Freeman on the land.....lawful rebellion? Anybody here?
- Thread starter bambodoggy
- Start date
i am unsure if war crimes are covered specifically by common law,and if they were then yes you could,however the police would use acts of parliament or statutes to unlawfully stop you,i guess if the Hague (whos law takes president over UK law) issues an arrest warrant then i guess someone authorised could. i would imagine it would be hard to prove Blair knew the info that was used to go to war on Iraq was false and he would claim he acted in good faith ,we all know this is bs but you need proof and look what happened to David Christopher Kelly ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)
Thanks for the posts and info fishfish 
although I'm not sure the video you posted actually proves that Raymond won anything. It could be that they backed off because they couldn't get him to concent to maritime law.....or it could be just that stealing from a pub is an offence under common law (see your post earlier for discription of common law, "loss to another" and seeing as it was one dodgy landlord against Raymond's word and the word of three independent witness's, the cps just made a judgement that is wasn't in the public interest to take it further. In which case all Raymond did was to waste rather a lot of valuable police time.
i preferred him in court in the first video posted
See that's where I get stuck, I like the idea and can't see why it doesn't work but I still haven't actually seen it work and so I'm still a bit of a doubting thomas.
Many thanks,
Bam.
although I'm not sure the video you posted actually proves that Raymond won anything. It could be that they backed off because they couldn't get him to concent to maritime law.....or it could be just that stealing from a pub is an offence under common law (see your post earlier for discription of common law, "loss to another" and seeing as it was one dodgy landlord against Raymond's word and the word of three independent witness's, the cps just made a judgement that is wasn't in the public interest to take it further. In which case all Raymond did was to waste rather a lot of valuable police time.i preferred him in court in the first video posted
See that's where I get stuck, I like the idea and can't see why it doesn't work but I still haven't actually seen it work and so I'm still a bit of a doubting thomas.
Many thanks,
Bam.
Just suppose for a moment that the Freeman theories of Commercial law are correct. On could ask so what? You do not enter into a contract when you might be charged with breaking the conditions of statute or contract, that is the absurd basis of the Freeman claims. You create a contract through mutual consideration. At its lowest level take the example of borrowing a book from a public library. Keep it overdue and you will be charged a fine, or fee if you prefer. So either way you are liable. Same applies to any other example you care to give. Use the roads and you are subject to statute or you have accepted the consideration of being able to use the roads and agreed the contract. Break the conditions of the relevant statute or your idea of the contract and you are equally subject to penalty.
Show a positive example of the Freeman way of thought that does not involve an initial breaking of law or "contract".
Show a positive example of the Freeman way of thought that does not involve an initial breaking of law or "contract".
Sorry...not trying to be difficult but I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say above?
If you've joined a library then you've knowingly and willingly entered a contract and are consenting to be fined if you bring the books back late or not at all. If you didn't join the library and you take books then you are guilty of theft under common law.....so not sure I follow what you're trying to point out? ? ?
The freeman point of view on road use is much more complicated so I'll let somebody else explain it better than me if they can but basically as far as I understand it; they de-register their "private automobile" with the DVLA, surrender their driving licence, do without road tax, MOT and insurance. If stopped they claim common law jurisdiction. Claim their car isnt a vehicle it's a private automobile and that they are not drivers, they are Freemen exercising their right to travel.
I'm not sure the ins and outs but it's something to do with being a private automobile and them being a traveller and not a driver that they claim makes it ok. The exception is if they are acting in a commercial capacity (ice cream van etc I've seen examples of) as they then have to follow statute and all the licence, tax, mot etc.
I think that's roughly how they do it. Seen a few YouTube clips of traffic stops when this approach is tried.....very interesting to watch but even more interesting is that the vids never show or explain what the actual outcome was....which in itself is quite telling.
Still not convinced either way
Cheers,
Bam.
Sorry, again I'm struggling to understand what you're asking here? Surely to answer your question simply would be to say "freemen don't believe in killing, hurting, causing loss to or making fraudulent contracts with others". That's pretty positive.....but it's also the bleeding obvious!
You could ask for a "positive example of the non-freeman way of thought that doesn't involve an initial breaking of statute" and there would be millions from 'let's give all my money to charity' to 'let's eat pink jelly every day if we like it'. I just don't see what relevance this has? ? ?
I promise I'm not trying to be clever or difficult....I just have no idea what you are trying to say or ask?
Thanks,
Bam.
It is a complete and utter load of rubbish.
If you live in the country, you are subject to its laws. Same applies to me if I travel to another country; their laws apply to me while I am in the country.
If you live in the country, you are subject to its laws. Same applies to me if I travel to another country; their laws apply to me while I am in the country.
You see that's where I struggle too....just because you say it's so....doesn't mean it is so. The law is the law and IF it's a contract and not a law (as in statutes and Acts) then legally you have to agree to that contract surely? All the shouting of its the law it's the law doesn't make it so....what makes it so is what the law says.
And even with an exceptance of your view of what it law....it's not always e.g motorbike helmets are required by an Act of Parliment.....but Sihks are exempted on ground of religion......so there's a whole group of people living in a country but not under an Act (just an example...not trying to bring religion into this in any way).
I've found this web page quite interesting, I think it's run by the Raymond chap from the below vids:
http://www.freedomrebels.co.uk/Home::what_is__a_freeman.html
Cheers,
Bam.
Point about the the library example is that instances of Freeman in action seem to be after they have been party to a contract thus I could see a similar video being made of someone trying to get out of a library fine that they had incurred. The eviction video hinged on an apparently defective document but the mortgage loan would still be outstanding so where was the Freeman significance?
To call a car by any other name don't stop it being subject to the Road Traffic Laws.
To call a car by any other name don't stop it being subject to the Road Traffic Laws.
Joining a library and signing a contract is one thing and no freeman could (under their own agenda) claim they were anything other than under contract.
They would argue that travelling inside a private (unregistered with DVLA) automobile without a driving licence, they have entered no such contract. I agree it sounds a bit iffy so I am playing devils advocate a little here as I am not a Freeman myself...nor plan to become one unless its proved to be real.
All I am saying is that as I read things they are right about a lot of stuff and just because you, Parliment and others "say" it isn't true and is a load of bs doesn't change what is written down in the Law (not statutes or acts). What I'm struggling to understand is why legally freemen are not accepted when what they are doing is perfectly lawful? Where does it say that I have consented to be governed by these acts and statutes? Where does it say that acts and statutes take president over common law etc? On what lawful basis are Freemens claims being put down?
Again, I'm not trying to be difficult....I'm trying to understand.
Agree about the eviction vid....nothing to do with being Freemen as a contract (the mortgage) was in place...I think it was more an example of of knowing your rights and how the role of the police can be useful to you....especially if those in authority can't get their paperwork right. And why shouldn't they have to have it right....if I send my tax returns in wrong I can get fined.....the law has to apply equally.
@ Boatman, many thanks for your attempts to enlighten me and taking my return posts in good faith
Cheers,
Bam.
I've agreed to abide by the law because I'm a law abiding type of chap and happen to think that most statutes and acts are a good idea if not plain common sence.
I live in this country because I was born here and have not chosen to leave, I have every right to live here and not be forced into any contract I don't wish to be part of. Or are you suggesting that just being alive in the uk makes you subject to any contract any other part should decide you are part of?
My citizenship is based solely on a contract between me and the crown, it has nothing to do with Parliment or anybody else....I refer, of course, to our constitution. This is part of common law as far as I know.
So I'm still stuck not knowing why I can't understand why freemanship doesn't seem to work out in reality.
Cheers,
Bam.
Last edited:
Laws are not contracts with the country.
We are granted freedoms by constitutional law. The whole 'freeman' movement is complete and utter rubbish. Sorry, but there it is.
We are granted freedoms by constitutional law. The whole 'freeman' movement is complete and utter rubbish. Sorry, but there it is.
We are granted freedoms?
Really?
So who is creating all these new freedoms we didn't have say, 5,000 years ago by default, and kindly bestowing them upon us?
And can you name a few of these granted freedoms for us?
Swallow you are right to pull me up on that. I've given a very inaccurate description.
UK law; you can do what you like unless the law says you can't.
US law; you are allowed to do what the law says you can do (Hence the US obsession with their constitution. The constitution 'grants' freedoms.)
UK laws take away freedoms. In some cases, it explicitly grants them - 'Right to Roam' comes to mind.
UK law; you can do what you like unless the law says you can't.
US law; you are allowed to do what the law says you can do (Hence the US obsession with their constitution. The constitution 'grants' freedoms.)
UK laws take away freedoms. In some cases, it explicitly grants them - 'Right to Roam' comes to mind.
Obviously that is a terrible over simplification. But the fundamental difference is still there. We actually have a lot of freedom in the UK.
Similar threads
