The Freeman Movement and England

[Especially]

My first major thread here. Greetings from London, 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 our government (so-called) are a bunch of hypocrites, paid stooges of the globalist 'New World Order' and that our national sovereignty is only a few months away from being surrendered to the European Union. The television and printed media here is completely controlled and the state of law and order is not good.

The reason I'm posting is to introduce you to the Freeman movement here.

What do I mean by 'Freeman' movement ? I mean, simply, that things are not what they seem in this country. Our Parliament is little more than a theatre. Political parties are elected by the people and the political system is headed up by a dynasty of elites, the Monarchy. 'What's new ?' you might ask ? Well, the political candidates are all elected by the people. But on Day 1 of sitting in the Parliament they must swear an oath. To who ? To the Monarchy. Now, notice this closely. They do NOT swear an oath to the nation, or to the people who elected them. No, they swear an oath to the 'head of state'. To the elite dynasty of the Windsors. The same unelected 'head of state' who has agreed that England should become part of the EU empire.

Now, that's illegal. It's illegal (according to the Constitution of England) to negotiate with any foreign power on our own national sovereignty. That's point number 1.

Point Number 2 is even worse. The 'laws' made by the British Parliament in Westminster are NOT laws. They are Acts of Parliament. Statutes. And this is very important. These 'Acts of Parliament' are NOT the Law. They are in fact Statutes. They require your CONSENT before they are valid against you. In fact, the Law of this nation is the Common Law of England and politicians here do NOT make the laws. Our laws (as said) are the Common Law of England, and they always have been throughout our long history).

But the public here hardly know what real law is. They believe all the stuff coming out of Parliament is Law. More and more 'laws' are being passed which make people confused about what the law really is. This ignorance is also found in the police. Who hardly know the difference between these Statutes of Parliament and the Laws. And we have more and more people now who are confused.

Traffic police here genuinely believe they have the power to arrest people if they do not give their name and address on request. But that 'law' is only a Statute. It is contrary to the actual Law.

Large tax bills are routinely sent out by local government offices for public services. But these too are not supported by the laws of England. They too are only Statutes. Once again, the people believe these bills are 'laws of England'. In fact, they are not valid unless we accept them. Unless we consent to them.

All politicians in England are now hypocrites. And a shadow government now rules over much of the UK. The 'New World Order' is not a conspiracy theory but a plain fact. Supported by the puppets now in Westminster's parliament.

In a few months from now the EU will take over the government of this nation. And this was done without giving the people of England a vote on European integration ! Imagine that ! Imagine the USA joining in a union with, say, Canada when the people do not get to vote about it ! But its already happened here.

It is now not acceptable to fly the national flag of England here. The police here can and do ask you to remove it.

There are, today, 9 regional government offices of the EU in England. England, as a nation, does not exist. It's shortly to become only a region of the European Union.

There is great concern here in the UK at all of the evils which are done in the name of our government and people are at last fighting back. They are refusing to pay tax bills for services which they do not negotiate. They are switching off the state media channels and are not voting for these hypocrite political parties in Westminster. They are taking back control of their own lives. Because we know the elite families and the elitist bankers are all hypocrites.

In the USA the banker bailouts were very unpopular. Same here in England.

The Freeman movement are not anarchists. We are people who rely on the real law of England. English Common Law. Not on commercial statutes produced by the Westminster elites in Parliament. Our policemen have become like revenue collecting officers. They should be defending the Common Law. That was their duty. But this has all changed. Our police today are corporate agents to fine you, to bill you, to collect bucks for their employers.

And more and more people in England consider themselves to be free of the system of Parliament. We don't believe in political parties. We don't believe in the EU, or the promises of politicians. We don't believe in the bankers or the globalist movement. And we are no more fooled by the 'laws' coming out of Parliament which are, as already said, only 'statutes' and which require the consent of the governed to be binding on us.

The commercial law has infiltrated and taken over good government and we are fighting back in the best possible way. By appealing in our courts to the Common Law of England. The real England.

Regards

[drkitten]

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

There are a number of things you might care to know about the UK these days.

There are lots of things I might care to know about the UK these days. Unfortunately, none of them are contained in your posting, because not a single sentence of your post was actually true.

We've got a special "conspiracy theory" forum for this sort of thing, and the "Freemen" movement has been discussed to death in that forum. It (the "Freemen" movement) is total drivel from start to finish.

I have asked the mods to move this to the appropriate spot.

[WildCat]

My first major thread here. Greetings from London, 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 our government (so-called) are a bunch of hypocrites, paid stooges of the globalist 'New World Order' and that our national sovereignty is only a few months away from being surrendered to the European Union.
Do tell more about this New World Order, I never heard of it before.

[Architect]

Welcome. However, I have to warn you that this is a sceptic site and hence you will be expected to defend your claims in depth. Especially as there are a lot of us from the UK here.

Incidentally, you to have some difficulty in understanding the difference between ""England" and the "UK", which is peculiar for a British resident.

[geni]

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

Please. No one who was really from london would call it that.


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 our government (so-called) are a bunch of hypocrites,

And this a problem why?


paid stooges of the globalist 'New World Order' and that our


Feel free to show the existance of such payments.


national sovereignty is only a few months away from being surrendered to the European Union. The television and printed media here is completely controlled

Not consistent with the number of attacks the papers launch on the goverment and the EU.


and the state of law and order is not good.


Better than they have been in centuries.


The reason I'm posting is to introduce you to the Freeman movement here.


Yeah this is the JREF forum we kinda already know about that bunk.


What do I mean by 'Freeman' movement ? I mean, simply, that things are not what they seem in this country. Our Parliament is little more than a theatre. Political parties are elected by the people and the political system is headed up by a dynasty of elites, the Monarchy. 'What's new ?' you might ask ? Well, the political candidates are all elected by the people. But on Day 1 of sitting in the Parliament they must swear an oath. To who ? To the Monarchy. Now, notice this closely. They do NOT swear an oath to the nation, or to the people who elected them. No, they swear an oath to the 'head of state'. To the elite dynasty of the Windsors.

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha perhaps.


The same unelected 'head of state' who has agreed that England should become part of the EU empire.

1)The EU is not an empire
2)There is no evidence that the royal family particularly support the EU


Now, that's illegal. It's illegal (according to the Constitution of England) to negotiate with any foreign power on our own national sovereignty. That's point number 1.

England doesn't have a Constitution and hasn't existed as a sovereign nation either since about 1543 or 1707 depening on how you measure these things.


Point Number 2 is even worse. The 'laws' made by the British Parliament in Westminster are NOT laws. They are Acts of Parliament. Statutes. And this is very important. These 'Acts of Parliament' are NOT the Law. They are in fact Statutes. They require your CONSENT before they are valid against you.


Nope. Constitionaly within both england and the UK parliment is absolute. It can order your exicution without your consent/


In fact, the Law of this nation is the Common Law of England and politicians here do NOT make the laws. Our laws (as said) are the Common Law of England, and they always have been throughout our long history).


Um no. Common law does not predate 1066 and for the most part formed somewhat latter than that.


But the public here hardly know what real law is. They believe all the stuff coming out of Parliament is Law. More and more 'laws' are being passed which make people confused about what the law really is. This ignorance is also found in the police. Who hardly know the difference between these Statutes of Parliament and the Laws. And we have more and more people now who are confused.

Statutory law is constituionaly valid within the UK


Traffic police here genuinely believe they have the power to arrest people if they do not give their name and address on request. But that 'law' is only a Statute. It is contrary to the actual Law.

Actualy common law is very much about standing behind your actions. The police would have every right to know who you are and challange you to trial by combat (amoung other options since they represent the state trial by ordeal would also be an option) if they felt your actions to be unlawful.


Large tax bills are routinely sent out by local government offices for public services. But these too are not supported by the laws of England. They too are only Statutes. Once again, the people believe these bills are 'laws of England'. In fact, they are not valid unless we accept them. Unless we consent to them.

Laws of england and wales. No consent is required.


All politicians in England are now hypocrites.


How is Lembit Opik a hypocrite? I don't think he has ever pretended not to be interested in atractive women.


In a few months from now the EU will take over the government of this nation. And this was done without giving the people of England a vote on European integration

Referendums have no precedent under common law.


! Imagine that ! Imagine the USA joining in a union with, say, Canada when the people do not get to vote about it ! But its already happened here.


I seem to recall the US settled the issue through a civil war the last time it came up.

It is now not acceptable to fly the national flag of England here.

There is no national flag of England.


The Freeman movement are not anarchists. We are people who rely on the real law of England. English Common Law.

The low attence at fencing and quaterstaff classes is not consistent with this.


Not on commercial statutes produced by the Westminster elites in Parliament. Our policemen have become like revenue collecting officers. They should be defending the Common Law.

That doesn't even make sense. The closest historic common law comes to police would be coroners and their job is to keep the peace of the crown.


And more and more people in England consider themselves to be free of the system of Parliament.

So you answer dirrectly to the crown? Law by Royal Decree still exists in some countries but would seem an odd position for someone in the UK to take


We don't believe in political parties.


There is a fair amount of evidence that they exist.


We don't believe in the EU, or the promises of politicians. We don't believe in the bankers or the globalist movement.

Oh I see. Common law banking. You want jews to do all the banking. Well I suppose if we shipped most of isreal into the city of london it might solve some middle east issues.


And we are no more fooled by the 'laws' coming out of Parliament which are, as already said, only 'statutes' and which require the consent of the governed to be binding on us.

Statue law in adition to law by royal decree is confirmed as acceptable under common law by multiple court ruleings.

[dudalb]

My first major thread here. Greetings from London, 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 our government (so-called) are a bunch of hypocrites, paid stooges of the globalist 'New World Order' and that our national sovereignty is only a few months away from being surrendered to the European Union. The television and printed media here is completely controlled and the state of law and order is not good.

The reason I'm posting is to introduce you to the Freeman movement here.

What do I mean by 'Freeman' movement ? I mean, simply, that things are not what they seem in this country. Our Parliament is little more than a theatre. Political parties are elected by the people and the political system is headed up by a dynasty of elites, the Monarchy. 'What's new ?' you might ask ? Well, the political candidates are all elected by the people. But on Day 1 of sitting in the Parliament they must swear an oath. To who ? To the Monarchy. Now, notice this closely. They do NOT swear an oath to the nation, or to the people who elected them. No, they swear an oath to the 'head of state'. To the elite dynasty of the Windsors. The same unelected 'head of state' who has agreed that England should become part of the EU empire.

Now, that's illegal. It's illegal (according to the Constitution of England) to negotiate with any foreign power on our own national sovereignty. That's point number 1.

Point Number 2 is even worse. The 'laws' made by the British Parliament in Westminster are NOT laws. They are Acts of Parliament. Statutes. And this is very important. These 'Acts of Parliament' are NOT the Law. They are in fact Statutes. They require your CONSENT before they are valid against you. In fact, the Law of this nation is the Common Law of England and politicians here do NOT make the laws. Our laws (as said) are the Common Law of England, and they always have been throughout our long history).

But the public here hardly know what real law is. They believe all the stuff coming out of Parliament is Law. More and more 'laws' are being passed which make people confused about what the law really is. This ignorance is also found in the police. Who hardly know the difference between these Statutes of Parliament and the Laws. And we have more and more people now who are confused.

Traffic police here genuinely believe they have the power to arrest people if they do not give their name and address on request. But that 'law' is only a Statute. It is contrary to the actual Law.

Large tax bills are routinely sent out by local government offices for public services. But these too are not supported by the laws of England. They too are only Statutes. Once again, the people believe these bills are 'laws of England'. In fact, they are not valid unless we accept them. Unless we consent to them.

All politicians in England are now hypocrites. And a shadow government now rules over much of the UK. The 'New World Order' is not a conspiracy theory but a plain fact. Supported by the puppets now in Westminster's parliament.

In a few months from now the EU will take over the government of this nation. And this was done without giving the people of England a vote on European integration ! Imagine that ! Imagine the USA joining in a union with, say, Canada when the people do not get to vote about it ! But its already happened here.

It is now not acceptable to fly the national flag of England here. The police here can and do ask you to remove it.

There are, today, 9 regional government offices of the EU in England. England, as a nation, does not exist. It's shortly to become only a region of the European Union.

There is great concern here in the UK at all of the evils which are done in the name of our government and people are at last fighting back. They are refusing to pay tax bills for services which they do not negotiate. They are switching off the state media channels and are not voting for these hypocrite political parties in Westminster. They are taking back control of their own lives. Because we know the elite families and the elitist bankers are all hypocrites.

In the USA the banker bailouts were very unpopular. Same here in England.

The Freeman movement are not anarchists. We are people who rely on the real law of England. English Common Law. Not on commercial statutes produced by the Westminster elites in Parliament. Our policemen have become like revenue collecting officers. They should be defending the Common Law. That was their duty. But this has all changed. Our police today are corporate agents to fine you, to bill you, to collect bucks for their employers.

And more and more people in England consider themselves to be free of the system of Parliament. We don't believe in political parties. We don't believe in the EU, or the promises of politicians. We don't believe in the bankers or the globalist movement. And we are no more fooled by the 'laws' coming out of Parliament which are, as already said, only 'statutes' and which require the consent of the governed to be binding on us.

The commercial law has infiltrated and taken over good government and we are fighting back in the best possible way. By appealing in our courts to the Common Law of England. The real England.

Regards

Nice to know that the US is not the only country with "Freeman" wackjobs.

[Kay]

Do tell more about this New World Order, I never heard of it before.

Do not deny your existence, member #457384. We are always watching you.

[Donal]

I'm wondering if this is just an American Freeman trying to rile up some European support, or make a ham fisted attempt at drawing a parallel.

[Suddenly]

Nice to know that the US is not the only country with "Freeman" wackjobs.

My thought exactly. This post has made me feel better about America for some reason.



I am perturbed at his selection of an adverb for a screen name though.

[uk_dave]

I am perturbed at his selection of an adverb for a screen name though.

I suspect that the 'E' is the most relevant part. ;)

[geni]

Nice to know that the US is not the only country with "Freeman" wackjobs.

Indeed but in this case the US import has serious problems. There's no obvious clean break from where you can claim laws and the executive used to be legit but are not any more.

The magna carter would appear to be the cloest but it isn't the first time english kings agreed to restrictions on their action and in any case trying to argue that all post manga carter law is not legit is problematical.

1707 act of union much be another option but would hit the issue that by 1706 things that at least looked like modern courts and statue law certianly existed.

1066 sort of works but hits issues with being urealistic.

The other problem is that you can't really seperate the law from the executive in the UK. The queen is constitionaly the Fount of Justice a role held by the monarch since at least the middle of the 13th century.

There is also the issue that what passes for the constitution in the UK and historicaly england is so messy that there is almost no short statement about it that can be made that cannot be shown to be false.

[dudalb]

BTW In answer to one of Espicially more "interesting" points, hasn't taking an Oath to the Monarch been a requirement for taking a seat in Parliament since the Middle Ages in England?????? Why is it so sinister now?

[LightinDarkness]

My goodness, it looks like the FOTL woo movement is going to be the next big thing in woo with all the attention its gotten on this board. I guess the attraction to Freeman delusions makes sense - in tough economic times, people need someone to scapegoat and FOTL woo offers very good targets. It also provides a sense of empowerment - that with just the utterance of a few magical legal woo words, that the court system and government will bow down to YOUR demands.

It makes people believe they have a part in the imagined role of "the elite" versus the freeman followers. In reality no such "elite" exists, at least not in any organized fashion. The truth is those with power and money could care less about freeman wooists or anyone else, and they certainly don't coordinate to keep you down.

The main woo argument from those suffering from the Freeman delusion is this whole "common law vs. statute" thing. It doesn't exist in reality. There is no sort of artificial barrier between the two. Both are used in the UK (and US) legal systems, and both are equally valid.

[Agatha]

Dear oh dear. Come back when you have learned about the "constitution of England" to which you refer. You know, the one which doesn't exist.

Oh, and do please show evidence of police preventing St George flags being flown. Will they be the ones flown on cars on the rare occasions England is doing well at football, rugby or cricket? Or the ones flown on civic buildings throughout England? Or the ones pinned up in house and shop windows? Have they been forcibly removed by police?

[patchbunny]

My goodness, it looks like the FOTL woo movement is going to be the next big thing in woo with all the attention its gotten on this board. I guess the attraction to Freeman delusions makes sense - in tough economic times, people need someone to scapegoat and FOTL woo offers very good targets.

I simply feel the need to pop in here and point out every single time I see the phrase "FOTL woo" my mind interprets it as "faster than light woo", and for a brief instant I wonder why they're bringing cosmology into a discussion of government.

Anyway, back to the show.

:popcorn1

[Nosi]

Just a quick note:

The Daily Mail is a fun bit to read. However, they fudge the news, leaving some truths out, and alter others, and um, they have been known to fib here and there. Then again, what do you expect from a magazine that has Katie Price/Jordan's balloons taking up half the page?

Before you swallow any tidbit you get out of the DM, I do recommend you hit Google and search at least two other sources for your tidbit.

e BBC is known to be a better source for less 'groomed' news. It is a blander bit of reading I admit, most true sources of journalism are.

[Aoidoi]

Dr. Gordon Freeman?

[uk_dave]

Dr. Gordon Freeman?

Follow him.

[drkitten]

I must admit I'd love to see this little titbit unpacked.


Now, that's illegal. It's illegal (according to the Constitution of England) to negotiate with any foreign power on our own national sovereignty. That's point number 1.

That's a very firm statement. Perhaps one of the Brits on this forum -- perhaps even Especially himself -- could provide me with a copy of the text of the Constitution of England so I could verify it for myself? Ideally, they could tell me which particular sentence or clause in this document makes this action illegal.

ETA: Of course, that's a lot of work. But I'm willing to play fairly. If he gives me that, I'll send him a recording of Beethoven's thirteenth symphony. [You know, the one that goes "Dum dum dumb dumb DUMB (dumb dumb)"....]

[Professor Yaffle]

Dr. Gordon Freeman?

Nah, Freeman's catalogue.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I did not see a smiley on the OP. Here. Let me add one.

:crazy:

[dudalb]

Dr. Gordon Freeman?

Anti Citizen #1.

[Papermache]

Oh, yeah --

"Welcome to JREF"

[JHGRedekop]

Point Number 2 is even worse. The 'laws' made by the British Parliament in Westminster are NOT laws. They are Acts of Parliament. Statutes. And this is very important. These 'Acts of Parliament' are NOT the Law. They are in fact Statutes. They require your CONSENT before they are valid against you. In fact, the Law of this nation is the Common Law of England and politicians here do NOT make the laws. Our laws (as said) are the Common Law of England, and they always have been throughout our long history).

And if there's a fringe on the flag, it's an Admiralty court, so you don't have to pay taxes!

[fromdownunder]

Traffic police here genuinely believe they have the power to arrest people if they do not give their name and address on request. But that 'law' is only a Statute. It is contrary to the actual Law.

Large tax bills are routinely sent out by local government offices for public services. But these too are not supported by the laws of England. They too are only Statutes. Once again, the people believe these bills are 'laws of England'. In fact, they are not valid unless we accept them. Unless we consent to them.



The real heart of the FOTL movement is right here. They do not wish to pay their share of public infrastructure, but want to continue to use it, and believe the invocation of "the magic words" frees them from all responsibility.

BTW, there is a small FOTL movement in Australia, and their main concern judging from a BB I sometimes look at, is how to avoid paying for things. The one common factor about all FOTLers. They are leeches.

Norm

[funk de fino]

I say we encourage them to carry on and eventually they will be clogging up the jails.

Then we can have a little giggle at them.

I bet he cannot bring any excerpts from the English Constitution.

[uk_dave]

...... is how to avoid paying for things. The one common factor about all FOTLers. They are leeches.

Norm

Exactly.

I wonder if alot of these people get into the woo because they have fallen foul of their country's tax regime. It might be that they made a semi-honest mistake or they tried to play the system because they just didn't want to pay tax, but then they get caught and all of a sudden they go looking for a 'get out of jail free' card or a conspiracy behind the tax system they are in trouble with.

Perhaps the tax authorities indulge them a little to begin with, in order to not be seen to be acting harshly against someone who may have made an honest mistake. But in doing so, it's possible that they inadvertently encourage the woo thinking by allowing the tax non-payer to believe that there is some merit in the arguments they are proposing.

And from this sorry state of affairs it's not too difficult a leap to believing in global conspiracies involving secret societies/religious sects/political ideologies, all working behind the scenes to make sure that the judicial system and the media don't take their claims seriously.

And if that all powerful NWO is capable of all this, then perhaps they're also capable of murder and false flag attacks and chemtrails and ...... and...... TAX!

[mythstifieD]

With the waning 9/11 conspiracy movement and the rising NWO conspiracy movement, FOTL is gaining a lot of popularity these days (at least in my neck of the woods).

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5158155&postcount=1

I feel prophetic... LOL

[mythstifieD]

Quote:
We don't believe in political parties.
There is a fair amount of evidence that they exist.

Congrats! My first, authentic, ROFLMAO from the JREF :) I think my coworkers think I'm crazy!

PS. No offense Horatius, your comics are pretty LOL as well ;)

[Lothian]

Fact 1 is wrong - No constitution
Fact 2 is wrong - Statutes require royal ascent not public ascent.


There is no such thing as the new world order that is plainly stupid. The reptilians wouldn't allow it.

[Lothian]

My first major thread here. Greetings from London, England ! For an anti EU thread it is ironic that you choose to introduce yourself with a line stolen from the Eurovision song contest.

[Soapy Sam]

Last I heard the Cross of St. George was generally accepted as the "English Flag", as the Saltire is the flag of Scotland. The Union Jack is the mongrel UK version.

[Rolfe]

I'm not really sure which flag he's talking about anyway. Last time I looked, most village churches in England were flying the St. George's Cross all the time, and everybody and his mate has their houses and cars bedecked with the thing whenever England get within sniffing distance of any international football final. The Last Night of the Proms usually has quite a few on display too.

I doubt very much if the OP has even visited England. I wonder if he'll return to this thread?

Hey, Especially, can you tell where my location is from the information given below my avatar? PM me if you work it out.

That might be a good test.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Last I heard the Cross of St. George was generally accepted as the "English Flag", as the Saltire is the flag of Scotland. The Union Jack is the mongrel UK version.

However that isn't supported by the actual law. While I have no idea what the legal status of the saltire is neither england or the UK strickly speaking have an official flag. There is a royal standard of the united kingdom but that is rather different and there still hasn't been a royal standard of england in centuries.

[Elizabeth I]

I simply feel the need to pop in here and point out every single time I see the phrase "FOTL woo" my mind interprets it as "faster than light woo", and for a brief instant I wonder why they're bringing cosmology into a discussion of government.

Anyway, back to the show.

:popcorn1

Every time I see "FOTLer" I think it says "footler," (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/footler), which is actually pretty appropriate if you think about it.

[16.5]

I will gladly sell to anyone who has $25 (american) a Constitution of England.

[Suddenly]

I'm not really sure which flag he's talking about anyway. Last time I looked, most village churches in England were flying the St. George's Cross all the time, and everybody and his mate has their houses and cars bedecked with the thing whenever England get within sniffing distance of any international football final. The Last Night of the Proms usually has quite a few on display too.


If the analogy to the US version holds, perhaps that cross is off by 90 degrees.

Some of the US freemen types claim that the US flag with horizontal stripes is actually a solely military flag, so anyone displaying it is under non-common law jurisdiction and so on. The real "flag of peace" has vertical stripes.

As I recall, one basis for this belief comes from a passage in Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, so... well...

Anyway, maybe the "real" flag has the cross longer vertically than horizontally...

[fromdownunder]

I will gladly sell to anyone who has $25 (american) a Constitution of England.

I will gladly give you 25 cents tomorrow for a Hamburger today.

Norm

[Wildy]

BTW In answer to one of Espicially more "interesting" points, hasn't taking an Oath to the Monarch been a requirement for taking a seat in Parliament since the Middle Ages in England?????? Why is it so sinister now?

Because you use your left hand to take the oath?

[Nosi]

Oh dear, I'm feeling WOOsy...

[Dave Rogers]

Fact 1 is wrong - No constitution


I think it's a little more complicated than that. There is a British constitution, as I understand it, but it's not collected in a single document; rather, it's the accumulated collection of statute and case law that defines the basis of the legal system. I think it's fair to say that there's no such thing as the English constitution.

I love the idea that statutes are not laws. If the police are empowered by statute to arrest people who fail to comply with statutes, and the courts are empowered by statutes to fine or imprison people who fail to comply with statutes, then what exactly is the difference?

Dave

[drkitten]

I think it's a little more complicated than that. There is a British constitution, as I understand it, but it's not collected in a single document; rather, it's the accumulated collection of statute and case law that defines the basis of the legal system. I think it's fair to say that there's no such thing as the English constitution.

Even the notion of a British constitution is rather questionable, depending upon what you consider the properties of a Constitution to entail.

In particular, the US constitution is explicitly a well-defined collection of documents (in this specific case, a single document, plus amendments) that is self-empoweringly the supreme law of the land and therefore trumps any other document. That's why "unconstitutional" is such a powerful phrase in US law; an unconstitutional policy cannot be legally created or enforced without changing the constitution itself.

The British pseudo-constitution has no such authority. Indeed, I don't think I've ever gotten a straight answer about what documents are and are not part of the British constitution. But more importantly, it is accepted that Parliament and the Crown jointly have the authority to change any part of this "constitution" on a whim. The right to a jury trial? The need for a warrant to arrest or search a suspect? There is nothing in British law that prevents Parliament from eliminating those rights.

Which makes the idea that an act of Parliament can be "unconstitutional" rather silly, since Parliament has the authority to override the constitution, and by that very act to change it.

[uk_dave]

I recall being told once that while the UK doesn't have a US style constitution, we instead have an assumption that everything is allowed (or a right) ........ until it's made illegal.

So rather than have a shopping list of things which the citizen has a right to (but which is not really all that clearly defined, witness the right to arm bears and the seperation of interstates from the churchies) and which come under obvious strains as the world changes from period in which those rights were enshrined, we have a shopping list of specific things you can't do.

We also have an "ignorance is no defence in law" clause, which means we're supposed to know what isn't legal...which is why we have such big heads.

[drkitten]

I recall being told once that while the UK doesn't have a US style constitution, we instead have an assumption that everything is allowed (or a right) ........ until it's made illegal.

That's not really a difference. The US also has an "everything not forbidden is permitted" assumption, except when discussing Federal government action, where the rule is "everything not permitted is forbidden."

The question is whether or not there's anything in law that prevents some specific thing from being placed on the "forbidden" ("permitted") list.

There is, for example, a law that prevents quartering of troops in civilian houses in times of peace. The legal effect is that not only is the government forbidden from doing so (by default), but it's also explicitly forbidden from changing the law to put troop-quartering on the permitted list. There's similarly a law preventing the government from placing religious expression on the "forbidden" list.


So rather than have a shopping list of things which the citizen has a right to (but which is not really all that clearly defined, witness the right to arm bears and the seperation of interstates from the churchies) and which come under obvious strains as the world changes from period in which those rights were enshrined, we have a shopping list of specific things you can't do.

No. The idea behind having "a right to" is different from merely being "allowed to." I am, for example, "allowed" under both US and UK law (generally) to paint my house any color I like. Certain cities in the States have passed laws adding "paint your house in the wrong color" to the shopping list of specific things you can't do,.... but HMG (or any of the local councils) could also do the same if they felt like it.

The difference is that there are certain things that, at least in theory, cannot be added to the shopping list in the States., because we have "a right to" do things that cannot be abridged. There is no such restriction in the UK.

[Especially]

How strange that this thread should immediately be transfered to the 'Conspiracy Theory' thread. But what's new ? Anything which brings you back to basics is sure to be a 'conspiracy theory', right ?

You know what a conspiracy theory is, don't you ? It's the product of your 'education'. To reject anything not given to you by the mainstream corporate, Vaticanised, Jesuitical, occultist media. Simple, right ?

Let me address some of the silly criticisms above. Here are 20 facts about Britain and its government. They might surprise you, although last time I checked the political system in the USA it's just as corrupted. Where's the 'conspiracy' in the following facts -

1. The 'head of state' in England is unelected. Right ? It's the monarchy.

2. Since 1066 (when the papacy in Rome blessed a full scale invasion of this country) the monarchs have been seen as the 'head of state'. Stooges of the papacy, with tax raising powers. Under penalty if you disobey.

3. The scam of monarchy is of course that it introduced a system of slavery into England. Where barons, kings, princes, lords, and the entire system of privilege and elitism soon claimed to own all the land of England. That's just plain fact. In fact, the correspondence between King John and the Papacy in Rome makes interesting reading. Why not check it out some time in your library. Instead of believing that Magna Carta gave you your 'liberties'. It did nothing of the kind ! Magna Carta was a product of the new empire. A feudal empire of barons, kings, and the usual dynasties of power. The bloodlines of the 'New World Order'. What 'New World Order' ? The one your own presidents and prime ministers have been announcing to you for years. THAT 'New World Order'. The one you went to sleep about !

Which part of this message is a 'conspiracy' ?

4. The greatest enemies of democracy and a fair, representative government have always been the unelected system of the monarchy and its elites. It was the monarchy (and I must remind you of this fact) who drove out Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the USA from England. On the orders of the King of England. Didn't know that, right ? Around 1800 only a few people could vote in England and they were all land owning lords and aristocrats. Get it yet ?

5. The Laws of England are the Common Law of England. They are laws which must be observed by all governments of England. The laws of England are not made by political parties in Westminster. The Common Law of England is the final appeal against bad legislation. Check it out ! Ask any lawyer, any policeman, any historian, anyone who knows the subject. Where did the US Constitution come from ? That document which the elitists hate ? And who tore it to pieces after 9/11 and gave you a Patriot Act in its place ? You got it !!

6. The 'laws' made by Parliament in Westminster are STATUTE LAWS. What does that mean ? It means they require your CONSENT. They cannot be forced on you without your consent. Let me repeat this. The laws (so-called) of the Parliament in Westminster are NOT laws. They are STATUTES. They require the CONSENT of the people. Because you have a government which requires YOUR CONSENT ! Get it yet ? But these 'laws' of Westminster (Acts of Parliament) are NOT LAWS. They are Statutes. How much clearer can it be ? But you see, daily, the Constitution being torn to pieces. The same is happening here in England with the actual Law of England.

7. If an Act of Parliament is made which contradicts the Common Law of England it is bad and can be appealed against and rejected. This happens all the time. Didn't know that, right ? The Acts of Parliament are NOT law. They are acts of Statute. Such a simple thing. But do you realise what that means ? It means you've been suckered, for a long time.

8. Each and every politician elected in England by the people of England MUST give an oath to the unelected monarchy to serve THEM on the very first day he/she sits in Parliament in Westminster. Without which they are fined heavily. Didn't know that, right ? So the counterfeit system carries on acting as 'government'. It's all an illusion. The government of our nation is founded on the Law. On the Constituion. Nothing else.

9. The Parliamentary oath says NOTHING about serving the electorate of England. Nothing ! Didn't know that, right ? Check it out for yourself !

10. The political party system at Westminster is only a theatre. Political parties are filled with liars, stooges, fraternity members and pre-selected candidates of parties who are not interested in serving anyone. That is their track record of the last centuries. Our political system is a sick joke. But people keep voting for it. Why, you get all excited about it and you think you are being a real 'citizen'. You are being conned.

11. The monarchy is a dyanasty nobody, nobody elected. It is also one of the richest, most ruthless, corporate frauds of human history. Why, it was the Redcoats of England who invaded the USA. Forgot that ? Because the system of elites in England HATE democracy. And so does the New World Order. Why, they run rings around you in the name of Parliament and Congress. And you go back to them over and over and over again. It's ridiculous.

12. Our nation of England has been tricked in to joining the European Union. An empire which NOBODY in the UK voted for. It was all done behind the scenes. By the monarchy and by the political machine. No vote (referendum) was given to the British People. It was rubber stamped by the politicians and the monarch .....of Westminster. Get it yet ? And the European Union will shortly throw the Constitution of England into the rubbish bin. It will impose its ruthless rule on England. Same as we see happening in the USA.

13. The 'laws' being used by the police forces of Britain (each of which is a registered corporation) are all STATUTES and they require your consent. So that policemen are now glorified revenue officers. Get it yet ? They hardly know what the Common Law of England is.

14. Local government in England has long been corrupted. It sends you bills to pay for local services whether you want those services or not. It takes you to their courts if you refuse to pay them, whether you want those services or not. Because, like everything else, your CONSENT is ignored. If you don't want their services you can say 'NO'. But they will still take you to court. A court system filled with their own loyal monarchist judges. Get the picture yet ? So the idea of consent is slowly but surely lost. The takeover of the nation by elitist corporations and by STATUTES, not laws.

15. In recent years people have started fighting back against this corruption. See for example the 'freeman' movement which exists very widely in the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. See for example the website FMOTL in the UK.

16. It's not that people want 'something for nothing'. It's that people want the Law of England, and NOT corrupt corruptions, parties, stooges and STATUTES to rob us blind.

17. If you do not understand that Common Law of England you will never understand how the courts are really places of business, for the CORPORATE system. That's all they are. And always have been.

18. America taught the world about how to be free of this empire. Now it seems that England must teach you.

19. If you are happy with your politicians, your bankers and those who are ripping up your Constitution, your entire society, all in the name of 'government' just carry on sleeping. But people are waking up to the bailouts, the corruption, the entire ruthless domination of elites. And that's the Freeman Movement. Check it out. And then you can say you have studied it.

20. I am not surprised most 'sheep' have little to say about this. They have never examined their own freedoms. They don't even know what they are. They have never once questioned the 'status quo'. They know something is badly wrong. But they can't put their finger on it. The 'something' that is wrong is YOU. You have to stand up for basic principles of law and justice or else you get the government you deserve. You have to say NO to ruthless counterfeits. Who steal from you in the name of 'government'. Back to the basics. Back to the Common Law of England. Back to real freedom. Because the alternative is a police state and the loss of all your individual freedoms.

Now, America, does that ring a bell ?

[twinstead]

How strange that this thread should immediately be transfered to the 'Conspiracy Theory' thread. But what's new ? Anything which brings you back to basics is sure to be a 'conspiracy theory', right ?

You know what a conspiracy theory is, don't you ? It's the product of your 'education'. To reject anything not given to you by the mainstream corporate, Vaticanised, Jesuitical, occultist media. Simple, right ?

Let me address some of the silly criticisms above. Here are 20 facts about Britain and its government. They might surprise you, although last time I checked the political system in the USA it's just as corrupted. Where's the 'conspiracy' in the following facts -

1. The 'head of state' in England is unelected. Right ? It's the monarchy.


I thought the prime minister was the head of state the monarchy was just a traditional figurehead? Did I miss something in English history class?

[Guybrush Threepwood]

The difference is that there are certain things that, at least in theory, cannot be added to the shopping list in the States., because we have "a right to" do things that cannot be abridged. There is no such restriction in the UK.

This is overstating the case a bit. I'm not a US citizen, so feel free to correct me, but the US constitution is not set in stone, if it were it wouldn't have the 20 odd amendments to it. Sure, it's harder to change the constitution than to pass a law but it can be done and has been done.

I'm on the fence a bit about written constitutions, I can see the utility that they make radical changes harder so you have to be really sure you want to do it, but on the other hand they make necessary change slower.
We keep having to change ours when we find out that it means rape victims can't get abortions, or paedophiles can't be put in gaol so they're not an unmitigated triumph.

[Especially]

I think it's a little more complicated than that. There is a British constitution, as I understand it, but it's not collected in a single document; rather, it's the accumulated collection of statute and case law that defines the basis of the legal system. I think it's fair to say that there's no such thing as the English constitution.

I love the idea that statutes are not laws. If the police are empowered by statute to arrest people who fail to comply with statutes, and the courts are empowered by statutes to fine or imprison people who fail to comply with statutes, then what exactly is the difference?

Dave


The difference is that you can choose the law of England or the statutes being made by our corporate sham called government. The same government who joined the EU without you getting a vote. Your sovereignty was trashed because the 'sovereign' said so. Got it yet ?

[Especially]

I thought the prime minister was the head of state the monarchy was just a traditional figurehead? Did I miss something in English history class?

Yes, we all grow up believing that. But the truth is very, very different. If we refuse to swear loyalty to the monarchy (even as members of Parliament) we are fined lots of money every day, until we do.

The sovereignty of the people has gone. It has been transfered to a 'sovereign' nobody elected. And this impersonation has brought us to ruin. Because its corporate government, the feudal system and eventual slavery.

The same is happening in the USA, whose great Constitution is being thrown into the trash can. In the name of a never-ending war on terror. And the people keep right on bailing out the bankers and hoopla for the politicians in Congress.

What happened to the Constitution ? It was stolen and nobody even noticed it. Why, its freedoms are every day laughed at by the elites in power in the USA. It has been put on hold. They can remove your freedoms with hardly a protest. And the same is happening here in England. We need to get back to basics. Fast.

[Lothian]

The difference is that you can choose the law of England or the statutes being made by our corporate sham called government. How cute that you believe this.

[Especially]

This is overstating the case a bit. I'm not a US citizen, so feel free to correct me, but the US constitution is not set in stone, if it were it wouldn't have the 20 odd amendments to it. Sure, it's harder to change the constitution than to pass a law but it can be done and has been done.

I'm on the fence a bit about written constitutions, I can see the utility that they make radical changes harder so you have to be really sure you want to do it, but on the other hand they make necessary change slower.
We keep having to change ours when we find out that it means rape victims can't get abortions, or paedophiles can't be put in gaol so they're not a unmitigated triumph.

Well, the great US Constitution is perhaps the greatest constitution ever written. And who wants it ? Not the political elites.

The Common Law of England is derived from the Golden Rule. And who wants it ? Not the political parties of England. Not the judges. Not the monarchy. No, they have something new to give you. Their own corporate laws, their own system. Which you must pay for. And it must be exposed. The Patriot Act is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So are the so-called 'laws' of Parliament. They are products of the same corruption. Politics is a bunch of nonsense.

[LightinDarkness]

How strange that this thread should immediately be transfered to the 'Conspiracy Theory' thread. But what's new ? Anything which brings you back to basics is sure to be a 'conspiracy theory', right ?

How strange that a conspiracy theorist would decry his/her delusions being classified correctly? But whats new? Surely vast theories about unforeseen powers controlling our government are based in facts and should be accepted, despite the fact that you have offered no proof for anything you have posted so far.


You know what a conspiracy theory is, don't you ? It's the product of your 'education'. To reject anything not given to you by the mainstream corporate, Vaticanised, Jesuitical, occultist media. Simple, right ?

I know this is what you want to believe but, unfortunately, it has no basis in reality. There is no Vatican, Jesuit, or Occult control of the media.


Let me address some of the silly criticisms above. Here are 20 facts about Britain and its government. They might surprise you, although last time I checked the political system in the USA it's just as corrupted. Where's the 'conspiracy' in the following facts -

Whoops! I'm afraid you've failed already, see, what you posted was not facts but pretty standard conspiracy delusions without proof. We await your evidence that anything you posted is actually true...but I won't be holding my breath.


1. The 'head of state' in England is unelected. Right ? It's the monarchy.

Have you read your own traditions? The Monarch in England is a CEREMONIAL HEAD OF STATE, having no effective political authority. The actual head of state would b e the Prime Minister, who is unelected but is chosen by the winning party WHOM ARE elected.


2. Since 1066 (when the papacy in Rome blessed a full scale invasion of this country) the monarchs have been seen as the 'head of state'. Stooges of the papacy, with tax raising powers. Under penalty if you disobey.

Yawn. What the Vatican did in 1066 when it actually had political power has no relationship to 2009.

I could go on, but as I started replying to #3 I realized how pointless it was. I usually don't mind debunking CTers because there is a little tiny part inside all of them that is open to reality. There is that little, tiny part in most CTs that is yearning to break free of their self-imposed delusions and embrace reality. Unfortunately, I do not see it in the OP. He wants to believe so badly that I am not sure any amount of facts or reason will dissuade him from the lies he/she has embraced.

Its like the OP believed every single conspiracy hes ever read. For example "OH MY GOD, SOMEONE UTTERED THE 3 WORDS NEW WORLD ORDER - THIS IS PROOF OF A VATICAN/JESUIT/OCCULT CONSPIRACY!" No, the phrase "new world order" is a political term used as rhetoric by politicians, it has no relationship to the mythical conspiracy you believe in.

There is no difference between "common law" and "statute law", its a FOTL woo distinction that only exists in your fantasy world. The legal system - of the UK (and the US, for that matter), is based on the legitimate exercise of several types of authority derived from both common law principles and statutes.

