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.

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

Postby holy vehm » Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:48 pm

Hello & welcome robin.

The freeman concept means many things to many people so your question (to me at least) is a little vague.

Why dont you pick a subject matter you are familiar with and construct a reasonable question.

You claim that no real research is done but it is, its just buried within the archives, seek and you will find.

You may find this link of interest.


Now if you take the time to read through these links we may have a starting point for discussion.

The magna carta and article 61 is much discussed, both for and against on here.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

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

Postby robinr22 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:00 pm

Ok, that's fair enough.

Could you explain these two things to me:

1. Why do you think that freeman aren't subject to statute law?

2. Is it a legal philosophy? Like social contract theory? What I'm trying to say is do you think that this is more of a belief system of how things should be or do you think that this is a practical valid legal argument that could actually suceed in court?

Thanks again,


EDIT: on article 61, discussed or otherwise we can agree that it's been repealed? That it was, in fact, repealed almost immediately. And, while we're on the point, I thought that freemen rejected statute? The Magna Carta was the first piece of statute legislation - if you reject statute, you reject the Magna Carta too.
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

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

Postby enegiss » Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:29 pm

HI robinr22, what i would like to ask, if i may, do you consider statute to be a law, and if so, why? and welcome :grin:
Why do you think that freeman aren't subject to statute law?
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm

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

Postby treeman » Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:42 pm

Living by the ‘Rule of Law’ by Roger Hayes.
Few of us would disagree that the world would be a better place if we all lived by the rule-of-law – but can the same be said about living by the rule of statute? I think not.
In making the case that ‘the law’ benefits our society as a whole but ‘statutes’ benefit special interest groups and have become a negative factor in our lives let me first put forward my views as to what the differences between laws and statutes are.
Here follows a summary of my interpretation of the differences between laws and statutes are. Warning; my assumptions are based on my own logic and reasoning- I have the benefit of not having been ‘trained’ to think like a barrister or a solicitor- in fact I have not been trained to think like anybody- I tend to think for myself, which it appears very few people do these days.....most preferring to be ‘guided’ conveniently to the same conclusions as the ruling elite- some might call it brainwashing, I wouldn’t be so rude. I invite you to think for yourself and make your own conclusions as to weather you think my assumptions are correct.
The basis of my thinking is that no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless they have given their consent. We are governed by consent. But we give our consent unwittingly- and that is how they control us. Withhold your consent and you take back control of your life.
All acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’, known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law- and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law- that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit. A statute is defined as a rule or regulation of a society- they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society- and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.
The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous). There is a compulsion to obey the laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.
Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.
Consent must be given by the individual and not by the collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms. Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently claim. The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed- and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.
The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the ‘ divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right – and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.
A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long in the tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The legal profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance – but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute, (The Magistrates Court Act 1980) Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal advisor in court. This was a power-grab statute.
Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy landowners- but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work). Special interest groups often benefits from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.
If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels, for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is
Unlawful. It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are NOT laws.
If statutes became overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have the right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.
Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.
Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus, there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.
Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.
Statutes do not protect- they are used to keep control.
Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.
We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.

Law refers to common law.
Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.
Laws are based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.
Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.
Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.
Lawful refers to law. Legal refers to legislation.
Laws are used to keep the peace.
Without law we have anarchy.
The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.
Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all.
Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.
Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of the laws.
Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.
Courts, Judges And Juries
- If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.
- Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.
- Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.
- Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view... but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box - common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).
- The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.
- A jury can stand in judgement of anybody... nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)
- If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.
- A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.
- The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.
- Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution - they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment... which we must challenge.
- Magistrates Courts have become statute courts... mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.
- Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws - their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.
- Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically - the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.
- Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.
- If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.
The courts belong to the people - they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.
- Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.
- Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented - (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) - is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’
- The courts are there to serve the interest of justice... they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.
- In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal... without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.
- The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.
- In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).
- You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.
- If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court... and that includes judges.
- Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes... by withholding their consent - the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control. Watch this space.
- A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes.
- The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes... all of their statutes... including the ones giving them the authority to tax us.
- This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European Union – because membership is determined by consent and I am withholding my consent to being governed by a foreign power.
- Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.
- Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.
KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it
This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of the governing elite... but only because we allow it. Our freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to defend them when they are being snatched from us from right under our noses.
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

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

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

Postby knightron » Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:16 pm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Here Here^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :shake: :shake: :hug:
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

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

Postby holy vehm » Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:19 pm

When the magna carta was introduced to the king, this was not an act of parliament in the sense of parliament as we would recognise it today but as a parla as in to discuss, a group of people would gather before the king to discuss things, this would or may in turn lead to new laws as in common law but certainly not to make rules or to pass acts.

The barons felt the king had gone too far in making new laws especially regards taxation and these protests lead us to runnymead and the magna carta, where the king is alledged to have been forced against his will to sign it.

This is no statute that is being created here but it is law, it is not being set by parliament but by a group of men in discussion as to how best to deal with the king and excessive demands. Parliament as we would recognise it and statute rule as we would recognise it didnt materialise for another 30 years at least and parliament as we recognise it today didnt even exists until the late 18 century with the creation of the act of the parliament of the united kingdom.

25 barons petitioned the queen in 2001 and brought us into lawfull rebellion to which we are still in as the petition has not been satisfied.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

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

Postby enegiss » Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:56 pm

great stuff, cant wait for the replys :grin:
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm

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

Postby MikeThomas » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:41 pm

Thanks for that Treeman! :yes:

That just about covers everything, and Robin: If you don't get it from the last few posts then maybe you're too brainwashed and beyond saving!
We are the people our parents told us NOT TO PLAY WITH
User avatar
Posts: 1649
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Llanharan, South Wales

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

Postby pedawson » Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:19 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.

Am I a Baron?
My allegiance is with the Barons, YES. Are you stating that I do not have a right to align myself with a group that has petitioned the queen?
Magna Carta is not repealed. Give me the LAW that states a treaty can be repealed without consent of those that brought it into existence.

Your next statement will, be that 'law', otherwise you have lost all your credibility and prove that your post is nothing more than a troll.

The Barons have used the Magna Carta and the monarch has confirmed that the treaty still has effect. If it doesn't the queen is NOT the queen on this one point. The constitution is ALL that the queen IS, she IS the constitutional monarch, to repeal or ignore the constitution is to repeal or ignore the monarch and that my friend is 'TREASON'. Your statement above is in fact TREASON and I would be careful not to dig any deeper by removing or insinuating that the constitution of this land is NOT valid.

You CAN however make such statements with the permission of the monarch by writing your affidavit to the queen removing your allegiance to her. This is what the monarch has given permission to do in cases where the monarch is under attack or has been usurped. The EU is a clear violation but it is NOT the only violation. Now I use permission wisely, it is a POWER we have vested in the monarch on our behalf. Permission is synonymous, in this case, with excuse.

So am I a Baron? and do I have 24 other Barons to back me up. Well the answer to that is I am not a Baron, however the Barons are acting in our interests, and in doing so are acting in their own interests. They will benefit and so shall we. It is an ancient law and is a useful tool and written at a time when the english language was written and spoken in a manner that meant what it said and said what it meant. It is NOT open to interpretation and it is NOT open to be repealed.

Namaste, rev;
Don't be surprised to discover that luck favours those who are prepared
User avatar
Posts: 1124
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:17 pm

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

Postby robinr22 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:02 pm

Thanks for the replys.

I did say that I had a fairly good grasp of the topic but what I wanted was for someone to pick their strongest argument. There seems to be a lot of reference to statutes laws not being real law. It's difficult to try and challenge that because nobody has really explain WHY they think statute law doesn't apply. I understand that people think they can opt out of it but no one has explained why they think this.

It might help if I answered the question someone asked me, namely why do I think it DOES apply. All law in this country derives its power from the Crown. The essential principles of contract law derive from common law and, to all intents and purposes, the law is as it is because the Crown says it is that way, via the medium of judicial decisions. In the case of statute law the Crown has delegated its power to make laws to Parliament. There is no difference between a judge making a decision based on common law and a judge making a decision based on statute law as both types of law derive from the same source - again, the Crown.

So, again, what I'm looking is an answer like that. Short, concise, to the point and actually provides the information asked. Can anyone give me one? So far what has been said (and cut and pasted...) doesn't actually address my questions at all.

My questions are this:

1. WHY doesn't statute law apply to you?
2. In the event that you end up in court, do you think that the freeman approach would work? If so, how does that square with the recent cases of people being imprisoned for contempt for trying this?

I also hoped that someone could explain the Uniform Commercial Code idea to me, as I have seen it mentioned a lot. This is a piece of US legislation that harmonises legislation relating to commercial transaction. How could this have any impact on the UK? Especially given that it wasn't passed until 1957?


Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm


Return to Chamber of Horrors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests