Coppers on CH 4 this week - freeman on the land

DiCe! said:
I find it funny that people say "oh the police are gobby etc" ive never had any problem with the police...maybe its my ability to not break the law and not gob off....but we will never know!

Respect the police and they respect you, its very simple.
Click to expand...

Never met a gobby policeman, but perhaps I've been lucky. Latest experience was at 2am on Saturday when number 1 son (who is 17 and rarely goes out) ended up at A&E due to being paralytic/unconscious after going to a party. We had gone to bed and didn't hear the telephone to ask us to go and collect the little scrote so A&E asked the police to contact us. They were polite, respectful, even apologetic for getting me up at 2am even though it was a result of the behaviour of idiot son!
 
These explain the freeman principle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6526777574574871930

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYJzXkcJgEU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUEaX3cE-1U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOF8sg4jD9E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HfIOYXAN7k

The basics of it is that we have 2 types of law in this country. Law one is common/natural law. Common law says cause no financial loss or harm to others. Common law is the true law of the country. Everything else comes under admiralty law. That is why the dock in court is called the dock and why it is called a birth certificate. You are birthing at the dock. It also why we say the womans waters broke when having a baby. Admiralty law can also be defined as corporate law and deals with things like speeding fines, debts, tax evasion etc. Freemen say admiralty/corporate law is not enforcable and parliament know this and that is what they are called "acts" of parlaiment. That is why you have the police man or police woman and the police officer. The policeman or woman deals with common law. The police officer deals with admiralty/corporate law. This all started around the time of the Magna Carta.

Freemen claim that admiralty/corporate law is not enforceable and only common law is.

It is very interesting stuff. You will learn that everything in the UK is listed as a corporation. Houses of parliament is listed as a corporation, house of lords is, schools are, hospitals are, firestations are, courts are etc. You will also learn approximately 53% of what you earn goes into some form of tax. You will also learn why on things like tax forms, bills, credit cards, bank statements, court summons etc they always have your name in all capitol letters. So say your name is John smith. John Smith is the true real you JOHN SMITH or J SMITH is the ficticious corporate version of you. The ficticious version of you is created with your birth certificate and also when your NI number is created which is created at the same time.

Here are people successfully using the freeman principles. They use legalese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvMGKMvbR_U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY&feature=related

There are loads more examples on you tube of people successfully using the freeman principles.
 
Last edited:
All those YouTube examples do is perpetuate and encourage idiots and armchair lawyers. Ultimately they will still be charged and prosecuted...
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Err no. Freeman principles won't get you anywhere in a UK court.
Click to expand...

What about when that guy sucessfully got off a conviction (i think motoring) after refusing to stand and aknowledge the court or something like that.

was all on video, quite famous... Judge had no conrol and had to walk out. Was amazing and bizzarre at the same time.

i wish I had the link to hand.
 
SKYNHEDD said:
What about when that guy sucessfully got off a conviction (i think motoring) after refusing to stand and aknowledge the court or something like that.

was all on video, quite famous... Judge had no conrol and had to walk out. Was amazing and bizzarre at the same time.

i wish I had the link to hand.
Click to expand...

If I remember that correctly, he was still convicted. If you don't respect the court you won't just get off. You may however get a contempt of court conviction in addition though.
 
DiCe! said:
I find it funny that people say "oh the police are gobby etc" ive never had any problem with the police...maybe its my ability to not break the law and not gob off....but we will never know!

Respect the police and they respect you, its very simple.
Click to expand...

So true. :)
 
Burnsy2023 said:
If I remember that correctly, he was still convicted. If you don't respect the court you won't just get off. You may however get a contempt of court conviction in addition though.
Click to expand...

Ahh no sweat..

I thought he managed to wangle it... lol

It was a long vid, perhaps even a series of parts making up the full thing.

IIRC the judge was not happy, shouting at the copper to arrest the defendant, but in the end I think the officer was persuaded by the defendant that he couldnt touch him?