The FOTL woo hatred of "corporations" is rather hilarious because it demonstrates that they do not understand what a corporation actually is. All a corporation means is that a group of people have decided to form a legal entity for practical purposes - corporations are devices that allow us to operate in the modern world. Without them, anytime someone sued a company you worked for you, and every other employee in the company, would be jointly liable. Thus, no one would ever form a company and we would have none of the conveniences of society that we all enjoy. Your hatred of them comes from populist irrationality.

[Especially]

How cute that you believe this.

And how tragic you do not !

But there is hope on the horizon. Try reading about Statute Law and Common Law. Try reading something about it. Ask any policeman, any honest judge. Go to a library. Check out the freemen websites around the world. There are dozens. Statutes (Acts of Parliament) are NOT laws. They are statutes. They ALL require your consent. At least try to learn the scale of the deception. All done in the name of 'government'. All designed to rob you of your own God-given freedoms.

Regards

[twinstead]

Yes, we all grow up believing that. But the truth is very, very different. If we refuse to swear loyalty to the monarchy (even as members of Parliament) we are fined lots of money every day, until we do.


Do you have any reference to anybody being fined lots of money every day for refusing to swear loyalty to the monarchy? I find that very hard to believe.

[Especially]

Do you have any reference to anybody being fined lots of money every day for refusing to swear loyalty to the monarchy? I find that very hard to believe.

Yes, certainly. If you do a websearch for -

Parliamentary Oath

You will see the text. There is a FINE, daily, for any member of Parliament who sits in Westminster and who does not swear his/her allegiance to the Monarchy. That oath says NOTHING about serving the people or the nation. Nothing at all.

If you still can't find it please write again.

Regards

[Lothian]

All designed to rob you of your own God-given freedoms.
Who is this "God" of which you speak? I trust he is English.

[LightinDarkness]

Yes, certainly. If you do a websearch for -

Parliamentary Oath

You will see the text. There is a FINE, daily, for any members of Parliament who sits in Westminster and who does not swear his/her allegiance to the Monarchy.

If you still can't find it please write again.

Regards

In other words, no, he does not have any evidence. He simply heard this from a FOTL woo website and believes/wants it to be true.

Where he got this delusion from is that bastion of truth the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1042737/Now-MPs-want-ditch-500-year-oath-allegiance-Queen.html

Note that the article claims that members of parliament CAN be fined for not taking the oath and acting in a official capacity, but fails to note one instance of this ever occurring.

[Especially]

But I've already told you I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Right ? Why do you make the silly mistake of saying I am one ?

These are plain facts of history, supported by the documents of history. They are not even in dispute.

[drkitten]

How strange that this thread should immediately be transfered to the 'Conspiracy Theory' thread.

Not especially. It's a theory about a [widespread] conspiracy by the government (in this case, the government of England or the UK -- a pity you don't know the difference) to act unlawfully.

Anything which brings you back to basics is sure to be a 'conspiracy theory', right ?

No, but anything that alleges a widespread conspiracy to violate the law is a conspiracy theory, by definition.


Let me address some of the silly criticisms above. Here are 20 facts about Britain and its government. They might surprise you, although last time I checked the political system in the USA it's just as corrupted. Where's the 'conspiracy' in the following facts


2. Since 1066 (when the papacy in Rome blessed a full scale invasion of this country) the monarchs have been seen as the 'head of state'. Stooges of the papacy, with tax raising powers. Under penalty if you disobey.

Well, there's part of the conspiracy you're alleging. If the papacy approves of something, that makes anyone participating a "stooge." By this argument, Manchester United is a stooge of a substantial portion of the football fans of the world.


3. The scam of monarchy is of course that it introduced a system of slavery into England. Where barons, kings, princes, lords, and the entire system of privilege and elitism soon claimed to own all the land of England. That's just plain fact.

Actually, no. That's one of the interesting and unique things about the Normal Conquest -- in fact, none of the barons, lords, and whatnot claimed to own any of the land in England. It was all held in fief from the Crown.

.... which is one of the traditional perks of military conquest. You conquer the land, you own it.


Which part of this message is a 'conspiracy' ?


This part:


In fact, the correspondence between King John and the Papacy in Rome makes interesting reading. Why not check it out some time in your library. Instead of believing that Magna Carta gave you your 'liberties'. It did nothing of the kind !

On the contrary, the Magna Carta broke the stronghold of the King that had existed since 1066; the barons, lords, and whatnot were ostensibly granted powers and rights of their own independent of the land that they "held" at the whim of the current reigning monarch.



Magna Carta was a product of the new empire. A feudal empire of barons, kings, and the usual dynasties of power. The bloodlines of the 'New World Order'. What 'New World Order' ? The one your own presidents and prime ministers have been announcing to you for years. THAT 'New World Order'. The one you went to sleep about !

And, of course, "the bloodlines of the New World Order" is pure conspiracy theory.


4. The greatest enemies of democracy and a fair, representative government have always been the unelected system of the monarchy and its elites.

Right. Because neither communism nor fascism have ever been threats to democracy.

Around 1800 only a few people could vote in England and they were all land owning lords and aristocrats.

In 1800 lords could vote? Really? Obviously the meaning of "House of Commons" has mysteriously escaped you.

In fact, there was a watershed change between the Magna Carta and the 1800s precisely because the untitled could vote and could exercise power,....


5. The Laws of England are the Common Law of England. They are laws which must be observed by all governments of England.

This is simply wrong.


6. The 'laws' made by Parliament in Westminster are STATUTE LAWS. What does that mean ?

It means they're laws.

It means they require your CONSENT. They cannot be forced on you without your consent. Let me repeat this. The laws (so-called) of the Parliament in Westminster are NOT laws. They are STATUTES. They require the CONSENT of the people. Because you have a government which requires YOUR CONSENT ! Get it yet ?

Yup. it's incorrect gibberish like this that has resulted in your posts being ghettoized in the conspiracy theory section. You're assuming a widespread conspiracy of illegal action on the part of the British Parliament.


8. Each and every politician elected in England by the people of England MUST give an oath to the unelected monarchy to serve THEM on the very first day he/she sits in Parliament in Westminster. Without which they are fined heavily.

More conspiracy theorizing.


9. The Parliamentary oath says NOTHING about serving the electorate of England. Nothing ! Didn't know that, right ? Check it out for yourself !

It also says nothing about the number of eggs to put into a proper Yorkshire pudding. Not really relevant, I'm afraid. As a matter of fact, I'd be deeply worried if a Scottish MP were required to serve the electorate of England.


[yadda yadda yadda]


Now, America, does that ring a bell ?

It does. It reminds me of every other half-educated lunatic whackjob on the conspiracy theory forum, which is why this thread is now correctly placed in the half-educated lunatic whackjob conspiracy theory forum.

[Especially]

In other words, no, he does not have any evidence. He simply heard this from a FOTL woo website and believes/wants it to be true.

And you, of course, HAVE read the Parliamentary Oath of Westminster, haven't you ?

You, of course, HAVE checked this out for yourself, haven't you ?

No, you haven't ! Edited for attacking the arguer, not the argument.

Please read your membership agreement.

[drkitten]

But I've already told you I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

We are under no obligation to believe you.

Why do you make the silly mistake of saying I am one ?

Because you hold conspiracy theories to be true.

Or, more bluntly, because you ARE one, even if you don't have enough self-awareness to recognize it.

[LightinDarkness]

But I've already told you I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Right ? Why do you make the silly mistake of saying I am one ?

These are plain facts of history, supported by the documents of history. They are not even in dispute.

As you believe there is some secret shadowy distinction between common law and statute law, which is not supported by any actual facts, and that the Vatican and the Jesuits plot to control he media, you are a conspiracy theorist. You just make yourself look worse by denying the obvious.

Also, you have failed to state anything that is supported by any fact of history. Everything you said is indeed not in dispute though, because everything so far has been a lie - and there is no dispute about that.

[Especially]

If you don't know now I guess you never will !

[Especially]

As you believe there is some secret shadowy distinction between common law and statute law, which is not supported by any actual facts, and that the Vatican and the Jesuits plot to control he media, you are a conspiracy theorist. You just make yourself look worse by denying the obvious.

Also, you have failed to state anything that is supported by any fact of history. Everything you said is indeed not in dispute though, because everything so far has been a lie - and there is no dispute about that.

Where did you get your 'education' from ? Everything I have said is true. And it's all documentary FACT.

[Especially]

We are under no obligation to believe you.



Because you hold conspiracy theories to be true.

Or, more bluntly, because you ARE one, even if you don't have enough self-awareness to recognize it.

We are under no obligation to believe you also.

The difference is that what I am saying can be shown to be true by a mountain of documentary evidence. Evidence hidden from you. But check it yourself. It's all true. As people all round the world now know. Including people in your own country. In fact, the number of people who believe it is exactly 100%. Because they are the people who have examined these things and because I too examined them in detail.

Seems to me that you owe yourself a visit to your library. Soon.

[Lothian]

In fact, the number of people who believe it is exactly 100%. So your knowledge of maths is poor as well.

[Especially]

Even the notion of a British constitution is rather questionable, depending upon what you consider the properties of a Constitution to entail.

In particular, the US constitution is explicitly a well-defined collection of documents (in this specific case, a single document, plus amendments) that is self-empoweringly the supreme law of the land and therefore trumps any other document. That's why "unconstitutional" is such a powerful phrase in US law; an unconstitutional policy cannot be legally created or enforced without changing the constitution itself.

The British pseudo-constitution has no such authority. Indeed, I don't think I've ever gotten a straight answer about what documents are and are not part of the British constitution. But more importantly, it is accepted that Parliament and the Crown jointly have the authority to change any part of this "constitution" on a whim. The right to a jury trial? The need for a warrant to arrest or search a suspect? There is nothing in British law that prevents Parliament from eliminating those rights.

Which makes the idea that an act of Parliament can be "unconstitutional" rather silly, since Parliament has the authority to override the constitution, and by that very act to change it.

Wrong ! NO parliament has the power to override the constitution of the nation. They only have the power to make Statutes. NOT to write and re-write the Constitution which keeps them in check ! This is basic fact.

The members of Parliament are elected to SERVE the Constitution and the sovereignty of its people and NOT to change the very rules that are its Constitution. As I have already said, the LAW of England is found in the Common Law of England. NOT in the affairs (the statutes) made by Parliament.

[Especially]

So your knowledge of maths is poor as well.

Your ability to read is very poor. Those who have read on these subjects all agree about what is said. 100%.

But those who have not (including yourself) do not.

It is that simple.

[Especially]

Not especially. It's a theory about a [widespread] conspiracy by the government (in this case, the government of England or the UK -- a pity you don't know the difference) to act unlawfully.



No, but anything that alleges a widespread conspiracy to violate the law is a conspiracy theory, by definition.





Well, there's part of the conspiracy you're alleging. If the papacy approves of something, that makes anyone participating a "stooge." By this argument, Manchester United is a stooge of a substantial portion of the football fans of the world.



Actually, no. That's one of the interesting and unique things about the Normal Conquest -- in fact, none of the barons, lords, and whatnot claimed to own any of the land in England. It was all held in fief from the Crown.

.... which is one of the traditional perks of military conquest. You conquer the land, you own it.



This part:



On the contrary, the Magna Carta broke the stronghold of the King that had existed since 1066; the barons, lords, and whatnot were ostensibly granted powers and rights of their own independent of the land that they "held" at the whim of the current reigning monarch.




And, of course, "the bloodlines of the New World Order" is pure conspiracy theory.



Right. Because neither communism nor fascism have ever been threats to democracy.



In 1800 lords could vote? Really? Obviously the meaning of "House of Commons" has mysteriously escaped you.

In fact, there was a watershed change between the Magna Carta and the 1800s precisely because the untitled could vote and could exercise power,....



This is simply wrong.



It means they're laws.



Yup. it's incorrect gibberish like this that has resulted in your posts being ghettoized in the conspiracy theory section. You're assuming a widespread conspiracy of illegal action on the part of the British Parliament.



More conspiracy theorizing.



It also says nothing about the number of eggs to put into a proper Yorkshire pudding. Not really relevant, I'm afraid. As a matter of fact, I'd be deeply worried if a Scottish MP were required to serve the electorate of England.



It does. It reminds me of every other half-educated lunatic whackjob on the conspiracy theory forum, which is why this thread is now correctly placed in the half-educated lunatic whackjob conspiracy theory forum.

I don't know your sources but if I was you I would ask for a refund. This is second grade rubbish.

[drkitten]

Wrong ! NO parliament has the power to override the constitution of the nation. They only have the power to make Statutues.

And that's the basic problem with this type of CT woo.

Because it actually interferes with intelligent and productive discussion of rather serious issues of human rights, freedoms, questions of sovereignty, and whatnot.

There have, in fact, been periodic political movements to create some sort of formal written Constitutional framework to keep HMG in check. I believe there was a document called "the Bill of Rights" which was actually passed as an Act of Parliament in 1689 which formalized certain acts that can and cannot be done. For example, it formalized the "right to petition" and equally formalized the lack of authority of the crown to use Royal Perogative to tax.

And, of course, there was the Human Rights Act of 1998.

But one fundamental problem with these parliamentary acts is that what one Parliament can do, another can undo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty); it would take a simple majority in Parliament to rescind the 1689 Bill of Rights and grant the sovereign the authority to tax by Royal Perogative. It has also acted to limit the development of the concept of "due process" in UK law.

This doesn't bother most Brits; after all, "parliamentary sovereignty" has worked as a principle for 300+ years and trying to restrict it would limit HMG's ability to respond to new crises. So there's a lot of room for reasonable discussion about what, if any modifications to parliamentary sovereignty are appropriate.

But if you start out with the counterfactual assertion that, no, Parliament is not legally sovereign in the UK, you end up.... well, you end up in the CT forum. And you prevent any possibility of an intelligent discussion from happening except by ignoring you, which is to say, you completely marginalize yourself in any meaningful way.

[drkitten]

I don't know your sources but if I was you I would ask for a refund. This is second grade rubbish.

That's right. It's only second-grade rubbish because it's based on fact.

I can't touch your top-class rubbish, which is completely uncontaminated by facts, reason, evidence, or the Real World in any way whatsoever.

[Especially]

Corporate policemen, corporate governments, corporate local government, corporate politicians, corporate bankers, corporate monarchies, corporate news channels, corporate contractors, corporate scams at every level. Corporate prison, corporate courts. Corporate lawyers. And where is your freedom from it ?

Read your own Constitution. Read your own laws.

A generation ago nobody could have predicted such a generation of couch potatoes could possibly exist. And you voted it in. And you will do it again. Don't you just love governments who make you bailout the entire system ?

Get to know your own freedoms and use them. Given to you by men and women better than you have been.

[D'rok]

Wrong ! NO parliament has the power to override the constitution of the nation. They only have the power to make Statutes. NOT to write and re-write the Constitution which keeps them in check ! This is basic fact.

If it's a basic fact, I'm sure you can point us to the UK constitution. Before you answer, you might want to read up on the principle of parliamentary supremacy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

Also, I refer you to section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which explicitly gives the Canadian Parliament the power to override constitutional rights under certain circumstances:


1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic societyAdditionally, I refer you to section 36 of the South African Bill of Rights:


36. Limitation of rights


The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including *

the nature of the right;
the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
the nature and extent of the limitation;
the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.


Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.

There's two examples, either of which negate your claim. There are more.

And finally, I ask you, if parliaments cannot modify constitutions, how are constitutions amended in a parliamentary democracy?



The members of Parliament are elected to SERVE the Constitution and the sovereignty of its people and NOT to change the very rules that are its Constitution. As I have already said, the LAW of England is found in the Common Law of England. NOT in the affairs (the statutes) made by Parliament.I refer you once again to the principle of parliamentary supremacy and repeat my request for you to show us the UK constitution and to explain how parliamentary democracies amend their constitutions.

[drkitten]

Get to know your own freedoms and use them. Given to you by men and women better than you have been.

Physician, heal thyself. Although in this case, it would probably be better expressed as "psychiatrist, heal thyself."

[Especially]

You have completely misunderstood the facts. Here they are.

1. The sovereignty of a nation is with a dynasty ? A political party ? NO - IT's with its PEOPLE. Yes ? Nobody else.

2. The members of a government are elected. By who ? By the PEOPLE. Yes ?

3. A Constitution is written by.............???????????????????????????? The PEOPLE

4. Political Parties CANNOT re-write a Constitution. They have no right to do so. They are elected to defend it. A Constitution is the expressed product of the sovereign will of the PEOPLE.........NOT THEIR SERVANTS

Unless, of course, you want more of the same corporate government forever

Get it yet ?

[Mojo]

Read your own Constitution.


Any chance that you could post a copy of it?

[ktesibios]

I thought the prime minister was the head of state the monarchy was just a traditional figurehead? Did I miss something in English history class?

IIRC, it's the monarch who is head of state, i.e., the symbolic figurehead, and the prime minister is head of government.

Here in the USA we have both roles combined, with the result that we elect a President and then expect the poor ***** to be an effective political leader and a plaster statue all at the same time.

Sometimes I've wondered if it might not be better to tell the President "just run the damn gummint and don't go getting above yourself" and just hire some repectable old granny to do the ribbon-cuttings, medal-pinnings, platitude-spewings and so forth.

[D'rok]

In a parliamentary democracy, how do the people amend their constitution?

[Especially]

I recall being told once that while the UK doesn't have a US style constitution, we instead have an assumption that everything is allowed (or a right) ........ until it's made illegal.

So rather than have a shopping list of things which the citizen has a right to (but which is not really all that clearly defined, witness the right to arm bears and the seperation of interstates from the churchies) and which come under obvious strains as the world changes from period in which those rights were enshrined, we have a shopping list of specific things you can't do.

We also have an "ignorance is no defence in law" clause, which means we're supposed to know what isn't legal...which is why we have such big heads.

The UK is headed up by a feudal elite who, in corporate style, have taken over the entire political process. Issuing 3000 new 'laws' - none of which are actually law, in the last 10 years alone.

The LAW of this nation is the Common Law of England. Which, amongst other things makes it an act of treason to negotiate away the sovereignty of this nation with any foreign power.

Which is why the UK (rubber stamped by the unelected monarchy) ignored the law and joined the EU. So much for the sovereignty of the people, yes ? They made an idol instead. The 'sovereign'. And the rest is sheer popery, delusion and wholesale mass media spin.

Such fun, right ? And, of course, no mandate from the people of England.

This is getting a bit ridiculous. But what's new in Parliament ? It's a giant heap of corruption, falsehood, fakery and fraud.

[D'rok]

I get an extra chuckle out of this UK brand of FOTL woo. Elevating the common law to the supreme law of the land really just means that the unelected judiciary is supreme. Who makes common law? Judges. Who does judicial review? Judges. Who appoints judges in the UK? The Queen on the advice of the PM. Some freedom!

[twinstead]

Yes, certainly. If you do a websearch for -

Parliamentary Oath

You will see the text. There is a FINE, daily, for any member of Parliament who sits in Westminster and who does not swear his/her allegiance to the Monarchy. That oath says NOTHING about serving the people or the nation. Nothing at all.

If you still can't find it please write again.

Regards

In my city there's a law that says there's a fine for riding a camel on Sunday. Seriously. I can't for the life of me find any record of anybody being fined for that though.

[Especially]

Well, twinstead, how about this ?

JOHN QUADE - COMMON LAW

Try this for size, great people of the United States of America - and be humbled by this !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9xayBdBn_Q&feature=PlayList&p=DE953276003C6F1A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XG_xN666t4&feature=PlayList&p=DE953276003C6F1A&index=14

[dudalb]

But I've already told you I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Right ? Why do you make the silly mistake of saying I am one ?

These are plain facts of history, supported by the documents of history. They are not even in dispute.

:dl::dl::dl::dl:


Tell me again how the pope is in charge of England. I bet the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury would be interestted in hearing that one.

[geni]

If the analogy to the US version holds, perhaps that cross is off by 90 degrees.

Some of the US freemen types claim that the US flag with horizontal stripes is actually a solely military flag, so anyone displaying it is under non-common law jurisdiction and so on. The real "flag of peace" has vertical stripes.

As I recall, one basis for this belief comes from a passage in Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, so... well...

Anyway, maybe the "real" flag has the cross longer vertically than horizontally...

It's been quite a while since I've been in a courtroom but I don't recall any flags.

[joe911]

If you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about. Look at all the conspiracy theorists who turned into freemen and stopped paying taxes,car insurance,etc.. and are now in trouble with the law,but they have deluded beliefs of the law and that only gets them into more trouble. My friend is a lawyer and i asked him about some of the freemen beliefs and he laughed and said it was the most ridiculous thing he had ever heard.

I can understand why,in certain circumstances,that people would'nt want to pay taxes for example if someone doesnt own a tv,they shouldnt pay the liscence fee. But to stop paying all taxes is unfair. If you were to be hit by a car and had to be rushed to hospital for emergancy treatment,do you think it is fair that tax payers pay for your treatment? On another note there is one freeman belief that troubles me,the "you dont need a liscence to drive" thats totally unacceptable by anyones standards.

Another thing id like to ask you. What did you think about when promenant freeman darren pollard was arrested,and then "accepted his invitation" to appear in court,because by your beliefs he was well within his rights to refuse the "invitation". Dont you think this seriously damages your movements credibilty?

[Especially]

IIRC, it's the monarch who is head of state, i.e., the symbolic figurehead, and the prime minister is head of government.

Here in the USA we have both roles combined, with the result that we elect a President and then expect the poor ***** to be an effective political leader and a plaster statue all at the same time.

Sometimes I've wondered if it might not be better to tell the President "just run the damn gummint and don't go getting above yourself" and just hire some repectable old granny to do the ribbon-cuttings, medal-pinnings, platitude-spewings and so forth.


It's all illusion. You have your great Constitution. The Common Law.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XG_xN666t4&feature=PlayList&p=DE953276003C6F1A&index=14

[brodski]

I thought the prime minister was the head of state the monarchy was just a traditional figurehead? Did I miss something in English history class?

The First Lord of the Treasury (which is the official position held by the prime Minister) is the Head of Government, the monarch is the head of State- the Head of State has no real power under the UK constitutional settlement.

[dudalb]

So your knowledge of maths is poor as well.

I never got beyond elementary Calculus in college, but I have a degree in History . MY speciality is American History, but I have a pretty good knowledge of English History, and our little friend's knowledge of history is abysmal.
And A Jesuit conpiracy to rule England????God, that kind of rhetoric went out with Oliver Cromwell....

[D'rok]

It's all illusion. You have your great Constitution. The Common Law.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XG_xN666t4&feature=PlayList&p=DE953276003C6F1A&index=14

Can you describe, in your own words, what the common law is? For simplicity's sake, please stick to English common law.

[dudalb]

It's been quite a while since I've been in a courtroom but I don't recall any flags.

In the US, almost every courtroom has an American flag and the flag of whatever state the courtroom is in on display.

[LightinDarkness]

Where did you get your 'education' from ? Everything I have said is true. And it's all documentary FACT.

This is another CT classic - you think just because you spout off the delusions you want to believe that this makes it true. You have presented nothing that is FACT, and so far you have presented LIE after LIE. We await the facts.

I assure you my education is far, far better than breathlessly watching a bunch of youtube FOTL videos and thinking that it must be true because I want it to be true.

[Especially]

If you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about. Look at all the conspiracy theorists who turned into freemen and stopped paying taxes,car insurance,etc.. and are now in trouble with the law,but they have deluded beliefs of the law and that only gets them into more trouble. My friend is a lawyer and i asked him about some of the freemen beliefs and he laughed and said it was the most ridiculous thing he had ever heard.

I can understand why,in certain circumstances,that people would'nt want to pay taxes for example if someone doesnt own a tv,they shouldnt pay the liscence fee. But to stop paying all taxes is unfair. If you were to be hit by a car and had to be rushed to hospital for emergancy treatment,do you think it is fair that tax payers pay for your treatment? On another note there is one freeman belief that troubles me,the "you dont need a liscence to drive" thats totally unacceptable by anyones standards.

Another thing id like to ask you. What did you think about when promenant freeman darren pollard was arrested,and then "accepted his invitation" to appear in court,because by your beliefs he was well within his rights to refuse the "invitation". Dont you think this seriously damages your movements credibilty?


It's not your fault. You just don't get it, do you ? The scam is that the 'government' (so-called) is rolling all over you. In the name of laws which are UNLAWFUL. If they turn the entire country in to a CCTV empire, with phone taps and intrusions of every kind on the internet, don't worry about it, right ? Gee, how crazy does it get ? Because you are a 'law abiding citizen'. Gee !!! Do you know what the LAW actually IS in this country ?

Does that matter ? Does it matter to you that England no longer exists ? It is already carved up into 9 administrative regions of the EU.

But if you want to pay bills to the council for goods and services you have never had described, quantified, and which you never asked for, go ahead. If you CONSENT to this corporate scam, go ahead ! Good luck to you.

In the real world CONSENT matters. And you don't know the LAW of England, do you ? You've never spent a day examining it. So your nation is torn to pieces and you are hardly aware of how it's happening.

You don't want a tyranny in this country, do you ? Just keep voting for the same theatre. Don't worry, it's soon here. And you will wonder what happened.

WAKE UP ENGLAND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LightinDarkness]

It's been quite a while since I've been in a courtroom but I don't recall any flags.

They have them in US court rooms, although I am not sure if its just a court by court decision whether to put them there or if its only in higher courts that they bother with it. But the FOTL woo on flags gets to be quite hilarious. The US FOTLers believe that any flags that use a pole with a eagle on the top is a sign that the court is under admiralty law. The truth is, of course, that its just a pretty little embellishments that some flag poles have and some do not. But to those of the Freeman delusion, it means that you are under admiralty law and approaching the bench is in effect getting on a boat, removing yourself from common law.

It would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact that some people really believe this stuff.

[dudalb]

Wrong ! NO parliament has the power to override the constitution of the nation. They only have the power to make Statutes. NOT to write and re-write the Constitution which keeps them in check ! This is basic fact.

The members of Parliament are elected to SERVE the Constitution and the sovereignty of its people and NOT to change the very rules that are its Constitution. As I have already said, the LAW of England is found in the Common Law of England. NOT in the affairs (the statutes) made by Parliament.

Let me guess: You spend Sunday afternoons on a soapbox at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, right?

[Especially]

This is another CT classic - you think just because you spout off the delusions you want to believe that this makes it true. You have presented nothing that is FACT, and so far you have presented LIE after LIE. We await the facts.

I assure you my education is far, far better than breathlessly watching a bunch of youtube FOTL videos and thinking that it must be true because I want it to be true.

Banker bailouts, corrupt judges, politicians, 9/11 whitewash, New World Order speeches from Presidents and Prime Minsters, the Patriot Act, the anti-gun lobby, the rise of the corporate police, the corporate money printers, Guantanamo Bay, the 'weapons of mass destruction' and the power of the military/industrial complex with phone taps, restrictions, and the mass media nonsense news.

No. Nobody's fooling you. For sure !

:jaw-dropp

[LightinDarkness]

You spamming the boards when there is already now multiple threads about this will not change the reality that Freeman delusions are not based in reality.

But you make another excellent example of a cornerstone of the freeman belief system: this obsession and hatred with "corporations." You hate them because you equate them with "big business" and don't understand that all "corporation" means is a legal entity that exists for a practical and good purpose. Yes, its true - governments ARE CORPORATIONS! GASP! And no, it has nothing to do with them making money and its actually a great thing if you would stop reading CT woo and actually look up the facts on what that means.

A corporation exists (among other things) so that if an organization needs to be held accountable in a court of law it can be done without charging everyone who is associated with that organization. That means if I wanted to bring a lawsuit against the US government I can sue the corporation without hauling every member of the executive branch, Congress, and the Supreme Court in - and this is a good thing, because without this it would ensure no one ever worked for a government or held office ever.

[dudalb]

Someone should clue in our Great Goddess of Legaltainment about the amusement to be had in this thread.

[LightinDarkness]

Banker bailouts, corrupt judges, politicians, 9/11 whitewash, New World Order speeches from Presidents and Prime Minsters, the Patriot Act, the anti-gun lobby, the rise of the corporate police, the corporate money printers, Guantanamo Bay, the 'weapons of mass destruction' and the power of the military/industrial complex with phone taps, restrictions, and the mass media nonsense news.

No. Nobody's fooling you. For sure !

:jaw-dropp

Stupidity on parade - you just quoted a long list of fictional conspiracy theories with a few exceptions. Bank bailouts were real, and Guantanamo Bay was real - but alas, we all know about them and there are no (real) conspiracies with them.

We still await your facts.

[Especially]

The First Lord of the Treasury (which is the official position held by the prime Minister) is the Head of Government, the monarch is the head of State- the Head of State has no real power under the UK constitutional settlement.

Really ?

And if you own land you soon find out that the land is actually in control of the Crown, right ? Found any coins on it recently ? The great feudal land scam of England.

The monarchy has tremendous power in the UK. 'No real power' ? Care to check the actual powers of the monarchy ? DVLA issues licences for vehicles. Under the Crown. That's just one of 1000 examples. You are of course a SUBJECT of the unelected monarchy. Look at your own passport.

So, who is sovereign ? The people or the 'sovereign' ?

And who is in union with the EU without any mandate from the people ? Why ! It's the UK - UK PLC.

Gee ! I never thought of that !!!!

Don't believe the tired old lies. Check the reality for yourself. Get in touch with the Common Law of England. You will get a real eye opener.

:)

[Maja]

It's not your fault. You just don't get it, do you ? The scam is that the 'government' (so-called) is rolling all over you. In the name of laws which are UNLAWFUL. If they turn the entire country in to a CCTV empire, with phone taps and intrusions of every kind on the internet, don't worry about it, right ? Gee, how crazy does it get ? Because you are a 'law abiding citizen'. Gee !!! Do you know what the LAW actually IS in this country ?

Does that matter ? Does it matter to you that England no longer exists ? It is already carved up into 9 administrative regions of the EU.

But if you want to pay bills to the council for goods and services you have never had described, quantified, and which you never asked for, go ahead. If you CONSENT to this corporate scam, go ahead ! Good luck to you.

In the real world CONSENT matters. And you don't know the LAW of England, do you ? You've never spent a day examining it. So your nation is torn to pieces and you are hardly aware of how it's happening.

You don't want a tyranny in this country, do you ? Just keep voting for the same theatre. Don't worry, it's soon here. And you will wonder what happened.

WAKE UP ENGLAND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Especially, I find it strange that you wrote this after quoting three paragraphs of text by joe911 in which he asked you some specific questions, but nothing you wrote was actually a response to anything he said or asked.

[D'rok]

Don't believe the tired old lies. Check the reality for yourself. Get in touch with the Common Law of England. You will get a real eye opener.

:)

You keep nattering on about the common law. Any chance you could address this:

I get an extra chuckle out of this UK brand of FOTL woo. Elevating the common law to the supreme law of the land really just means that the unelected judiciary is supreme. Who makes common law? Judges. Who does judicial review? Judges. Who appoints judges in the UK? The Queen on the advice of the PM. Some freedom!

Or this:

Can you describe, in your own words, what the common law is? For simplicity's sake, please stick to English common law.

[Especially]

Stupidity on parade - you just quoted a long list of fictional conspiracy theories with a few exceptions. Bank bailouts were real, and Guantanamo Bay was real - but alas, we all know about them and there are no (real) conspiracies with them.

We still await your facts.

Guantanamo Bay is an ILLEGAL regime. Done in your name. UNCONSITUTIONAL. Aren't you ashamed of that ?

Bank bailouts whether you want them or not.

How about the IRS scam ?

How about the corruption of the Congress ? How about the corporate control of printing the Dollar ? How about the Patriot Act and the Constitution ? How about the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan ? How about the lies and more lies of the same tired political elites ? How about the Bush speeches on the New World Order ? How about the links being made between Canada and Mexico and the end of borders ? How about bankrupt America ?

It seems to me that 'a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'.

Wake up USA !!!

[Lothian]

What is the freemen movement's point? I presume that they don't want to pay taxes. So how do we pay for common services like the NHS?

[joe911]

But if you want to pay bills to the council for goods and services you have never had described, quantified, and which you never asked for, go ahead. If you CONSENT to this corporate scam, go ahead ! Good luck to you.

If you freeman had your way,we would go back to the middle ages. When i start paying taxes i wond mind some of it going to hospitals/education/roads or anything my council see's fit. Tell me this,if you tripped up because of a broken path,would you seek compensation from the council? Because in theory you have no right to complain about anything you are'nt contributing towards. What happens if you were to collapse right now and be rushed into hospital,and lets say for arguments sake it was life threatening and they saved your life,would you not be thankfull you have this treatment available? Thats something else i dont understand,if you go to some countries in the world they have nothing like we do,you either have to fork out thousands of pounds,or endure the pain,yet you freemen seem to think you are victims somehow:confused: so yes,i will CONSENT to taxes,even if I dont personally benefit from them,ill have peace knowing that my money is helping somebody who needs it.


In the real world CONSENT matters. And you don't know the LAW of England, do you ? You've never spent a day examining it. So your nation is torn to pieces and you are hardly aware of how it's happening.
Well one of my best friends is a LAWYER.He spent a long time studying the law ands when i spoke with him about your beleifs he laughed them off. My spidey sense tells me that he knows what he's talking about,and you dont. Why are many freeman now in jail/having court hearings/been charged with various offences if thier beliefs were true?


You don't want a tyranny in this country, do you ? Just keep voting for the same theatre. Don't worry, it's soon here. And you will wonder what happened.

WAKE UP ENGLAND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lol@ tyrany. You are very privileged to have been born in the western world,some countries really have dictators and have no rights and are opressed. We live lives of luxury here in comparison.

[Especially]

You keep nattering on about the common law. Any chance you could address this:



Or this:


Common law is that body of basic law on which the nation exists. It is very ancient. It is that law which is derived from the principle of the Golden Rule. And if a law does not conform to the Common Law it is NOT lawful. It's a bad law. Common Law in England is enough to stop a court case if it is not recognised. THAT IS ITS POWER.

The politicians of Parliaments make lots of 'laws' so-called. None of them are laws. They are STATUTES. A Statute requires the CONSENT of the governed. If Consent is NOT given it is not lawfully binding on that individual. The core of the entire system of law IS the Common Law. Nothing else. NOT on Acts of Parliament.

In Canada, the USA, England, and all nations which have their legal system based on it. The Common Law is the answer to big government. It is the LAW which the lawyers don't like. IT IS YOUR FRIEND. And it has to be asserted to remain free from corporate fraud.

Because sovereignty is impersonated. By a 'sovereign'. So also real law is impersonated by the 'laws' of parliaments. Real law IS the COMMON LAW. And every judge knows it.

The Common Law is superior to all other laws in the legal system. Including the statutes ('laws') of Parliaments.

[D'rok]

Common law is that body of basic law on which the nation exists. It is very ancient. It is that law which is derived from the principle of the Golden Rule. And if a law does not conform to the Common Law it is NOT lawful. It's a bad law. Common Law in England is enough to stop a court case if it is not recognised. THAT IS ITS POWER.

The politicians of Parliaments make lots of 'laws' so-called. None of them are laws. They are STATUTES. A Statute requires the CONSENT of the governed. If Consent is NOT given it is not lawfully binding on that individual. The core of the entire system of law IS the Common Law. Nothing else. NOT on Acts of Parliament.

In Canada, the USA, England, and all nations which have their legal system based on it. The Common Law is the answer to big government. It is the LAW which the lawyers don't like. IT IS YOUR FRIEND. And it has to be asserted to remain free from corporate fraud.

Because sovereignty is impersonated. By a 'sovereign'. So also real law is impersonated by the 'laws' of parliaments. Real law IS the COMMON LAW. And every judge knows it.

The Common Law is superior to all other laws in the legal system. Including the statutes ('laws') of Parliaments.

Thank you. One simple follow-up question. Who makes common law?

[Especially]

I never got beyond elementary Calculus in college, but I have a degree in History . MY speciality is American History, but I have a pretty good knowledge of English History, and our little friend's knowledge of history is abysmal.
And A Jesuit conpiracy to rule England????God, that kind of rhetoric went out with Oliver Cromwell....

Really ?

In that case you will confirm to us that the deal made between King John of England with the pope in Rome (during the era of Magna Carta) was binding on him and all future kings of England in perpetuity. According to its own text. Sealed by King John. Which meant England and the tax payers of England were forever to pay, each year, big money to the papacy in Rome through all monarchs. There's the truth.

As for the Jesuits, they infiltrated England, big time, and are today running whole areas of our government, our secret services, our mass media, our newspapers, television etc. Haven't heard about it ? Have you heard of the Knights of Columbus and their control of the CIA ? How many directors have been members of that one group ?

Try the website 'Arctic Beacon' ?

Surely you can confirm this to be true. You are a historian. The documented scam of the monarchy and the papacy in alliance in perpetuity. Forever. Says so right in the text ! Assuming of course documentary evidence matters to you, that is. I am also a historian.

[drkitten]

In that case you will confirm to us that the deal made between King John of England with the pope in Rome (during the era of Magna Carta)

How quaint. A 13th century Jesuit conspiracy. No doubt the terms were negotiated via cell phone and the documents delivered in PDF format?

[geni]

1. The 'head of state' in England is unelected. Right ? It's the monarchy.


Yup. Head of state has no actual power mind. Figurehead head of states are quite common these days.


2. Since 1066 (when the papacy in Rome blessed a full scale invasion of this country) the monarchs have been seen as the 'head of state'. Stooges of the papacy, with tax raising powers. Under penalty if you disobey.


So you think the break is 1066? Problem is that common law is a product of the 1066 invasion.



4. The greatest enemies of democracy and a fair, representative government have always been the unelected system of the monarchy and its elites. It was the monarchy (and I must remind you of this fact) who drove out Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the USA from England. On the orders of the King of England.

No such thing as the king of England by that point and he kinda left due to money issues.



Didn't know that, right ? Around 1800 only a few people could vote in England and they were all land owning lords and aristocrats. Get it yet ?

Lords couldn't vote and suffurage was to be considerable extended starting 1832.



5. The Laws of England are the Common Law of England.


No you've already rejected that position with your rants about 1066. If post 1066 is not legit then neither is common law and you need to turn to Ecclesiastical law and Anglo-Saxon law.


They are laws which must be observed by all governments of England.


There hasn't been a goverment of england in centuries. Parliment is in any case supream and can overule any law.


The laws of England are not made by political parties in Westminster. The Common Law of England is the final appeal against bad legislation. Check it out ! Ask any lawyer, any policeman, any historian, anyone who knows the subject.

I have done. The subject has some interesting elements but they are not what you think.


Where did the US Constitution come from ? That document which the elitists hate ? And who tore it to pieces after 9/11 and gave you a Patriot Act in its place ? You got it !!


7. If an Act of Parliament is made which contradicts the Common Law of England it is bad and can be appealed against and rejected. This happens all the time. Didn't know that, right ? The Acts of Parliament are NOT law. They are acts of Statute. Such a simple thing. But do you realise what that means ? It means you've been suckered, for a long time.

The courts can stall but parliment could just abolish them if they became too annoying. Otherwise the accepted convention is that if the judges do do something that parliment feels inconsistent with the laws it passed parliment passed a new law that makes the situation very clear.


8. Each and every politician elected in England by the people of England MUST give an oath to the unelected monarchy to serve THEM on the very first day he/she sits in Parliament in Westminster. Without which they are fined heavily. Didn't know that, right ? So the counterfeit system carries on acting as 'government'. It's all an illusion. The government of our nation is founded on the Law. On the Constituion. Nothing else.

Said parliament has throw out kings and indeed executed one. It has chosen who should be the next king (William of orange) and has settled the principle that it can pass laws without royal consent (Regency crisis). The idea of the monarch being at this time being anything more than a figurehead is not de-facto nor de-jure defensible.


9. The Parliamentary oath says NOTHING about serving the electorate of England. Nothing ! Didn't know that, right ? Check it out for yourself !


Err is this a problem?


11. The monarchy is a dyanasty nobody, nobody elected. It is also one of the richest, most ruthless, corporate frauds of human history.

Not really. The total weath of the crown isn't actualy that high.


Why, it was the Redcoats of England who invaded the USA. Forgot that ?

I'm british. I'm failing to see a problem with invadeing the US at that point in history.



12. Our nation of England has been tricked in to joining the European Union. An empire which NOBODY in the UK voted for.

1975 Referendum.


13. The 'laws' being used by the police forces of Britain (each of which is a registered corporation) are all STATUTES and they require your consent. So that policemen are now glorified revenue officers. Get it yet ? They hardly know what the Common Law of England is.

