I'm new and I have a question.

Examples of how to get yourself banned on FMOTL. We consider these Topics go absolutely nowhere, and do not contribute to the overall research we are trying to create. This Forum may contain sensible Topics have been deliberately de-railed by others. We do not take prisoners aka confrontational Users.

Don't bother coming "the big I am" on FMOTL. You won't get anywhere.

I'm new and I have a question.

Postby robinr22 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:23 pm

Hello,

This is my first post here. I have only recent come across the whole fmotl idea and, well, I have some concerns. Concerns that I would love to be able to address here and I hope that, in the spirit of friendliness and genuine enquiry, someone can address them and this topic won't be deleted. :grin:

I'd start by saying that I have a law degree so I am very familiar with the field but, before anyone accuses me of professional trolling, I am not nor have I ever practised as a lawyer, I don't work in any kind of financial services, I have no vested interests in this and it is for my personal interest only. That said, having looked around the forum I haven't found any critical analysis of whether the arguments put forward have any validity. Nobody seems to challenge what is being said and, at the very least, I'm sure you'd agree it's never healthly for there to be no challenges to orthodoxy.

So here goes. I would be very grateful if someone (or lots of people!) could state what they think is their single strongest argument for the Freeman-on-the-land concept and have a discussion with me about it. Ideally this should be the thing that underpins this theory for you. I would love to be able to discuss the issue in a straightforward clear way so that we can all establish whether there is any substance to the claims made here.

Anyone?

All the best

Robin

Mods: if this should go somewhere else in the forum, I apologise but it seemed the best place!
robinr22
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby treeman » Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:47 pm

robinr22 wrote:

So here goes. I would be very grateful if someone (or lots of people!) could state what they think is their single strongest argument for the Freeman-on-the-land concept and have a discussion with me about it. Ideally this should be the thing that underpins this theory for you. I would love to be able to discuss the issue in a straightforward clear way so that we can all establish whether there is any substance to the claims made here.


Welcome to the forum robinr22 :thinks:
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby treeman » Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:53 pm

What is the extent of your knowledge of the freeman concept,robin
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby pedawson » Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:59 pm

As you rightly state you are NEW to the freeman thing, however you are NOT a freeman.
How can you be, you have no intention of reading the volumes of information on the subject. We are willing to answer questions regarding individual areas but to start to have to explain the whole freeman concept.

You have not been reading this forum, and that is as straight as I can make it.
I DO, however hope your quest is a valid one, by that I mean you are willing to turn your back on this corrupt government and the financial / legal system and report what you know to be corrupt 'EVERYWHERE'.

You have concerns about the freeman movement, so what! I have concerns about the judiciary. I don't see you coming out with any response to those concerns.
Did you say you had read this forum? If you had you might, just might have come across a tiny section on this forum, granted it is the whole forum, about the LAW.

No one and I mean NO-one can be in the legal profession and NOT smell the faint aroma of 'BULLSHIT'.
You say your are VERY familiar with the field, not just familiar - VERY FAMILIAR.
We have crown court judges who are very familiar with the law and are also very familiar with the freeman movement and do not question it but they do question the law.

I believe you will take this post as a negative one but if you read the forum you will find hundreds of posts asking the same thing and the answers come in their thousands, the result is always the same and that is why I say you are NOT a freeman. You cannot be it is intuative and it is RIGHT.

Power to the people, I and 99% on this forum will NEVER be swayed by the official legal arguments they are childish and, truthfully' unlawful.
If you wish your question be answered READ MAGNA CARTA ARTICLE 61. That there, is the whole of it.

Namaste, rev;

Article 61

But since we have granted all these things aforesaid, for GOD, and for the amendment of our kingdom, and for the better extinguishing the discord which has arisen between us and our Barons, we being desirous that these things should possess entire and unshaken stability for ever, give and grant to them the security underwritten;

namely, that the Barons may elect twenty-five Barons of the kingdom, whom they please, who shall with their whole power, observe, keep, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have granted to them, and have confirmed by this our present charter, in this manner:

that is to say, if we, or our Justiciary, or our bailiffs, or any of our officers, shall have injured any one in any thing, or shall have violated any article of the peace or security, and the injury shall have been shown to four of the aforesaid twenty-five Barons, the said four Barons shall come to us, or to our Justiciary if we be out of the kingdom, and making known to us the excess committed, petition that we cause that excess to be redressed without delay.

And if we shall not have redressed the excess, or, if we have been out of the kingdom, our Justiciary shall not have redressed it within the term of forty days computing from the time when it shall have been made known to us, or to our Justiciary if we have been out of the kingdom, the aforesaid four Barons, shall lay that cause before the residue of the twenty-five Barons;

and they, the twenty-five Barons, with the community of the whole land, shall distress and harass us by all the ways in which they are able; that is to say, by the taking of our castles, lands, and possessions, and by any other means in their power, until the excess shall have been redressed, according to their verdict; saving harmless our person, and the persons of our Queen and children; and when it hath been redressed, they shall behave to us as they have done before.

And whoever of our land pleaseth, may swear, that he will obey the commands of the aforesaid twenty-five Barons, in accomplishing all the things aforesaid, and that with them he will harass us to the utmost of his power: and we publicly and freely give leave to every one to swear who is willing to swear; and we will never forbid any to swear.

But all those of our land, who, of themselves, and of their own accord, are unwilling to swear to the twenty-five Barons, to distress and harass us together with them, we will compel them by our command, to swear as aforesaid.

And if any one of the twenty-five Barons shall die, or remove out of the land, or in any other way shall be prevented from executing the things above said, they who remain of the twenty-five Barons shall elect another in his place, according to their own pleasure, who shall be sworn in the same manner as the rest.

In all those things which are appointed to be done by these twenty-five Barons, if it happen that all the twenty-five have been present, and have differed in their opinions about any thing, or if some of them who had been summoned, would not, or could not be present, that which the greater part of those who were present shall have provided and decreed, shall be held as firm and as valid, as if all the twenty-five had agreed in it: and the aforesaid twenty-five shall swear, that they will faithfully observe, and, with all their power, cause to be observed, all the things mentioned above.

And we will obtain nothing from any one, by ourselves, nor by another, by which any of these concessions and liberties may be revoked or diminished. And if any such thing shall have been obtained, let it be void and null: and we will never use it, neither by ourselves nor by another.
Don't be surprised to discover that luck favours those who are prepared
User avatar
pedawson
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby robinr22 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:26 pm

treeman wrote:What is the extent of your knowledge of the freeman concept,robin


Thanks for the reply! I was really hoping to avoid getting into the big picture debate because that can end up being a little like whack-a-mole. One argument goes down and another pops up.

That's why I was hoping you could pick your strongest point and we could discuss that.

In answer to your question though, my understanding is that the freeman concept is based on the idea that statute law is based on consent and so anyone can withdraw that consent and not be bound by statute law any more. There are other issues that relate to the transfer of debt and admiralty law, copyright on your name, the difference between your legal persona and your actual persona, etc. I've done my research so please don't think that this is idle trolling. It's not. I'm here to discuss.

But I'm sure you already know the arguments behind the theory. Could you pick one we could talk about?
robinr22
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby robinr22 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:33 pm

pedawson wrote:As you rightly state you are NEW to the freeman thing, however you are NOT a freeman.
How can you be, you have no intention of reading the volumes of information on the subject. We are willing to answer questions regarding individual areas but to start to have to explain the whole freeman concept.


Article 61

But since we have granted all these things aforesaid, for GOD, and for the amendment of our kingdom, and for the better extinguishing the discord which has arisen between us and our Barons, we being desirous that these things should possess entire and unshaken stability for ever, give and grant to them the security underwritten;

namely, that the Barons may elect twenty-five Barons of the kingdom, whom they please, who shall with their whole power, observe, keep, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have granted to them, and have confirmed by this our present charter, in this manner:

that is to say, if we, or our Justiciary, or our bailiffs, or any of our officers, shall have injured any one in any thing, or shall have violated any article of the peace or security, and the injury shall have been shown to four of the aforesaid twenty-five Barons, the said four Barons shall come to us, or to our Justiciary if we be out of the kingdom, and making known to us the excess committed, petition that we cause that excess to be redressed without delay.

And if we shall not have redressed the excess, or, if we have been out of the kingdom, our Justiciary shall not have redressed it within the term of forty days computing from the time when it shall have been made known to us, or to our Justiciary if we have been out of the kingdom, the aforesaid four Barons, shall lay that cause before the residue of the twenty-five Barons;

and they, the twenty-five Barons, with the community of the whole land, shall distress and harass us by all the ways in which they are able; that is to say, by the taking of our castles, lands, and possessions, and by any other means in their power, until the excess shall have been redressed, according to their verdict; saving harmless our person, and the persons of our Queen and children; and when it hath been redressed, they shall behave to us as they have done before.

And whoever of our land pleaseth, may swear, that he will obey the commands of the aforesaid twenty-five Barons, in accomplishing all the things aforesaid, and that with them he will harass us to the utmost of his power: and we publicly and freely give leave to every one to swear who is willing to swear; and we will never forbid any to swear.

But all those of our land, who, of themselves, and of their own accord, are unwilling to swear to the twenty-five Barons, to distress and harass us together with them, we will compel them by our command, to swear as aforesaid.

And if any one of the twenty-five Barons shall die, or remove out of the land, or in any other way shall be prevented from executing the things above said, they who remain of the twenty-five Barons shall elect another in his place, according to their own pleasure, who shall be sworn in the same manner as the rest.

.


I'm not asking you to explain the whole freeman concept, I'm simply asking you to pick your strongest argument. You mention Article 61 of the Magna Carta. You will note this phrase:

"and they, the twenty-five Barons, with the community of the whole land, shall distress and harass us by all the ways in which they are able; that is to say, by the taking of our castles, lands, and possessions, and by any other means in their power, until the excess shall have been redressed, according to their verdict; saving harmless our person, and the persons of our Queen and children; and when it hath been redressed, they shall behave to us as they have done before."

Are you a Baron? Do you have another 24 Barons with you? Did they sign the Magna Carta? Then this para cannot apply to you. This is, of course irrelevant, as the entire section has now been repealed so is no longer valid anyway. And, finally, how can you claim the protection of the Magna Carta and simultaneously deny statute law? The Magna Carta WAS statute law - one of the very first pieces.

Is there a follow-up question? Am I wrong about this? Please, tell me if I am.

EDIT: shortened quote cos it was huge
robinr22
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby MikeThomas » Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:05 pm

Hi Robin! Welcome to the forum :yes:

For me, being a Freeman means to fight the hypocrisy that we face from our 'alleged' democratically appointed leaders. They sit in that cosy billet known as the House of Commons and proceed to invent 'statutes' who's only purpose is to milk the tax paying population of more hard earned 'fiats'. They do this with a problem, reaction, solution theme. First they create a problem, then wait for the public outcry (Normally from the Daily Mail section of society) and then they offer a solution which was exactly the statute they wanted in the first place!

The hypocrisy I speak of is there for all to see. The Government seek to treat us like children telling us what we can do and when while ignoring our age old laws and traditions. Take the seat belt statutes that are enforced as if they were written on tablets of stone. This 'law' was lobbied on Parliament by the Insurance Companies who thought it would save them a lot of cash when they had to pay compensation. As it turns out they now pay more for injuries like whiplash, and it's costing them a fortune! Not that it'll come out of their profits. No! They'll just increase the prices of insurance for everybody and then moan about living in the 'litigious' society that they created!
All this from a product that was first made compulsory in this country by an MP who just so happened to a lot of connections with Britic the seat belt manufacturer and who successfully persuaded the Government to make it compulsory to fit seat belts in all new cars made in Britain. Nothing in it for him, was there?

And all this is just the tip of the iceberg :thinks:
We are the people our parents told us NOT TO PLAY WITH
User avatar
MikeThomas
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Llanharan, South Wales

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby robinr22 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:10 pm

Thanks for the welcome! Well, being a freeman in protest against a hypocritical non-representative government I can get behind, but the problem is the legal basis for it. You've identified the point that you believe that statutes aren't valid law. Why do you think this?

EDIT: to remove quote. Must stop quoting every time...
robinr22
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby knightron » Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:19 pm

Are you a Baron? Do you have another 24 Barons with you? Did they sign the Magna Carta? Then this para cannot apply to you. This is, of course irrelevant, as the entire section has now been repealed so is no longer valid anyway. And, finally, how can you claim the protection of the Magna Carta and simultaneously deny statute law? The Magna Carta WAS statute law - one of the very first pieces.


I am not here to troll but to discuss?... Then why come out with that statement? you know as well as I do (as a law student you must know this)
that the Magna Carta still stands in Law...the Problem with statute law is; because they are only Rules, they can be bent by those with the money to pay a lawyer to bend them, and to Pay a Magistrate or Judge to rule for their argument..LAW is LAW, what is Right and will always be right in any language or argument..
Rules are open to interpretation by the "Legally trained buffoons" who think they can use loop holes and bent ways and means to make the rules play their way..

Example...If the Politicians decided to pass a statute that allowed them to come into your home and have sex with your wife all night or beat her and you couldn't say or do anything about it, would it be right?
Example....If the Politicians passed a statute that allowed them to steal your money and because they said its Ok would it be right? (they are doing this right now)

Legal vs Lawful..you tell me the difference..!
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby MikeThomas » Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:36 pm

If you asked any sensible human being if we need regulation for (lets say for example: Speeding) a large majority would say "YES!". That's because there are idiots who will speed past a school at 50 mph and endanger lives. But is the amount of endangerment the same at two o'clock in the morning? So, at school time this statute should be upheld to protect us from potential harm.

Now, some statutes are actually common law like The Bill of Rights Act 1689. This was a constitutionally approved statue because the people voted for it. Did we get a chance to vote on the seat belt law/statue? No! We were 'assumed' to have approved of it because some of use may have voted for a certain MP.
And in this 'assumption' consecutive Governments have taken the piss and passed Bills that do not benefit the population but benefit a few. A good example of this is the EDO factory in Brighton. One day a week people protest this place as it makes guidance systems for bombs that kill in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. 53 were arrested once and cleared by a jury of their peers. Not happy with this outcome the PTB decided to get the Police to issue 'Notices' to the protesters telling them it was un-lawful. When that failed to have an impact they got a member of the Law Society (a QC) to pass a bill through Parliament stating that it was now illegal to protest on the public pavement outside the arms factory.
We are the people our parents told us NOT TO PLAY WITH
User avatar
MikeThomas
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Llanharan, South Wales

Next

Return to Chamber of Horrors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest