[Closed] A Number or a Freeman? (Freeman on the Land)

Hang on, it bangs on about the Law, yet it's a video filmed inside a court.

Isn't that illegal?

The "Law" in an arse, I'm on page 5 of this, Elfin you're gonna love this!!

edited: down load [url= http://storagebins.raymondstclair.co.uk/freedomrebels/downloads/bailiff_pack.zip ]the Bailiff pack[/url] and read document: 4A_CTAX_BAILIFPACK_NOUICOR_Fee_Schedule.doc

thats available for download on the front page that linked to above, there is a LOT more.

This isn't a prank or a troll, this is the constitutional right of any English man or woman.

Looks like the Crown does have a place after all!

That is a court de-facto, its a corporate court (the corporation referred to is The Ministry of Justice Ltd.)

Doesn't matter what you call the court; fact is it's illegal to film or photographise in any court in the UK, while any trial or hearing is taking place.

So, they bang on about the Law, yet conveniently ignore part of it.

Hypocritical. They may indeed have a point to make, but if they want to do it according to Law, then the rules apply to them as they do anyone else. ALL of them. Each and every single one of them.

Otherwise it makes a mockery of the Law and Justice itself.

Doesn't matter what you call the court; fact is it's illegal to film or photographise in any court in the UK, while any trial or hearing is taking place.

*cough*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8152427.stm

Different issue, Drac. In this case that Nutt is going on about, the act of filming inside a court is in breach of Law.

Simple as that. No excuses, no caveats, it's illegal.

So, if people want the Law to support them, they have to adhere to it exactly.

[b]fact is it's illegal to film or photographise in any court in the UK, while any trial or hearing is taking place.[/b]

But that's wrong.

Yes in the case it's not allowed granted but we don't know who filmed they have a copy of it though.

It's not wrong in this context Drac.

The article you linked to refers to the Supreme Court. It does not state that filming is allowed in all courts within the UK.

In this particular case, it appears a criminal offence has taken place. Now, if you're trying to argue about Absolute Law, to serve your own particular interests, then it's utterly hypocritical to then disobey that very Law you wish to work in your own favour, is it not?

No?

Doesn't matter who filmed it. Broadcasting the footage is a criminal offence.

The court was not in session, so the hearing was not taking place, ergo no offence - if the court has begun to sit, then they could have found the people there in contempt of court, but since the court was repeatedly abandoned, and the Mag's were not "sitting" then they couldn't do that either

So when you said any court you didn't mean any court?

Doesn't matter who filmed it. Broadcasting the footage is a criminal offence.

It is yes but do we know if it was Stephen Barry or not?

Actually Zulu has a point.

Zulu is 100% correct, But why wasn't the court in session? why did the magistrates leave?

41 Prohibition on taking photographs, &c., in court.

(1)No person shall—

(a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or

(b)publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;

This appears to apply to court buildings themeselves. Certainly, all courts I've ever bin in (quite a few 😳 ) have all had 'no photography or recording devices' signs outside them.

Zulu is 100% correct,

Prove this legally please.

From what I loosely gather; a Freeman renounces the statue of a de-facto court, only recognizing a de jeur court, the magistrates will not produce their Oath as they are purely there to issue a summary judgement for profit, for the Council (a company) and themselves the commercial court. For heavens sake watch the bloody video Elfin!

all aboard the good ship Albion!

For heavens sake watch the bloody video Elfin!

No. It's filmed and broadcast illegally.

It's just a load of shysters who want to avoid paying what everyone else has to. It's got bugger all to do with respecting British Law. Or else they wouldn't have filmed illegally..

You drive, right? On roads that have to be maintained, right? You walk along pavements? Require the protection of the police, fire brigade, need refuse collection etc?

So tell me why you think you're exempt from paying Council Tax?

Watch live telly? Then you have to have a TV licence.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

watch it gimp, its good for your crazy little brain!

No.

No. It's filmed and broadcast illegally.

It's just a load of shysters who want to avoid paying what everyone else has to

Elf didn't you use to watch TV without a TV licence for years or at least you bragged about it.?

Yeah, so?

careful with that bit of rope there Elif 😀

Same thing then is it not?

Not really. I willingly broke the Law. I din't then go and try to assert my rights to avoid paying other things though.

I smoked dope back then too. Took Es, Speed, Ketamine, Acid, etc.

Are you so pure and innocent? Are you? I bet Nutt goes quiet at this point...

I've dodged the fair on the Tube once or twice too.

But that's cos I'm a right rebel, me...

Are you so pure and innocent? Are you?

No which is why I haven't criticised what these people have done or refused to watch the video. You broke the law but or happy to have a go at these people for possibly breaking a law. Then bizarrely decide not to watch a video that may have been recorded illegal despite watching TV for years? illegally.

pure or innocent probably wouldn't be the first words to describe me,

as I'm sure anyone that knows me would no doubt confirm!

but I've always had a TV License, and my council tax is paid up to date! (I've been royally screwed over by those c**ts in the past)

These people are banging on about the Law protecting their 'rights', yet are happy to break other laws. If you really want to go that far with Law, then you have to be absolutely innocent of any crime, misdemeanour or bad deed. it's demanding absolutes; then you must be absolutely free of any blame then.

Otherwise you're just a hypocrite who's trying to get out of paying their council tax cos they think somehow they're special.

What would happen if everyone stopped paying their CT and other taxes and stuff?

They wouldn't have a fricken legal system to argue their case in the first place. Cocks.

Oh, funny how they've overlooked that bit, eh? Funny, that!!!!

Bunch of tossers. 'Oh look at me I'm clever I don't have to pay my Council Tax like all the other plebs and thickos'.

Ok then; let's see how you get on when you're being kicked to death in the street by a gang of thugs (probbly cos you've got a stupid haircut you knob), and that police service that's meant to protect you, what is financed through that Council Tax you've cleverly avoided paying, isn't there.

Eh? EH? Not so ****in clever now are you, you floppy-haired dick?? Let's see how clever you are as you burn to death in your home, cos the Fire Brigade what is financed through taxation isn't there to put out the fire. Let's hear you scream in agony as your flesh melts, and your eyeballs boil and burst. Your last screams will be 'oh please I've changed my mind and want to pay my dues as a citizen', but it will be too late, as your vocal cords will be burnt away, and your lungs seared by red-hot gasses.

I win. Shut up now.

These people are banging on about the Law protecting their 'rights', yet are happy to break other laws.

Erm, no, they're not - since the laws that you're talking about are contract law, laid out in statute, by governments pretending to power - not common law (the only true law of England, as affirmed in the great charters) which is the only law that can apply to a Freeman of England 😉

The "Freedom Rebels" website is run by Ray St Clair. Quick bit of googling reveals that he appears to have used a string of aliases and is some sort of serial conman who tried to pass himself off as Lord Newport and had a "business" selling fake titles.
Complete nonsense.

common law (the only true law of England, as affirmed in the great charters)

Which were written when? Things have moved on, sunshine. In case you hadn't noticed.

Anyway Z-11; I thought you were a great advocate of Law and Order? At least, you kind of suggested this, in your defence of police actions against demonstrating students a couple of months ago. What a hypocrite you really are. I really don't know why you bother. Back under your stone.

Yeah right; tell it to the judge.

And Bubba.

And Billy Ray.

And the rest of Cell Block F....

You're talking shyte anyway; if you want to be a member of society and enjoy the benefits of the legal system, police, fire brigade, Coast guard, etc etc etc, then you have to pay for them.

It's a load of hypothetical waffling which isn't practical or applicable to all.

'Oh look at me I'm so clever I'm a freeman'

No you're not, you're a knob. Shut up and pay yer Council Tax you moaning ****.

Go on, give it a go. Let me know how you get on.

From yer cell in Brixton or Pentonville...

Entertaining none the less, what was that thing Elf? something about losing when stooping to insulting someone? Did I once say I wasn't intending to pay my council tax? simply offering a topic for discussion.

Perhaps you should try bran flakes for breakfast? Thats not intended as an insult, its purely a dietary suggestion.

😀

edit: I'm off to bed now, work in the mornin'

I agree totally with little elfin. Specially :

Otherwise you're just a hypocrite who's trying to get out of paying their council tax cos they think somehow they're special.

Bunch of tossers. 'Oh look at me I'm clever I don't have to pay my Council Tax like all the other plebs and thickos'.

what was that thing Elf? something about losing when stooping to insulting someone?

