The Freeman Movement and England

[Scoot Meevo]

Is there a decent place to get a concise summary of the FoTL stuff? I have a few friends who fiend on the CT whispers and the youtube vids are starting to get passed around of fat blokes standing on tables. They just kind of storm a local courthouse and shout stuff. Laughably, the vid comes with the assertion that the UK Government doesn't want you to see it and "IT WILL BE BLOCKED". The one I got sent has now been up for a fortnight and I quickly found another copy of the same vid which has been up for two months...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tictgGAE30

...which makes a bit of a mockery of the claims that the video is particularly terrifying to these sinister masters of ours


Anyway, I was trying to read a bit but I don't really have any legal experience or knowledge whatsoever so it can be slow going as I'm not sure exactly what some of the wordings mean in their context.

I know there's meant to be an assertion that Common Law is true law. From what I gathered, Common Law in the UK is determined by the establishing of precedents. By nature, this would mean it is a law which accommodates an evolution of sorts, keeping it relevant to the conditions of the time? If that's the case then harking back to a 700+ year old version must be almost redundant.

I also got as far as finding out that a lot is made of at least the Magna Carta. One FoTL site listed a series of old 'legal' documents and various versions of Magna Carta were amongst this, including the original version which was never turned into law, which surely makes that pointless? Newer versions were there but the fact that the oldest version was featured with highlighted passageways led me to believe the site author felt it perhaps was an actual legal document.

I'd like to see exactly what their point is supposed to be. I find many of the claims to be rather unfocussed and plentiful so would like to whittle down if possible. Is it merely this 'consent' issue that is being contested, and if so, do the Freemen wish to exclude themselves from other laws and features of our system, or just the ones that ask them for money? I'm no expert in medieval law, but I do imagine it wouldn't be much of a set of rules to work to in 2011. Maybe they wish to dump their pee onto the streets, settle disputes by duels and give up the use of their electricity and water supplies too?

Any clarifying help much appreciated, ta.

[Bosozoku]

If I understand it correctly, they generally believe that no law is valid unless they consent to that particular law. Even the common law is not valid unless they consent to that particular law. Essentially what it boils down to is that there is no law, and that any action is acceptable so long as that action does not harm another person. So when they don't pay their taxes this is all kosher because they are not doing anyone any harm, in their minds.

If a Freeman is reading this and wishes to correct me, feel free to do so.

For some examples of how this argument has worked in court, see this post. There is a list of case after case where their arguments are completely dismissed over and over. Those cases are Canadian, but it's the same in American and English courts. There is simply no truth to these claims.

[ComfySlippers]

Quote:

if a freeman is reading this and wishes to correct me, feel free to do so.

...

Quote:

those cases are canadian, but it's the same in american and english any courts

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Scoot Meevo

I know there's meant to be an assertion that Common Law is true law. From what I gathered, Common Law in the UK is determined by the establishing of precedents. By nature, this would mean it is a law which accommodates an evolution of sorts, keeping it relevant to the conditions of the time? If that's the case then harking back to a 700+ year old version must be almost redundant.

Part of the problem with pinning down what these guys really believe is that they don't use terms the same way everyone else does. For example, your description of "Common Law", while accurate in the real world, isn't what the Fotlers mean when they say "Common Law". Getting them to actually define what they do mean when they say "Common Law", though, is like pulling teeth.

Some of them have gone on about "Laws" that come from God, or Nature, but it's really not clear.

[ComfySlippers]

Quote:

Is there a decent place to get a concise summary of the FoTL stuff?

This is a fairly accurate summary of FOTL-Waflle/Sovereign Citzenship.

It is slightly tongue-in-cheek but still factually correct.

CBS: 60 Minutes.
(Different name, same con)

[Scoot Meevo]

I don't know if it's the same in the US, but in the UK, these ideas seem to be spouted by people who'd consider themselves to be left wingers so it's interesting that they often have extreme right wing origins.

Is there a gap in general CT'ist demographics on either side of the Atlantic?

[therival58]

one thing that still confuses me with FOTL in England is the claim by people like John Harris that Members of Parliament, Labour Party, courts and police stations are publicly traded companies.

Here's a screenshot from Small Business solutions listing them as companies. (From 3:40 to 4:30) Also claim that UK is a publicly traded corporation (From 9:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k

House of Lords - Corporation? (1:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E

Has anyone else looked into these claims?

[LightinDarkness]

Originally Posted by therival58

one thing that still confuses me with FOTL in England is the claim by people like John Harris that Members of Parliament, Labour Party, courts and police stations are publicly traded companies.

Here's a screenshot from Small Business solutions listing them as companies. (From 3:40 to 4:30) Also claim that UK is a publicly traded corporation (From 9:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k

House of Lords - Corporation? (1:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E

Has anyone else looked into these claims?

Before I respond to this, I'd just like to point out TheRival that we all know you are on here to troll us. You've been playing the role of the "inquiring skeptic" since your arrival and have continually posted things like the above even though you know those questions have been answered and the notions behind them debunked half a dozen times in this thread alone. I realize by responding to you I am encouraging you to keep this up, but I am only doing so because we have some new posters in this thread and they should know what you are up to.

Anyways, as you know TheRival, the idea that the House of Commons, the UK, or any government agency is a corporation is wrong. It is, however, true that governments and government bodies have a corporation. The House of Commons indeed has a corporation (this is different from the House of Commons BEING a corporation). The FOTL woo is that you should freak out about that because in FOTL land corporations are evil for-profit enterprises out to enslave you.

But in reality, corporations are good things legally speaking. They are simply a legal structure. The House of Commons has a corporation because it enables it to operate and allows people to seek redress with the institution. The corporation allows people to work at the house of commons without being dragged into every law suit against an MP (employee immunity). It allows citizens to be able to file suit against the House of Commons as a whole if they have a problem but can't pinpoint a specific person to file suit against (which you can't do without a corporation).

Yes, for the love of the gods, governments have corporations. Lots of them. And thats not only A-OK, its a terrific thing for citizens and the people who work for the government because it allows us to actually function as a society.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

Before I respond to this, I'd just like to point out TheRival that we all know you are on here to troll us.

+1
I pointed that out when he first started posting,hes a closet freeman trying to get people to read the garbage he links to.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=5417

[ComfySlippers]

Quote:

hes a closet freeman

Did the wardrobe consent though?...

[therival58]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

+1
I pointed that out when he first started posting,hes a closet freeman trying to get people to read the garbage he links to.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=5417

namecall all you want its a ridiculous accusation.

LightinDarkness, maybe my question was already answered, however, for time's sake, I prefer be direct with a question that's still puzzling me as opposed to sifting through 139 pages. If by posting links that makes me a closet FOTLer, well believe what you want.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

LightinDarkness, maybe my question was already answered, however, for time's sake, I prefer be direct with a question that's still puzzling me as opposed to sifting through 139 pages. If by posting links that makes me a closet FOTLer, well believe what you want.

Come on now rival freeman, you must know you have to do your own research.

By the way, I'm not name calling Im stating facts.
(the question mark in your sig gives you away,and your reluctance to bring up the issue of consent is also glaringly obvious)

[LightinDarkness]

Originally Posted by therival58

namecall all you want its a ridiculous accusation.

LightinDarkness, maybe my question was already answered, however, for time's sake, I prefer be direct with a question that's still puzzling me as opposed to sifting through 139 pages. If by posting links that makes me a closet FOTLer, well believe what you want.

If it wasn't for your extensive post history and time here this would be believable. But no one is buying it, dear. You asked a "debunking freeman 101 question" that anyone whose looked at this for more than 5 minutes can answer. And you've been here far longer than 5 minutes. Thats why your name is "TheRival" - you are here to stir things up.

[therival58]

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

If it wasn't for your extensive post history and time here this would be believable. But no one is buying it, dear. You asked a "debunking freeman 101 question" that anyone whose looked at this for more than 5 minutes can answer. And you've been here far longer than 5 minutes. Thats why your name is "TheRival" - you are here to stir things up.

