FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Freeman-on-the-land and Maritime law
Freeman-on-the-land and Maritime law
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *irce OP Woman
over a year ago
Gloucester |
Very confusing but intreasting, anyone ever had any dealings with this?
From what i have seen on YouTube some of our laws we take as law are not a point of law and we enter into verbal lawful contracts unknowingly 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Our laws are an arse the Police just jump around like chimps and judges do what the home office wants.
Laws are that which is enforced by the biggest nastiest bastards with most power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Very confusing but intreasting, anyone ever had any dealings with this?
From what i have seen on YouTube some of our laws we take as law are not a point of law and we enter into verbal lawful contracts unknowingly
"
It's basically "bollocks" by people who Don't understand the law and try to be lawyers.
They always get their assessment handed to them in court.
Oh and most of it stems from a wild miss understanding of the quote about "policing by consent " where they do not take it in the national context it was spoken and instead drake it on a personal level.
Ie the country as a whole agree we need a police force and as such give them the powers to perform their duties.
They take it as "if I say I don't consent you to police me Mr police officer you can't arrest me".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Our laws are an arse the Police just jump around like chimps and judges do what the home office wants.
Laws are that which is enforced by the biggest nastiest bastards with most power. "
Except that judges have regularly overruled government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Looks good on YouTube but they don't show the bits where they get wibbled in court start crying and get massive fines. Then if they refuse to pay that the bailiffs turn up and take their stuff away and the amenities cut off.
If it was indeed a loophole everybody would be doing it in this day an age of social media.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It would clear our jails and courts pretty quickly and would be awesome for some of us, if true.
Don't get taken in by it as no judge will pay it any heed. I'm not trained in law, nor wear silk, except for style purposes but am qualified to pronounce it complete bollocks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Having somewhat libertarian tendencies myself I quite like some of the arguments put forward by these so called freemen.
However, regardless of any pseudo legal argument put forward, the reality is that true sovereignty, and therefore legal legitimacy, lies solely and wholly with whatever organisations has the will and the power (the ability to use force) to enforce its will within a jurisdiction.
In most of the world that would normally be the state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *razedcatMan
over a year ago
London / Herts |
I've always found the freemen theory quite interesting. Considering how many interactions in society are founded on the laws of contract, it appears reasonable that upon birth, one should have the ability to refuse life's terms and conditions, so to speak.
But in my mind, law is a manifestation of politics, which itself encompasses practically everything else, including sociology. On that basis, certain laws have to be adhered to in order to ensure we remain as a civilisation, and not just a rabble of individuals subject to wildly differing standards. So the freemen on the land idea is just counterproductive, really.
I suppose what I've said pairs up with Hobbes comment about life without law; it would be nasty, brutish and short. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uzy444Woman
over a year ago
in the suffolk countryside |
know loads about this and people who know about it, and use it and win with it
basics..its legalese vs common law
all judges policy men and baliffs are sworn in under common law
however they 'uphold' legalese law if they can get away with it..
if you claim freeman status and talk and act from common law, including terminology, you know that judges and the court room specifically can only find you liable for things you ve already agreed to..common law, which judges are supposed to uphold, by thier oath cannot find you liable or 'guilty for anything without a 12 person jury...
. your and their legalese 'acts' are based on arrangement...not common law.
start uestioning which oath they are upholding and you find that, they cant do anything...because legalese is a total corporate scam..
have fun, loads of people and loads of forums on it through googly  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"know loads about this and people who know about it, and use it and win with it
basics..its legalese vs common law
all judges policy men and baliffs are sworn in under common law
however they 'uphold' legalese law if they can get away with it..
if you claim freeman status and talk and act from common law, including terminology, you know that judges and the court room specifically can only find you liable for things you ve already agreed to..common law, which judges are supposed to uphold, by thier oath cannot find you liable or 'guilty for anything without a 12 person jury...
. your and their legalese 'acts' are based on arrangement...not common law.
start uestioning which oath they are upholding and you find that, they cant do anything...because legalese is a total corporate scam..
have fun, loads of people and loads of forums on it through googly "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've always found the freemen theory quite interesting. Considering how many interactions in society are founded on the laws of contract, it appears reasonable that upon birth, one should have the ability to refuse life's terms and conditions, so to speak.
But in my mind, law is a manifestation of politics, which itself encompasses practically everything else, including sociology. On that basis, certain laws have to be adhered to in order to ensure we remain as a civilisation, and not just a rabble of individuals subject to wildly differing standards. So the freemen on the land idea is just counterproductive, really.
I suppose what I've said pairs up with Hobbes comment about life without law; it would be nasty, brutish and short. "
You can, you can give up your citizen ship. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"know loads about this and people who know about it, and use it and win with it
basics..its legalese vs common law
all judges policy men and baliffs are sworn in under common law
however they 'uphold' legalese law if they can get away with it..
if you claim freeman status and talk and act from common law, including terminology, you know that judges and the court room specifically can only find you liable for things you ve already agreed to..common law, which judges are supposed to uphold, by thier oath cannot find you liable or 'guilty for anything without a 12 person jury...
. your and their legalese 'acts' are based on arrangement...not common law.
start uestioning which oath they are upholding and you find that, they cant do anything...because legalese is a total corporate scam..
have fun, loads of people and loads of forums on it through googly "
Err what you've just described is asking to bypass the magistrates courts and go to the Crown Court for your criminal offense
However the crown court can hand out much harsher penalties.
Going to a crown court and being tried by a jury for your crime (which will happen anyway if it's severe enough) will usually not help you win. Just get you a much worse sentence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uzy444Woman
over a year ago
in the suffolk countryside |
"know loads about this and people who know about it, and use it and win with it
basics..its legalese vs common law
all judges policy men and baliffs are sworn in under common law
however they 'uphold' legalese law if they can get away with it..
if you claim freeman status and talk and act from common law, including terminology, you know that judges and the court room specifically can only find you liable for things you ve already agreed to..common law, which judges are supposed to uphold, by thier oath cannot find you liable or 'guilty for anything without a 12 person jury...
. your and their legalese 'acts' are based on arrangement...not common law.
start uestioning which oath they are upholding and you find that, they cant do anything...because legalese is a total corporate scam..
have fun, loads of people and loads of forums on it through googly
Err what you've just described is asking to bypass the magistrates courts and go to the Crown Court for your criminal offense
However the crown court can hand out much harsher penalties.
Going to a crown court and being tried by a jury for your crime (which will happen anyway if it's severe enough) will usually not help you win. Just get you a much worse sentence"
your missing the point..
im not talking about crimes.. im talking about the structure of leglese law which makes you liable for things
such as taxing, income, council, fines, speeding..and all the 'acts'that are imposed on society by the corporate system..
you agree by answering these things that you agree to being part of the system..the system is corrupt...using common law makes you 'outside the system..you are peacefully resisting
corporate authority in your life..
just because i dont explain it well in my expression, does not make me wrong. it is the truth and it works...certain terminology when you use it. either hooks you in to the legalese 'agreement' or it unhooks you.. for example.. if stopped for speeding ticket..they will always ask you if this is your 'vehicle' if you say yes, then you will be agreeing to their terminology and will be agreeing to the fact you own a vehicule which is a legalese term. if you said no, this is my 'private conveyance' you would not be agreeing to the ownership of a vehicule and they wouldnt be able to give you a fine.. there are loads and loads of examples of how you unwittingly agree to join in with the 'system'
however a judge, a baliff and a police man or policy man..are all sworn in under common law..the court room is juristiction under common law however judges chambers or other rooms in the court house arent..so to use common law you have to insist of being in the court room itself..not legalese law..so they cant make you liable in legalese terms unless you unwittingly agree you are liable yourself..
veronica chapman and the i think its titled "the 10 great deceptions"..are a great start in learning about how the whole thing has been set up , including mortgages, taxing etc etc..its a huge subject and it takes time to know how to unhook if you wanted too.. its effective if you live it though, i know plenty who do.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"know loads about this and people who know about it, and use it and win with it
basics..its legalese vs common law
all judges policy men and baliffs are sworn in under common law
however they 'uphold' legalese law if they can get away with it..
if you claim freeman status and talk and act from common law, including terminology, you know that judges and the court room specifically can only find you liable for things you ve already agreed to..common law, which judges are supposed to uphold, by thier oath cannot find you liable or 'guilty for anything without a 12 person jury...
. your and their legalese 'acts' are based on arrangement...not common law.
start uestioning which oath they are upholding and you find that, they cant do anything...because legalese is a total corporate scam..
have fun, loads of people and loads of forums on it through googly
Err what you've just described is asking to bypass the magistrates courts and go to the Crown Court for your criminal offense
However the crown court can hand out much harsher penalties.
Going to a crown court and being tried by a jury for your crime (which will happen anyway if it's severe enough) will usually not help you win. Just get you a much worse sentence
your missing the point..
im not talking about crimes.. im talking about the structure of leglese law which makes you liable for things
such as taxing, income, council, fines, speeding..and all the 'acts'that are imposed on society by the corporate system..
you agree by answering these things that you agree to being part of the system..the system is corrupt...using common law makes you 'outside the system..you are peacefully resisting
corporate authority in your life..
just because i dont explain it well in my expression, does not make me wrong. it is the truth and it works...certain terminology when you use it. either hooks you in to the legalese 'agreement' or it unhooks you.. for example.. if stopped for speeding ticket..they will always ask you if this is your 'vehicle' if you say yes, then you will be agreeing to their terminology and will be agreeing to the fact you own a vehicule which is a legalese term. if you said no, this is my 'private conveyance' you would not be agreeing to the ownership of a vehicule and they wouldnt be able to give you a fine.. there are loads and loads of examples of how you unwittingly agree to join in with the 'system'
however a judge, a baliff and a police man or policy man..are all sworn in under common law..the court room is juristiction under common law however judges chambers or other rooms in the court house arent..so to use common law you have to insist of being in the court room itself..not legalese law..so they cant make you liable in legalese terms unless you unwittingly agree you are liable yourself..
veronica chapman and the i think its titled "the 10 great deceptions"..are a great start in learning about how the whole thing has been set up , including mortgages, taxing etc etc..its a huge subject and it takes time to know how to unhook if you wanted too.. its effective if you live it though, i know plenty who do.."
So court cases references of people who've "won"?
If it went through the courts the verdicts and comments at wpublished publicly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" for example.. if stopped for speeding ticket..they will always ask you if this is your 'vehicle' if you say yes, then you will be agreeing to their terminology and will be agreeing to the fact you own a vehicule which is a legalese term. if you said no, this is my 'private conveyance' you would not be agreeing to the ownership of a vehicule and they wouldnt be able to give you a fine.. there are loads and loads of examples of how you unwittingly agree to join in with "
Sorry but that is utter 100% bollocks
Oh and they ask you if the vehicle is registered to you.
And even then it doesn't matter as you don't need to own a vehicle to get a speeding ticket. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So many times the innocent until proved guilty has gone out the window,now guilty until you prove yourself innocent,in our experience,laws an ass "
Which case? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"know loads about this and people who know about it, and use it and win with it
basics..its legalese vs common law
all judges policy men and baliffs are sworn in under common law
however they 'uphold' legalese law if they can get away with it..
if you claim freeman status and talk and act from common law, including terminology, you know that judges and the court room specifically can only find you liable for things you ve already agreed to..common law, which judges are supposed to uphold, by thier oath cannot find you liable or 'guilty for anything without a 12 person jury...
. your and their legalese 'acts' are based on arrangement...not common law.
start uestioning which oath they are upholding and you find that, they cant do anything...because legalese is a total corporate scam..
have fun, loads of people and loads of forums on it through googly
Err what you've just described is asking to bypass the magistrates courts and go to the Crown Court for your criminal offense
However the crown court can hand out much harsher penalties.