Actualy "breach of the peace" is common law and I understand the police have been known to make a fair bit of use of that.



14. Local government in England has long been corrupted.

No it hasn't. That suggests a non corrupt starting point. If anything it has become less corrupt. For example it would now be illegal for a local landowner bribe the council to get what they wanted.


15. In recent years people have started fighting back against this corruption. See for example the 'freeman' movement which exists very widely in the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. See for example the website FMOTL in the UK.

[quote]
16. It's not that people want 'something for nothing'. It's that people want the Law of England, and NOT corrupt corruptions, parties, stooges and STATUTES to rob us blind.

You want pre 1066 law and yet you dislike the pope. You might want to pay some attention to how Anglo-Saxon law treats offences against the church.


17. If you do not understand that Common Law of England you will never understand how the courts are really places of business, for the CORPORATE system. That's all they are. And always have been.

Err common law was invented by the courts.


18. America taught the world about how to be free of this empire. Now it seems that England must teach you.


Back to the basics. Back to the Common Law of England. Back to real freedom. Because the alternative is a police state and the loss of all your individual freedoms.

Errr are you trying to cite roman law now?

[geni]

Really ?

In that case you will confirm to us that the deal made between King John of England with the pope in Rome (during the era of Magna Carta) was binding on him and all future kings of England in perpetuity. According to its own text. Sealed by King John. Which meant England and the tax payers of England were forever to pay, each year, big money to the papacy in Rome through all monarchs. There's the truth.


Surely you can confirm this to be true. You are a historian. The documented scam of the monarchy and the papacy in alliance in perpetuity. Forever. Says so right in the text. Assuming of course that documentary evidence matters to you, that is.

Yes ?

One of the interesting factors of the british consitution is that in perpetuity is not binding. In this case I understand that links with the catholic church kinda broke down around the time of the rule of king Henry VIII.

[leafman91]

It's not your fault. You just don't get it, do you ? The scam is that the 'government' (so-called) is rolling all over you. In the name of laws which are UNLAWFUL. If they turn the entire country in to a CCTV empire, with phone taps and intrusions of every kind on the internet, don't worry about it, right ? Gee, how crazy does it get ? Because you are a 'law abiding citizen'. Gee !!! Do you know what the LAW actually IS in this country ?

Does that matter ? Does it matter to you that England no longer exists ? It is already carved up into 9 administrative regions of the EU.

But if you want to pay bills to the council for goods and services you have never had described, quantified, and which you never asked for, go ahead. If you CONSENT to this corporate scam, go ahead ! Good luck to you.

In the real world CONSENT matters. And you don't know the LAW of England, do you ? You've never spent a day examining it. So your nation is torn to pieces and you are hardly aware of how it's happening.

You don't want a tyranny in this country, do you ? Just keep voting for the same theatre. Don't worry, it's soon here. And you will wonder what happened.

WAKE UP ENGLAND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry to rain on your parade but... your whole idea behind consent for statutes is utter tosh. To be absolutely clear, the form of consent of the governed is in the voting for your local Parliament representative, who is paid to listen carefully to the opinions of the population residing within his area. If he doesn't listen, then the people vote him out, and he loses his job, giving him/her incentive to listen to their respective masses. These representatives then argue their viewpoints over laws to be passed. Your consent is given on your behalf by your local parliament representative for the law to be passed. Very simple. Unfortunately, your talk of George Bush's NWO speeches are equally as trashed up. New World Order happens to be a political term referring to a big change in world politics. Unfortunately, evidence of a One World Government is completely lost on me, as I've seen most of it disproven already. That's your first job. Your second is to wake up, as you have been telling the rest of us. Your talk of a puppet theatre Parliament needs to have hard evidence behind it. Where is all this corruption? Please don't quote the expenses scandal, as this is entirely unrelated to your claims of corporate control. Yes, everything is done under the Crownn. This is why the Queen is a figurehead. This is what the figurehead does. It seems to me that 'a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'. I believe you are quite familiar with that one.

Try evidence next time, please.

[Especially]

If you freeman had your way,we would go back to the middle ages. When i start paying taxes i wond mind some of it going to hospitals/education/roads or anything my council see's fit. Tell me this,if you tripped up because of a broken path,would you seek compensation from the council? Because in theory you have no right to complain about anything you are'nt contributing towards. What happens if you were to collapse right now and be rushed into hospital,and lets say for arguments sake it was life threatening and they saved your life,would you not be thankfull you have this treatment available? Thats something else i dont understand,if you go to some countries in the world they have nothing like we do,you either have to fork out thousands of pounds,or endure the pain,yet you freemen seem to think you are victims somehow:confused: so yes,i will CONSENT to taxes,even if I dont personally benefit from them,ill have peace knowing that my money is helping somebody who needs it.


Well one of my best friends is a LAWYER.He spent a long time studying the law ands when i spoke with him about your beleifs he laughed them off. My spidey sense tells me that he knows what he's talking about,and you dont. Why are many freeman now in jail/having court hearings/been charged with various offences if thier beliefs were true?



Lol@ tyrany. You are very privileged to have been born in the western world,some countries really have dictators and have no rights and are opressed. We live lives of luxury here in comparison.

Until you have read about this subject I don't blame you for writing as you do. I thought the very same for a long time. Till I finally decided to check these things out.

Something is badly wrong in this nation. And guess what it is ? The system itself. It's corrupt from top to bottom. And you should know about it. Because people everywhere are waking up to reality. You should too.

Ask your lawyer friend one question. Do yourself a favour. Ask him if Statutes made by Parliament require the consent of the governed.

Just that question.

And if he answers ask him another. The Common Law of England. This law is the supreme law of England. Yes, or no ?

Your money is helping nobody. Since the government in a single year receives nearly 10 times what it spends on the people of this nation. Check it out. The government of this nation are those who are under the law of England. The Common Law of England. Not its impersonation. Its corporate revenue collectors who, without your own consent, fleece you from the day you are born till the day you die. In the name of the 'law'. It's a scam you are hardly aware of. And it has nothing to do with the Law.


Thank You

[LightinDarkness]

Guantanamo Bay is an ILLEGAL regime. Done in your name. UNCONSITUTIONAL. Aren't you ashamed of that ?

Bank bailouts whether you want them or not.

How about the IRS scam ?

How about the corruption of the Congress ? How about the corporate control of printing the Dollar ? How about the Patriot Act and the Constitution ? How about the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan ? How about the lies and more lies of the same tired political elites ? How about the Bush speeches on the New World Order ? How about the links being made between Canada and Mexico and the end of borders ? How about bankrupt America ?

It seems to me that 'a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'.

Wake up USA !!!

Wake up FOTL Sheeple!!!

Guantanamo bay is not illegal, although depending on ones political preferences they may not support it. This does not make it a conspiracy. I am not ashamed of it at all, but I am ashamed of FOTLers.

What corruption in Congress? Links and facts, not CT propaganda. What about the Patriot Act? It was passed by Congress and the Supreme Court has heard cases about it and never ruled it unconstitutional. There was no illegal invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, unless you think the UN is illegal. There is no "political elite" doing anything, its a conspiracy fantasy. There are no links being made between Canada and Mexico, but if they want to its their right to do so as soverign countries. There have been no speeches on the conspiracy you think of as the NWO. The phrase "new world order" is political rhetoric. The US is not bankrupt, thats a conspiracy fantasy.

Indeed, it seems as though you hear what you want to hear and ignore all the FACTS.

[Especially]

Sorry to rain on your parade but... your whole idea behind consent for statutes is utter tosh. To be absolutely clear, the form of consent of the governed is in the voting for your local Parliament representative, who is paid to listen carefully to the opinions of the population residing within his area. If he doesn't listen, then the people vote him out, and he loses his job, giving him/her incentive to listen to their respective masses. These representatives then argue their viewpoints over laws to be passed. Your consent is given on your behalf by your local parliament representative for the law to be passed. Very simple. Unfortunately, your talk of George Bush's NWO speeches are equally as trashed up. New World Order happens to be a political term referring to a big change in world politics. Unfortunately, evidence of a One World Government is completely lost on me, as I've seen most of it disproven already. That's your first job. Your second is to wake up, as you have been telling the rest of us. Your talk of a puppet theatre Parliament needs to have hard evidence behind it. Where is all this corruption? Please don't quote the expenses scandal, as this is entirely unrelated to your claims of corporate control. Yes, everything is done under the Crownn. This is why the Queen is a figurehead. This is what the figurehead does. It seems to me that 'a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'. I believe you are quite familiar with that one.

Try evidence next time, please.


What a collection of fictions !

You seem to ignore the fact that an MP gives up any pretence of SERVING the people when he gives an oath to the MONARCHY !!!

Earth calling England, Earth calling England !!!!!

[Especially]

Wake up FOTL Sheeple!!!

Guantanamo bay is not illegal, although depending on ones political preferences they may not support it. This does not make it a conspiracy. I am not ashamed of it at all, but I am ashamed of FOTLers.

What corruption in Congress? Links and facts, not CT propaganda. What about the Patriot Act? It was passed by Congress and the Supreme Court has heard cases about it and never ruled it unconstitutional. There was no illegal invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, unless you think the UN is illegal. There is no "political elite" doing anything, its a conspiracy fantasy. There are no links being made between Canada and Mexico, but if they want to its their right to do so as soverign countries. There have been no speeches on the conspiracy you think of as the NWO. The phrase "new world order" is political rhetoric. The US is not bankrupt, thats a conspiracy fantasy.

Indeed, it seems as though you hear what you want to hear and ignore all the FACTS.


You are not ashamed of Guantanamo Bay ? Edited for civility What sort of person are you to allow people to be imprisoned without charge ? Still waiting for trial after all these years ? Nonsense ! Edited for civility.

The Patriot Act has been found to be UNCONSITUTIONAL in courts all across the USA. Check it out. It's an evil nonsense. Hatched out of Jesuit Georgetown University. Throw it in the bin. And get back to the USA Constitution. Fools !

If the USA is not bankrupt how come the bailout was a giant fraud ?

Edited for attacking the arguer, not the argument, and for civility.

You are very new here, so I'm going to request that you re-read your membership agreement, especially Rule 12: “Attack the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer. Thank you.

[LightinDarkness]

What a collection of fictions !

You seem to ignore the fact that an MP gives up any pretence of SERVING the people when he gives an oath to the MONARCHY !!!

Earth calling England, Earth calling England !!!!!

Actually hes quite right. The myth that there is some difference between common law and statutes and that you can choose to "opt out" of statutes is a FOTL fiction.

Any oath to the monarch is part of England's tradition, the Monarch holds no more power than any other ceremonial head of state.

[LightinDarkness]

You are not ashamed of Guantanamo Bay ? You are one messed up guy ! You should hide in a bush. You are a disgrace. What sort of person are you to allow people to be imprisoned without charge ? Still waiting for trial after all these years ? Nonsense ! Your'e a bunch of bandits. You are a bunch of rambos and the world hates you. With good reason. You are a disgrace to the great Constitution of the USA. And to your own legal system which has 4 times condemned Guantanamo Bay.

The Patriot Act has been found to be UNCONSITUTIONAL in courts all across the USA. Check it out. It's an evil nonsense. Hatched out of Jesuit Georgetown University. Throw it in the bin. And get back to the USA Constitution. Fools !

If the USA is not bankrupt how come the bailout was a giant fraud ?

You are swimming in sewage. You do not see your own moral, political, economic bankruptcy.

You making up lies is not going to change the reality. The patriot act has NEVER been found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, please stop lying. Link the exact court cases or admit you are a liar.

You are living in a delusional fantasy world. I am ashamed of you, what kind of a despicable person thinks that the laws don't apply to them? You are a disgrace.

The USA is not bankrupt, the bank bailout was not a fraud. You are living in a fantasy world fueled by populist hysteria that has no regard for the FACTS. You do not seem to be capable of depicting FOTL lies from reality. For example: it is completely OK to disagree with Guantanamo Bay as a policy - this is normal and valid. It make you an insane nutter to believe that its an conspiratorial operation.

[joe911]

You are not ashamed of Guantanamo Bay ? You are one messed up guy ! You should hide in a bush. You are a disgrace. What sort of person are you to allow people to be imprisoned without charge ? Still waiting for trial after all these years ? Nonsense ! Your'e a bunch of bandits. You are a bunch of rambos and the world hates you. With good reason. You are a disgrace to the great Constitution of the USA. And to your own legal system which has 4 times condemned Guantanamo Bay.

No,your right. Because the terrorists dont consent to been arrested they are free,right? I mean,the CORPORATION made conspiracy to commit terrorism ILLEGAL.BUT it turns out its only a STATUTE so osama and his buddies are ALLOWED to make bombs,conspire to harm innocent civilians,aslong as they dont actually go and carry it out,right? :confused::mad:

You seriously need to re-evaluate your beliefs,sir. People arent just taken to guantanamo for anything,they must be a genuine threat to society.

[LightinDarkness]

No,your right. Because the terrorists dont consent to been arrested they are free,right? I mean,the CORPORATION made conspiracy to commit terrorism ILLEGAL.BUT it turns out its only a STATUTE so osama and his buddies are ALLOWED to make bombs,conspire to harm innocent civilians,aslong as they dont actually go and carry it out,right? :confused::mad:

You seriously need to re-evaluate your beliefs,sir. People arent just taken to guantanamo for anything,they must be a genuine threat to society.

Well you know, OBL is just a freedom fighter, joe911. Its the US government's fault for oppressing him and the CIA using him as a false flag operation.

[dudalb]

:spam1


The OP is headed for a short career at JREF if he continues on the path he is going down.

[dudalb]

Really ?

In that case you will confirm to us that the deal made between King John of England with the pope in Rome (during the era of Magna Carta) was binding on him and all future kings of England in perpetuity. According to its own text. Sealed by King John. Which meant England and the tax payers of England were forever to pay, each year, big money to the papacy in Rome through all monarchs. There's the truth.

As for the Jesuits, they infiltrated England, big time, and are today running whole areas of our government, our secret services, our mass media, our newspapers, television etc. Haven't heard about it ? Have you heard of the Knights of Columbus and their control of the CIA ? How many directors have been members of that one group ?

Try the website 'Arctic Beacon' ?

Surely you can confirm this to be true. You are a historian. The documented scam of the monarchy and the papacy in alliance in perpetuity. Forever. Says so right in the text ! Assuming of course documentary evidence matters to you, that is. I am also a historian.


The KNights of Columbus control the CIA?



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13773)

[Especially]

The KNights of Columbus control the CIA?



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13773)

Why not do yourself a favour ? Get a piece of paper and a pen. Sit down and do a search of the list of directors of the CIA from the time it was founded and see how many directors and deputy directors have been members of the Knights of Columbus and other fraternities.

If you can't find any post again here.

Thanks

[drkitten]

As for the Jesuits, they infiltrated England, big time, and are today running whole areas of our government, our secret services, our mass media, our newspapers, television etc. Haven't heard about it ? Have you heard of the Knights of Columbus and their control of the CIA ? How many directors have been members of that one group ?

So,.... um, the KoC are now Jesuits? Or Jesuit-controlled?

This would be news to both the KoC and the Jesuits themselves.

Or are you simply anti-Catholic and unaware of the political subdivisions within the RCC? That would make more sense given the other list of things that you're unaware of.

[Especially]

No,your right. Because the terrorists dont consent to been arrested they are free,right? I mean,the CORPORATION made conspiracy to commit terrorism ILLEGAL.BUT it turns out its only a STATUTE so osama and his buddies are ALLOWED to make bombs,conspire to harm innocent civilians,aslong as they dont actually go and carry it out,right? :confused::mad:

You seriously need to re-evaluate your beliefs,sir. People arent just taken to guantanamo for anything,they must be a genuine threat to society.

What sort of education do you have ?

A man is presumed innocent until he is convicted in a court of law ! Don't you know that ?

A man is entitled to have a hearing of his case and not to be held against his will without a lawyer. He is entitled to hear the case against him. And for his case to be heard. A man is entitled to fair treatment.

But none of these things have happened at Guantanamo Bay. What 'threat' were these people to society ?

Just tell us.

Or just please tell us you are talking sheer nonsense. The whole Guantanamo Bay affair has been a disaster for the reputation of the USA. And everyone knows it.

How about you being arrested for years on mere suspicion ?

This is the stone age. And it's nonsense.

[Agatha]

Especially, what is it this FOTL movement want in England, specifically? Not pay their council tax? Not insure their cars? Have all the benefits of living in society without contributing to that society?

Shorn of the rhetoric about common law and statutes, and the wild and wacky conspiracy theories, what exactly is it that you are intending to achieve?

[Sunray Breaker]

This is by far the most dangerous and convincing of woo...Because you hear people like Robert Arthur Menard and Mary Elizabeth Croft using all of these complicated words to describe what their doing and it makes it sound like they know their stuff...

I got really into this Freeman woo for a while. I was just weeks away from "filing my UCC-1 financing statement and turning in my Notice of Understanding and Intent"...Luckily I logged on here first and cleared my hallow skull of the poison that had fillied it for the last 5 years.

Hmm....Perhaps my next article should be bout Freeman woo.

[Manly Man]

Congratulations. You have shamed me into accepting your point of view. I think it must have been your spot on characterization of me as a couch potato who has never read the constitution and voted for the people that were on the ballot presented to me. I'm sorry, but I've been too busy watching American Idol and following the happenings of Spencer and Heidi to give a rats a$$ about my precious freedoms. As a new convert, do you know of somebody who would be willing to take my money so as to provide me with more information on this radical new concept of "freedom"? I prefer it in DVD form, since my weakened American mind can no longer stay focused enough to read. Perhaps I should view some youtube videos? Please don't recommend anything that may have conflicting information. Right now I'm very vulnerable, and I don't think my fragile mind could handle it. Please only recommend videos that reinforce my new found perspective.

[Especially]

So,.... um, the KoC are now Jesuits? Or Jesuit-controlled?

This would be news to both the KoC and the Jesuits themselves.

Or are you simply anti-Catholic and unaware of the political subdivisions within the RCC? That would make more sense given the other list of things that you're unaware of.

The enemies of the great US Constitution were, from the very beginning, the Vatican. Who hated the separation of church and state, for just one example. They have worked tirelessly ever since to destroy it. They funded the Civil War. They assassinated Abraham Lincoln. They have written the Patriot Act. They have sent the American soldiers in their thousands to give their lives in Vietnam. Why ?

Ever read 'Vietnam - why did we go'' ' by Avro Manhattan ?

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Avro%20Manhattan%22

Now, I don't mind having a conversation with anybody who has read it. Or on anything else I've posted on. I am happy to discuss these things. But please, please, DO read it.

Thank You

[LightinDarkness]

Why not do yourself a favour ? Get a piece of paper and a pen. Sit down and do a search of the list of directors of the CIA from the time it was founded and see how many directors and deputy directors have been members of the Knights of Columbus and other fraternities.

If you can't find any post again here.

Thanks

Why not do YOURSELF a favor? Get a piece of paper and a pen. Sit down and do a search of the list of CIA directors who were MEN.

This MUST mean there is a secret cabal of men ruling the world making sure that only men CIA directors get selected!

OR...could it be that basic principle of science that correlation does not equal causation?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html

[Especially]

This is by far the most dangerous and convincing of woo...Because you hear people like Robert Arthur Menard and Mary Elizabeth Croft using all of these complicated words to describe what their doing and it makes it sound like they know their stuff...

I got really into this Freeman woo for a while. I was just weeks away from "filing my UCC-1 financing statement and turning in my Notice of Understanding and Intent"...Luckily I logged on here first and cleared my hallow skull of the poison that had fillied it for the last 5 years.

Hmm....Perhaps my next article should be bout Freeman woo.

And now you are twice as washed up as when you started, right ? You know better, right ?

Please share with us, here on the forum, what you personally discovered about the freeman movement and what convinced you here that it is untrue. So untrue you are still in the same system.

Looking forward to your reply. It will be great to have it. It will be extremely interesting, in fact. Then we can all see for ourselves what is really true and what is false. Let's keep it real simple so everyone can hear your point of view. And I will reply to what you write.

Regards

[Checkmite]

And you voted it in. And you will do it again.

Ever stop to think that the reason we voted it in is because we like it and want it?

You may sit down now.

[LightinDarkness]

This is by far the most dangerous and convincing of woo...Because you hear people like Robert Arthur Menard and Mary Elizabeth Croft using all of these complicated words to describe what their doing and it makes it sound like they know their stuff...

I got really into this Freeman woo for a while. I was just weeks away from "filing my UCC-1 financing statement and turning in my Notice of Understanding and Intent"...Luckily I logged on here first and cleared my hallow skull of the poison that had fillied it for the last 5 years.

Hmm....Perhaps my next article should be bout Freeman woo.

I think Freeman woo is going to be the next big thing for the reasons I described earlier (people looking for scapegoats, and FOTL woo gives a false sense of empowerment). People WANT there to be secret methods of getting back at the MAN so bad that they will believe anything.

Of course, they can file their UCC-1 and NOU all they want, but since the documents aren't based on any legal realities its the same as sending Pizza Hut your Notice of Understanding that you deserve free pizza. Im not so much worried about legions of woos filing meaningless legal documents as I am with them clogging the legal system with this nonsense.

[drkitten]

This is by far the most dangerous and convincing of woo...

I agree.

That's the problem with "woo" in general. Not because there's anything particularly wrong with believing in things that simply aren't true,... .but when you act in accordance with those beliefs, people can get hurt. Often yourself.

My father-in-law believes that doctors try to kill him, and refuses to get medical attention as a result. I think this belief will take twenty years off his life.

My sister believes that taking out a loan is a sin. I think this belief will condemn her to an impoverished retirement, because she will still be paying rent -- and it may well condemn her children to a poor education because they can't attend a good/expensive college.

My mother believes that electricity leaks out of light sockets unless you put those little plastic plugs in. I haven't bothered to correct her on this because, as far as I can tell, that's a harmless belief.

But FOTL beliefs seem (to me) particularly harmful. The court system doesn't appreciate it when you play silly, "frivolous" games with them. And they're backed up, both socially and legally, with almost unlimited power.

People have paid massive fines from this stuff. People have gone bankrupt from this stuff. People have gone to jail from this stuff. People have lost their houses, their savings, their jobs, from this stuff.

[joe911]

A man is entitled to fair treatment.

That is correct. But not on the grounds of terrorism.

But none of these things have happened at Guantanamo Bay. What 'threat' were these people to society ?
Just tell us.

*FACEPALM.
What 'threat' are they? And you're asking about my education :/


How about you being arrested for years on mere suspicion ?


I would never put myself in a position where anyone would have reason to suspect me of any wrongdoing.

[Lothian]

People have paid massive fines from this stuff. People have gone bankrupt from this stuff. People have gone to jail from this stuff. People have lost their houses, their savings, their jobs, from this stuff.Really I thought it was just pseudo-intellectual masturbation. People believe it :mgduh

[drkitten]

The enemies of the great US Constitution were, from the very beginning, the Vatican.

I guess that answers my question. You are so ill-informed that you don't know anything about political divisions within the RCC.


Now, I don't mind having a conversation with anybody who has read it. Or on anything else I've posted on. I am happy to discuss these things. But please, please, DO read it.

I've read it. It's standard hysterical anti-Catholic propaganda, and as I recall, there's not a single correct sentence in it.

Just because someone publishes drek doesn't mean the drek is true. The fact that this particular drek is published by Chick Publications should have given you pause. This is the same publisher that gave us "Dark Dungeons."

Chick's disregard not only for the facts, but also for common sense and reason, are well-known.

[Especially]

Especially, what is it this FOTL movement want in England, specifically? Not pay their council tax? Not insure their cars? Have all the benefits of living in society without contributing to that society?

Shorn of the rhetoric about common law and statutes, and the wild and wacky conspiracy theories, what exactly is it that you are intending to achieve?

Hi there Agatha,

Thanks for the most sensible question so far on this thread.

In answer to your question -

'What exactly is it that you are intending to achieve' ?

My answer is simple. The people of England deserve their freedom from the tyranny of government that is no government.

The people of England obey the law of England. That is, the Common Law. They are NOT unlawful. In fact, they obey the law. That's fact number 1 about the Freeman movement. In England, in the USA, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and many other parts of the world. Take close note of it please.

But, between them and the law is a fake system. A counterfeit. Just like the dollar bills they print by the billion. You have one in the USA also. It's called 'government' and it bills you whether you like it or not. It can even shut down your own Constitution and can do what it likes in Congress. It can tax you against your own Constitution. It can make you pay for its own system. It can trash your Constitution before you are even aware of it. The lunatics took over the political system a long, long time ago. And they are still doing it. Heard of Congress ?

There is nothing ahead except slavery if we reject the foundations of the law on which our nations were built. And no corrupt regime, no corrupt corporated judges, lawyers, bankers, and politicians should rob us of our basic rights. Enshrined within our own Constitutions. Why not pull out the plug on the corporate news channels ?

The Common Law.

Have you seen the Youtube of John Quade on 'Common Law' yet ? It should really make you think.

Selfishness has brought us to a crisis. There is no future except to reject fake government and the illegal robbery of your own rights.

As for 'rhetoric' why not find out the difference between Statutes and the Common Law. Do at least this. As a favour to yourself. You can then see if its rhetoric or not. Because one thing is sure - you have not examined these things, have you ?

[Suddenly]

The Patriot Act has been found to be UNCONSITUTIONAL in courts all across the USA. Check it out. It's an evil nonsense. Hatched out of Jesuit Georgetown University.

Awesome. Maybe that is why their football program stinks.


So you think the break is 1066? Problem is that common law is a product of the 1066 invasion.


(giggling)

Thank you. One simple follow-up question. Who makes common law?

This is a somewhat unfair question to ask a freeper as it seems simple but represents some of the core concepts that make a freeper a freeper, and unfortunately most freepers lack the analytical chops to respond clearly. I used to be a nut, so I have a pretty decent grasp of all of this.


The "common law" just is, like the shape of a circle, like the beauty of a rose, like the taste of honey, like the thrill of victory, like the agony of defeat, like the four sides of a square, like the... ummm... infinite reach of human stupidity. It is innate to all existence and obviously known to all except the hopelessly corrupt.

Judges discover common law, the same way the mathematician discovers the value of pi. A seemingly obscure distinction, but essential in understanding the base theoretical underpinnings of freepers. Law is not created by judges, just discovered.

This is what most call "natural law" theory, and when freepers appeal to "common law," this is generally what they mean. It is a popular school of thought around the time of American independence.

The problem with all of this is that the underlying assumption, that all people share the an innate concept of right and wrong is true to a point about obvious matters and is workable in rural culturally homogeneous societies circa 1750 but breaks down as societies become more complex and diverse. While "don't kill for no reason" is an "obvious" moral rule that to some level can be seen as innate, it boggles the mind how one could "discover" traffic laws like speed limits in cities. (note the general freeper hostility to traffic codes and regulatory laws)

Likewise, as societies become diverse, "common sense" things for someone in England like "women should not go topless in public" is nothing near common sense for an African native. for whom going topless is a traditional indication of being unmarried.

For most people it becomes clear that some level of legal positivism, that the law is what we say it is rather than some innate "true law," is necessary for society to function. Freepers are the extreme end of refusing to do this and then building wildly strange analytical frameworks to fit their prejudices and beliefs into the "natural law" framework.

[dudalb]

Why not do yourself a favour ? Get a piece of paper and a pen. Sit down and do a search of the list of directors of the CIA from the time it was founded and see how many directors and deputy directors have been members of the Knights of Columbus and other fraternities.

If you can't find any post again here.

Thanks

If by other Fraternies you mean the Masons, last time I looked The Masons and the Catholic Church were not exactly the best of friends.

[joe911]

.
But FOTL beliefs seem (to me) particularly harmful. The court system doesn't appreciate it when you play silly, "frivolous" games with them. And they're backed up, both socially and legally, with almost unlimited power.

People have paid massive fines from this stuff. People have gone bankrupt from this stuff. People have gone to jail from this stuff. People have lost their houses, their savings, their jobs, from this stuff.

I read in another thread on this that this happened to a FOTL over at TPUC and thier responce was "the judge should be fired for not knowing the law". Its an endless circle of woo.

[drkitten]

I would never put myself in a position where anyone would have reason to suspect me of any wrongdoing.

To be fair,.... that's not entirely under your control. The late Senator Ted Kennedy found himself on the TSA's no-fly list because someone on the watch list used his name. Brandon Mayfield was arrested because his fingerprints resembled those found in the wake of the Madrid train bombings. While I'm responsible for my own actions, I cannot be responsible for the actions of all of those people whose partial fingerprints share some similarity with my own.

... and you can't keep people with fingerprints similar to yours from hatching bomb plots. I assume you would appreciate a chance to distinguish yourself from them. That's exactly what many of the Gitmo prisoners were NOT given.

[Especially]

Really I thought it was just pseudo-intellectual masturbation. People believe it :mgduh

So did I. Until I actually read it for myself.

[Comsat Angel]

"Read your own Constitution."

I'm from the UK. We haven't got one.

[Agatha]

Hi there Agatha,

Thanks for the most sensible question so far on this thread.

In answer to your question -

'What exactly is it that you are intending to achieve' ?

My answer is simple. The people of England deserve their freedom from the tyranny of government that is no government.

The people of England obey the law of England. That is, the Common Law. They are NOT unlawful. In fact, they obey the law.

But, between them and the law is a fake system. You have one in the USA also. Like many of the people responding to you on this thread, I am British and I live in England. While the political setup of the US is fascinating in its own right, I had thought the subject of this thread was the Freeman movement in England.

It's called 'government' and it bills you whether you like it or not. It can even shut down your own Constitution and can do what it likes in Congress. It can make you pay for its own system. It can trash your Constitution before you are even aware of it. The lunatics took over the political system a long, long time ago. And they are still doing it.

There is nothing ahead except slavery if we reject the foundations of the law on which our nations were built. And no corrupt regime, no corrupt corporated judges, lawyers, bankers, and politicians should rob us of our basic rights. Enshrined within our own Constitutions.

The Common Law.

Have you seen the Youtube of John Quade on 'Common Law' yet ? It should really make you think.

Selfishness has brought us to a crisis. There is no future except to reject fake government and the illegal robbery of your own rights.

All that was very interesting but I am not a public meeting, so you don't need to address me as if I were. (That is a nod to Queen Victoria. :D )

I don't want to watch youtube videos, I'm watching Mastermind while I'm posting here. If you can't explain things in your own words, I'm not going to start chasing down videos.

I asked for examples and asked you about council tax and car insurance - any chance you could address this?

[Especially]

I read in another thread on this that this happened to a FOTL over at TPUC and thier responce was "the judge should be fired for not knowing the law". Its an endless circle of woo.

What judges are you talking about ?

Do you know that all courts in England are registered corporations ? Sorry to spring that FACT on you. But, just for the record. They are profit making entities that have shareholders, directors and make profits. Check it out.

As for the court system, it operates NOT under the Common Law of England but under a totally different law. Commercial Law. That's fact number 2. If you don't know this you will never see how you are being conned.

Thirdly, the Common Law of England is that law which is superior to all courts. It can be appealed to and is supreme. Didn't know that, yes ?

The Common Law of England makes it clear that governments govern ONLY with the consent of the governed. You do NOT have to pay council tax, tv licences, or ANY taxes UNLESS you consent to do so. That is plain, fair, and honest.

Am I going to fast for you ? You consent to these things without hardly knowing it.

When you are sent your Council Tax bill from a council are you aware the Council itself is a registered corporation ? Are you aware they NEVER tell you exactly what goods and services they are offering you in the first place ? Now, what sort of contract is it they are they offering you ? Exactly ? You never ask them. So they chase you and take you to their place of business. The courts. Where you are fined. And you consent to that too. Imagine a restaurant where you are billed before you have ordered anything ! But you accept it. That is what I mean.

At no point do you say NO. If that's not 'Social Engineering' I don't know what is !

Get it yet ? Statutes require your CONSENT. And Council Tax is just one scam forced on you. You can consider it and reject it perfectly lawfully. Why not visit, say, FMOTL website ? There are countless cases of this. It's there in black and white. The Common Law of England is our friend. The rest is scam, statute, and bogus courts.

http://www.fmotl.com/forum/

Sounds reasonable, yes ? You have every right to decide you do NOT want these services. You never asked for them. Your choice matters. You do NOT give consent. Etc.

So, who is free and who is enslaved ?

Simple, yes ?

[Suddenly]

As for 'rhetoric' why not find out the difference between Statutes and the Common Law. Do at least this. As a favour to yourself. You can then see if its rhetoric or not. Because one thing is sure - you have not examined these things, have you ?

I have. I know the difference. You have a slavish dependency to centuries old theories about law that the evolving nature of civilization proved unworkable and are using it to fool yourself that your political opinions are innate truth rather than just your opinions.

Simple as that.

[Agatha]

If you don't watch or record television services as they are being broadcast, you don't need to pay the TV licence. What's the problem? Don't watch it.

[joe911]

What judges are you talking about ?

Do you know that all courts in England are registered corporations ? Sorry to spring that FACT on you. But, just for the record. They are profit making entities that have shareholders, directors and make profits. Check it out.

As for the court system, it operates NOT under the Common Law of England but under a totally different law. Commercial Law. That's fact number 2. If you don't know this you will never see how you are being conned.

Ok,so you're telling me that judges do not know thier job? On thier first day they are all given the mason handguide and told that although they may have an enthusiasm for justice,they really are just tools of "THE CORPORATION" and will spend the rest of thier lives making profits for "da man". Someone earlier has allready explained to you what a corporation is,and why you are wrong about thier use in this context.

Thirdly, the Common Law of England is that law which is superior to all courts. It can be appealed to and is supreme. Didn't know that, yes ?

The Common Law of England makes it clear that governments govern ONLY with the consent of the governed. You do NOT have to pay council tax, tv licences, or ANY taxes UNLESS you consent to do so. That is plain, fair, and honest.

Am I going to fast for you ? You consent to these things without hardly knowing it.

When you are sent your Council Tax bill from a council are you aware the Council itself is a registered corporation ? Are you aware they NEVER tell you exactly what goods and services they are offering you in the first place ? Now, what sort of contract is it they are they offering you ? Exactly ? You never ask them. So they chase you and take you to their place of business. The courts. Where you are fined. And you consent to that too. Imagine a restaurant where you are billed before you have ordered anything ! But you accept it. That is what I mean.

At no point do you say NO.

Get it yet ? Statutes require your CONSENT. And Council Tax is a scam forced on you. You can consider it and reject it perfectly lawfully.

Sounds reasonable, yes. I do NOT want these services. My choice matters. I do NOT give consent. Etc.

Simple, yes ?

I dont need you to explain anything to me,becase the entire FOTL movement has had nothing but fail after fail after fail. I will be a good law abiding citizen and pay my taxes,One of my best friends is a lawyer,how is a FOTL supposed to argue thier case in court when lawyers dont even agree with thier woo?

Also,you say you do not want thier services,so am i right in presuming that if you were to collapse now we arent to call an ambulance for you,because it is a service that you do not want?

[drkitten]

Thirdly, the Common Law of England is that law which is superior to all courts. It can be appealed to and is supreme.

Goodness me.

How exactly does that work? Exactly what is the procedure for "appealing to the Common Law of England"?

Where, and with whom, do I file the paperwork? Who adjudicates the appeal? How is the verdict delivered? Who is responsible for enforcing the verdict? And what exactly happens when the verdict of "the Common Law of England" disagrees with the verdict given by the courts, which are backed up, ultimately, by policemen who will come and arrest you and place you in prison if you do not obey the verdict?



Sounds reasonable, yes ? You have every right to decide you do NOT want these services. You never asked for them. Your choice matters. You do NOT give consent. Etc.

And here's where the problem comes in.

The person who "consents" and pays his taxes will not be bothered by policemen coming and forcibly removing him from his house and placing him in prison. He will be free to come and go as he sees fit, engage in any activities compatible with law, and generally go about his business.

The person who "does NOT give consent" is looking at the inside of a small cell and an institutional diet.


So, who is free and who is enslaved?

Simple, yes ?

Very simple. Sounds to me like the idiot who refuses consent and is sent to prison is the one who is enslaved.

[Especially]

Agatha,

Thank you for asking about Council Tax and Car Insurance. I hope this is helpful.

COUNCIL TAX

The Act of Parliament that brought in Council Tax is NOT law. It (as perhaps you now realise) is a Statute.

And what that means is simple. It means that it needs YOUR CONSENT. If you give your consent you are liable to pay it.

Now, let me give you an example of its iniquity. Do they tell you, in advance, that they are actually CONTRACTING with you ? No, they just send you a bill. A bill for what, exactly ? Well, they never tell you. Because you (and I) have been conditioned to pay it. At no point are you told what you are paying for. It is not quantitified, itemised, costed, or even offered. What sort of deal is that ? And if you don't pay it you receive a summons. To THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS. Where you will have to say why you have not paid it.

Well, what happens if you or I don't actually WANT these unquantified, unlisted services in the first place ? What then ? Well, simple. Just write and thank them for their offer but decline it. In writing.

CAR INSURANCE

Car insurance is more complex because you have probably registered your car with DVLA. But you may not be aware that when a car is registered it is no longer your own. It becomes the property of others. How else do you think that cars are sometimes crushed ? The DVLA is a revenue office of the Crown. And, once again, Car Insurance is only a Statute. It requires your CONSENT. Because it's not law. Its a commercial Statute. Which requires, as said, your consent.

Does that sound fair and reasonable ? Well, it should do. It's the Common Law of England. The rest is corporate commercial law. Foisted on you as 'law' but, in fact, no law at all.

Regards

[joe911]

Car Insurance is only a Statute. It requires your CONSENT. Because it's not law. Its a commercial Statute. Which requires, as said, your consent.

Does that sound fair and reasonable ? Well, it should do. It's the Common Law of England. The rest is corporate commercial law. Foisted on you as 'law' but, in fact, no law at all.

So if I acidentally crashed into you,would I be right to presume that you would get the DVLA to pay to the damage to "thier" car? You could claim of my insurance,but im not sure if i consent to paying for damage to your car.:rolleyes:

[Lothian]

COUNCIL TAX

CAR INSURANCE

RegardsSo what happens to people who refuse to consent to pay council tax or who are caught by the police driving having refused to consent to pay insurance? If you can provide case references it would be useful. Thanks.

[Ambrosia]

I don't know what is !

Never a truer word spoken!

Statutes require your CONSENT.

Yes, yes they do. You provide them with consent by continuing to live within the borders of the country that passed those statutes.

In order to withdraw consent to be governed by said statutes, you have to leave the country. (and then move to a country that has statutes you can agree to abide by)

I have a question for you.

How many of the founders of the Freeman movement are currently imprisoned?

and as a follow up, how many followers of Freeman philosophy are currently imprisoned, or have had property confiscated as a result of following said philosophy?

oh and for a bonus point question how many Freeman advocates have been victorious within the courts of England and not had to pay car tax/get a driving licence/pay council tax/income tax/ etc.

[Especially]

Ok,so you're telling me that judges do not know thier job? On thier first day they are all given the mason handguide and told that although they may have an enthusiasm for justice,they really are just tools of "THE CORPORATION" and will spend the rest of thier lives making profits for "da man". Someone earlier has allready explained to you what a corporation is,and why you are wrong about thier use in this context.



I dont need you to explain anything to me,becase the entire FOTL movement has had nothing but fail after fail after fail. I will be a good law abiding citizen and pay my taxes,One of my best friends is a lawyer,how is a FOTL supposed to argue thier case in court when lawyers dont even agree with thier woo?

Also,you say you do not want thier services,so am i right in presuming that if you were to collapse now we arent to call an ambulance for you,because it is a service that you do not want?


You will be a compliant corporate client of the commercial takeover of our nation. Fine. But do not confuse others. Pay what you like. Why ! They can even send you council tax bill with no goods and services listed. And you pay it without question. They love suckers and you are just another one.

Sorry, but our courts are courts of commercial law. Get back your own control. Choose the law of England. It's so simple that even a judge of one of those courts can see it. Tell him you want the case tried under the Common Law of England and he will look at his watch and cough.

Because it's all a giant scam and NOT law.

Tell that to your lawyer friend and then post here his reply. It will be interesting to see what your 'learned' friend says. Just for the record.

[drkitten]

Well, what happens if you or I don't actually WANT these unquantified, unlisted services in the first place ? What then ? Well, simple. Just write and thank them for their offer but decline it. In writing.

And then what happens?

Will they simply accept that thank-you note? Or will you be subject to further harassment?

