[Closed] Freemen On The Land

Met in an official capacity?

Yeah, to a degree.

Surprising amount of these about:

For an easy life ehh 😆

Yes dear... 😉

There must be a couple in here.

They are AMAZING.

Mind, a properly serious flat-earther popped up on Imgur yesterday. A lot of what he was saying was very sensible, if you approached it with a genuinely [url= http://ifers.boards.net/ ]open mind[/url]. There isn't a South Pole, for example. What you think of as the continent of Antarctica is in fact a wall of ice preventing you falling off the world. No-one has ever crossed it. Once you realise that you've been duped by freemasonry and astronomers all your life and everything you know is obviously incorrect it's remarkable what you can find out on the internet.

🙂

[url= http://ifers.boards.net/thread/441/cern-conspiracy ]This dude[/url] seems to be reasonably convinced that the Large Hadron Collider's purpose is to break the ceiling over the top of the Earth. He has admittedly deduced this from the London Olympics opening ceremony, but as this featured Stephen Hawking (who is in fact a puppet, presumably controlled by jooze) it seems pretty likely.

There isn't a South Pole, for example. What you think of as the continent of Antarctica is in fact a wall of ice preventing you falling off the world. No-one has ever crossed it.

I [i]think[/i] the ice wall goes all the way round the world. The North Pole is in the middle of the world, that's OK, but there is then an ice wall around the outside.

Don't know about the sea monsters. Some of them are convinced that dragons were real (Marco Polo saw one). You'd think there would be a few sea monsters though.

Fremen-on-the...erm...sticky-out-bit-of-the-land

[img] http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_small/13/139866/2573453-3476814774-8f3f6d95-ee72-4abb-88b5-41eef941e234 [/img]

How my heart skipped with excitement when I saw the thread title only to be crushed by disappointment when I saw who the author was no actual frothing nonsense to follow. There is a very interesting debate to have about the source of law and legal authority but the freemen miss it and end up with a moral cowards anarchy trying to create a lawful reason why the law does not apply to them . I have come across a number plus read around the idea a load yet to see any one of them present an argument that stands up to scrutiny. I have seen one succeed in court but not for the reasons he thought.

Sooooo....

Cheeky trails. Do we just proclaim ourselves 'Freemen on the Land' whilst tearing up the trails through the nearest country estate?

Freemen On The Land

Must admit I'd never even heard of them until I saw this thread. So I just read the Wiki page for a quick bit of knowledge and it seems to me it's just an excuse to break the law and do what you like.

Crankboy - are you talking about issues like statute law being a codification of the common law, and whether one overrules the other? I would agree, fascinating, and throw in whether the principles in the great charters were merely confirmation of this, and as such inviolable, and adding the statutes of Westminster and bill of rights we open the question of whether a parliament can indeed bind its successors? Lovely stuff! And as you say, far more interesting than all the maritime/corporate law bollocks 🙂

proud to walk (well limp really) and cycle this land OF OURS causing no harm injury or loss, also not bowing down to 'perceived authority' for something we were ALL supposedly born Equal on.
place would be better if more were like this IMO of course 🙂
oh, Lawful and Legal are two completely different things, just thought I would clear that one up 😉

Know a few. They're just people, very odd that.

Rozztafarianism is as daft as any other religion really 🙂

yep and pair brace double and two are totally different concepts. Just like legal and lawful.

yep and pair brace double and two are totally different concepts.

That's line dancing, isn't it?

Anyway, I'd also not heard of this concept until this thread. Though we've got much more right to roam up here, maybe it's less of a thing. It's a bit like preppers in the States.

ninfan in part yes but also the philosophical side of the origins of law which is where English Freemen seem to try to start . So really common law as inherently existing or the King being the fount of all justice or law comes from God , the royal fount of all justice being a derivation of Gods law or does law originally come from whose got the biggest stick and most mates . All nicely academic and ultimately futile.

Pair brace double and two, Cuthbert dibble and grub

There's an interesting debate to be had about common law and statute. I agree with Ninfan there. (and Crankboy) @Lawmanmx

proud to walk (well limp really) and cycle this land OF OURS causing no harm injury or loss,

I'd never come across this Freemen idea before but a quick Google later...

Philosophical and historical constitutional arguments aside the freeman are missing the point that, in the UK, judges decide how law is applied within a framework set by government. Even if ancient precedent and s lay interpretation of common law suggests one thing then if the judge says no, then the answer is no. If the judge says yes then the Government can introduce new statute to make that answer no.

But on a more fundamental level, those in charge decide what is or is not deemed legal and any amount of legalistic argument isn't going to get around that basic point

True Gordimhor

But then you get the odd nutter like that stands his ground on a weird issue like where can you park a canal boat, and ends up winning 😀

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/73.html

Never heard of them until this, Just watched a fascinating you tube with a chap growing weed and trying to justify himself by using quasi legal mumbo jumbo to place himself outside the law...using legal arguments to defeat a law that he doesn't want to recognise! Does the contradiction not drive them nuts?

bizarre

I would like to retract the first word in my earlier post, proud isn't really what I feel about this or much else for that matter, Im just happy to Be 🙂

I think it's the whole 'those in charge' bit that grates with some people..

It's a pretty amusing concept innit?
Pompous ****s assuming superiority and all that.. Who are they trying to kid!? 😆

Is this even a real thing? It's not some elaborate , time shifted April Fool gag?

If it is real then I'm going to start my own grassroots movement to rival these buffoons....

we shall be Disciples of the Monkey.
[img] [/img]

We shall be extremely funky and will be governed only by the words of law which may fall from the curiously androgynous lips of the boy-monk Tripitaka.

@greatape - let's see you try and enforce your earthly laws upon me if you happen to pull me over in my flying cloud. 😀

I predict a similar level of success in my philosophy to that of these Freemen nuggets.

How my heart skipped with excitement when I saw the thread title only to be crushed by disappointment when I saw who the author was no actual frothing nonsense to follow

Apologies, I'll see if I can muster up some drivel for my next thread 🙂

Rozztafarianism is as daft as any other religion really

Definitely, if not more so.

Despite my line of work, I'm very much in favour of close scrutiny of the power of the state vs the individual, so agree that there is probably quite an interesting discussion to be had on some of the issues that freemen allude to and the origins of state power. But that's only going to work with the reasonable and articulate ones, of which I suspect there are plenty, but these are not the hard of thinking folk who have ended up inadvertently being the public face of the movement by foaming at the mouth on YouTube or starting a pantomime in the courtroom. The chap we met last night was managing to argue several contradictory points at the same time, although clearly didn't grasp this, but in any case his wife soon took control of him, so we could do what we needed to do to catch a very bad man, and he could go home 🙂

Bring it on perchypanther, it doesn't put me up or down. If you have done a bad thing I shall lock you up in my cells and have your cloud recovered and impounded by an approved contractor. If you haven't I shall simply respond to your drivel with a withering look until you run out of steam, then sentence you to the same Gallic shrug and every other mouth breathing lunatic gets 😀

EDIT Although we might end up in a self-imploding paradox or something, as you would have to do what I demand since I AM THE LAW, yet at the same time in this scenario I would for obvious reasons be Pigsy And would have to do as you say. Tricky one.

[quote=PeterPoddy opined]Freemen On The Land
Must admit I'd never even heard of them until I saw this thread. So I just read the Wiki page for a quick bit of knowledge and it seems to me it's just an excuse to break the law and do what you like.

Not sure you are that good at interpreting things Poddy

Under their theory, natural laws require only that individuals do not harm others, do not damage the property of others, and do not use "fraud or mischief" in contracts

I also agree with what Gretape said as well

Interestingly I used to dislike the police [ as a yoof] and the power of the state I then moved abroad and realised how wonderful ours were [ relatively nothing is perfect]
My worst experience was being "sold" drugs at gin point by a copper whilst wondering whether he would then arrest me for possession with a ris of some serious time in jail or a massive fine I could not afford.

Might try the freeman thing if i ever get stopped by a copper just for giggles 😉

I shall simply respond to your drivel with a withering look until you run out of steam, then sentence you to the same[b] Gallic shrug [/b]and every other mouth breathing lunatic gets

Like this one? 😀

[img] https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRSVa1wcKZ4lBCF5GVUbKUxDSvv1oikhBeOJ_QOoJeR_qNDlACD [/img]

Pretty much, except my moustache is not as tidy.

I suppose that if a copper does stop them, and they start all that common law/maritime law rubbish, the police could always have a laugh demand to inspect their [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/21/section/77 ]log book [/url]

Or arrest them them on suspicion of the unlawful [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/21/section/27 ]discharge of seamen[/url] (that should perk the custody sergeants day up)

I've seen people posting stuff that sounded a bit like this on Facebook before - tends to be the conspiracy theorists and the wackier hippies/anarchists etc. I seem to remember some status being copied and pasted around where it was claimed that posting it freed you from the bounds of conventional criminal law. 🙂 It is quite interesting though.

Some of the American 'sovereign citizen' people are a bit scary though. Militia groups etc getting into armed standoffs with the federal government. I read somewhere that according to a survey of law enforcement officers they see these type of movements as the biggest threat to national security in the US, above Islamic terrorism. Strangely doesn't quite get the same press.

being "sold" drugs at gin point

How very civilised 🙂

ninfan - I am obliged. Until now offences such as obstructing a salmon and stuff like that were my favourite obscure findings, but your discharge of seamen is hard to beat.

The logical answer is as you ain't a freeman as intended in Magna Carter and in any event you cannot be in lawful rebellion you are out side the law and a self declared traitor to our lawful Queen it is there for my duty as a loyal subject to kill you .

your discharge of seamen is hard to beat.

Get a room, funboys.

Noted for the next encounter crankboy. Sabre duly sharpened.

They are the ultimate combination of Internet smartarse, barrack room lawyer and grammar pedant. So it's a mystery why I'm so hostile to them.

I've always thought police should have the discretion to arrest someone for no other crime than just being a knob. This thread re-enforces that view. [i]You sir, are a knob. Come with me.[/i]

I've Google Freeman On Land, turns out these aren't anything like the Freeman I was thinking of.

Everyday's a school-day.
Didn't know they existing.
Look forward to meeting one.

Met one or two - even King Arthur Pendragon himself!
Now he really is a character - and yes that Broadsword IS real and yes he CAN legally carry it which annoys no end of people 😆

I've always thought police should have the discretion to arrest someone for no other crime than just being a knob. This thread re-enforces that view. You sir, are a knob. Come with me.

There would be no police left if that were the case, they would all be arresting each other!

Yep a new one on me - absolutely hilarious 🙂 as my son responds (to almost anything) with "it's just a social construct".
I'm saving my retort of "Yeah it's just a social construct that you can sleep safe in your bed at night."

If you want to understand why the whole 'freeman on the land' is b-l-x a quick look at why the first European democracy failed is informative; Iceland... "Importantly, there was no central executive power, and therefore laws were enforced only by the people. This gave rise to blood-feuds"

There was a video doing the rounds a year or two back of an absolute arse of Scottish guy, and I really cannot stress the word arse enough, who'd been pulled over for driving while using his mobile phone. Spouted off all the sovereign nonsense, claimed he wasn't driving and spouted off some ancient legalese etc which meant he wasn't "driving". The policeman was remarkably calm.

Bottom line, these crackpots are free to believe the laws of the land don't apply to them, but regardless of that, piloting a big van and using a mobile at the same time is a 100% dick move and no amount of gibberish or nonsense will account for that.

Here he is

[quote=franksinatra ]I've always thought police should have the discretion to arrest someone for no other crime than just being a knob. This thread re-enforces that view. You sir, are a knob. Come with me.

"You are under arrest on suspicion of breaking Wheaton's Law"

Good tune this one

[quote=BoardinBob ]There was a video doing the rounds a year or two back of an absolute arse of Scottish guy, and I really cannot stress the word arse enough, who'd been pulled over for driving while using his mobile phone. Spouted off all the sovereign nonsense, claimed he wasn't driving and spouted off some ancient legalese etc which meant he wasn't "driving". The policeman was remarkably calm.

The policemen are good. He is quoting from "Black's Law Dictionary", which is a US thing 🙄

In breach of the Being Bloody Stupid Act (1581)

yes that Broadsword IS real and yes he CAN legally carry it

Can anyone explain why?

Can anyone explain why?

King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.

Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

Arthur: Shut up

Dennis the Peasant: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

nullpointer - Member
yes that Broadsword IS real and yes he CAN legally carry it
Can anyone explain why?

I'll have to ask but off the top of my head its to do with the fact he has proven his bloodline beyond doubt and therefore by being part of his birthright, etc.
He is the head of the Druids of Stonehenge, etc too so he is very well known to Avon and Somerset Police, etc.
His right doesn't extend to shopping in Waitrose but might apply to Lidl.

My uncle can carry a sword through York as he is a Freeman*of the City. Cant see why a self appointed druid priest gets to carry a sword unless he argues it is part of his religious dress or national costume, but as a Druid he would be on Historically shaky ground with a Broad Sword.
*honorific Freeman not nutter he can also drive sheep and cows through the city.

I am absolutely sure that a bloke called Rothwell from wakefield has not proven his bloodline to King Arthur or Uthur Pendragon beyond even statistical doubt. We are not even sure the "historical" one existed.

to be 100% accurate he claims to be the reincarnation and I think that would be equally problematic to prove in a court of law.

We've got a chap up here, who you might say is an 'individual', with a keen interest in Romans. He came to the village hall to vote in the Referendum fully dressed as a Centurion, complete with sword. Almost certainly not legal, almost certainly no danger to anyone, no real reason not to just let him get on with it. Maybe Arthur is equally well known to his local constabulary and they too realise it's better all round just to let him get on with it?

to be 100% accurate he claims to be the reincarnation and I think that would be equally problematic to prove in a court of law.

I think the argument would be that S139 CJA 1988 creates the offence of 'having article with a blade or point in a public place.' though section five states that

(5)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—
(a)for use at work;
(b)[u]for religious reasons[/u]; or
(c)as part of any national costume.

So, as long as your made up religion allows you to carry a knife (be it sikhism with the kirpan or druidism with the broadsword) then you should be allowed to carry it in a public place (unless you intended to use it as a weapon obviously)

(b)for religious reasons; or

He's not from oop norf - he's a southerner.
As King to the Druids - he's their protector hence being armed.
I don't pretend to know the exact historics behind it all- however having come across him 30+ times over the last 15yrs, I know from A+S that he is allowed and has even stood before the Master of the High Court fully robed and armed and been given leave to carry. I was there that time as a witness to the events.

He is from oop north though , given his role, I assume he resides down south now.
He has been allowed to swear on his sword in court cases
A+S= what does this mean ?

Are we talking about the same Arthur Uther Pendragon ? when was he in the high court and what for i can find an appearance that mentions a sword before a magistrate who happens to be Lord Tenby but that was for poll tax.

I would be really amused to see a High Court case where the litigant got to wear a sword rather like Courts Martial notifications which read "you will be notified under separate cover if you are required to bring a side arm."

you will be notified under separate cover if you are required to bring a side arm.

Yeah looked into this some time ago, it's an interesting state of affairs the difference between you and your legal entity!

Shame to see people grasp the wrong end of the nettle lumping them together with conspiracy theorists. Still one of the famous Freemen set himself on fire in protest in India, so yeah can see why it's linked with unhinged characters. To use electrical terminology it's certainly not the path of least resistance! surprise surprise the state says no and generally F*&s with your shit and then some.

Again - he is not from up north.
He was born in Sometset and live there most of his life.
A&S - Avon and Somerset Constabulary who I referred to in my earlier post.
I can't say why he was there in the High Court but it wasn't what you're thinking Crankboy - far more serious.

Really why can't you say why he was in the high court ? Top secret or don't know ?
We must be talking about a different Arthur other pendragon sword bearer to the druids who appears in the media cos the media one was born Rothwell in Wakefield . what was the birth name of yours ?

Yeah looked into this some time ago, it's an interesting state of affairs the difference between you and your legal entity!

We must be talking about a different Arthur other pendragon sword bearer to the druids who appears in the media cos the media one was born Rothwell in Wakefield . what was the birth name of yours ?

Maybe there are two of him, its King Arthur not Highlander.

@ Konabunny - Gets me where?

As for the punctuation I'm sure you will get over it in time.

I think that the eratic punctuation point is not a personal dig it is one of the pseudo arguments Freemen raise to try and create a difference between an individual and their legal identity. Top tip there is no difference .
Thegrateape if you have the joy of one seeking to argue the travel/driving point based on Blackstone legal dictionary whilst of course it is an American book so it is wholly appropriate to simply say "well if we are playing by American rules "then tazzer them it is more subtle to ask them how Blackstone defines " Employed."

Perhaps I should dig out and carry my own copy!

I also wonder, since he was so fond of mentioning it, if I should have challenged him to explain to me how Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by the English king, in England, determining how English law and the English Parliament thereafter developed, had any relevance in Scotland, a country that only became united with England almost 500 years later, and which in any case retained its own entirely separate legal system. But I wasn't really thinking quick enough (nor do I know what the answer is).

Crankboy - I can't say in the same way the Greatape can't say about details of his work.
We know what he does but it stops there.

I think the answer may be that he was born in Yorkshire btut moved down soth at an early age

Hence those who are using WIki/google[myself included] think he is a northerner and those who know him think he is a southerner

Actually theGreatape can and does talk about details of his work .If Arthur was in the high court as you say then you can talk about it as it is a matter of public record that is one of the principals of British Justice I can think of only 4 reasons why he may appear without being identified and in the only good one he would have blown it by swearing on the sword.

I like the way on a thread started by the greatape about his work someone says he cannot talk about his work just like greatape