Going to a crown court and being tried by a jury for your crime (which will happen anyway if it's severe enough) will usually not help you win. Just get you a much worse sentence
your missing the point..
im not talking about crimes.. im talking about the structure of leglese law which makes you liable for things
such as taxing, income, council, fines, speeding..and all the 'acts'that are imposed on society by the corporate system..
you agree by answering these things that you agree to being part of the system..the system is corrupt...using common law makes you 'outside the system..you are peacefully resisting
corporate authority in your life..
just because i dont explain it well in my expression, does not make me wrong. it is the truth and it works...certain terminology when you use it. either hooks you in to the legalese 'agreement' or it unhooks you.. for example.. if stopped for speeding ticket..they will always ask you if this is your 'vehicle' if you say yes, then you will be agreeing to their terminology and will be agreeing to the fact you own a vehicule which is a legalese term. if you said no, this is my 'private conveyance' you would not be agreeing to the ownership of a vehicule and they wouldnt be able to give you a fine.. there are loads and loads of examples of how you unwittingly agree to join in with the 'system'
however a judge, a baliff and a police man or policy man..are all sworn in under common law..the court room is juristiction under common law however judges chambers or other rooms in the court house arent..so to use common law you have to insist of being in the court room itself..not legalese law..so they cant make you liable in legalese terms unless you unwittingly agree you are liable yourself..
veronica chapman and the i think its titled "the 10 great deceptions"..are a great start in learning about how the whole thing has been set up , including mortgages, taxing etc etc..its a huge subject and it takes time to know how to unhook if you wanted too.. its effective if you live it though, i know plenty who do..
So court cases references of people who've "won"?
If it went through the courts the verdicts and comments at wpublished publicly. "
The man does not want you to know so it's suppressed.
Seriously though watched a programme regarding this with some guy refusing to pay Council Tax, mortgage and utilities. It all went wrong when the courts rinsed him and he refused to leave so they turned the lights out on him and left him sobbing in the dark. Was on Vice I think. Was quite a sad ending. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uzy444Woman
over a year ago
in the suffolk countryside |
"" for example.. if stopped for speeding ticket..they will always ask you if this is your 'vehicle' if you say yes, then you will be agreeing to their terminology and will be agreeing to the fact you own a vehicule which is a legalese term. if you said no, this is my 'private conveyance' you would not be agreeing to the ownership of a vehicule and they wouldnt be able to give you a fine.. there are loads and loads of examples of how you unwittingly agree to join in with "
Sorry but that is utter 100% bollocks
Oh and they ask you if the vehicle is registered to you.
And even then it doesn't matter as you don't need to own a vehicle to get a speeding ticket."
ok thx.. i do know what im talking about on this subject..so get over yourself and get educated...people asked and im telling them..just because you dont know something.. and someone else does..you start throwing swear words into the mix..grow up.. people asked for information , not an 'opinion' ..you dont want to know something fine..but dont be throwing your projections at me..ok? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"know loads about this and people who know about it, and use it and win with it
basics..its legalese vs common law
all judges policy men and baliffs are sworn in under common law
however they 'uphold' legalese law if they can get away with it..
if you claim freeman status and talk and act from common law, including terminology, you know that judges and the court room specifically can only find you liable for things you ve already agreed to..common law, which judges are supposed to uphold, by thier oath cannot find you liable or 'guilty for anything without a 12 person jury...
. your and their legalese 'acts' are based on arrangement...not common law.
start uestioning which oath they are upholding and you find that, they cant do anything...because legalese is a total corporate scam..
have fun, loads of people and loads of forums on it through googly
Err what you've just described is asking to bypass the magistrates courts and go to the Crown Court for your criminal offense
However the crown court can hand out much harsher penalties.
Going to a crown court and being tried by a jury for your crime (which will happen anyway if it's severe enough) will usually not help you win. Just get you a much worse sentence
your missing the point..
im not talking about crimes.. im talking about the structure of leglese law which makes you liable for things
such as taxing, income, council, fines, speeding..and all the 'acts'that are imposed on society by the corporate system..
you agree by answering these things that you agree to being part of the system..the system is corrupt...using common law makes you 'outside the system..you are peacefully resisting
corporate authority in your life..
just because i dont explain it well in my expression, does not make me wrong. it is the truth and it works...certain terminology when you use it. either hooks you in to the legalese 'agreement' or it unhooks you.. for example.. if stopped for speeding ticket..they will always ask you if this is your 'vehicle' if you say yes, then you will be agreeing to their terminology and will be agreeing to the fact you own a vehicule which is a legalese term. if you said no, this is my 'private conveyance' you would not be agreeing to the ownership of a vehicule and they wouldnt be able to give you a fine.. there are loads and loads of examples of how you unwittingly agree to join in with the 'system'
however a judge, a baliff and a police man or policy man..are all sworn in under common law..the court room is juristiction under common law however judges chambers or other rooms in the court house arent..so to use common law you have to insist of being in the court room itself..not legalese law..so they cant make you liable in legalese terms unless you unwittingly agree you are liable yourself..
veronica chapman and the i think its titled "the 10 great deceptions"..are a great start in learning about how the whole thing has been set up , including mortgages, taxing etc etc..its a huge subject and it takes time to know how to unhook if you wanted too.. its effective if you live it though, i know plenty who do.."
ummm! It's an interesting subject which I have come across before. I'm not convinced about the efficacy of apply these pseudo legal methods in obtaining the desired results. If it's more than a small fines or similar I think I'd be more inclined to trust my fortunes to a good lawyer.
Sorry!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"" for example.. if stopped for speeding ticket..they will always ask you if this is your 'vehicle' if you say yes, then you will be agreeing to their terminology and will be agreeing to the fact you own a vehicule which is a legalese term. if you said no, this is my 'private conveyance' you would not be agreeing to the ownership of a vehicule and they wouldnt be able to give you a fine.. there are loads and loads of examples of how you unwittingly agree to join in with "
Sorry but that is utter 100% bollocks
Oh and they ask you if the vehicle is registered to you.
And even then it doesn't matter as you don't need to own a vehicle to get a speeding ticket.
ok thx.. i do know what im talking about on this subject..so get over yourself and get educated...people asked and im telling them..just because you dont know something.. and someone else does..you start throwing swear words into the mix..grow up.. people asked for information , not an 'opinion' ..you dont want to know something fine..but dont be throwing your projections at me..ok? "
OK great you know what your talking about give me the court reference of someone winning again a criminal speeding offence by saying "it's my personal conveyance"
If it's really there will be one let's have it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The case eof the woman who tried arguing freeman of the land for not having her car taxed and insured was amazing though. Iirc she got a few weeks in prison for contempt and the car crushed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The case eof the woman who tried arguing freeman of the land for not having her car taxed and insured was amazing though. Iirc she got a few weeks in prison for contempt and the car crushed "
What was she in contempt of? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The case eof the woman who tried arguing freeman of the land for not having her car taxed and insured was amazing though. Iirc she got a few weeks in prison for contempt and the car crushed
What was she in contempt of?"
Court, she foolishly bragged online about having took a tape recorder into the court. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The case eof the woman who tried arguing freeman of the land for not having her car taxed and insured was amazing though. Iirc she got a few weeks in prison for contempt and the car crushed
What was she in contempt of?
Court, she foolishly bragged online about having took a tape recorder into the court."
I knew you were going to say that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uzy444Woman
over a year ago
in the suffolk countryside |
"" for example.. if stopped for speeding ticket..they will always ask you if this is your 'vehicle' if you say yes, then you will be agreeing to their terminology and will be agreeing to the fact you own a vehicule which is a legalese term. if you said no, this is my 'private conveyance' you would not be agreeing to the ownership of a vehicule and they wouldnt be able to give you a fine.. there are loads and loads of examples of how you unwittingly agree to join in with "
Sorry but that is utter 100% bollocks
Oh and they ask you if the vehicle is registered to you.
And even then it doesn't matter as you don't need to own a vehicle to get a speeding ticket.
ok thx.. i do know what im talking about on this subject..so get over yourself and get educated...people asked and im telling them..just because you dont know something.. and someone else does..you start throwing swear words into the mix..grow up.. people asked for information , not an 'opinion' ..you dont want to know something fine..but dont be throwing your projections at me..ok?
OK great you know what your talking about give me the court reference of someone winning again a criminal speeding offence by saying "it's my personal conveyance"
If it's really there will be one let's have it."
trick question because you wouldnt have got the fine in the first place so you wouldnt have got to court... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yes I have experience with this. Frequently pretend and purport to help people through a legal process, rarely if ever do so snd often leave those relying on them hanging. In part responsible for clogging up the courts service and generally a bunch to entirely avoid, such is their selfishness, esoteric nonsense and base level misunderstandings of English law.
As funny as it was to hear one shout, 'Man overboard' in court it gets tiresome. There is a fantastic summing up by a judge from, oooh, two years or so ago that skewers the whole mindset well. Fairly easy to find, if I remember I'll post it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uzy444Woman
over a year ago
in the suffolk countryside |
"The case eof the woman who tried arguing freeman of the land for not having her car taxed and insured was amazing though. Iirc she got a few weeks in prison for contempt and the car crushed
What was she in contempt of?
Court, she foolishly bragged online about having took a tape recorder into the court."
through taxing and insuring her 'vehicle' in the first place, she unwittingly made herself in agreement with legalese law..had she claimed common law from the off...she wouldnt have gone to court.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"" for example.. if stopped for speeding ticket..they will always ask you if this is your 'vehicle' if you say yes, then you will be agreeing to their terminology and will be agreeing to the fact you own a vehicule which is a legalese term. if you said no, this is my 'private conveyance' you would not be agreeing to the ownership of a vehicule and they wouldnt be able to give you a fine.. there are loads and loads of examples of how you unwittingly agree to join in with "
Sorry but that is utter 100% bollocks
Oh and they ask you if the vehicle is registered to you.
And even then it doesn't matter as you don't need to own a vehicle to get a speeding ticket.
ok thx.. i do know what im talking about on this subject..so get over yourself and get educated...people asked and im telling them..just because you dont know something.. and someone else does..you start throwing swear words into the mix..grow up.. people asked for information , not an 'opinion' ..you dont want to know something fine..but dont be throwing your projections at me..ok?
OK great you know what your talking about give me the court reference of someone winning again a criminal speeding offence by saying "it's my personal conveyance"
If it's really there will be one let's have it.
trick question because you wouldnt have got the fine in the first place so you wouldnt have got to court..."
You said they won in court before.
So the eqould be court cases.
And they would have had the car confiscated if they didn't have plates, insurance and tax so more than enough contracts there.
So again court wins.
You say you can go to court under common law so give us a court refernce.
You're giving our legal advice surely you can provide precident? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The case eof the woman who tried arguing freeman of the land for not having her car taxed and insured was amazing though. Iirc she got a few weeks in prison for contempt and the car crushed
What was she in contempt of?
Court, she foolishly bragged online about having took a tape recorder into the court.
through taxing and insuring her 'vehicle' in the first place, she unwittingly made herself in agreement with legalese law..had she claimed common law from the off...she wouldnt have gone to court.."
She didn't tax it that was the problem....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I can appreciate that I really do not know or understand most things, but I'm still feeling a little uneasy about this. Now that may be because I've experienced a lifelong indoctrination into believing that we have no choices but the present system.
Of there is some factually accurate basis for this, then I feel sure that it would be crushed.
Is this the greatest deceit of our times? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uzy444Woman
over a year ago
in the suffolk countryside |
"The case of the woman who tried arguing freeman of the land for not having her car taxed and insured was amazing though. Iirc she got a few weeks in prison for contempt and the car crushed
What was she in contempt of?
Court, she foolishly bragged online about having took a tape recorder into the court.
through taxing and insuring her 'vehicle' in the first place, she unwittingly made herself in agreement with legalese law..had she claimed common law from the off...she wouldnt have gone to court..
She didn't tax it that was the problem....
"
she owned that she needed to tax it..that was her problem..you have to know what you are doing..look up the information yourself and i dont give legal advice.. the legal system is a corporate system..
ive given you a very good link contact..
the law is different...spend your energy on researching for yourself instead of telling someone else, they are ignorant...
the op asked if anyone knew about such things..i said i did and i explained the basics... you want to step out of the matrix you have to do it yourself..no one can do it for you..you want self responsibility do it..if you dont .. keep quiet and stay a whinging sheep.. its entirely upto you..thats why its freeman stuff..you want to be free..go do it..no good debating the fact or whinging about it..plenty of peeps live it and some like you, tell people its impossible, when it isnt...i know people who live like this, advise on this, speak on this subject..not all of those people are wrong..how you go about it..is tricky, agreed..but it is being done by more and more all the time..have fun and have a wonderful night... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
