more the force is abused, the more people will stand up for the right (thats a historical fact).


I'm sorry to have gone over you head. All I said is that there is natura/god-given/call it whatever state of things, that constitutes natural law: That every human is equal and has to mutually respect others the way they are. That no living being is to be hurt (except for survival. BTW, I'm surviving almost 10 years as a vegetarian). Simple reasoning. Or do you claim that you as a human have no capacity for that?


How do you figure? Being truly free IS being truly responsible! No (State-defined) duties, and definitely no benefits!


I assume you're pertaining to public roads. Are they not paying taxes on gas? Not to mention the hidden tax of inflation. Show me how that can be avoided. It would be interesting to see.


They apply it only to remind "persons" they deal with to abide by it. For example they may use whatever statute grants a fair hearing.

By using the term "freeloader" you have confirmed the feelings of your kind, that I attempted to describe before. You feel that you are working hard and "paying in for them", when in fact they aint getting nothing. Or you feel that "we all need to pay in". Do we? Who are the people to decide that? Are they better in any way than the people who are against this idea?


Maybe some day you will understand that "the sake of the common good" flourishes best where there is individual freedom, not coercion. Truly free people and self-responsible people recognize that solidarity and love is a necessity of human live. Of course, some will never learn. These people are definitely better of staying where they are, being nannied and taken care of by some supervising state.


Oh, so you recognize that things are the way they are, but still stand for deceiving codification? Wow.


You don't need "minority group rights" when you have natural individual rights (which in the case of the US have been constitutionalized).


Do you honestly believe that in a world of party-dictatorship, the left-right-paradigm, backroom deals, and massive lobbyism my voice or anyone elses really matters? Wake up! Look at Ireland who clearly said NO to the Lisbon treaty. Well, lets make them vote again, till we have what we want... meanwhile we bombard them a bit more with propaganda material. Then there's the German government elected by not even 30% of the people who entitled to vote, who gave a **** about their constitution (the "basic law") and simply ratified the Lisbon-decision over their people's heads. This is how "democracy" works.Edited for rule 10.


Purely natural right and necessity driven... that simple. What you live is what we teach. The same applies to our "society", or shall I call it ideocracy?


There can only ever be one thing at stake. And that's the grant of being part of the community. Nobody is forced to stay and those who don't respect natural law or are unsolidary can go and try elsewhere. Mind you, that wouldn't mean they'd have to move.



Learn the difference between lawful and legal. Once you understand it, you will also understand the difference between statutes and actual law.
Actual law isn't man made but is merely based on the natural state of life and the capacity of human reason. Personally I'm not into the common law. Although it does interpret natural law fairly well, it is none the less a man-written version. I repeat: UNALIENABLE RIGHTS (that is un-saleable un-negotiable, and un-modifiable nature given rights!) cannot be defined by man. They are divine and the very opposite of lawlessness. Sorry for taking your conventional reasoning to capacity.

Not all humans but the vast amount of today's "society" needs the rule of law - that I agree with you. This however must not be an eternal state and is only the case, because they have (intentionally) been raised to be un-response-able (irresponsible), conform and fearful.

The following could be from me, but unfortunately isn't:

"
A man's RIGHT to exist for his own sake

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators - the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors - stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won!

Edited for rule 4.

Edited for rule 0, rule 4 and rule 10. Would suggest re-reading the Membership Agreement (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744).

Guess atheists aren't welcome in FOTL society then.

[tsig]

And maybe a last closing point for those who ridicule natural law:

Go and study some legal philosophy.

Locke, Rawls, Kant, Fichte are a good start for beginners.

You missed Blackstone.

[Paul]

It is all about doing what feels right though - cos' when it truly feels right, it usually is.Congratulations, you've managed to add something truly stupid to the vast store of FOTL idiocy.

[remirol]

Guys. I dont have time for this. I should really just not come back, cos' every time I do, I feel compelled to say something.

Well, that's the problem, see. You're spending too much time saying, and not enough time thinking.

The FOTL-folks don't beg to anyone as they are their own authority. Like I said before, the use of force doesn't make things right.But it does make things happen. For example, it makes FOTLers go to jail, have their cars crushed, and get evicted. So why should anyone follow such a bunch of bollocks? I mean, seriously.

And if it takes the ultimate sacrifice, some FOTL say "so be it". I take my hat off to those people, as I'm not sure if I could go all the way.Self-sacrificing behavior is only productive if it helps accomplish something. What are all those FOTLers in jail accomplishing other than wrecking their own lives?

"They" don't because they can't, If they did they'd destroy their own house of cards.Except it is patently obvious that "they" do just that, judging from all the FOTLers who end up in jail, with their cars crushed, etc. So since all the FOTL magic words obviously do not work, what is the FOTL recourse? Who do they call?

They simply either drop the case or walk away like they did at the filmed occasion you can find, when you go to vimeo dot com and then type /10211543 behind the URL.

ETA: ...When you watched that video, did you listen to the narrator's words or did you listen to what was actually being said in the courtroom? Because what the narrator claims is happening has no relation to what's actually happening in the video. :)

[D'rok]

Don't you see the problem with this statement? There is absolutely nothing wrong with studying legal philosophy, but the forums that are frequented by FOTL'ers are preaching more than philosophy. They are preaching system of evading the legal system we have established in this country and others.

Legal philosophy is fantastic. I don't even disagree with a good deal of what you said about where moral authority originates. I have my own opinions that differ, but I can't say that yours are incorrect.

What IS incorrect, is the legal practices that the FOTL forums - particularly the Icke forums - advise people to follow. If you want to stand up for your philosophy and debate it on merits on some internet forums, that is fantastic. But as soon as the FOTL'ers start throwing out plainly false theories (fringe on a flag means admiralty court, refusing to contract with the court gets you off the hook, etc.), I then have a problem with you.

Perhaps you do not provide the advice that some on those forums do. If that is the case, fantastic, don't start. If you do, then you have no right to come on these forums and try to claim moral superiority.

What is being discussed on this forum is not legal philosophy. We are not debating where moral authority comes from and who has the right to enforce laws upon humanity. What we are debating are the lunatic theories on the legal system that DOES exist (as opposed to the one the FOTL'ers WISHED existed), and how blatantly false they are.
Words of wisdom from neocenturion.

[uk_dave]

So, in practice, it seems that FOTL philosophy is a load of dogs' bollocks.

Just as a matter of interest, when something is said to be "the dogs bollocks" (for some strange reason) it is considered to be a good thing/the best/fantastic, whereas if something is said to be "bollocks" then it's crap.

Apparently these definitions are enshrined in natural law, or something.

[Cuddles]

That no living being is to be hurt (except for survival. BTW, I'm surviving almost 10 years as a vegetarian).

Murderer. Plants are exactly as alive as animals.

[remirol]

Just as a matter of interest, when something is said to be "the dogs bollocks" (for some strange reason) it is considered to be a good thing/the best/fantastic, whereas if something is said to be "bollocks" then it's crap.

Apparently these definitions are enshrined in natural law, or something.

I find your country disturbing. :eye-poppi

[uk_dave]

I find your country disturbing. :eye-poppi

Well, it's not so far off from where you guys say:
"It's the ****"

or

"That was sick" (for something good)

But yes, my country is disturbing. The neighbours, mostly.

[D'rok]

It is all about doing what feels right though - cos' when it truly feels right, it usually is.

Hey, Callicles. You like philosophy, right? You like arguments about "nature" and "natural" this and that, yes? Well I say you, Ayn Rand and "feels good man" FOTLers everywhere emulate the stone curlew, crapping where you eat, and your pleasure is that of a catamite. Go look it up.

Now, if you dropped the FOTL crap and just wanted to riff on philosophy, we might have some common ground here.

[LightinDarkness]

And maybe a last closing point for those who ridicule natural law:

Go and study some legal philosophy.

Locke, Rawls, Kant, Fichte are a good start for beginners.

I really wouldn't recommend a reading list from philosophers whom you clearly have not read.

And - closing point? That doesn't mean your going away, does it? Why is it so hard to get one of these Freeman to show us their proof?

Oh, because there isn't any.

[Hans]

I really wouldn't recommend a reading list from philosophers whom you clearly have not read.

And - closing point? That doesn't mean your going away, does it? Why is it so hard to get one of these Freeman to show us their proof?

Oh, because there isn't any.

I would suggest the fotl'er study hebetube and they may also wish to look at the Qarmatians who ran a society that had a few of the 'fotl' concepts (kinda) in its structure.