Freeman on the Land, is it real?

[chippy]

Hello all,

I've looked at this freeman on the land thing and see it's fairly indepth but I wonder if those in it/ about to embark on it have considered and understand exactly what they are doing and the implications of it.

Firstly has the Lisbon Treaty now cancelled out the Magna Carta / Bill of Rights Act? Before you jump to answer that look at article 52 of the lisbon treaty which says "Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union."

What that is saying is that the EU has the power at its whim or discretion limit rights in the general interest, that would include rights under the Magna Carta. It's an across the board coverage. Don't get me wrong I detest the lisbon treaty but freeman of the land could be out on a thin ice grounding without realising it.

Secondly even if it did still stand, has anyone considered now that they're no longer a Mr as it were and governed by those laws for want of a better word, how they stand with regard to their bank, national insurance coverage, NHS, fire service etc. For example could the bank turn round and say "OK let's be funny too, you now legally don't have a right to the money here because of clause such and such". Food for thought maybe.

Thirdly I've seen a lot of articles about guys waving paper around in the county court poll tax cases but it was to come to a bigger issue where police and higher courts were involved, do you seriously think that your freeman on the land argument is going to stand? You are going to be up against top lawyers, top police etc and even if it were in your favour do you think that it would be allowed to be made public and passed through? You would need an awful lot of knowledge and money to come at the system at that level.

Input much appreciated. I'm not against this but I see some problems.

Thanks.

[Prajna]

You see all the problems you have been indoctrinated to see, Chippy, and you are afraid of all the things you have been trained to be afraid of, and you haven't managed to think yourself out of the little box you have been put in by the system.

Go read Henry David Thoreau's essay on civil disobedience and then reconsider whether you are at the mercy of the system that has you currently enslaved or whether you might, possibly, if there is no 'R' in the month and someone will hold your hand, be able to stand up for what is right, even in the face of all those 'top lawyers, top police etc.'

When you understand what Thoreau and Gandhi did then see if any of your questions are relevant.

[the_common_law_reverend_kenny]

I've looked at this freeman on the land thing and see it's fairly indepth but I wonder if those in it/ about to embark on it have considered and understand exactly what they are doing and the implications of it.

Comments like that won't get you very far chippy. Firstly, you wonder about what others are considering because 'you' can see problems which implies that either you are worried about the 'others' ( like some kind of parent??) or that you can see something that the others cant see? ( if you can see something that no one here can see, then you would at least check before you post)

A lot of the questions you present have been asked many times on this forum (usually from certain types), so you say you have 'looked' at this freeman thing, but your looking hasn't been done on this forum surely???. A year ago maybe your questions would be valid ones (possibly). Should I then knowing that you can't be arsed to read through this forum answer you questions. I think the previous poster has made a good reply for you. I would have advised you to read for yourself what has been said time and time again - --- we do not stand under the magna carta --- so wherever you learnt that...go unlearn it! Then go find someone that consents to the 'lisbomb' treaty and ask them your questions.

[1965freeman]

I second Prajna's post, Chippy

you are simply espousing all the fears that have been 'bred' into us for generations. Do you honestly believe that the fire brigade would NOT pull your family from a burning house if their lives were in danger - preferring to ascertain first if you were a 'Mr' or not? If such an event occurs, then you may offer any thanks in any way you are able.


You also seem to believe that 'top lawyers' are somehow 'superhuman', to be feared. IN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE the 'higher up' they are - the more arrogant, greedy and stupid they are. I have witnessed this with my own eyes on more than one occasion. THEY ALL RELY on smoke, mirrors and procedural horse-shit - simply because THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO DEAL WITH THE SIMPLE, LOGICAL TRUTH of any matter before them. It is far more important to them - as it seems to be to you - to PROTECT THEIR COMFORTABLE, extremely 'priveleged', LITTLE WORLD OF ILLUSION at ALL COSTS.
Just try ASKING a 'JUDGE' , to his face, if he's under oath AS I HAVE DONE, -calmly, quietly, politely- and just watch him squirm, refuse to answer, shout, rant, rage -BUT NEVER ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
What could possibly be the problem with asking a simple polite question like that? IF HE IS ACTING HONESTLY AND OPENLY.
Why the fear expressed as anger?


We WIN by telling our truths, and standing by them.
I DO NOT PAY COUNCIL TAX but I DO NOT KNOWINGLY USE ANY COUNCIL SERVICES.
I WILL NOT KNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTE A SINGLE PENNY TO THE EU as I have no desire for to be beholden to them.

Can you imagine what would happen if an entire village or town got together, peacefully and simply refused to pay any income tax to fund the slaughter of their fellow man in Iraq and Afghanistan? Just how long could government spokesmen 'hold the party line' and justify arresting an entire village when interviewed for the TV/radio? What do you think would eventually HAVE to happen?

If you are happy to go on living under the 'authority' of such dishonest people, fearing their intrusion into your life for some minor transgression against 'their' rules, then you have answered you own questions.
If not, then welcome aboard! (or should that be 'welcome ashore!!!')

[kliff]

"If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." Henry David Thoreau

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mohandas Gandhi

[holy vehm]

Its as real as you want it to be.

Keep reading, this rabbit hole goes very deep.


hv

[chippy]

Hello lads and thanks to all for your replies.

Like I said in my post I'm not against this at all, I detest what's going on, but I see some problems with this freeman/ "I'm only under common law" stuff.

I've read all your replies and you seem a good bunch and believe in what you're saying, and that's good and it's good to be round people like that, but no-one has really answered the questions but kind of played round it.

I'll say again,

1. If the Lisbon Treaty has cancelled out the Magna Carta / Bill of Rights Act, what are you standing on to say that you are not under the normal law?

2. and I'll clarify this one a bit. You're no longer Mr, okay, and are claiming all the rights to be not under anything but common law that go along with that etc, but have you dug deep enough to understand what the implications of that are on the flip side?
For example let's say you're putting your case to someone, whoever it is, police, judge, local authority, whatever, and this one is a bit of a cute fella and thinks to himself "ah a funny so-and-so eh", and then turns round and starts digging very deep into the laws and turns something back on you that you didn't realise was there. Like the bank saying "you now legally don't have a right to the money here because of clause such and such because you're not Mr John Smith any more" and there could be many more like that. I wonder if you've done your homework in this and it's something that I would certainly be concerned about.

3. When I say "up against top lawyers, top police etc" I'm not just talking top because of Saville Row suits and expensive salaries, it is that but also heads firmly screwed on and locked down with superglue. 1965freeman these guys aren't stupid mate, and also remember I'm not talking about £2.50 of council tax not paid, I'm talking about a more serious issue, could be smoking in a pub, could be using a mobile phone in a car, could be a knife over 3 inches, you name it, could be any of the laws that carry a little bit more clout in terms of penalty.
Are you and your argument going to stand up as you begin to progress up and through the court system? From what I can see this hasn't been tried yet.

Thanks once again.

PS the_common_law_reverend_kenny, I realise in a perfect world people will use the search button, but in reality each and every case is different and this type of "newbie dismissal" isn't very helpful to people who genuinely want some answers like myself, thanks for your understanding mate. Maybe I'm stupid or just plain lazy, but the questions I've outlined above, if you could kindly point me to the definitive answers on your site that would be absolutely wonderful. :)

[treeman]

I am an outlaw, outside of statute law, if they want to deprive me of my god given rights, then take me to my cell. I will await death at their expense.

[Jim]

Hi chippy. Welcome.

I see some problems with this freeman/ "I'm only under common law" stuff.

I feel I must re-iterate Prajna's point about you appearing to "see all the problems you have been indoctrinated to see and (be) afraid of all the things you have been trained to be afraid of." If you said "I have seen some problems..." then I would be all ears but your opening admission that you are still, essentially, living in fear kind of gives the lie to the rest of your post.

For example:

1. If the Lisbon Treaty has cancelled out the Magna Carta / Bill of Rights Act, what are you standing on to say that you are not under the normal law?

That's a big "If". Who said the Bill of Rights no longer exists? The barrister acting for the MPs in the expenses case certainly seems to believe that it's still effective. As for what we are standing on: Notices of Understanding and Intent and Claims of Right, mainly, with a few well-worded questions regarding the legitimacy of the authority claimed by those who would seek to govern us. (Oh, and invisible trusts if the NTT crew are on the money, no pun intended.)

For example let's say you're putting your case to someone, whoever it is, police, judge, local authority, whatever, and this one is a bit of a cute fella and thinks to himself "ah a funny so-and-so eh", and then turns round and starts digging very deep into the laws and turns something back on you that you didn't realise was there. Like the bank saying "you now legally don't have a right to the money here because of clause such and such because you're not Mr John Smith any more" and there could be many more like that. I wonder if you've done your homework in this and it's something that I would certainly be concerned about.

I've never heard of anything like this happening. Why would banks start sacking off their customers? That's hardly good business sense. I think I know what you're getting at, though. I would recommend you research the rights of stateless persons and bare sovereignty or bare life. It's certainly not something I'm concerned about, though. "I'll take my chances" to coin a phrase.

When I say "up against top lawyers, top police etc" I'm not just talking top because of Saville Row suits and expensive salaries, it is that but also heads firmly screwed on and locked down with superglue. 1965freeman these guys aren't stupid mate, and also remember I'm not talking about £2.50 of council tax not paid, I'm talking about a more serious issue, could be smoking in a pub, could be using a mobile phone in a car, could be a knife over 3 inches, you name it, could be any of the laws that carry a little bit more clout in terms of penalty.

You think smoking in a pub is a serious issue? Really? Do you know what the penalty for smoking in a pub is? You might get barred. That's it. The landlord's the one who gets it in the neck if it ever gets to the point of litigation. I've heard of a landlord who was fined and imprisoned for allowing his punters to smoke but I've never heard of anyone who's been fined for smoking in a pub. That's how all of this crap (by which I mean "society" and "legality") works. Threaten the key players (the "hubs") and they'll make sure that all the grunts connected to them toe the line. It's the same for the rest of the examples you give. Being unable to do something is not the same as being afraid of the consequences of doing it. You'll realise (soon, hopefully) that no authority exists in the world that can make you do something or stop you doing anything. You can only be threatened, cajoled and coerced into (not) doing it. When you realise this the veil will be lifted and you will be free.



J

[chippy]

Thanks Jim and others for taking your time to reply. I will look into what you have said. I just wonder whether Mr Garry Mann would have been able to escape being "cajoled and coerced" into extradition if he'd stood on the freeman thing.

No need for the peace flags, I'm alright.

Thanks again.