If you do it to me it's cos you've lost. I can insult others as and when I chose, however.

Perhaps you should try bran flakes for breakfast?

Don't want to. Don't like that crap.

Maybe you should try Immodium?

Or does that only work at one end?

Which were written when? Things have moved on, sunshine. In case you hadn't noticed.

Really, which bit of [i] and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fullness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever.[/i] indicates that there is any limitation to the validity of the [u]constitutional settlement between the crown and the people[/u]

Anyway Z-11; I thought you were a great advocate of Law and Order? At least, you kind of suggested this, in your defence of police actions against demonstrating students a couple of months ago, blah blah

Yep, I fully defended the constitutional law of the UK that clearly sets out the stall that the crown, through its constables, has an absolute duty to keep the queens peace!

Zulu-Eleven - Member
You see, a right wing anarchist like myself,

Then:

Yep, I fully defended the constitutional law of the UK that clearly sets out the stall that the crown, through its constables, has an absolute duty to keep the queens peace!

You really do talk some utter faecal matter sometimes, don't you? 😆

You're mildy amusing in the more mundane moments on here. Little more though. You needn't bother trying any further tbh.

I fully defended the constitutional law of the UK that clearly sets out the stall that the crown, through its constables, has an absolute duty to keep the queens peace!

Does Our Sovereign Lord Queen Elizabeth II chargeth and commandeth it - to prevent tumults and riotous assemblies ?

Well, DvergarAccident appears to have boldly missed the point entirely, preoccupying himself with an ill conceived belief that a common law had been breached by the recording of proceedings within what was essentially a community hall with magistrates unable to call a court.

It appears to me that as the de-facto court was not afforded any authority, given that none of the public gallery arose to recognize the authority and the magistrates failed repeatedly to present their oath, hence the authority of the court was deferred to Layman and the case dismissed.

Consider the point that this is not about the (arguably) trivial matter of recording video within a public building, rather its interesting to learn that there is:

a) A Constitution that defends the freedom of English men and women.

b) The "Law of the Sea" is what is commonly perceived as "the law" when in actual fact its a manipulation of rights based upon subterfuge, propaganda and common ignorance of Common Law and its freedoms as afforded as birth right.

c) Elfin thinks I have floppy hair.

I'm not advocating the renouncement of the perceived judicial system, nor the avoidance of taxation or the requirement to hold a license to drive a motor vehicle/watch television. Hell I even think that the E.U. actually does a good job sometimes!

I'm just bringing this to the forum because its an interesting point; that laid down in the English constitution, the Magna Carta (and other sources) protects the birth right & liberty of subjects of the crown. I think that is at least worthy of a little understanding.

Even if it is just that it means that you can ride on byways with no fear of [i]the law of the sea[/i] being used against you! (its a free country after all!)

As I understand it being a Freeman on the land also doesn't mean that you reject society or contributing to the up keep of public services, there is no reason why one wouldn't donate to the emergency services or such like, no reason at all.

and as for the floppy hair jibe...

[IMG] [/IMG]

Not so, you little hair fascist!

haha, so far I've found David Ike, Gypsies, Freemasons and all manner of tin foilists involved in this, it really is one of the strangest things I've read about.

It does seem though that amongst the crazies there could actually be something of merit, something that could be used to defend civil liberty and call this government to task.

I'm a great believer in Thomas Jeffersons statement:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

MrNutt, do you ride a unicycle whilst juggling ? ........ I think I might have seen you in Convent Garden 💡

so in essence:

that we are all the property of the state (from registration of birth) and subject to 'Admiralty' law, but can declare ourselves free from state interference (or assistance) and be subject only to 'Common' law.

hmmm, its odd that this actually does happen, people do this.

I'm interested not for any tax or debt avoidance or any other form of monetary gain.

Rather because I feel that our oligarchy "elect", and those who have learnt to play the system to their gain, Appear to be hell bent on eroding natural liberties and turning this country into some god awful privatized company structure where your life is determined by your corporate agency credit report and laws are drawn up behind closed doors, voted on by representatives who have no legal obligation to represent their electorate once in power, etc etc etc

Just look at this sham of a government we've had for the past few years, hell Gordon was in power, unelected and unwanted for how long?

Ernie you know full well that I despise Jugglers, unicyclers and other folkland fools! witches the lot of em!

oh dear, it appears that its lawful to kill a Welshman within Chester's city walls during the hours of darkness.

Jugglers, unicyclers and such fine, but I'm afraid I have to draw the line at killing Welshmen in Chester!

hell Gordon was in power, unelected and unwanted for how long?

He was elected to Parliament by those in his constituency, and selected as leader by his party following Bliar's resignation.

In case you've forgotten, we don't 'elect' a prime minister. David Cameron is equally 'unelected'. And as for 'sham' of a government; so this current lot are great, aren't they?

I'm a great believer in Thomas Jeffersons statement:

Ah, Jefferson; that slave-owning native-exterminating believer in Freedom and Liberty...

This Common Law you prattle on about, as laid down in the Magna Carter, is still a set of rules imposed on people by someone. None of it created by full public consensus or any democratic process. Whereas Statute Law is created through an Act of Parliament, by elected representatives of the People.

And the Magna Carter was indeed an act that King John was compelled to sign, by a bunch of feudal barons and that. The term 'Freeman' din't refer or apply to common peasants, you know, only land-owners and rich folk.

So which Law is more valid?

Magna Carta! Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?

there's quite a few people on facebook who have added "freeman" to their names....

if elfin were to do so it would be:

elfin Freeman Safety

for example.

the same people who are into this whole freeman thing are the same people who spam the newsfeed with conspiracy theories and other drug induced "the government hates us, we can run the country better by getting rid of money and leaders"...

Neither, they are both full of holes.

The more I read about this Freeman movement though the more I'm inclined to think its closer to a scam designed to sell seminars than a genuine reality.

All the evidence I can find seems to fall apart under closer examination, from what I've read it could end up dropping less astute people into some very hot water!

Still like I said, its interesting.

I despise ......... unicyclers

How about a double-wheeled velocipede then, whilst juggling a bit of crumpet on your handlebars ?

[img] [/img]

Otherwise you're just a hypocrite who's trying to get out of paying their council tax cos they think somehow they're special.

usually elf.. I'm quite interested in your wise and whimsical discourse..

but the statement above is a load of old Tosh.. (Peter Tosh to be exact)

I would have expected a sensible fellow like yourself to find this whole hypocrite argument a bit lame in any circumstance..

everyone bar none is a hypocrite.. and it's plain for all to see that this bloke is nothing more than a bit of a chancer who's spotted an opportunity..

I'm surprised you went off all guns blazing over this..

it's plain racist is what it is..

I'm surprised you went off all guns blazing over this..

+1

seems like the kinda responses and thread that will get dragged up and used against you in a later argument in a completely unrelated thread... if i based my opinion on you using this thread alone it'd be a shame....

luckily i'm too awesome to do such a thing.

there's a big old thread over on [url= http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/326350-the-quot-freeman-quot-movement?s=e08217824a1983cb9fa3a641ee4386b9 ]Urban75[/url] where a poster known as taffboy gwyrdd says:

As usual there can be a baby/bathwater thing here when entirely dismissing what some people are saying.

The stuff about your name in block capitals being a different legal entity and police officers being in the realm of contract law once they know your name and address is all pretty true is it not?

The "Freeman of the Land" concept at least invites us to examine what our laws are and what legitimacy they do and dont have.

which is a point I'm trying to make, I wonder if he's ever been to Chester of an evening? 😀

Oh Whell.

[img] [/img]

The concept of lawful rebellion seems quite interesting. Any lawyers on here got any thoughts on it?

IanMunro, have you seen this: [url= http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/41026-freemen-and-lawful-rebellion/ ]UKPoliceOnline[/url]

you're right, it is interesting!

Mr Nutt, are you able to summarise what's going on in that video?

thegreatape, I did briefly earlier in the thread, essentially it seems to go:

de facto court with a view to determine liability for the payment of council tax
no one rises to afford the court power
a layman represents the defendant, producing the defendants birth cert as "the fiction known as"
he then requests that the court produce their oath, which they fail to after three occasions
the magistrates then leave as they are unable to form a court due to not presenting their oath or the gallery rising to affirm power of the court
the laymen ends up dismissing the court and charges as he is the highest authority left in court
everyone leaves with no obvious conclusion except that the liability order was signed & dated before the hearing which didn't even take place.

That stinks of complicit behavior & corruption to me. As for their claims I still can't see how it stands up.

for example there's a post on the UKPoliceOnline forum which says:

Aston, Sergeant: Honest Chap, I'll have to disagree with you there. Parliament has the power to repeal whatever it likes, so long as the correct process is followed. That's the whole point in a democratic system and as Pete explains is the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

Now from what I have read, the Freeman concept is based on law enshrined in Clause 61 Magna Carta 1215. It is certain that there is a common law concept that if this has not been expressly repealed, then it still stands today. If the freemen were to argue this point (that it has not been expressly repealed), then surely there would be a question as to the original legality of the document. Let's not forget that the Freemen argue that the Magna Carta is a contract, between the people and the crown. The problem here is that it is a historical fact that the document was signed by King John under duress and is therefore void. The Magna Carta was re-written by Edward, his successor, and this is the document which stands in statute today. Unfortunately Article 61 had been removed from this document.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'm tending to think that the Freeman concept might have less argument in law as I first thought it might have. Interesting nonetheless!

It is strange, the more I read of it the more skeptic I become, I'm not a fan of tin foil hats and conspiracies but as a concept it may just hold water?

odd, Law is a very strange thing full of misdirection and misinterpretation...

The Magna Carta was originally a common law document and this was an agreement between the king the and people. (but was his hand forced, does that make it void?)

The Magna Cater was then [u]copied[/u] to statute.

Later the statute was repealed. [u]But this did not affect the Common Law(?)[/u], only the Statute was repealed as Parliament could not repeal Common Law.

So am I right in thinking that the above shenanigans had no affect on Common Law rather it was just parliamentary jiggery pokery? odd.

argh! my head!!

The tri-partite power sharing consists of the house of commons, house of lords and the Crown.

Parliament & government are for ever breaking the law...

and it is raised that the handing over power to Europe is the head of state breaking the Oath to the people and subsequently an act of treason?

So that madness means that Freeman's pledging an oath to sovereignty would be calling for the head of state to abdicate as well as dismissing the role of government?

Sorry, I must have missed it amongst other folk arguing.

Legal stuff can be fascinating. I have a working knowledge of the bits that are relevant to me, but that's only a fraction of it. My understanding is that Common Law evolved over time and to all intents and purposes consisted of what people or courts thought was acceptable (ie. murder isn't right and so on). Much of it has been replaced by statute now. I've no idea how it affects all that above though.

You do know that Wesley Snipes has gone along similar libertarian lines in declaring that he doesn't have to pay taxes because "the domestic income of a US citizen is not taxable"?

Wesley Snipes is currently doing a three-stretch in McKean Correctional Institution.

Anyone care to guess what the outcome will be for this bunch?

Wesley Snipes is currently doing a three-stretch in McKean Correctional Institution.

is he? hahahaha!! brilliant!

this seems to be the rhetoric that the Freeman movement revolves around:

Just stumbled accross this page and thought I'd add to the topic. It's good to see police talking about this, even if some are a little closed minded about it. But believe me it's in your interests to know about it! From my understanding it's quite simple. Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals over hundreds of years, rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. It basically says don't damage others property, don't harm your fellow man, don't breach the peace and don't use fraud in your contracts. Everything else we think of as 'the law' is statutes and acts and are rules made by the government, as you hopefully know.

The court system can only enforce these statutes and acts with the 'consent of the governed'. That is to say, if a man is in court for say driving through a red light and in court he doesn't give is consent to contract (more about that in a bit), the court has no power whatsoever to punish him for the 'crime', provided no other party has been harmed.

This also applies to the police, as the enforcers of the law. You can go to the effort of sending a 'notice of intended prosecution', but if he knows his Common Law rights there's little the legal system can do and you're wasting your time.

It all boils down to contracts. Whether you are aware of not, when you read someone their rights, in the eyes of the law you are offering them a contract. By agreeing to or not disputing this offer they are agreeing to the terms. As far as the courts are concerned when you ask 'do you understand these rights' you are asking them if they agree to 'stand under' them, which is a legal term. If they say 'no', you have no right to force the law on them as you do not have their consent. There's also 'tacit' consent, where consent is assumed unless denied, which is how it usually works because most people don't know they have the right to say 'no'.

Because they are built on the same system, things that can void a contract in commerse can void a contract in law. For example if a policeman is asking someone to sign a document against their will, they can sign it 'under protest and duress' and that would void any contract that the signature would have made, because no contract can be entered in to without the consent of both parties. Judges are only too aware of this, but most police don't seem to be.

As for the 'person' vs 'human' thing. In the eyes of the law the word person has a different meaning to that of most people, as do many other words (about 44,000 as far as I know), in fact it's different language called Legalese. The legal definition of the word 'Person' is 'Legal Fiction'. This legal fiction is brought about by the creation of a birth certificate. It is done to enable the government to act upon the human. For example, if a child has no birth certificate the local authorities are unable to remove the child from the parents. If someone, say a Freeman, becomes aware of this and knows how the legal system works they can stop the system applying acts and statutes to them. As you hopefully know, the police need a surname and a date of birth to act on someone. The reason is this links the man to the Person and allows them to act on the Person. If the surname isn't given there is no proof of the Person so there's nothing to act on. There is also no law that says someone has to give them their name.

Now for the part you, the police, should really be aware of. If a Freeman has been such for a while, the chances are he or she will have filed several Claim Of Right's and maybe a Fee Schedule. The Claim Of Right is what it sounds like; it an official claim for the right to be able to do something. If they have submitted a CoR and no-one contests in within a set period, no-one can stop them from doing it in the future, as long as it's not against Common Law. So if someone has a CoR to drive without a licence, they can and no-one, not even a judge can stop them.

This is where the Fee Schedual comes in. If the police stop said fellow and attempted to arrest him having been told he had a CoR to do what he was doing and a fee schedual was in place, that policeman could lawfully be in for a large bill. If the fee schedual says he charges £1000 per hour in handcuffs, the officer arresting him would be liable for the bill and would lawfully have to pay. Not the force or the government, the officer!

All this is why, for everyones sake, you need to know about all this. You will find that most Freemen are gentle, peaceful people and if you are too there will be no conflict. Remember, you took an Oath to uphold the law of the land, that's common law. If someone claims common law jurisdiction and you don't listen, you dishonour yourself and the Oath you made to the Queen 😉

Quoted from here: [url= http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/41026-freemen-and-lawful-rebellion/page__view__findpost__p__446080 ]UKPoliceOnline[/url]

Thing is though, people mess about like this not because they really want to uphold Common Law and all that, but because they want to get out of paying for things. That's the reality.

Wesley Snipes; do you really seriously think he was making a stand for 'Justice', or just trying to get out of paying his taxes?

have you not seen "blade" elfin?! i don't know how you could suggest such bad things or sir wesley!

The legal definition of the word 'Person' is 'Legal Fiction'. This legal fiction is brought about by the creation of a birth certificate. It is done to enable the government to act upon the human.

Births must, by Law, be registered within 42 days. This ensures that both the State and the Parents of the child have legally enforceable responsibilities towards that child. This goes some way to protecting that child's Human rights.

I think that's right, personally. Do you disagree with this, Nutt?

that policeman could lawfully be in for a large bill. If the fee schedual says he charges £1000 per hour in handcuffs, the officer arresting him would be liable for the bill and would lawfully have to pay. Not the force or the government, the officer!

Well, I'm definitely staying in the office drinking tea and eating buns from now on. I can't afford that.

Elf you seem to be convinced that I am in some way an advocate of this Freeman on the land concept, I'm neither pro nor anti, I just find it fascinating. I have no doubt that corporations and government have manipulated the/ir laws for years to meet their own gain. I have upmost respect for the Police force, I think they do a great job of keeping the peace and watching the shite they have to endure its very often a thankless task.

The statute requiring the creation of "a legal fiction" I see as no different in principle to national ID cards, I'm not a fan of it but it is common practice.

interesting to see that the magna carta was used a while back, see here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html

I think its interesting that it appears there is a mechanism in existence that enables people to "opt out" of being subjects/employees of the government. I guess thats the thing I find interesting.

That and that it could be a mechanism to give power over the elect back to the people, that said it's all a bit wolfie smith!

this is looking more akin to farce, but to be honest most court room antics tend to be that anyway...

here's another video, this one Elf you'll be pleased to hear has been deemed to have been illegally filmed

http://vimeo.com/channels/freedom

AN illegal recording of a case at Gloucester Magistrates’ Court has been posted on the internet.
The video was uploaded by a group calling itself The Freedom Rebels.
It shows a hearing which the group says took place on Friday, January 29, this year.
Making a recording in court is illegal under Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and under Section nine of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Anyone breaking the law can be jailed.
A police spokeswoman said: “Gloucester CID are currently investigating the filming of this footage.
“The court service are aware and we are liaising with them.”
The video has been uploaded to a well-known video sharing website.
It shows magistrates sitting in court two in the Barbican Way complex hearing a case regarding unpaid council tax.
The Freedom Rebels group claims to work to challenge what it calls the “false authority” of the courts.
Its members also believe council tax is illegal under British common law and are campaigning to see it abolished.
Videos of other court hearings, including at Cwmbran Magistrates’ Court, have also been uploaded onto the internet.
The law states: “It is a contempt of court to use in court, or bring into court for use, any tape recorder or other instrument for recording sound, except with the leave of the court or to publish a recording of legal proceedings made by means of any such instrument, or any recording derived directly or indirectly from it, by playing it in the hearing of the public.”

I don't quite see how they could claim that to be a success! it appears that the court served judgement later, It seems to me that this "movement" could be playing with peoples lives with some quite serious consequences?

This is interesting aye.

Anyone a lawyer on here?

If the Magna Carta divides power between the Crown and the two Houses, does that mean the Monarch still does have power? Or does it mean that acts limiting the power of the Crown overturn the MC?

Some Norman Barons accepted the MC on my behalf, did they? Were they empowered to do that? Is it legal for people to act on behalf of future people?

I have been aware of these chaps for some time and they have some interesting points, sadly I think that they are plagued with nutters and conspiracy theorists and as Elfin says, largely just want to get out of paying for stuff.

Personally I think that if we did not have almost half of our worldly output managed by corrupt self serving politicians and shadowy forces in business then the 'Big society' might actually have a chance. I know that if I only had to work for 3 days a week I would definitely dedicate at least one of those freed up days to serving my community. Call that a 20% voluntary tax if you like. As it is, I can only really afford a week of voluntary work per year at the moment.

I got all fired up about this a month or two ago, threatening to move back into my tent and start fighting against my perceived lack of freedom, I think I might just have been rather hacked off with always feeling like I have to constantly fight to keep my head above water despite working hard and doing my bit for society.

Then a few days later things started kicking off in Tunisia, all catalysed by one chap who, having had his fruit stall taken away set fire to himself in public as a protest and sparked the rebellion that ensued. This very sharply bought me out of my self involved misery and reminded me of a couple of things:

1) We are pretty lucky to live in a country where we will not starve or freeze to death if we run out of resources for one reason or another.
2) Things are not nearly desperate enough that I would be prepared to set fire to myself in protest.
3) If you really want to make a protest, you have to put your money (and more importantly your safety) where your mouth is. You have to risk the freedoms and rights we are afforded.

If you are so disaffected and disillusioned with the system we live in that you are prepared to risk the removal of your limited liberty and possibly even your life, then make the protest. Otherwise pucker and keep taking it from the man and do your best to live a good enough life to stay under the radar of the authorities but bad enough to ensure that you can still have some fun.

The point about the filming being lawful or not is easy it was clearly unlawful. The not recognising the authority of the magistrates, the legal fiction person argument, the lay advisor dismissing the case because he won a game of musical chairs and the order being made at 10 am are clearly the ramblings of semi educated shysters or the self deluded .

The freeman argument is more dense in every sense of the word If magna carter is irrevocable and if it gives every person the right to petition the queen for redress of grievances and to go in to lawful rebellion if the queen does not act in 40 days then maybe but it appears to be based on the idea that my grandfather can bind me in a contract drawn up before I was conceived which is utterly contrary to the common law rules of contract so over all my ill-informed view is that this is utter rubbish . Magna Carter is a reference point for the current non written constitution not it's unalterable foundation

My take on the video:- a group of nutters turned up to try and have some fun and dodge paying their dues the court staff tried to do thier job curtiously and efficently they couldn't the police were called every one bent over backwards not to have to arrest the nutters at great public expense the nutters were escorted out .The court then went on to make a lawful order that nutter no 1 owed the council his council tax and it would be enforced .The nutters then post and selectively edit an illegally shot video of the incident and claim a victory .

The 'man' does indeed take a lot from you.

However he does also give it back in the shape of a successful economy.

if the queen does not act in 40 days

The Queen of course can't act. So how could petitioning her be valid? What do the acts limiting the power of the monarch have to say about this?

However he does also give it back in the shape of a successful economy.

We are not given an economy, we had an economy from the start and we now have a group of parasites who manipulate the economy using the monetary system to remove our wealth and pass it on to those they deem fit.

Magna Carter is a reference point for the current non written constitution not it's unalterable foundation

eh? I at least understood that England had one of the oldest constitutions and that it was the basis for a lot of others? Is the current unwritten constitution that you speak of statute law?

We are not given an economy, we had an economy from the start and we now have a group of parasites who manipulate the economy using the monetary system to remove our wealth and pass it on to those they deem fit

This is rubbish.

Our economy is based on business. Businessmen are not parasites. Individual speculators might be but there aren't that many of those proportionally.

Businessmen are not parasites

Most are not, most offer a service in exchange for a fair price. I have never been taxed by a business directly.

The parasites I was referring to were those who manipulate the economy and contribute very little, those people who:

create inflationary pressure by creating money from thin air
remove market pressures from vital mechanisms like interest rates
remove the moral hazards of banking
those whose interests it is in to wage war whenever possible.

That sort of thing.

i don't see how anyone could believe that this isn't just a bunch of nutters trying to confuse the judiciary. if there were any basis to any of what they were saying do you not think a serious challenge would have been mounted by this point?

read any of the articles on [url= http://www.raymondstclair.com/ ]this website[/url] and tell me their not written by a nutter.

The parasites I was referring to were those who manipulate the economy and contribute very little, those people who

Absolutely there are bad destructive greedy people everywhere. Can hardly blame the system for that though.

"The Man" to whom you referred originally means the wider establishment, not any particular minority. The bad people are in the minority. As are the good. The majority are morally indifferent, effectively.

Can hardly blame the system for that though.

We cannot blame the establishment for the fact there are greedy destructive people but we can blame them for letting the demons run amok. They are supposed to protect the interests of citizens but often fail in this by favouring the interests of the very rich and powerful.

The man is a catch all term for authority in the sense that I was using it and believe it applies. Zappa once said that Government is the entertainment division of big business and I think he was largely right.

Mr Nutt, No the constitution of the United kingdom is referred to as unwritten as there is no one document that sets out ones rights and obligations nor the role of the queen and parliament or even the existence of a cabinet. this can be contrasted with the US constitution or the French. Instead we have a body of case law statute and parliamentary convention. The fount of all knowledge Wikipedia, states:-

"The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed.

Unlike many nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an uncodified, or de facto constitution.[1] However, much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives.

The bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[2] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains entirely valid today,[3] in part due to the UK's European Union membership.[4]"

Many think that a single codified document would help others fear it gives the likes of the freemen more grist to their mill.

You will note the constitutional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty completely trumps the freemen's contractual argument.

sadly I think that they are plagued with nutters and conspiracy theorists and as Elfin says, largely just want to get out of paying for stuff.

I'm pretty sure they're certainly not plagued with peoplewho have any knowledge of constitutional or contract law!

We are not given an economy, we had an economy from the start and we now have a group of parasites who manipulate the economy using the monetary system to remove our wealth and pass it on to those they deem fit.

The financial system only exists because of a law and state that uphold it. It'd be lovely if we could have no state and all barter and get on perfectly well, but in reality, if there was no law to stop nasty people taking stuff by force / killing people for their own advantage or stealing things, then chances are we wouldn't be living in such a safe place, and for sure the first against the wall would be the pacifist anarchists, cos they'd be easy pickings.

The financial system only exists because of a law and state that uphold it.

Not sure I agree with that, the economy is all about people trading with each other and we have gradually laid down a set of rules, the point of which is to ensure that the trading in the economy is fair. Thing is, at the moment it is not fair. Not by a very long way.