What is the goal of being a closet freeman - to secretly spread FOTL doctrine?

the truth is I was completely new to the FOTL theory back in january/february, but after doing some research, and viewing/asking questions on JREF, I am no longer convinced being a FOTL has any basis in law or makes any sense. the corporation thing was one of the last things I needed clarification with - this CT is very extensive and combines so much info it takes awhile to sift through it all. I'm in the process of clearing out my favorites now.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

I am no longer convinced being a FOTL has any basis in law or makes any sense.

Good, now maybe you can stop posting idiotic freeman links and youtube videos and asking inane questions which 2 minutes of googling will give you the answer to.

[ComfySlippers]

Quote:

this CT is very extensive and combines so much info it takes awhile to sift through it all.

No sifting required. File it all under "BS" sub-folder "Scam".

[therival58]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Good, now maybe you can stop posting idiotic freeman links and youtube videos and asking inane questions which 2 minutes of googling will give you the answer to.

actually I did try googling the answer to the question from post #5527 before posting. I couldn't find any answers - perhaps I was using insufficient search terms.

[jargon buster]

the only question in that post was you asking if anyone else had looked into the claims.
the rest was a statement which can be researched by searching the freeman threads on this forum (try the search function)

happy hunting.

[ComfySlippers]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=172582

(emphasis is mine)

girlgye:

Quote:

If we restrict Liberty
to attain security we will lose them both.

Benjamin Franklin (A US President)

Her eagerness to demonstrate her lack of any kind of knowledge whatsoever is astounding.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=172582

(emphasis is mine)

girlgye:

Benjamin Franklin (A US President)

Her eagerness to demonstrate her lack of any kind of knowledge whatsoever is astounding.

Wasn't he the 'President' of the State of Franklin? <LOL>

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Hans

Wasn't he the 'President' of the State of Franklin? <LOL>

This?

The State of Franklin, known also as the Free Republic of Franklin or the State of Frankland (the latter being the name submitted to the Continental Congress when it considered the territory's application for statehood[1]), was an unrecognized autonomous United States territory created in 1784 from part of the territory west of the Appalachian Mountains that had been offered, by North Carolina, as a cession to the federal government (to help pay off debts related to the American Revolutionary War)

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

[jargon buster]

heres a taste of freedom from a poster on Ickes
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....4&postcount=17

Quote:

So it's really a choice only you can make, you have to decide what's best for you. I live alone, my parents and friends know what I'm doing,
I have special things in place so I know when to answer the door and when not to.
No passport, no drivers license, no picture I.D. so unless my grandma comes back from the grave during the zombie apocalypse lol then they
have no way of attaching me to THE name.

Will I go to prison, more than likely but hey I could do with a break from my neighbour and her annoying kids, loud music, arguments
and slamming doors.
I'll get 3 meals a day, internet access, a library, a gym, sounds like a holiday to me lol so bring it on.

Hey this freeman lifestyle sounds great, bring it on.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

heres a taste of freedom from a poster on Ickes
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....4&postcount=17


Hey this freeman lifestyle sounds great, bring it on.

If the FOTL stuff works, why does he need to hide whenever anyone knocks on the door?

[ComfySlippers]

Quote:

I have special things in place so I know when to answer the door and when not to.

"special things"
lol. Windows?

ETA: A doorbell?

[jargon buster]

He does say he lives alone, I wonder if he gave his birth name when he applied for the lease?
The guys full of BS, landlords and councils only lease properties to people they can trace.(proof of ID)

freeloader on the land is more like it.

[Hans]

He may live in a place he inherited or rents/uses from a relative or is just squating

[Grassy Knowlington]

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

"special things"
lol. Windows?

ETA: A doorbell?

Probably a video camera so there's never a need to move away from the computer screen.

[jeffwode]

FOTL Ranty moves closer to his day in court.

Quote:

Dear XXXXX XXXXX

I refer to your letter dated 7 June 2011. My reply is late because I was abroad on business.

