Coppers on CH 4 this week - freeman on the land

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 a misunderstanding of something written in the Magna Carta. I've not seen any first hand evidence of anyone acheiving this , but I did read a thread on housepricecrash.co.uk about a guy using the 'Freeman' argument to get out of paying Council Tax. It worked apparently.
 
the biggest problem with all this is the assumption that the law is a static thing. The movement quotes may references to things, and completely forgets that law, by its very nature is dynamic. It has to change with the times. Its no use quoting a 300 year old bill which has since been replaced.

Parliament has to be able to pass new law to prohibit things like mobile phone use while driving, the restriction of speeds of motor cars etc.. stuff that wasn't invented when magna carta etc.. were around.


George Hincapie said:
It's a misunderstanding of something written in the Magna Carta. I did read a thread on housepricecrash.co.uk about a guy using the 'Freeman' argument to get out of paying Council Tax. It worked apparently.
Click to expand...


you mean he claimed he did. none of this stuff has any sort of backing to it, beyond their own weird and twisted logic. If he didn't pay council tax he'd be taken to court who would quite happily impose CCJs on him forcing him to pay.
 
Last edited:
Well the argument basically is that the current parliament has no authority because in 1911 they fraudulently changed the law and the way parliament was set up. So any laws made since then have been ratified by a fraudulent parliament. Under common law you do not have to have a drivers license, pay council tax and abide by all the other tyrannically laws that have been put in place since 1911.

Of course common law still protects ones property from harm and theft.

So freeman movement is not a license to go and steal and commit crime and you will find people that are guilty of crimes under common law that try and use freeman arguments. This does not help the freeman movement at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911
 
MrLOL said:
you mean he claimed he did. none of this stuff has any sort of backing to it, beyond their own weird and twisted logic. If he didn't pay council tax he'd be taken to court who would quite happily impose CCJs on him forcing him to pay.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Did you note my use of the word 'apparently'? That means that I don't know whether it did or not, I'm just passing on what I read. I really don't care whether he did or not, and I really don't care what you think about it. Just so we're clear.
 
If you do enough research into this subject you will find out that Freeman are classed as "outlaws" in common law. They have denounced the rule of the monarchy and the law of society.

And too this day it is still lawful to kill an outlaw.

In historical legal systems, an outlaw is declared as outside the protection of the law. In pre-modern societies, this takes the burden of active prosecution of a criminal from the authorities. Instead, the criminal is withdrawn all legal protection, so that anyone is legally empowered to persecute or kill them.
Click to expand...

In the common law of England, a "Writ of Outlawry" made the pronouncement Caput gerat lupinum ("Let his be a wolf's head," literally "May he bear a wolfish head") with respect to its subject, using "head" to refer to the entire person (cf. "per capita") and equating that person with a wolf in the eyes of the law: Not only was the subject deprived of all legal rights of the law being outside of the "law", but others could kill him on sight as if he were a wolf or other wild animal.
Click to expand...

In English common law, an outlaw was a person who had defied the laws of the realm, by such acts as ignoring a summons to court, or fleeing instead of appearing to plead when charged with a crime. In the earlier law of Anglo-Saxon England, outlawry was also declared when a person committed a homicide and could not pay the weregild, the blood-money, that was due to the victim's kin.
Click to expand...

So the next time someone says there a Freeman, you can go right ahead and assert mob justice on them. :D
 
Well you were the one shooting me down... :p

I just googled 'anchient history' and wiki told me: Ancient history is the study of the written past[1] from the beginning of recorded human history to the Early Middle Ages.

So I ran with it.

Apparently it's in the High Middle Ages: (c. 1001–1300).

Not that any of this matters.
 
LateX'Dog said:
QUOTE: In the earlier law of Anglo-Saxon England, outlawry was also declared when a person committed a homicide and could not pay the weregild, the blood-money, that was due to the victim's kin.
Click to expand...

So as long as i paid some gold to the victims kin all will be forgiven...LOL! Love Old English Laws :D for example:

It is still illegal for cab drivers to carry rabid dogs or indeed corpses and by law they must ask each and every passenger if they have small pox or 'The Plague'.
Click to expand...

It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down
Click to expand...

It is legal to eat Mince pies on December 25th
Click to expand...

In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow
Click to expand...

What a backwards country we live in :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom