Freeman on the land.....lawful rebellion? Anybody here?

[shogun]

I couldn't agree more.....the only slight problem I have is that as far as I know ignorance of the law is not an allowable defence. I.e just because you didn't know it was an offence to do X, Y or Z doesn't mean you can get away with it. So with all being equal under the law this must apply to police constables as it does to us the public...arguably even more so as they are trained to uphold the law surely?

What is worse about the clip below is that the constables in that clip were not only ignorant of the law, they also entered private property without reason or warrant, assaulted the film maker by grabbing for and pushing his camera and then literally lied and made up the law by telling him it was an offence to film when they clearly didnt know that it was.
what they should have done was wait at the property boundary and radioed for clarification before hand.

Having said the above, the Police do a hard job and can't all be right all the time, for every vid like the one posted below there will be another of the police doing exactly what they should, so please let's not tar all constables with the same brush and turn this into a police bashing thread as that isn't why I started it.

Thanks,

Bam.

I agree bam thats why when i posted the clip i said some pollice officers dont no the law...

 

[bambodoggy]

No worries Dude

 

[HarrogateTobias]

I dont want to comment on my personal views but this video really shows what can be achieved against intimidation when you know the law.

If you have the time then please watch this video as it cleary shows the various levels of "force and intimidation" and the how the police when shown the facts do a fantstic job.

Enjoy

[video=youtube;L7CnrqD1L-Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7CnrqD1L-Q[/video]

 

[Joonsy]

freeman of the land video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHcugN1Tyg

it seems some of our own police dont even no the law and to me thats tottaly wrong...

regarding that video, the police should practice what they preach, i would have reminded them of what they themsleves preach to the general public and to quote the police's own policy on the use of cameras ''if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about'', funny they don't like being filmed themsleves !!!!

 

[Joonsy]

I dont want to comment on my personal views but this video really shows what can be achieved against intimidation when you know the law.

If you have the time then please watch this video as it cleary shows the various levels of "force and intimidation" and the how the police when shown the facts do a fantstic job.

Enjoy

[video=youtube;L7CnrqD1L-Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7CnrqD1L-Q[/video]

the highest praise and respect for that brave and honourable homeowner who defended his legal rights against a tide of unlawful threats and cons by thuggish bullying bailiffs who twisted the law to suit themsleves. I do wonder though how the situation would have unfolded without undisputable film as evidence.

 

[boatman]

Of course Court documents should be in order and properly served and apparently the Police were correct. However, people should pay their debts and honour contracts or seek an arrangement with their creditors to renegotiate terms if necessary. If sadly they are not able to continue to afford the house they want to live in then they will have to move eventually.

What is wrong, and I came across this in the eighties, was for banks to sell a house at a knock down price leaving the debtor still in debt.

 

[Tony]

My Dad's a bit into the freeman stuff, we don't have great conversations about it, what it has done for him though is that he gets to know the law a lot better and that's helped him and his friends a few times. It's obvious especially from that vid that knowing your rights is important, it's the same throughout our lives, the knives we use, cars we drive, places we walk through etc Preparation seems to be the key and being on the right side of the law, not necessarily those executing the law.

 

[fishfish]

I too am a freeman on the land ,and it is in fact law: that statutes and acts of parliament only have the power of law if you submit to them,i am only governed lawfully by common law,i do chose to submit to some Acts of parliament and statutes which i feel are fair,like paying taxes ,we all need most of what the pay for.

 

[Swallow]

I too am a freeman on the land ,and it is in fact law: that statutes and acts of parliament only have the power of law if you submit to them,i am only governed lawfully by common law,i do chose to submit to some Acts of parliament and statutes which i feel are fair,like paying taxes ,we all need most of what the pay for.

That sounds a good deal more honest and down to earth than anything I have seen on this so far. Can you tell us how it works in practice a bit more? e.g. how do you submit, or not submit, as the case may be?

 

[Joonsy]

I too am a freeman on the land ,and it is in fact law: that statutes and acts of parliament only have the power of law if you submit to them,i am only governed lawfully by common law,i do chose to submit to some Acts of parliament and statutes which i feel are fair,like paying taxes ,we all need most of what the pay for.

i am intrigued by this freeman on the land as i had never heard of it before and it appeals to my character on first thoughts due to my own personal circumstances and beliefs, how does one declare oneself a freeman on the land when confronting officialdom, how does this operate, could you suggest any good links explaining how it works please. PS - on wiki it states a document can be sent to the queen declaring you are a freeman on the land, do you need to do something to declare yourself in opting-out and becoming a freeman on the land, is there some official line to take to declare yourself, advice welcome please.

 

[rik_uk3]

i am intrigued by this freeman on the land as i had never heard of it before and it appeals to my character on first thoughts due to my own personal circumstances and beliefs, how does one declare oneself a freeman on the land when confronting officialdom, how does this operate, could you suggest any good links explaining how it works please. PS - on wiki it states a document can be sent to the queen declaring you are a freeman on the land, do you need to do something to declare yourself in opting-out and becoming a freeman on the land, is there some official line to take to declare yourself, advice welcome please.