Something like that anyway.. was quite funny to watch at the time, the entire court was in disarray, never seen anything like it.
 
semi-pro waster said:
The topic of Freemen on the land comes up from time to time on here, one of the most recent threads is here but don't worry if you're not quite getting why something being a statute means it is unenforceable - there's nothing to get as it's just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Burnsy2023 said:
It's great when you remind them that the Magna Carta is a statute. They don't like that.
Click to expand...

Can you even try and explain their reasoning ? even if its wrong ?

I can't get what they are referring to when they say that statues aren't lawful. Which law says that only common law is law, and that statues cannot be made law.

I presume in their own mind, they aren't just saying statute's aren't law because they think so, they must think they have read something somewhere which backs them up.


DanielMMS said:
Firstly, they extol the differences between something that is LAWFUL and something that is LEGAL. LAWFUL implies authority or sanction by law (or perhaps not forbidden by law). LEGAL implies performance technically in accordance with the forms/usages of law. So a statute, being an Act of Parliament, could be legal but not lawful since it would not be based on law.
Click to expand...

who says that because its not based on law it therefore can't be lawful ? surely there's a law or something somewhere which says "only things written in here can be considered law" or something along those lines ? otherwise their argument holds no more weight than if i pointed at a circle and insisted it was square.
 
Last edited:
SKYNHEDD said:
IIRC the judge was not happy, shouting at the copper to arrest the defendant, but in the end I think the officer was persuaded by the defendant that he couldnt touch him?
Click to expand...

I don't think any officer has been persuaded that he couldn't arrest someone by a MOP. He may have decided himself that there was a better course of action, but Police Officers are usually rather confident in their powers.
 
MrLOL said:
Can you even try and explain their reasoning ? even if its wrong ?

I can't get what they are referring to when they say that statues aren't lawful. Which law says that only common law is law, and that statues cannot be made law.

I presume in their own mind, they aren't just saying statute's aren't law because they think so, they must think they have read something somewhere which backs them up.
Click to expand...

If you really want to read up on it then this website about Freemen on the Land is probably as good as any other to see what they believe, I could try and break it down but it's essentially a fundamental misunderstanding of our law and how it operates - to steal a line from Alexander Pope "a little learning is a dangerous thing..." perhaps the simplest way to see how fundamental their misunderstandings about the law are would be to look at Rational Wiki .
 
MrLOL said:
But can anybody actually explain the concept to me ? why exactly have they decided that statues aren't lawful. I've seen the websites that quote all this stuff, and don't quite understand how they jump to the conclusion that because a statue is not common law, its not enforceable ?
Click to expand...
It's crap - complete and utter garbage.

There are videos of it apparently working in court, but that's only because these morons bamboozle lay magistrates. Any judge who has seen it more than once will tell them to shut up.
 
Richie said:
If you fail to deal with the idiots taking the **** out of the police then the respect for law and order declines beyond it's current gutter level it is at just now.

Have a think about what people do when they push boundaries and get away with it...
Click to expand...

...who respects the law? Most people follow it. A lot of people agree with a lot of it, and think it's probably a good thing to encourage others to follow it. Some people even know some of it. Of those i'm sure one or two might actually understand it. But respect? No, i don't think many people respect the law. And with good reason.
 
do as your told and nothing will happen to you. but what if what your told goes against your concious?

the Law is a set of primitive rules from primitive beings 'humans' to control other humans. Most seem completely rational and to most intents and purposes they are. But a natural law of order should such a thing exist (which isn't possible as some people aren't born with an inherent genetic moral code) is a better way.

I respect the law but I will never let willingly give up my rights to support it if I believe it to be wrong.

however the freeman concept seems to be an out of touch, uneducated attempt at bypassing the rules of natural law not corporate law as what they do effects others in a negative manner, a normal balanced natural law wouldnt allow their behaviour in the first place hence the need to introduce corporate law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom