Freeman on the land.....lawful rebellion? Anybody here?
- Thread starter bambodoggy
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Unfortunately for the people using this concept, they can't use a lawyer, as that means accepting the social contract that they reject.
"A person who defends themselves in Court has a fool for a client"
"A person who defends themselves in Court has a fool for a client"
In the UK, law is a combination of 'common law' (AKA case law) and statute, if I understand correctly. Case law informs the judge on how to interpret individual cases and how to choose sentencing. You can be in front of a judge and argue 'your side of the story' and win; just because the law allows the judge to make a fair decision (whilst being guided by previous decisions). I've represented myself in small claims court in just such a way (and I won).
All this 'freeman' stuff is a pair of rugby-shaped objects in a hairy sack.
All this 'freeman' stuff is a pair of rugby-shaped objects in a hairy sack.
well it is a lot easier than it first appears on the surface,firstly it is not about 'getting away with stuff' , it is about living with common law, the crown has to uphold common law as do the people, not to cause death, harm, or loss to another, or be fraudulent in your contracts (in other words be honest and true). This concept pretty much covers most activities. to submit to comercial law aka acts of parliament and statutes you are giving it power over you,but sometimes it is just common sence to chose to do so,for example i chose not to let my dog fowl the street not because a statute or by-law sayes so but because it is just the decent thing to do,i chose not to break the suicide act not because i dont want to be prosecuted but it is just common sence! i chose to pay tax not because the government sayes to but because i feel it is fair to pay for services i recieve or could recieve if needed like when my boy nearly dies last month i recieved help from probably a dozen or more publicly employed service personel,and if my house caught fire i would appreciate some help too! however if i was arrested for something that is not common law i would make my point that those commercial laws do not apply to me as in fact they do not ,or any person for that matter,many freemen do this and cases are dropped,and surely it is not surprising that this gets little or no media coverage,after all it is the governments way of making money as a registered limited company. the submission to commercial law is complicated in many respects,but to give you an example of it in action consider the police caution used when arresting someone,it is an affirmation of subjection to the comercial law, 'you do not have to say anything unless you chose to do so ,however anything you do say may be taken down and given in evidence' etc followed by 'do you understand?' this does not mean 'do you comprehend ?' it is infact a language known as legalese and what it means is 'do you stand under this statement?' as a freeman i would say no,this changes a lot and the custody seargent would be informed of this, the police officers themselves more often than not do not fully understand the finer points of law,and why would they? the courts are charged with that job. Also remember you may of heard of a citizens power of arrest? this only applies to common law and anyone can arrest someone for breaking common law but a police officer has this power and that of commercial law,It is a complex thing to explain fully and research will help you understand (comprehend!) .
I haven't seen the UK registered at Company House. Of course a lot of branches of government are limited companies but that is only because they require the ability to, say, trade.
A court is not a commercial organ else why would anybody be sent to prison rather than heavily fined or leased out on a chain gang? Of course we could go back to Anglo-Saxon law where virtually everything could be settled by payment of shillings and/or getting enough neighbours to swear you were innocent or guilty. But then the wergild varied according to the social rank of the person and slavery or hanging were the ultimate sanctions.
Still do not understand the Freeman definition of Common Law.
A court is not a commercial organ else why would anybody be sent to prison rather than heavily fined or leased out on a chain gang? Of course we could go back to Anglo-Saxon law where virtually everything could be settled by payment of shillings and/or getting enough neighbours to swear you were innocent or guilty. But then the wergild varied according to the social rank of the person and slavery or hanging were the ultimate sanctions.
Still do not understand the Freeman definition of Common Law.
every magistrate in the country is registered as a limited business,they sit under common law or comercial law,if sitting under comercial law it cannot hear common law and vis versa.99% of cases heard in magistrates are dealt with a fine or an order and fine,they always levy costs which are disproportionate to their actual costs incurred in hearing a case and so profit is made,more serious matters that can be dealt with in a magistrates court carry a custodial sentence to commensurate with the perceived severity of the crime and if a severe breach of common law the same would apply.
The uk registration number is available on the net with a bit of digging,but as with a few organisations is not listed on the companies house website.
Not all Anglo saxon cases involved fines ,a good many involved the archaic 'trial by ordeal',exile ,public humiliation in the form of the stocks and the like and floggings not forgetting being hung for what would now seem trivial.
here is a good source of info:http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/conquest/wessex_kings/anglosaxon_law_05.shtml
"Still do not understand the Freeman definition of Common Law. " how could it be any simpler? ' not to cause death, harm, or loss to another, or be fraudulent in your contracts'.
The uk registration number is available on the net with a bit of digging,but as with a few organisations is not listed on the companies house website.
Not all Anglo saxon cases involved fines ,a good many involved the archaic 'trial by ordeal',exile ,public humiliation in the form of the stocks and the like and floggings not forgetting being hung for what would now seem trivial.
here is a good source of info:http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/conquest/wessex_kings/anglosaxon_law_05.shtml
"Still do not understand the Freeman definition of Common Law. " how could it be any simpler? ' not to cause death, harm, or loss to another, or be fraudulent in your contracts'.
Last edited:
" how could it be any simpler? ' not to cause death, harm, or loss to another, or be fraudulent in your contracts'.
Thank you fishfish, i shall look into this matter, it sounds rather appealing.
Thank you fishfish, i shall look into this matter, it sounds rather appealing.
I appreciate and admire your principles and attitude to your fellow man, fishfish.
You are however talking nonsense about 'common law' and 'commercial law'.
You are however talking nonsense about 'common law' and 'commercial law'.
When local council chiefs are paid £200k to £400k per annum, and most people in their local area, are earning £20k, there should be A LOT more people crying foul, and refusing to pay council tax...... Good luck to em.
Apparently Irelands constitution is very good.
I quite like the videos of the people refusing to be evicted by criminal bankers.
[video=youtube;PpUjl4LvQM8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpUjl4LvQM8[/video]
Apparently Irelands constitution is very good.
I quite like the videos of the people refusing to be evicted by criminal bankers.
[video=youtube;PpUjl4LvQM8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpUjl4LvQM8[/video]
this is a link to a successfull argument by a freeman resulting in the cps dropping the case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_clpkjBoBg&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Last edited:
The Power of Arrest of a 'citizen' is now based on Statute Law -
The law is not a vigilante's charter: detention of another person is, on its own, unlawful. The statutory power of any member of the public in England and Wales to detain someone they consider to be involved in criminal activity is to be found in section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. A person "other than a constable" may arrest without a warrant anyone:
Who is in the act of committing an indictable offence; or whom the person has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing an indictable offence.
An indictable offence is one that can be tried in a crown court, in front of a jury.
A Police Officer may arrest for a wider range of offences, has conditional powers of arrest for things not normally treated as arrestable, and may do so to prevent offences that are simply suspected. There have recently been changes to that Constables power whereby there are requirements of Proportionality and Necessity which I won't bore you with now.
There are continuing Powers under Common Law whereby people can be arrested to Prevent a Breach of the Peace, but the wheel comes off this one quite easily in Court.
I do hope that FishFish earlier comments don't lead anybody into trouble, certainly as regards Common vs Mercantile/Commercial Law which some also try to describe as Maritime Law. It may be fun but I wouldn't expect it to hold any water
The law is not a vigilante's charter: detention of another person is, on its own, unlawful. The statutory power of any member of the public in England and Wales to detain someone they consider to be involved in criminal activity is to be found in section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. A person "other than a constable" may arrest without a warrant anyone:
Who is in the act of committing an indictable offence; or whom the person has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing an indictable offence.
A Police Officer may arrest for a wider range of offences, has conditional powers of arrest for things not normally treated as arrestable, and may do so to prevent offences that are simply suspected. There have recently been changes to that Constables power whereby there are requirements of Proportionality and Necessity which I won't bore you with now.
There are continuing Powers under Common Law whereby people can be arrested to Prevent a Breach of the Peace, but the wheel comes off this one quite easily in Court.
I do hope that FishFish earlier comments don't lead anybody into trouble, certainly as regards Common vs Mercantile/Commercial Law which some also try to describe as Maritime Law. It may be fun but I wouldn't expect it to hold any water
well it did hold water in the video i posted. as i said statute law is not law it only has the power of law if one submits to it. dispite there now being an act of parliament ie section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 common law still has the power of arrest for anyone.
Love the video postings on here, I think this one is epic.
[video=youtube;hj7yaqBFCh0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7yaqBFCh0[/video]
[video=youtube;hj7yaqBFCh0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7yaqBFCh0[/video]
so i, or anyone at all, has the power to make a citizen's arrest on Tony Blair for war crimes, should i attempt to do so no doubt it would be me that ended up in the dock not Tony Blair.
Similar threads