You have sent me a form on which I need to select one of two options: challenge the legality of the seizure or withdraw my claim. I do not wish to withdraw my claim, nor do I wish to challenge the legality of the seizure. I believe that your officers did as they were trained to do.

However, it is clear to me from reading your letter that you did not even bother to read mine (dated 21 April 2011) in which I explained to you what my lawful standing is. I even included supporting documentation. How you missed it is beyond me. I must now insist that you take advice from a constitutional lawyer. You obviously do not understand the ramifications or the importance of my standing as a Lawful Rebel. Your statutes are meaningless to me. I have opted out. Lawfully. I am under no obligation to obey statute law. Indeed, I am obliged to ignore it.

I appreciate that the concept is alien to you, and it will mystify any lawyer who has no experience in constitutional matters. I forgive your (collective) ignorance, just this once.

What reasonable man could do more?

My favourite bit:

Quote:

Finally, a word on costs. I conditionally agree to pay your costs as long as you agree to pay mine. For my special appearance at the court, my fee is one thousand (1,000) ounces of silver per hour. I expect to be paid in bullion, not fiat currency. This is non-negotiable.

I understand that silver currently costs $33 an ounce, which values this FOTL's time as $33,000 an hour.

Quote:

Without frivolity, ill-will or vexation,

(my mark)

Captain: of the Ranty family."

Let's see what happens next, shall we?

Yes, let's.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by jeffwode

Yes, let's [see what happens next].

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...e123bb2cb1.jpg

You need to photoshop that to "$33,000/hour".

[Plutonium]

Originally Posted by Scoot Meevo

I know there's meant to be an assertion that Common Law is true law. From what I gathered, Common Law in the UK is determined by the establishing of precedents. By nature, this would mean it is a law which accommodates an evolution of sorts, keeping it relevant to the conditions of the time? If that's the case then harking back to a 700+ year old version must be almost redundant.

You are correct that Common Law is based on precedent. When a court makes a decision in a particular matter, that decision is binding on all courts at the same or a lower level, in dealing with cases in which the facts are similar. Hence it is a system of judge-made law.

The age of a precedent is not important - some relevant cases are hundreds of years old, eg Pinnel's case, in contract law.

However, Common Law is only one of the two sources of English law*. The other source is Parliamentary statute. Contrary to what the OP says, these are also valid laws, and indeed they trump the Common Law. Any law at Common Law can be overridden by an Act of Parliament. The constitutional formula is that "the Queen in Parliament is supreme". A law passed by both houses of Parliament, and receiving the royal assent, cannot be overridden by any judge, only by a subsequent Act of Parliament that repeals it.

I haven't previously heard of the Freemen movement, but based on the OP's rant, they have less knowledge of English law than a 16-year-old who has passed GCSE Law.

(* NB I notice you live in Scotland. Scots Law is slightly different - it is a hybrid system, also incorporating elements of Roman law.)

[jargon buster]

Now,now plutonium, writing things like that means you are either in on the law societies trickery or are not yet awake.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Horatius

You need to photoshop that to "$33,000/hour".

Thought about it, but I would have had to have driven over to school to use Photoshop, and I'm too busy today.

[ComfySlippers]

I bring forth good news:

Quote:

You have received an Spam Notice at David Icke's Official Forums

Not only did I get one an spam notice but three! Awesome.

My first an Spam Notice:

Quote:

Dear grammarian,

You have received an infraction at David Icke's Official Forums.

Reason: Insulted Other Member(s) - First Notice
-------
We take a serious view on accusations on this forum, your account will be suspended if you insist on posting with your troll like behaviour.
-------

This infraction is worth 3 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...p?p=1059968977

With some minor exceptions:

Menard scams $1million, is the default leader therefore declares shagging underage girls is not unlawful, and they all go and buy big cannons to defend themselves from the ebil gibberment


...... Wonder how that story ends.

All the best,
David Icke's Official Forums

My second an Spam Notice:

Quote:

Dear grammarian,

You have received an infraction at David Icke's Official Forums.

Reason: Provocative Trolling - First Notice
-------
If you continue with your trolling of this forum, your account will be suspended very quickly.
-------

This infraction is worth 3 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...p?p=1059968576

Umm..... this is a silly forum filled with silly people who believe silly things, with the odd conman like Menard thrown in for good measure.

Why in Queen E-Lizard the Second's name would I want to, or care about befriending muppets who are daft enough to believe crap and scams?

You do understand that silly forums on the intertubes are not actually a substitute for real life?

Postcounts and "Forum Friends" are meaningless, and if you believe them to be otherwise you have just made the whacka-doodle-ometer hit 15.

All the best,
David Icke's Official Forums

My third an Spam Notice:

Quote:

Dear grammarian,

You have received an infraction at David Icke's Official Forums.

Reason: Provocative Trolling - Second Notice
-------
Reading through your posts, one can easily see why you are here, not for much longer though.
-------

This infraction is worth 5 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...p?p=1059965033

What is freedom?
It's the thing that the paranoid-schizophrenics protest they don'y have, whilst listening to Alex Jones and reading Icke-Woo.
All the best,
David Icke's Official Forums

---
All within 8 minutes.
Thing is, I don't consent to their rules and Menard is still a conman.

[ComfySlippers]

A fourth an Spam Notice ... Groovy:

Quote:

Dear grammarian,

You have received an infraction at David Icke's Official Forums.

Reason: Repeated Abuse Of Forum
-------
All your posts have some sort of ridicule, insults, and generally just trolling this forum.
-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...p?p=1059980827

Quote:

She is being given licence to grant Statutes here for the purposes of a money making banking Franchise owned pretty much wholesale by the Rothschilds and which to create a Gi-nourmous Ponzi scheme so greedy so powerful and so psychopathically unrelenting to begger belief .

Just out of interest can you pinpoint the moment in time when you deicided to believe every daft conspiracy tale out there? Is there no scam or conspiracy-nonsense you will not fall for?

You truly are a conman's dream come true.
If you had any money I'm sure you'd be giving it to Menard.
Then again if you had any money you wouldn't be endlessly searching for ways to blame your mistakes and failures in life on others.

It doesn't matter one iota whether or not there was a lump of rock under the coronation throne. Only a fool would believe tales stating otherwise. (How does the Coronation Stone in Kingston-upon-Thames fit into this silly conspiracy story then?).

And btw, the quack you are now promoting in your sig is.... a conman!

All the best,
David Icke's Official Forums

[Stacey Grove]

Icke moderator clone wrote:

Quote:

We take a serious view on accusations on this forum

Well, that depends on who is being accused.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

I bring forth good news:



Not only did I get one an spam notice but three! Awesome.

My first an Spam Notice:




My second an Spam Notice:



My third an Spam Notice:



---
All within 8 minutes.
Thing is, I don't consent to their rules and Menard is still a conman.

Didn't you consent to their rules when you signed up and agreed to the rules? just like you did here on JREF?

Do you fell better now you have Martyred yourself on the Icke Forum?

[ComfySlippers]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Didn't you consent to their rules when you signed up and agreed to the rules? just like you did here on JREF?

Do you fell better now you have Martyred yourself on the Icke Forum?

Well they don't have my consent in ink

I honestly couldn't give a flying saucepan about Icke Forum. It is a cauldron of insanity, who's only purpose in life is to be a source of hilarity for anyone capable of tying their own shoe-laces.

(I am not in any way knocking the sterling efforts of those who post there with well constructed contributions demonstrating very clearly how the whole FOTL-Scam is just that.)

[hal5001]

My Dad was in the UK freemasons for a few years. He joined because he thought he could get some contacts for his business. He said that the reality was it was a club for mainly lonely old men who wanted company and the sumit of their political power was sending out a bit of money here and there to widows of dead members. My Dad left, disillusioned that there were no Soprano style deals going on.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

Didn't you consent to their rules when you signed up and agreed to the rules? just like you did here on JREF?

You can withdraw your consent to the rules at any time dontcha know?

So if Menard is right you couldnt be banned from a forum for not following the rules.