From this site (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/ManagingDebt/DebtsAndArrears/DG_10013198):

[Y]our council can ask the Magistrates’ Court for a ‘Liability Order’ (a demand for you to pay the full amount you owe, plus costs).

[...]

If the court makes a Liability Order against you, your council can take enforcement action against you in order to recover the debt. This will usually mean either deductions from wages and benefits or the use of bailiffs, although bankruptcy and charging orders are other options.

Your council can order your employer to deduct a regular amount from your wages toward your unpaid Council Tax. If this causes you financial hardship, you can ask your council if they're willing to accept smaller payments.

Your council may be able to apply for deductions if you are receiving Jobseekers’ Allowance, Income Support or Pension Credit.

Your council can send bailiffs to your home to seize property to sell. The money raised goes towards paying your debt, plus costs. The billing authority must send a letter two weeks before the bailiff’s first visit stating how much money you owe under the Liability Order.

You can contact the Council and the bailiffs and offer to come to an agreement on payments. It’s important to do this straight away, because if the bailiffs make a visit their costs could be added to your bill.

If your council has tried using bailiffs but your Council Tax still isn’t paid in full, they may apply to the Magistate’s Court for a warrant committing you to prison.

This isn't hypothetical. Real people have gone to real prisons for this. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-517412/Council-tax-rebel-76-walks-free-days-jail-family-settles-debts.html)

[Mojo]

It's illegal (according to the Constitution of England) to negotiate with any foreign power on our own national sovereignty.


Where in the Constitution of England does it say that?

[Especially]

Never a truer word spoken!



Yes, yes they do. You provide them with consent by continuing to live within the borders of the country that passed those statutes.

In order to withdraw consent to be governed by said statutes, you have to leave the country. (and then move to a country that has statutes you can agree to abide by)

I have a question for you.

How many of the founders of the Freeman movement are currently imprisoned?

and as a follow up, how many followers of Freeman philosophy are currently imprisoned, or have had property confiscated as a result of following said philosophy?

oh and for a bonus point question how many Freeman advocates have been victorious within the courts of England and not had to pay car tax/get a driving licence/pay council tax/income tax/ etc.

Ambrosia,

No, you do NOT provide people consent to make contracts with you by living in the country. You provide consent to people to make contracts with you ONLY by CONSENTING to their commercial offers. Simple, yes ?

And what happens if I don't want their commercial offers ? Am I entitled to decline them ? Of course I am. All statutes must have my consent. I have the right to accept or reject any offer under commercial law. Right ? Or will you jail someone for not consenting to them ?

IS THAT FAIR AND REASONABLE OR NOT ?

Finally, in answer to your question, I know nobody who is a freeman now in prison. But there are tens of thousands like you who are.

Is that a fair remark ?

How this helps.

Life is choice. And if you haven't got choice your either a slave or are not alive in the first place.

Regards

[Agatha]

Agatha,

Thank you for asking about Council Tax and Car Insurance. I hope this is helpful.

COUNCIL TAX

The Act of Parliament that brought in Council Tax is NOT law. It (as perhaps you now realise) is a Statute.

And what that means is simple. It means that it needs YOUR CONSENT. If you give your consent you are liable to pay it.

Now, let me give you an example of its iniquity. Do they tell you, in advance, that they are actually CONTRACTING with you ? No, they just send you a bill. A bill for what, exactly ? Well, they never tell you. Because you (and I) have been conditioned to pay it. At no point are you told what you are paying for. It is not quantitified, itemised, costed, or even offered. What sort of deal is that ? And if you don't pay it you receive a summons. To THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS. Where you will have to say why you have not paid it.

Well, what happens if you or I don't actually WANT these unquantified, unlisted services in the first place ? What then ? Well, simple. Just write and thank them for their offer but decline it. In writing.

CAR INSURANCE

Car insurance is more complex because you have probably registered your car with DVLA. But you may not be aware that when a car is registered it is no longer your own. It becomes the property of others. How else do you think that cars are sometimes crushed ? The DVLA is a revenue office of the Crown. And, once again, Car Insurance is only a Statute. It requires your CONSENT. Because it's not law. Its a commercial Statute. Which requires, as said, your consent.

Does that sound fair and reasonable ? Well, it should do. It's the Common Law of England. The rest is corporate commercial law. Foisted on you as 'law' but, in fact, no law at all.

Regards

I hate to burst your bubble, but no, that doesn't sound reasonable to me.

Council tax - your council sends you a leaflet along with the bill outlining what services they will be providing for the money. I don't know about your council but in both Sheffield and Chesterfield, the budget is outlined in the leaflet. So your contention that you don't know what you are paying for is quite simply wrong. You can also get more information from the council if the leaflet isn't comprehensive enough.

Imagine for a moment that you decline their services. How do you live in an area and not use any of the services? What do you do with your garbage? What do you walk on if not the council-maintained roads, pavements, verges and green spaces? If your house catches alight, who do you call? If you get burgled, who do you call? Where are your children educated? Who do you call if you have nuisance neighbours? And so on.

Personally, I do consent to paying my council tax. I use the services. I'm even happy to pay for some services that I may never need, because I live in a society where some people do need those services.

Car insurance - your explanation is somewhat circular and I am not at all clear whether you feel car insurance should be required or optional. As my exhusband and children were hit by an uninsured driver a few years ago, I feel very strongly that insurance should remain mandatory. If you don't want to pay it, don't drive a car. Simples, as the meercat says.

[Sunray Breaker]

And now you are twice as washed up as when you started, right ? You know better, right ?
Yes, I do....Just take a good long look at people who have actually tried to do this in the past. They almost always end up in jail for fraud if they take it too far. Especially when you start challenging police jurisdiction, enacting bogus fee schedules and using contempt of court as your defense.

Please share with us, here on the forum, what you personally discovered about the freeman movement and what convinced you here that it is untrue. So untrue you are still in the same system.
Part of it was learning a bit more about how common law actually applies and why it isn't our mainstream method of law anymore...

Do you realize that under common law people could own slaves if a judge permitted it? They could get away with nearly any atrocity based on certain weird loopholes in the system...which is exactly why it isn't used as often.


Looking forward to your reply. It will be great to have it. It will be extremely interesting, in fact. Then we can all see for ourselves what is really true and what is false. Let's keep it real simple so everyone can hear your point of view. And I will reply to what you write.

Because outside of the likes of people like Jordan Maxwell and (as good natured as he is) Robert Menard you will find that there is no actual evidence to support their claims.

1) Capitus Dimutia Maxima (NAME IN ALL CAPS) does not apply to your status as a citizen, as you may think it does.

2) Your Birth Certificate is not a tradable commodity on the stock market

3) The Income tax is completely legitimate and constitutional (granted it's a complicated mess, but so is any attempt at running a truly free society)

4) Gold Fringe on the flag has nothing to do with putting us under Admiralty Law and you will find little to no evidence outside of Montana that supports this goofy idea.

5) Freemen have been engaged in some pretty ugly stand-off with police in several cases

6) The Common Law Right to Travel does not excuse you from needing a license to drive (as it is also a safety concern)

7) You're consent is automatically given when you maintain your citizenship in that country. If you try to denounce your citizenship, you can't stay in the country.

8) Most people who try this stuff have ended up in serious trouble and usually end up in prison for fraud...

Like Jordan Maxwell for instance...He's been busted for selling phony documents and committing serious fraud...

So you might want to look into whoever it is your getting this crap from.

Granted the Freeman Concept has it's heart in the right place, but it has it's head where the sun don't shine.

sincerly,
Sunray: BREAKER

[Especially]

Where in the Constitution of England does it say that?

It says so in the Act of Settlement and in the Bill of Rights.

Treason and treachery are committed if a foreign power is negotiated with outside of Parliament on matters of national sovereignty. And the EU is a foreign power nobody voted for. As you perfectly well know.

Regards

[Mojo]

I get an extra chuckle out of this UK brand of FOTL woo. Elevating the common law to the supreme law of the land really just means that the unelected judiciary is supreme. Who makes common law? Judges. Who does judicial review? Judges. Who appoints judges in the UK? The Queen on the advice of the PM. Some freedom!


I thought this was kind of weird as well. Complaining about the head of state being "unelected" while rejecting laws made by elected representatives in favour of law made by unelected judges...

[Ambrosia]

I know nobody who is a freeman now in prison.

Might I humbly suggest that you expand your horizons of world knowledge and go find out the truth about who is.

You might well be surprised.

[Especially]

I thought this was kind of weird as well. Complaining about the head of state being "unelected" while rejecting laws made by elected representatives in favour of law made by unelected judges...

Just a minute !

The head of state IS an unelected dynasty, yes ? To which all Members of Parliament must swear an oath of allegiance. Do you agree with this being true or not ?

[Mojo]

It says so in the Act of Settlement and in the Bill of Rights.


But those are both acts of parliament, and therefore not binding according to, er, you.

The 'laws' made by the British Parliament in Westminster are NOT laws. They are Acts of Parliament. Statutes. And this is very important. These 'Acts of Parliament' are NOT the Law. They are in fact Statutes. They require your CONSENT before they are valid against you. In fact, the Law of this nation is the Common Law of England and politicians here do NOT make the laws. Our laws (as said) are the Common Law of England, and they always have been throughout our long history).

[Especially]

Might I humbly suggest that you expand your horizons of world knowledge and go find out the truth about who is.

You might well be surprised.

And how many suckers born every minute ?

With respect, life is choice and you really owe it to yourself to realise the difference between commercial law and the Common Law of England.

Yes ?

Get my point ?

As for people in prison, they are almost entirely those who hold your views on these issues.

The freeman appeals to law. He keeps the law. What law ? The Common Law of England.

It does not get more simple. Nor will it ever be more simple. The rest is a scam in courts operating under Commercial Law.

[leafman91]

What a collection of fictions !

You seem to ignore the fact that an MP gives up any pretence of SERVING the people when he gives an oath to the MONARCHY !!!

Earth calling England, Earth calling England !!!!!

Read it again, with care. You might pick out that I had registered the Queen as 'figurehead'. This means she and her monarchy, while having seeming to have quite a lot of power at first inspection, actually have very little, as they are prevented by convention from using it. Once again, try next time with evidence. Show me the monarchy has and uses excessive power, and how in any way the monarchy is at current against the interest of the public.

[Mojo]

I know nobody who is a freeman now in prison.


By definition.

[Especially]

But those are both acts of parliament, and therefore not binding according to, er, you.

Nothing is lawfully binding on me without my personal, expressed consent.

But in your case everything is binding on you because you have already consented to it. Even commercial contracts.

So, who is free and who is not ?

:)

[Mojo]

Just a minute !

The head of state IS an unelected dynasty, yes ? To which all Members of Parliament must swear an oath of allegiance. Do you agree with this being true or not ?


I was just wondering why you objected to laws made by elected representatives, but not laws made by unelected judges.

[Mojo]

Nothing is lawfully binding on me without my personal, expressed consent.

But in your case everything is binding on you because you have already consented to it. Even commercial contracts.


Contracts are only binding on me if I agree to them. Statutes are not contracts.

Now, do you have any authority for your claim about treason that doesn't rely on the legislation you reject?

[leafman91]

And how many suckers born every minute ?

With respect, life is choice and you really owe it to yourself to realise the difference between commercial law and the Common Law of England.

Yes ?

Get my point ?

As for people in prison, they are almost entirely those who hold your views on these issues.

The freeman appeals to law. He keeps the law. What law ? The Common Law of England.

It does not get more simple. Nor will it ever be more simple. The rest is a scam in courts operating under Commercial Law.

Have you ever thought to check the validity of this information yourself? If not, do you think it might be worth doing so, before you get too deep into this idealism?

[Comsat Angel]

Hmmmmmmmmm.

As to the English flag not being allowed to be shown - well in parts of Belfast it's not a wise idea if you want to keep your teeth in your head. Although nobody I know calls it anything other than a St George's Cross.

Anyway, enough of the high-falutin' political and legal talk. Especially - how are you going to save me money? I would love to not pay for things, being a complete miser. Don't bother with all the common law and statute b******s, just tell me how I save money.

Also, how have you done in your battles against the system? Do provide some (ahem!) especially juicy details of how you prevailed against The Corporate System.

[Mojo]

So, who is free and who is not ?


If you actually practice this nonsense, I strongly suspect that I will be free for rather longer than you.

[Especially]

By definition.


I have never heard of a freeman in prison for the Common Law of England. Show me a single case.

[dudalb]

Just a minute !

The head of state IS an unelected dynasty, yes ? To which all Members of Parliament must swear an oath of allegiance. Do you agree with this being true or not ?

Uh, England has had an unelected monarch about as long as they have had your beloved common law, which grew up under the Monarchy. As a Yank, I have no love for hereditary monarchy, but to make out Queen Liz 2 as a powerful tyrant is drop dead funny.
BTW, as to your your claim that Monarchy came over with Willilam the conqueror, that is BS. England had kings before Willie took over. All he did was change the CEO......

[Especially]

If you actually practice this nonsense, I strongly suspect that I will be free for rather longer than you.

But you are not free in the first place, by your own admission. You are a subject of the system and you comply fully with their commercial demands, whether you ask for them or not.

So your freedom is an illusion. You have no freedom and want none.

Simple. Which is fine. Except that life is choice. So is freedom.

Regards

[Especially]

Uh, England has had an unelected monarch about as long as they have had your beloved common law, which grew up under the Monarchy. As a Yank, I have no love for hereditary monarchy, but to make out Queen Liz 2 as a powerful tyrant is drop dead funny.
BTW, as to your your claim that Monarchy came over with Willilam the conqueror, that is BS. England had kings before Willie took over. All he did was change the CEO......


Yes, and the unelected monarchy of England invaded the USA and killed lots of Americans. It happened in the War of Independence. Did you forget that ? And who opposed the great USA and its Constitution ? Why, the elite monarchy of England !!

England had kings but they were all elected. They were not tax gathering slaves to the Papacy. And they were not the sovereignty of the nation. The people were.

Big differences, yes ?

[Especially]

Hmmmmmmmmm.

As to the English flag not being allowed to be shown - well in parts of Belfast it's not a wise idea if you want to keep your teeth in your head. Although nobody I know calls it anything other than a St George's Cross.

Anyway, enough of the high-falutin' political and legal talk. Especially - how are you going to save me money? I would love to not pay for things, being a complete miser. Don't bother with all the common law and statute b******s, just tell me how I save money.

Also, how have you done in your battles against the system? Do provide some (ahem!) especially juicy details of how you prevailed against The Corporate System.

Simple.

Pay a visit to a website such as FMOTL.

Hope that answers your questions.

Best wishes

[Especially]

Have you ever thought to check the validity of this information yourself? If not, do you think it might be worth doing so, before you get too deep into this idealism?

Sir, I have not only checked it out. But so have tens of thousands of other law-abiding people. In England alone. And in the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and many other places.

Life is choice. Our courts run on commercial law. And in commercial law their contracts require your Consent.

It's really that simple.

The law is the law. Do not confuse it with Statutes and the scam of commercial courts.

Try this as an example. An English website -

FMOTL

[Lothian]

So what happens to people who refuse to consent to pay council tax or who are caught by the police driving having refused to consent to pay insurance? If you can provide case references it would be useful. Thanks.

[leafman91]

The Patriot Act has been found to be UNCONSITUTIONAL in courts all across the USA. Check it out. It's an evil nonsense. Hatched out of Jesuit Georgetown University. Throw it in the bin. And get back to the USA Constitution. Fools !

If the USA is not bankrupt how come the bailout was a giant fraud ?


Check it out where? May I mention that the US constitution is now a rough 2 centuries out of date? Do you really think going back to the constitution is a good idea?

This is the first I've heard about the bailout being a giant fraud. I would assume the same for many.

This is a SKEPTIC's forum. In order to convince anyone, including me, you will need solid evidence, or at the very least, a means by which we can access your sources.

[Agatha]

England had kings but they were all elected. Oh, do tell us of these elected kings.

[Especially]

I was just wondering why you objected to laws made by elected representatives, but not laws made by unelected judges.

But I repeat, laws are NOT made by elected representatives. They make only Statutes, which are instruments of commercial law. Valid only with the consent of the governed.

Regards

[leafman91]

Nothing is lawfully binding on me without my personal, expressed consent.

But in your case everything is binding on you because you have already consented to it. Even commercial contracts.

So, who is free and who is not ?

:)

Once again, read my previous posts with care. You call them fictions, so prove me wrong. You know you can. Or do you?

Try a long think before answering that one.

[Especially]

Oh, do tell us of these elected kings.

Dear Madam,

Do you not know the bible ? The first king of Israel was Saul. He was elected by the people.

Now, kings (monarchs) are a folly. But there are countless elected kings. And have been throughout human history.

Why, I dare say you may find some if you care to read early English history.

Regards

[Mojo]

It says so in the Act of Settlement and in the Bill of Rights.

Treason and treachery are committed if a foreign power is negotiated with outside of Parliament on matters of national sovereignty.


Can you provide the exact citation and wording?

[leafman91]

I have never heard of a freeman in prison for the Common Law of England. Show me a single case.

Eh, for the Common Law of England. As opposed to how many 'freemen' in prison in general...

[Mojo]

But I repeat, laws are NOT made by elected representatives. They make only Statutes, which are instruments of commercial law. Valid only with the consent of the governed.


Nope.

[Especially]

Once again, read my previous posts with care. You call them fictions, so prove me wrong. You know you can. Or do you?

Try a long think before answering that one.

I have read your previous posts with care. If you would exercise the same care in distinguishing between commercial contracts (which require consent) and the laws of England this world would be brighter and more happy place.

Regards

[RHolmes]

I also love how FOTLers say that laws (oh I'm sorry, statutes, which of course are not reallylaws) made by democratically elected representatives cannot bind them without their specific consent but don't even flinch at the idea that an agreement between a despotic 13th century monarch and his barons is binding on everyone in Britain forever.

[Agatha]

Dear Madam,

Do you not know the bible ? The first king of Israel was Saul. He was elected by the people.

Now, kings (monarchs) are a folly. But there are countless elected kings. And have been throughout human history.

Why, I dare say you may find some if you care to read early English history.

Regards You claimed that England's kings were all elected. A biblical character who was king on the other side of the world does not count as evidence for your claim. Try again.

[Especially]

Nope.


Well Sir,

Government requires the expressed consent of the governed, unless, of course, you wish to live in a tyranny.

The laws of Parliament (so-called) are all Statutes. They are Acts of Parliament. But not laws.

Do you not know this ?

They all go on the Statute Book.

They are valid, binding only on those who CONSENT to them. And, to trick you a new language is invented called legalese. It makes them binding on you whether you are aware of the language or not. Because you are deemed to have consented to them unless you expressly do NOT consent to them. Such is commecial law.

This is rather simple but profound. And I dare to say they have some implications for your understanding of law and statutes.

Regards

[leafman91]

Sir, I have not only checked it out. But so have tens of thousands of other law-abiding people. In England alone. And in the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and many other places.

Life is choice. Our courts run on commercial law. And in commercial law their contracts require your Consent.

It's really that simple.

The law is the law. Do not confuse it with Statutes and the scam of commercial courts.

Try this as an example. An English website -

FMOTL

Right. For the link: thanks, I'll check it.
For the evidence: oh wait a minute...
I realise I'm being a bit impatient. I'll give you time. If the thread is still here in 2 weeks and you are still replying, then I'll keep patient until such a date.

[Lothian]

So what happens to people who refuse to consent to pay council tax or who are caught by the police driving having refused to consent to pay insurance? If you can provide case references it would be useful. Thanks.

[Especially]

You claimed that England's kings were all elected. A biblical character who was king on the other side of the world does not count as evidence for your claim. Try again.

Agatha (and I hope you don't mind me calling you this ?),

I did NOT say all Englands kings were elected. In fact, I said the very opposite. I said that the head of the state in which we are living is an UNELECTED DYNASTY. (As you can clearly see on this thread).

Secondly, I said the early kings included those who were elected. And I gave you an example in King Saul.

Which is not good enough for you.

I further suggested you read a book on early English history.

But (unless I am mistaken) you wish me to read it for you.

Would you care to say when, and in which location, I should do this service for you, and whether my consent and yours has been obtained before it takes place ?

Yours most sincerely

[leafman91]

I have read your previous posts with care. If you would exercise the same care in distinguishing between commercial contracts (which require consent) and the laws of England this world would be brighter and more happy place.

Regards
Wait 2 and half seconds: Explain to me how the two differ? A contract (written) is a legally binding document. Not obliging with the terms of your contract means the company can then sue you on the grounds of breach of contract. This way, scammers are run out of business (good thing), and corporations have punishment regulated by the law (other good thing). I fail to see how taxes are a contract.

You might need to run by me exactly how commercial law operates again...

[RHolmes]

And, to trick you a new language is invented called legalese. It makes them binding on you whether you are aware of the language or not.

*guffaws* Please tell me you don't think "legalese" is the serious name of a language created especially to confuse you.

[Especially]

So what happens to people who refuse to consent to pay council tax or who are caught by the police driving having refused to consent to pay insurance? If you can provide case references it would be useful. Thanks.


These are two different things. As you surely admit. I have already said that insurance is more complex because most people drive vehicles which are already registered by the state. Which makes them effective owners.

But, in respect of council tax, if a person does not wish the goods and services being offered by a council he/she is lawfully entitled to decline the offer.

Yours sincerely

[D'rok]

This is a somewhat unfair question to ask a freeper as it seems simple but represents some of the core concepts that make a freeper a freeper, and unfortunately most freepers lack the analytical chops to respond clearly. I used to be a nut, so I have a pretty decent grasp of all of this.


The "common law" just is, like the shape of a circle, like the beauty of a rose, like the taste of honey, like the thrill of victory, like the agony of defeat, like the four sides of a square, like the... ummm... infinite reach of human stupidity. It is innate to all existence and obviously known to all except the hopelessly corrupt.

Best descriptive paragraph ever.

Judges discover common law, the same way the mathematician discovers the value of pi. A seemingly obscure distinction, but essential in understanding the base theoretical underpinnings of freepers. Law is not created by judges, just discovered.

This is what most call "natural law" theory, and when freepers appeal to "common law," this is generally what they mean. It is a popular school of thought around the time of American independence.

The problem with all of this is that the underlying assumption, that all people share the an innate concept of right and wrong is true to a point about obvious matters and is workable in rural culturally homogeneous societies circa 1750 but breaks down as societies become more complex and diverse. While "don't kill for no reason" is an "obvious" moral rule that to some level can be seen as innate, it boggles the mind how one could "discover" traffic laws like speed limits in cities. (note the general freeper hostility to traffic codes and regulatory laws)

Likewise, as societies become diverse, "common sense" things for someone in England like "women should not go topless in public" is nothing near common sense for an African native. for whom going topless is a traditional indication of being unmarried.

For most people it becomes clear that some level of legal positivism, that the law is what we say it is rather than some innate "true law," is necessary for society to function. Freepers are the extreme end of refusing to do this and then building wildly strange analytical frameworks to fit their prejudices and beliefs into the "natural law" framework.

Awesome post. Thanks!

[Especially]

*guffaws* Please tell me you don't think "legalese" is the serious name of a language created especially to confuse you.

No Sir, I no longer think on the matter at all, since I know it plainly. The legal industry have invented their own language. Which any society is entitled to do. In this case the 'Law Society'. Why, you might buy Black's Law Dictionary and be amazed by its definitions yourself.

Regards

[dudalb]

Well, he does seem to be easily confused....

[Especially]

Best descriptive paragraph ever.



Awesome post. Thanks!


Yes, it is so poetic it would be trodden under the hoof before it got to the courtroom.

[Especially]

Well, he does seem to be easily confused....

Sir,

We may all be confused at times in our life. Let us pray we are never deceived.

Regards

[Agatha]

Yes, and the unelected monarchy of England invaded the USA and killed lots of Americans. It happened in the War of Independence. Did you forget that ? And who opposed the great USA and its Constitution ? Why, the elite monarchy of England !!

England had kings but they were all elected. They were not tax gathering slaves to the Papacy. And they were not the sovereignty of the nation. The people were.

Big differences, yes ?

Agatha (and I hope you don't mind me calling you this ?),

I did NOT say all Englands kings were elected. One of these things is not like the other (my bolding).

In fact, I said the very opposite. I said that the head of the state in which we are living is an UNELECTED DYNASTY. (As you can clearly see on this thread).

Secondly, I said the early kings included those who were elected. And I gave you an example in King Saul.

Which is not good enough for you.

I further suggested you read a book on early English history.

But (unless I am mistaken) you wish me to read it for you.

Would you care to say when, and in which location, I should do this service for you, and whether my consent and yours has been obtained before it takes place ?

Yours most sincerely No, you need not read anything on my account, I am capable of doing my own research. So you are, indeed, mistaken in what you believe that I wish.

[Especially]

Read it again, with care. You might pick out that I had registered the Queen as 'figurehead'. This means she and her monarchy, while having seeming to have quite a lot of power at first inspection, actually have very little, as they are prevented by convention from using it. Once again, try next time with evidence. Show me the monarchy has and uses excessive power, and how in any way the monarchy is at current against the interest of the public.


Well, Sir, I will not write pages of proofs. Let me reply to your question with one of my own.

Recently, the Royal Assent has been given to the political union of the UK with the European Union.

This obtained NO mandate from the people of this nation, with whom is (and always has been) national sovereignty. Nor was it ever sought from them. Despite promises. A clear case of the monarchy acting contrary to the sovereign will of the people. Since the people of this nation have given no such consent in respect of the sovereignty of this nation. Furthermore, monarchy itself does not have the consent of the people of this nation and has never sought it.

Thank You

[Mojo]

No Sir, I no longer think on the matter at all, since I know it plainly.


I think I may have spotted your problem.

[Sunray Breaker]

I have never heard of a freeman in prison for the Common Law of England. Show me a single case.

Since My expertise is on US freeman Woo...I'll give you an example of why it doesn't work here at least...

How about you take less than 30 seconds out of your day to do some research like I did.

Maybe it would help to know where a lot of this crap comes from and where it ended up...oh wait LOOK!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen
And then there's this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Patriot

and according to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_(organization)
Some Posse members have engaged in vigilantism.[citation needed]

In 1983, former Posse member (and accused parole violator) Gordon Kahl killed two Federal marshals (who had come to arrest him) in North Dakota and became a fugitive. Another shootout ensued on June 3, 1983, in which Kahl and Lawrence County, Arkansas Sheriff Gene Matthews were killed. Other members of the group have also been convicted of crimes ranging from tax evasion and counterfeiting to threatening the lives of IRS agents and judges.

And a bit more history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement

And this is likely where the current FOTL woo comes from, at least regarding birth certificates and the UCC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement

So perhaps you need to do a little bit more research before you think you know so much...Especially considering these are likely where you picked up this BS...Granted this is in America, but you get my point.

Anyone who has Examples regarding England, feel free to drop some knowledge.

[Agatha]

Gosh, what was that vote in 1975 for, again?

[Especially]

One of these things is not like the other (my bolding).

No, you need not read anything on my account, I am capable of doing my own research. So you are, indeed, mistaken in what you believe that I wish.

Agatha,

If you read English early history and fail to find a case of a king being elected by his people do not forget me, since I will direct you to such cases, with great pleasure.

Regards

[Mojo]

This obtained NO mandate from the people of this nation, with whom is (and always has been) national sovereignty. Nor was it ever sought from them. Despite promises. A clear case of the monarchy acting contrary to the sovereign will of the people. Since the people of this nation have given no such consent in respect of the sovereignty of this nation. Furthermore, monarchy itself does not have the consent of the people of this nation and has never sought it.


Well, there's this thing called parliamentary democracy...

[Especially]

Gosh, what was that vote in 1975 for, again?


Have you forgotten, Agatha ?

It was membership of the EEC.

[D'rok]

Yes, it is so poetic it would be trodden under the hoof before it got to the courtroom.

I asked you who makes common law. Suddenly's excellent post shows that when you say "common law" you really mean "natural law". Here are wikipedia's simplified definitions of each:

Common law refers to law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive action, and to corresponding legal systems that rely on precedential case law.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is human-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.

Which of these is closer to what you mean when you say "common law"?

[Especially]

Well, there's this thing called parliamentary democracy...


Yes indeed. And the parameters of Parliamentary democracy do not include political union with the European Union. They are confined to the government of the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, EU integration is contrary to the Constitution of England.

And, finally, the sovereignty of this nation is its people. Who gave no mandate.

[Agatha]

Surely every king of England was elected, you told me so quite clearly in post 177.

Just to be clear, do we start with Offa, or do we begin earlier?

[Especially]

I asked you who makes common law. Suddenly's excellent post shows that when you say "common law" you really mean "natural law". Here are wikipedia's simplified definitions of each:

Common law refers to law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive action, and to corresponding legal systems that rely on precedential case law.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is human-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.

Which of these is closer to what you mean when you say "common law"?

No, this is not quite accurate.

Common Law is NOT Natural Law.

Common Law is that law binding on a nation from time immemorial which is recognised even by the states and the rulers who today govern it. Judges are involved in establishing Common Law in case after case, so that its power is a matter of plain and documented record. But Common Law is NOT made by judges. Nor is it made by politicians. It is merely confirmed by them and is recorded as having been confirmed by them. So that through these documented examples we can see that it is being observed and respected in our nation.

Regards

[Mojo]

Yes indeed. And the parameters of Parliamentary democracy do not include political union with the European Union. They are confined to the government of the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, EU integration is contrary to the Constitution of England.

And, finally, the sovereignty of this nation is its people. Who gave no mandate.


Can you quote the specific words in the "Constitution of England" that state the above?

[Especially]

I think I may have spotted your problem.

You may. And you deserve even more credit if you share with us what it is and how it can be resolved.

Regards

[Especially]

Can you quote the specific words in the "Constitution of England" that state the above?

Certainly. On only one simple condition. Please tell us -

Is the sovereignty of a nation found with its people ?

[Mojo]

Certainly. On only one simple condition. Please tell us -

Is the sovereignty of a nation found with its people ?


That depends on what the constitution says. Where would you say sovereignty lies in an absolute monarchy?

[Especially]

That depends on what the constitution says. Where would you say sovereignty lies in an absolute monarchy?

Mojo,

There is no lawful constitution of a state unless the good people of the nation are recognised to be the source of its sovereignty. As for 'absolute monarchies' and dynasties coming from them those silly errors do not need to be revisited in the history of governments. Since there is no absolute in the affairs of mankind except God Himself.

[LightinDarkness]

I also love how FOTLers say that laws (oh I'm sorry, statutes, which of course are not reallylaws) made by democratically elected representatives cannot bind them without their specific consent but don't even flinch at the idea that an agreement between a despotic 13th century monarch and his barons is binding on everyone in Britain forever.

Would our FOTLer please address this eloquently stated analysis of the FOTL woo movement? How is it that the votes of a democratically elected representative body of the population has no power over you and is not the real law, yet an arcane legal document made between elitists and despots 700 years ago is somehow the only "real" legal document you are bound by?

[Mojo]

Mojo,

There is no lawful constitution of a state unless the good people of the nation are recognised to be the source of its sovereignty.


What about the bad people of the nation? Don't they get a say?

[Especially]

What about the bad people of the nation? Don't they get a say?


The bad people of a nation are those who are by definition unlawful. Judge for yourself whether a bad person shares in the benefits of lawful government. It seems obvious to me that a person who is unlawful does not have a say in lawful government and has excluded himself. So that a society is able to be defined as a community who have in common the law.

[Mojo]

The bad people of a nation are those who are by definition unlawful. Judge for yourself whether a bad person shares in the benefits of lawful government. It seems obvious to me that a person who is unlawful does not have a say in lawful government and has excluded himself.


Are you on the electoral roll?

[Mojo]

Anyway, after that little digression, can you quote the words from the "Constitution of England" that support your contentions about sovereignty, parliament and the EU?

[Especially]

Are you on the electoral roll?


I assume you mean the electoral roll of the United Kingdom (?).

No, I am not. And this by choice.

[Mojo]

I assume you mean the electoral roll of the United Kingdom (?).

No, I am not. And this by choice.


Then I guess you're one of the people who do not have a say in lawful government and have excluded themselves.

[Especially]

Anyway, after that little digression, can you quote the words from the "Constitution of England" that support your contentions about sovereignty, parliament and the EU?


I note that you use Italics when you speak of the 'Constitution of England'.

You must see for yourself that the parliament of England is elected to serve the people of England within the law of this nation. Since it is they (the people) who have the ability to elect them, and nobody else. And theirs is the sovereignty of the nation. Whether you believe in monarchy or not.

Do you not agree ?

As for the EU, no such mandate exists from the people and nor has Parliament or unelected monarchy, or any combination of the two, the power to negotiate away national sovereignty.

[geni]

A man is entitled to have a hearing of his case and not to be held against his will without a lawyer. He is entitled to hear the case against him. And for his case to be heard. A man is entitled to fair treatment.

Only under post 1066 law. Habeas corpus is not angelo-saxon law.

[leafman91]

Checked site. Didn't like too much. The guy (girl?) relies on rich friends for a lifestyle. That puts me off right away. He uses too many logical fallacies. He says not to pay your loans back, or your taxes, but condemns dealing mischievously. It seems like anarchism on a bureaucratic scale, which is ridiculous. The whole site is a joke. You call it commercial law. You are still overthrowing the establishment, it is still anarchy, albeit on a minute scale. It makes me wonder if the whole thing falls into the category of Discordian scam. It certainly seems like a scam they would set up. You can tell me all you like, and wish it to be true, but unfortunately it won't be. Registration is not transferral of ownership, no matter how you look at it. Licensing isn't begging for mercy, it's showing respect to the genius who created the product. It's being picky, but being picky in a twisted, bizarre fashion. Nothing on the site had any evidence behind it.

And I'm sorry to be so critical of it, but that is what skeptical thinking is. There were too many words and phrases with emotional baggage there,and way too many leaps in logic that don't make sense. I wouldn't trust the site as far as I can throw it. That all having been said, I am also supposing you are a member of the forum, in which case, I do apologize for any offence. But I really can't trust it. Once again, apologies for the offence.

[Especially]

Then I guess you're one of the people who do not have a say in lawful government and have excluded themselves.


On the contrary. Those who have a say in lawful government are able to say what the law is, and what it is not.

[Mojo]

I note that you use Italics when you speak of the 'Constitution of England'.


No I don't. Those are called "quotation marks", and I used them because I was quoting the expression you used. These are italics.

You must see for yourself that the parliament of England is elected to serve the people of England within the law of this nation. Since it is they (the people) who have the ability to elect them, and nobody else. And theirs is the sovereignty of the nation. Whether you believe in monarchy or not.

Do you not agree ?


Parliament is elected to represent the people. See, for example, the Bill of Rights.

As for the EU, no such mandate exists from the people and nor has Parliament the power to negotiate away national sovereignty.


Quote the words from the constitution that say this.

[D'rok]

No, this is not quite accurate.

Common Law is NOT Natural Law.

Common Law is that law binding on a nation from time immemorial which is recognised even by the states and the rulers who today govern it. Judges are involved in establishing Common Law in case after case, so that its power is a matter of plain and documented record. But Common Law is NOT made by judges. Nor is it made by politicians. It is merely confirmed by them and is recorded as having been confirmed by them. So that through these documented examples we can see that it is being observed and respected in our nation.

Regards

For your sake, I hope you never find yourself in front of a judge.

[Darat]

I'd pay to read the transcripts...

[Mojo]

On the contrary. Those who have a say in lawful government are able to say what the law is, and what it is not.


If you aren't on the electoral roll you have no say in lawful government.

[Especially]

No I don't. Those are called "quotation marks", and I used them because I was quoting the expression you used. These are italics.




Parliament is elected to represent the people. See, for example, the Bill of Rights.




Quote the words from the constitution that say this.

I will quote no words to you unless/until you agree that the sovereignty of a nation is found only in its people. Because it seems to me that until you agree/disagree with this issue we can go round and round in circles.

[leafman91]

Well, Sir, I will not write pages of proofs. Let me reply to your question with one of my own.

Recently, the Royal Assent has been given to the political union of the UK with the European Union.

This obtained NO mandate from the people of this nation, with whom is (and always has been) national sovereignty. Nor was it ever sought from them. Despite promises. A clear case of the monarchy acting contrary to the sovereign will of the people. Since the people of this nation have given no such consent in respect of the sovereignty of this nation. Furthermore, monarchy itself does not have the consent of the people of this nation and has never sought it.

Thank You

I'm afraid that this argument is undermined by my first point, that the Queen is a figurehead. A clear-cut example, methinks. Now, I've just taken a quick peek at the Foreign Office site, who told me that the UK has been part of the EU since 1973. This site also provided a wealth of case studies investigating the benefits of the EU, but I'll pick up on that later. I don't see anything recent about 1973, but I have figured that you probably meant differently. Where did you read about Britain recently joining the EU? No skepticism this time, but genuine inquiry. My news source isn't one that would cover the European Union and England in too much detail, so I think it may have skipped something.

[Especially]

I'm afraid that this argument is undermined by my first point, that the Queen is a figurehead. A clear-cut example, methinks. Now, I've just taken a quick peek at the Foreign Office site, who told me that the UK has been part of the EU since 1973. This site also provided a wealth of case studies investigating the benefits of the EU, but I'll pick up on that later. I don't see anything recent about 1973, but I have figured that you probably meant differently. Where did you read about Britain recently joining the EU? No skepticism this time, but genuine inquiry. My news source isn't one that would cover the European Union and England in too much detail, so I think it may have skipped something.


Then tell us plainly - where is the sovereignty of a nation to be found ?

[Especially]

For your sake, I hope you never find yourself in front of a judge.

Well, I hope you are aware that you and I are in front of a judge every day of our lives. Judge yourself that you be not judged.

Is that not lawful ?

[Mojo]

I will quote no words to you unless/until you agree that the sovereignty of a nation is found only in its people. Because it seems to me that until you agree/disagree with this issue we can go round and round in circles.


Agreement given under duress is not binding.

[dudalb]

Mojo,

There is no lawful constitution of a state unless the good people of the nation are recognised to be the source of its sovereignty. As for 'absolute monarchies' and dynasties coming from them those silly errors do not need to be revisited in the history of governments. Since there is no absolute in the affairs of mankind except God Himself.


Boy, did you dig a hole for yourself at JREF with that last statement.

[Mojo]

Well, I hope you are aware that you and I are in front of a judge every day of our lives. Judge yourself that you be not judged.


What if I refuse to contract with this judge?

[Agatha]

Well, I hope you are aware that you and I are in front of a judge every day of our lives. Judge yourself that you be not judged.

Is that not lawful ? Which judge would that be?

(I think it's judge not, lest ye be judged)

[dudalb]

I'd pay to read the transcripts...


Agreed. It would be like Monty Python was back....

[Comsat Angel]

ENOUGH OF THE B.S.!

Especially, tell me how to save money, and tell me right now! I don't have the patience or time to bother with a frikkin' website, FOTL or whatever. Just tell me how Freemanism will save me £££. Tell me in this thread, now. NOW!

[dudalb]

Which judge would that be?

(I think it's judge not, lest ye be judged)

Judge Dredd?

[Agatha]

It's simples, Comsat Angel. You write to the DVLA and deregister your car. Then you don't have to pay tax or insurance or get it MOTd. Then you write to the council and tell them you don't wish to avail yourself of the services they provide, and you don't pay council tax. Why stop there? Write to Cap'n Darling and tell him you don't consent to the deduction of tax or NI.

Then, as if by magic, you'll be provided with bed and board by the state. Not only have you saved money, you get stuff paid for!

I would offer to visit you in the Scrubs, but I have an aversion to prisons.

[D'rok]

Well, I hope you are aware that you and I are in front of a judge every day of our lives. Judge yourself that you be not judged.

Is that not lawful ?

The only judge I'm in front of every day of my life is Mrs. D'rok. Unfortunately, she's the trier of fact, the weigher of evidence, the warden of the prison, and the parole officer.

Hmm...maybe I could adapt this FOTL thing to the marriage contract. I have a common law right, since time immemorial, to drink beer while avoiding the dishes! I, D'rok the freeman, have spoken my truth!

(I'll let you know how that works out).

[dudalb]

ENOUGH OF THE B.S.!

Especially, tell me how to save money, and tell me right now! I don't have the patience or time to bother with a frikkin' website, FOTL or whatever. Just tell me how Freemanism will save me £££. Tell me in this thread, now. NOW!

You get free room and board in jail if you follow the Freemen's legal advice.

Damn.Agatha Beat me to it...

[geni]

Uh, England has had an unelected monarch about as long as they have had your beloved common law, which grew up under the Monarchy.

Slightly longer. Common law dates from 1066. Kings of england date to around 924.