Makes not a jot of difference, play up and you still get locked up.

 

[Corso]

probably get a single room though....

 

[boatman]

I am puzzled, for example the NHS was created by statute but those following only Common Law use it presumably because it is of benefit to them but where did they agree the contract, in Freeman terms, with that statute. Common law would have the individual doctor striking a bargain, with fee, each time you used them. The Common Law is an evolving beast at the behest of Judges and the times they live in, see the development of privacy laws extended by judges. Does the freeman agree with greater protection for the rich and famous from public scrutiny as he must if he only follows Common Law.

Or have I got it wrong? Is Common Law really some Natural Law following Rousseau and the like.

On the face of it the concept is attractive but I would rather all laws were re-examined and simplified where possible.

 

[Andy BB]

i am intrigued by this freeman on the land as i had never heard of it before and it appeals to my character on first thoughts due to my own personal circumstances and beliefs, how does one declare oneself a freeman on the land when confronting officialdom, how does this operate, could you suggest any good links explaining how it works please. PS - on wiki it states a document can be sent to the queen declaring you are a freeman on the land, do you need to do something to declare yourself in opting-out and becoming a freeman on the land, is there some official line to take to declare yourself, advice welcome please.

I repeat the item below!

• Dennis Larry Meads of Edmonton, Alberta, stormed out of a Court of Queen's Bench hearing on June 8, 2012, related to his divorce and matrimonial property case. In response, Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke wrote a 185-page judgment rejecting what he called "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments" (OPCA), specifically, in this case, Meads' Freeman on the Land claims, arguments and documents,[SUP][9][/SUP] saying that:

"The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer."[SUP][10][/SUP]

 

[Dave]

There are a huge stresses on our society at the moment, and the response of the state is increasingly authoritarian.

In my book anyone who fights against that, cuckoo or not, is preferable to someone who willingly acquieces.

 

[Swallow]

I repeat the item below!

• Dennis Larry Meads of Edmonton, Alberta, stormed out of a Court of Queen's Bench hearing on June 8, 2012, related to his divorce and matrimonial property case. In response, Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke wrote a 185-page judgment rejecting what he called "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments" (OPCA), specifically, in this case, Meads' Freeman on the Land claims, arguments and documents,[SUP][9][/SUP] saying that:

"The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer."[SUP][10][/SUP]

The strength of the argument and the ability of any given person to argue to the full strength of the argument are two very different and separate things.

While the end result of any debate or case is a combination of the two, the result does not necessarily reflect the strength or validity of the argument.

Aside from Fishfish (who has yet to say much), all the arguments I have seen are by people who are as mad as a bag of rattlesnakes and in some way trying to use this argument to dodge personal responsibility. While that makes me suspicious I am clear that this is a separate issue from the argument itself, therefore I am curious to know more.

 

[bambodoggy]

The strength of the argument and the ability of any given person to argue to the full strength of the argument are two very different and separate things.

While the end result of any debate or case is a combination of the two, the result does not necessarily reflect the strength or validity of the argument.

Aside from Fishfish (who has yet to say much), all the arguments I have seen are by people who are as mad as a bag of rattlesnakes and in some way trying to use this argument to dodge personal responsibility. While that makes me suspicious I am clear that this is a separate issue from the argument itself, therefore I am curious to know more.

Thats exactly how I feel....it's interesting but pretty much everything I've researched on it has the individual's own approach bordering on the unhinged side. Which is a shame as the idea does seem to have some mertit and some basis.

I've read that Canadian judge's counter point in full on a Human Rights website and to be honest just because he says no doesn't change our rights under common law.

Anyway....come on fishfish....tell us more please?

Cheers,

Bam.

 

[Graham_S]

From all I've read and researched, it seems to be a legal fiction with no actuality in fact.
There has not been a single successful court case I've been able to find where this has been used.

For all the use it seems to be, you'd be just as well declaring yourself "Grand Pooh-bah of the Turnip People"

If you want to try it, go ahead, just be aware its a load of pseudo legal nonsense which may land you in trouble.

 

[Andy BB]

Thats exactly how I feel....it's interesting but pretty much everything I've researched on it has the individual's own approach bordering on the unhinged side. Which is a shame as the idea does seem to have some mertit and some basis.

I've read that Canadian judge's counter point in full on a Human Rights website and to be honest just because he says no doesn't change our rights under common law.

Anyway....come on fishfish....tell us more please?

Cheers,

Bam.

Actually, from everything I've read, it has precisely no relevance, merit or basis in British courts! Although I am more than prepared to be proved wrong if anyone can point to at least one instance of this having been successfully argued in a British - or Commonwealth - (or even European) court!

 

[Stringmaker]

Actually, from everything I've read, it has precisely no relevance, merit or basis in British courts! Although I am more than prepared to be proved wrong if anyone can point to at least one instance of this having been successfully argued in a British - or Commonwealth - (or even European) court!

Until this thread started I had never heard of this movement.

Now I've done a lot of reading on it I agree with you!