FREEMAN ON THE LAND

Post Reply New Topic

following mistakenly engaging the zeitgeist movement adherent in a discussion/debate ( ) i thought i might start a new thread on this subject as a means to avoid getting sidetracked in the other thread.

FREEMEN ON THE LAND believe such things as: you should never write you name in capital letters (this implies a contract with the state/courts), you should never give your name in a court of law, rather saying something along the lines of "i am the beneficiary and executor of [insert your first name]", and various other devices by which they believe that statute law has no jurisdiction over people and that we can only be governed by common law. by this means we can flout such things as debts, driving offences, needing licences for things, passports etc.

i am no expert in law, but the simple fact is that this does not work. whether the courts actually have legitimate jurisdiction over an individual who uses these means or not, this will not stop them employing the power of the state.

i can say from personal experience that i have come across more than one individual who has ended up locked in a psychiatric ward using this tactic. it simply won't work.

anyone have any thoughts on this?

Said guy must have done other things to get into said ward.

Or, maybe not...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on ... 8or_not.29

no. in a criminal court in this country, a judge can order a defendant to be detained in a secure psychiatric ward for psychiatric assessment initially for 28 days but which can be extended to longer periods. this can be on such spurious grounds as even a solicitor suggesting that the individual does not have capacity to instruct on the basis of mental ill-health, even before any psychiatric assessment has been carried out by a qualified professional.

Based on the rational wiki article, it's interesting to know that this bit of winguttery has some of it's genesis in my home and native land.

aye, interestingly enough. it's pure stupidity. they refuse point blank to sign their name on anything, and they believe that their birth certificate is traded as some sort of bond by an american corporation. i came across someone of this belief on another forum, and on asking him to provide some proof that this has ever worked, he simply kept providing links to youtube videos of people babbling nonsense in courts and at border checkpoints.

they also have a tendency to make strange links between words like birth and berth, being convinced that courts operate under maritime law.

it's odd that people really believe it, given that to my knowledge, and i did look for examples, it has never actually worked.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tScuHwVtRcY[/youtube]

Please, by all means prove point by point that this film is completely inaccurate. Ridicule and blanket statements to cover up your laziness to take the time to absorb the information and analyse it on its own merit is not gonna pass mustard I'm afraid. You have to either show that it is ALL inaccurate or "nonsense" as you put it, or give up the crusade altogether. I don't care if these videos would be "babbling nonsense" to you, that proves nothing about your case.

Also for your consideration:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm9my4ujKrc[/youtube]

And for part of the UK angle on things:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jtxpp4rQo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mExeq5Yyg[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIUMOyp-Pj4[/youtube]

Nonsense? I'd love to see you maturely and intellectually show how this is "nonsense". And just to repeat my prior statement for edification:

Ridicule and blanket statements to cover up your laziness to take the time to absorb the information and analyse it on its own merit is not gonna pass mustard I'm afraid. You have to either show that it is ALL inaccurate or "nonsense" as you put it, or give up the crusade altogether. I don't care if these videos would be "babbling nonsense" to you, that proves nothing about your case.

The only thing it shows is your ignorance, dogma and steadfast refusal to even consider the information. Maybe because you know that if you did take the time to objectively look into it, you may have to accept an emergence of your dataset. And maybe this would actually require you to go from being completely ignorant about the law, as you have admitted you are no expert, yet you still claim that those who do know the law are "babbling nonsense", to actually knowing something about the law. Imagine that.

Well I'm sorry, but if you actually want to prove to me and show empirically that it is "nonsense", you need to know what the hell you are talking about. Sorry.

wel i think that if this defence would be used in court the policemen will then as free man of the land lock you up in a free cell of the land from which you are alowed to break free from as a free man of the land.

Your response is either completely facescious or full of fallacies.

On what law and what authority exactly are these police acting? And how can said police officers enforce a statute when they require consent in order to be enforced? Granted arrests happen when consent isn't given, however that is what is known as an unlawful arrest.

It isn't at all. You try acting like a "Freeman" and see just how far it gets you. If you want to be difficult with people that have power over you, be my guest.

The State will always win and in the very, very remote possibility that it doesn't, the State can simply change the rules - sometimes retrospectively - to suit itself or it can simply act illegally in direct contravention of its own rules (believe it or not, governments have been known to do this). Freemen will never win because the power of the State is too strong. The State has all the cards.

Sorry if that isn't what you want to hear.



The authority of Her Majesty's Government.

lol. I've lost count of the amount of times that I have denied the police the juristiction from the get go. They have asked for my details and I simply respond with "Am I obligated to?" to which they cannot reply with a yes, because I am a human being who has not broken any laws OR statutes. And as such they cannot take my details and have to leave me be. I've lost count of the amount of times I have asserted my rights as a human being.



Really? Are you saying that because you have not personally witnessed the human being's ability to withold consent, or are you reinforcing this delusion you have that a statute applies to everyone consenting or not?



Of course I want to hear your opinion, I can't learn from you otherwise.



The authority of Her Majesty's Government.[/quote]

I'm sorry, is that a law? Which section is "The authority of Her Majesty's Government" under? Is there even such thing as "The authority of Her Majesty's Government Act"? Please point me to where this act exists.

This is a right guaranteed everyone, not just "Freemans".



Law does apply to everyone. If it didn't, we'd be in a pickle. You're no exception.



You know very well what authority Her Majesty's Government is. It's Her Majesty's Government and her statutes and laws enacted by the UK parliament.

law doesn't aply to everyone just to people that get caught

Exactly. The only problem is we are taught that if a police officer asks for your details, you are obliged to give them regardless. However as you have confirmed, you are not. Its a deception of the extent of the state's powers. So the "power of the state" is not so powerful.



Which body of law are you referring to?



I notice that you have just cherry-picked because I have called you out on the fact that I specifically requested which law or statute would the police be acting. And you responded with a very generalised "The Authority Her Majesty's Government". That is not an act. So I ask the question yet again:

Which section is "The authority of Her Majesty's Government" under? Is there even such thing as "The authority of Her Majesty's Government Act"? Please point me to where this act exists.



Only natural law applies to every human being. Otherwise known as "the law of the land" or "common law". And within which there are only 3 crimes. Harm, loss and fraud.

The only real law is might makes right, because the mighty have the power to enforce their definition of right.

adam, the best way for you to silence us skeptics on this subject would be to post some conclusive evidence that anyone anywhere has ever successfully used the FREEMAN ON THE LAND argument in court.