A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby musashi » Tue May 14, 2013 12:03 pm

As people here have had the opportunity to study, or take part in, my "evolution" in law, so I have had a similar opportunity to share their "evolution". Darwin would be proud of us.

The idee fixe is every bit as evident here, among freemen, as it is in a cult-instilled rigid belief system and, in some ways, Freemanity displays the characteristics of a cult. Sects within the cult have chosen different leaders who merely propose different routes to the same illusory paradise where hash oil flows like a BP oil spill, and high-breasted, virgin maidens get their kit off. Or, if you really must, one of the wild stallion big boys. Like other cults, some of the more exuberant, committed and passionately persuasive have made a almost a career of it, and gathered a following who are, sometimes, a test-bed for novel and unproven ideas based on false, though wholeheartedly believed in, deductions based on sufficient information. As was said of a certain, calamitous Scottish General
“He snatched defeat from the very jaws of victory!” And as I've always said - no, wait a minute. I've just started saying it – “the more questions asked – the further from truth”.

The Idee Fixe is, of course, the 'common law', to which has been ascribed almost mythical properties. It comes straight from the magician's box of magical impedimenta. It has become a kind of Excalibur, good for all jurisdictions and second-to-none in clearing out those pesky officials who seem to pop up everywhere just as things are getting good. Bastards!

Freemanity in general, and there are damn few of you, trust me (you can trust me, I'm nice) fails to understand that, even if there were nothing but common law, they would have no greater freedom of movement, and no more rights to it than they have now. The penalties for trespass would be very much harsher and more rigidly enforced. Consider the old practice of exile. The good old UN might state the law that we are all entitled to security at home, but it doesn't say where. But it will issue Stateless- Persons passports.

The freemen talk in grumbling terms about the queen owning all land then try to stiff her for the rent. If she really does own all the land - except what was given away in charters and whatnot - then she can tell freemen to get the hell off her property, and get her staff to gather them up bean field fashion, and deport them. Where to? Not her problem! She just wants them off her land because they are a bloody nuisance and won't respect her published conditions of use. Fuckers!
Do you really want to tick the landlady off? Of course that would give the game away if she pulled the old exile trick. Transportation for life? You lucky bastard!

Have you ever wondered why people way back when had to get permission from the king to hold a market in their own village? That charters were issued for them with strict conditions strictly enforced? That those charters remain in force today, and that you still can't just set up a market just like that.
Just as we have to apply for a permit from the council today?

The answer is private property, and the owners' right to decide what can be done on it.
“You want a market thingy, do you, (car boot sale) on my land - to make money? Okay, just give me X amount up front and I'll issue you a Royal Charter (peddlers license) and you can set up your market (car booty) and my men-at-arms (local cider heads) won't fuck with you. Deal? Good man. Now, fuck off. I've got a business,,,,,,,,,,,,,er,,,,, country to run.”

Well, William the Bastard did a Claim of Right of ownership of all England by right of conquest, internationally and Roman Catholically, (a tautology?) recognised as legally justified by the earlier promise made by Edward the Confessor to hand over the throne and good title with it. Now, as we all know, kings and queens must keep their promises even if lots of people who aren't them have to die.
As far as I know, that claim has never been openly challenged successfully (they all died and went to the other place) and, as of time of writing, the land is still in cosy Royal ownership with good title. As she is the single largest private landowner in existence, finding a new home might prove problematic!

Too little has been done both on the understanding of the limitations of the application of the common law, and its wider applications in terms of real, invisible, implied contracts based on common law rights of property legally enforceable, and minds have been focused on remedies for the effects of assumed causes, rather than seeing the real one. Or, to put it another way, the small stone near the eye has not moved far enough away yet.

Invisible contracts (George Mercier; The Armen Condo Letter and The Frank May Letter) is a term many freemen use, but few have read the book. This is no arrogant assumption, but a logical deduction, because declaratory statements, like interrogatories, reveal the mind of the speaker. Outside of our personal space (which we carry with us in a limited form – "Get the fuck outa my face, man!") all is invisible contract and agreement except for the single law of trespass and its three sub-divisions - against the person, goods, or property.

When freemen leave their home they may take their common law rights with them (they can hardly fail to, really, as one cannot consent to a crime against oneself. If it's a crime it's a crime) but they do so in a sea of commerce composed of contract and agreement and the laws of property and concomitant rights. Outside of the home and its demesne (if you have a garden!) the use of everything is conditional – shops, transport, road travel, use of the pavements, parks, see terms & conditions ad nausea – and invisible rights attract invisible contracts of the very real kind when you do go out into the world.

You have litter in your hand. The council says littering is a tort. This brings, say, a liability to the council to provide a remedy. Litter bins. You ignore the bin and litter. Willful trespass. The common law nature of the crime, trespass, is forgotten by calling it by it's specific form of trespass – littering. The charge should be read
“Trespass by leaving rubbish on private land when not licensed to do so”.
The Saturday night common brawler could be charged with
“Trespass against the person, Sir, in that Sonny Jim, 'ere, assaulted, by 'ead-buttin', my colleague, Sgt. Littlechild,,,,,,,,, in the crotch, Sir,,,,,,,,,,, in the execution of her duty. Sir.”
Trespass by remaining stationary and blocking the highway (parking) without a license to do so (valid parking ticket) in a zone where license to do so (pay and display, bitch!) must be purchased and clearly visible.”
Put “Trespass by reason of....” in front of these PCN charges, and others, and you have it.

If you are in social housing, your rights of occupation there are conditional because the council corporation owns the property and sets out the conditions of occupation. Just as they own the streets and acknowledge your conditional right to use them.

Trespass is not a crime unless you are there for an unlawful purpose (Vagrancy Act) but it becomes so, ab initio, when a crime is committed (crime in the sense that the law of the contract, issued by the property owner, is the only law that applies and you broke it) and your act of trespass on private property attracts a damages claim. Notice is given of these standard claims values by the local office of the corporate state which fixes the license charges (costs of parking tickets) and notice of these standard claims values had been given prior by publication of legislation by the state. Can't say you didn't know. Bugger!
“Ignorance of the law might be a reason, but it is no excuse when study of the law is readily available to anyone making reasonable efforts to study it”.

The common law, like the Military Industrial Complex, demands that everything should have an owner. Un-owned things are anathema to the common law, so when freemen rage about the bastards owning everything and why can't we have common law... and more …..and less..... So, when adjoining landowners contribute a strip of contiguous land, that all may benefit from the right to travel without committing tort, the local authorities eventually take possession and ownership by agreement with the owners, who are thus relieved of the Royally imposed burden of maintaining it for the common weal, (the spice must flow) and the council corporation becomes responsible for its upkeep. Thus it becomes the private property of the corporation of the city or the district or county and, amongst other things, the maxim, among many common law others, “No responsibility without authority” comes to life.
It is no different to the property rights of the Coca Cola corporation.

As a paraphrase of a certain Taoist, we could write;

The great Tao of commerce flows everywhere – to the left and to the right.
It owns and controls all things – and law to lord it over them.

So, back to the common law and property rights, I think.

As a result of this misapprehension, freemen appear to demand satisfaction of their rights while rejecting any notion of others' rights, even when those others' rights are just as firmly established in common law – laws of property and its right to hold inviolate and free of trespass and to invoke those rights whenever. It's a curious thing.

It is not the job of judges or opposing barristers to teach freemen the law. In fact, they go to some lengths to conceal it from them, and it is only by hard knocks and hard jail time (I quote myself there, folks) that we have learned what we have. They will never correct the false assumption of jurisdiction, and will convict on the perfectly legal bases of no defense offered or non appearance. The trial took place in the street, summarily by an authorised agent of the corporation, and this is your second appearance, if you go, it your only opportunity for confession and avoidance. At this point only defect of process will help. It is not their fault you did not know what was going on and kept demanding to operate in a foreign jurisdiction. Keep up, there, Jones minor!

Everything outside of your personal home space, everything, is someone else's property. You have the conditional right to use it – no more. Breach of these conditions make the right a trespass ab initio and a prosecution may follow. Penalty clauses may be enacted and recovery sought. This no more than the common law of property rights being used in civil jurisdiction where all debt recovery takes place. The cause lies in the common law, trespass, but the action for recovery takes place in chancery as always. The penalty clause in the contract has been invoked, the judge agrees, and recovery is sought and given.
As George Mercier said (or something very like it)
The judge is an administrator, acting ministerially as an extension of the agency of the crown, pronouncing on a contact up for review and enforcement.

Magna Carta does not apply, the article dealing with promises of fines and forfeitures does not apply, because the agency 'fining' you is not the sovereign, it is a corporate private property owner seeking damages for trespass as a result of breach of conditions of an implied contract invisibly attached to your common law right to travel, and the conditional use of the private property of others.
The corporation is not the real man, and the sovereign, acting through a corporation, can do things that the sovereign acting as sovereign cannot. The sovereign may not fine you for non criminal actions, but a corporation can 'fine' you for breach of its terms and conditions and collect on it because it is based in contract.
I think that no-one will win this game with them. I am currently of the opinion that it's all common law and trespass.
Some more study is required, perhaps.

M
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby Dreadlock » Wed May 15, 2013 4:27 pm

The Hierarchy of law:

1. Natural Law / God's law
2. Commercial Law
3. Common Law
4. Equity Law (government statutes, corporate rules)

The government is a corporation. Local councils are corporations.

The monarch claims ownership of all the land in this country, therefore Local Councils do not "own" any land, rather they "hold" it on behalf of the monarch for the use of the public.
The land is ours, given to us by God. Believe it or not, this is the basis for our law. Monarchs are no more than stewards of the land. Their claim of "ownership" is no more than a claim of legal title.

The Corporate rules of the local council do not apply to man, for the Council is subordinate to him, its employees are public servants. Their "laws" are of the lowest order and do not, cannot, apply to man in his natural capacity. The Magna Carta does apply, the article dealing with promises of fines and forfeitures does apply, because the agency fining you is a corporation charged with management of the local land, and its rules and regulations are merely for internal use and absolutely cannot apply to man. Corporations should not infringe upon the natural, god-given, common law and constitutional rights of a man.

When a man voluntarily acts in a different capacity, as a person for example, he may then fall into government and local government jurisdiction. Statute and local by-laws may then apply. Courts of summary jurisdiction ALWAYS ASSUME that the alleged offender is a government employee/person. This is how they gain jurisdiction.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby wanabfree » Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:47 pm

Dreadlock wrote:The Hierarchy of law: (Opinion)

1. Natural Law / God's law (Opinion)

2. Commercial Law (Opinion)


3. Common Law (Opinion)

4. Equity Law (government statutes, corporate rules) (Opinion)


The government is a corporation. Local councils are corporations. (Opinion) + plus no evidence proving so ?

The monarch claims ownership of all the land in this country, (Opinion) therefore Local Councils do not "own" any land, (Opinion) rather they "hold" it on behalf of the monarch for the use of the public. (Opinion) + plu no evidence proving so ?

The land is ours, (Opinion) given to us by God. (Opinion) plus most definately no evidence to prove so ?

Believe it or not, ( it's not an issue of belief, it's an issue of facts ) this is the basis for our law. Monarchs are no more than stewards of the land. Their claim of "ownership" is no more than a claim of legal title. (Opinion) and again no evidence to prove this to be true, and in practise land was and has always been taken/stolen by violence, whatever the fancy language used claims ?


The Corporate rules of the local council do not apply to man, for the Council is subordinate to him, its employees are public servants. Their "laws" are of the lowest order and do not, cannot, apply to man in his natural capacity. The Magna Carta does apply, ( oh realy ? 'based on what facts ?) the article dealing with promises of fines and forfeitures does apply, because the agency fining you is a corporation charged with management of the local land, and its rules and regulations are merely for internal use and absolutely cannot apply to man. Corporations should not infringe upon the natural, god-given, common law and constitutional rights of a man. ( were are the facts and evidence to back up and prove any of those claims ?)

When a man voluntarily acts in a different capacity, as a person for example, he may then fall into government and local government jurisdiction. Statute and local by-laws may then apply. Courts of summary jurisdiction ALWAYS ASSUME that the alleged offender is a government employee/person. This is how they gain jurisdiction.
( were are the fact to prove these claims as well ?)
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:43 am

The facts, such as the monarch owning all the land, the well established existence of a hierarchy of law, the incorporation of England and Wales with Scotland in the Act of Union, the earth given as an inheritance to man by God, are all readily available for you to learn for yourself should you do a little bit of research.

I most certainly will not do your work for you - you will benefit more if you do it yourself.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby wanabfree » Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:21 pm

Dreadlock wrote:The facts, such as the monarch owning all the land, the well established existence of a hierarchy of law, the incorporation of England and Wales with Scotland in the Act of Union, the earth given as an inheritance to man by God, are all readily available for you to learn for yourself should you do a little bit of research.

I most certainly will not do your work for you - you will benefit more if you do it yourself.



This is why i can justify my critiisms, funny how people who have no facts or evidence start saying “go and do your own research”?

The facts are it is claimed the so called “monarch” owns all the land, is just that, a claim’ but a claim based on a tyrants opinion, a women awards herself all the lands ?, are you kidding me ?.

The alleged “existence of a hierarchy of law” again is nothing more than “legal opinions” “Law” itself is an opinion, that is a fact, if yo don’t believe me do a google search on any house of lords or high court ruling and it says exactly what it is, i’ll even post some links up for you if you want me to do the work for you?.

the alleged incorporation of England and Wales with Scotland in the Act of Union etc is not a corporation, but effectively a “boby politic”’ not tht there is much difference anyways, they are both just legal opinions, an "Act" is a written opinion, a corp or the “UK” only exist in the mind as an opinion, it is not a real and the “uk” is not the ground you stand on.

The statment that “ the earth given as an inheritance to man by God” is nothing more than man made dogma, there are no facts to prove this to be true, and is not self evident.

I have done plenty of research over the years, and along with the work i have done with the members of the No State Project’ i have pretty much nailed down the relevant facts on these issues.

To say to somebody “go and do the research yourself”, is a cope out, because you have no facts yourself.

If you did have evidence you would have no problem presenting it.


Banging on about “hierarchy of law” land ownership, corporations does not get people to the facts, as all of it is just baseless opinions, and worse still, it’s the opinions of a bunch of bureaucrats, and you get sucked into believing it mut be true ?, seperating fact from fiction, invalid opinons from valid opinions is a skill sadly lacking in the truth movement, many are still caught up in indocrinated modes of thinking, the freeman movement is a clear example of people, being told what to think instead of how to think, you cannot make reality conform to your opinions, your opinion must conform to reality, and that means being able to dipense with,and recognise logical fallacies,dogmas.

There are very few facts involved or are required in any of the issues, and that is the way it should be, as an overwelming number of facts would only serve to ofuscate the truth.
The truth in many respects is self evident, but to see it you have to ask the right questions and emplyoy sound logical objective reasoning to get there, whether you like or agree with the answer or not are irrellevant .
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:38 pm

You are discussing things from a philosophical perspective. I try to discuss things from a practical/pragmatic perspective.

Should the monarch own all the land? Absolutely not. But that does not change the way things are. She does.

And I agree with you. It is simply opinion that the monarch owns all the land, but it is opinion supported by the full weight of parliament, the court, the Crown, the military etc.
Good luck on convincing them to change the way things are, to the way you want them to be.

I could provide "evidence" that the monarch owns all the land in England - try page 5 of "Land Law" by Mackenzie & Phillips, Oxford, 2006.

But from your philosophical perspective such evidence is merely opinion. I can't say you are wrong. All I can say is that philosophy is fine and dandy but won't help you much in court.
Don't assume that people cannot produce references to support their statements just because they don't. This is a public forum not an academic one and it IS much better if people learn for themselves
without having someone hold their hand. Furthermore I'm a lazy sod and don't care to look up references every time I make a post - and I'm not obliged to.

I will provide what I consider to be facts. People should check those "facts" for themselves.

The alleged “existence of a hierarchy of law” again is nothing more than “legal opinions” “Law” itself is an opinion, that is a fact, if yo don’t believe me do a google search on any house of lords or high court ruling and it says exactly what it is, i’ll even post some links up for you if you want me to do the work for you?.


You clearly have no understanding of the distinction between "law" and "statute". To say that "law" is an opinion is, frankly, laughable. Try jumping in the air and then argue with gravity about its "opinion" that you should come back down... :giggle:

The statment that “ the earth given as an inheritance to man by God” is nothing more than man made dogma, there are no facts to prove this to be true, and is not self evident.

Again, philosophically I cannot argue with you. However pragmatically the bible is, in this country, considered to be the word of God. The monarch swears their oath upon the bible and our law is very much based on the bible. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the way it is.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby wanabfree » Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:57 pm

You have just amply demontrated the logical fallacies, and dogma’s found in the freeman movement, that i am trying to highlight in this thread.

I just can’t bring myself to write a reply to above statments you made.

I lack undestanding ?

Have you even thought about, or considered what you have just said ?

If other people reading this fail to see were you have gone completely wrong, i fear there is no hope for people in this movement ever evolving, admitting their mistakes, and getting with reality.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby Freeman Stephen » Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:25 am

Legally the queen even owns the legal system. Lawfully...? I think its time we attempted to codify OUR law.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby wanabfree » Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:31 am

Freeman Stephen wrote:Legally the queen even owns the legal system. Lawfully...? I think its time we attempted to codify OUR law.



The term “legal and lawful” is nothing more than a label given to a dogmatic and perverted perseption of reality that is used to control other people.

The legal system is people forcing their whim’s and opinions on others, useing coerction and violence, and it’s all done in the name of the queen, or in other words What pleases the “queen” , it’s called residual tyranny.

“codify OUR law”, it’s Not OUR "Law", it’s their law, in other words their opinions, we don’t get to choose what it is, so what difference do you think codifying it ,is gong to make ?.

Right and wrong, ethics,morals, logic etc, have nothing to do with their legal system, it acts in defiance of all of them, and when such terms are used ( rights, a fair hearing etc ), they serve as nothing more than shallow attempts at hiding the truth, it’s called public relations.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby Freeman Stephen » Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:49 am

I was meaning OUR law, often expressed inadequately in phrases like "do no harm" or "do unto others" ... even forsaking self defence?

We should codify it so you dont get this "i dont think its harmful to defraud people". From there we can establish courts amongst those who agree to OUR law and those who will do so seeking the protection of our courts.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron