Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Freeman-on-the-Land

Options
  • 25-03-2009 4:06pm
    #1
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭


    From what I can gather (I'm new to this) courts operate under maritime law or contract law. Flesh and blood humans are supposed to operate under common law, which is not to harm anyone or property and not to enter into fraudulent contracts. (ish)
    Do we knowingly give up our common law rights when we go to court or are we tricked into it. At what point do we lose common law?
    Any help please.....?:confused:


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    dats_right
    Registered Users Posts: 1,168 ✭✭✭dats_right


    kamana wrote: »
    From what I can gather (I'm new to this) courts operate under maritime law or contract law. Flesh and blood humans are supposed to operate under common law, which is not to harm anyone or property and not to enter into fraudulent contracts. (ish)
    Do we knowingly give up our common law rights when we go to court or are we tricked into it. At what point do we lose common law?
    Any help please.....?:confused:


    Your question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The main sources of law under which the Courts operate in this jursidiction are: 1) the Constitution which takes precedence over all other laws (except EU); 2) Legislation; 3) EU laws; 4) Common Law i.e. Judge made law.


  • Options
    #3
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana



    What is Common Law?
    It's the "law-of-the-land". And the Grand Deception starts when you do not realise the implications of the apparently insignificant word "land". And the very real difference between "the land" and "the sea". There is "law-of-the-sea". It's sometimes called Maritime Law. Or Admiralty Law, and so on. Other terms, meaning the same thing, are Civil Law, Commerce Law, Fleet Law, etc. Statutes are the "law-of-the-sea" and, if you committed the (apparent) violation on dry land, then you are only subject to the law-of-the-land. And the only "law-of-the-land" is Common Law. Statutes, passed by any Parliament, are the "law-of-the-sea"


    from Veronica Chapmans' website


    When I started reading this stuff I thought it sounded a little loopy. It goes against everything we were led to believe but if there is common law how can its protection be taken away without your consent?


  • Options
    #4
    Quaver
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Quaver


    links please?

    Sounds like complete bull to be honest.


  • Options
    #5
    r14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

    Might make things a bit clearer for you. Whatever that woman wrote is completely off the wall. Years ago there was a separate branch of Admiralty Courts that dealt with the law of the sea but they diminished in importance and their function has been absorbed by other jurisdictions.

    The primary law of the land is the Constitution followed by legislation. The "Common law" is judge made law that slots in after these. A judge can never make law which contradicts legislation or the constitution.

    The Common law is so called because it is a law common to all the people who live in the land. This distinguishes it from pre-common law days where each individual community had their own separate laws. While it is called the law of the land this doesn't in any way mean that it is superior to legislation or that the parliament can only legislate for the sea (what use would that be).

    Just googled that Veronica Chapman and she really does seem like a looper.

    Lesson here is don't believe everything you read on the internet... unless it's written by me :p


  • Options
    #6
    r14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    http://www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel

    I'm saying nothing but :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    r14 wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel

    I'm saying nothing but :eek:


    hahaha I know.. I saw that channel as well and he looks like a nut job but I'm still looking into it.

    here's a few more links

    http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/WFS/ThinkFree.html

    http://www.tpuc.org/Common-Law


  • Options
    #8
    dermot_sheehan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭dermot_sheehan


    What i think the original poster is getting at is that Common Law acts in personam and Admiralty acts in rem.

    For example in an Admiralty action you can "arrest" a ship, take a case against the ship for a debt owedand have it sold to pay the debt.Admiralty historically was international maritime law and different from the legal system applicable away from tidal waters.

    Common Law governs generally though today. Admiralty actions survive and the High Court of Ireland has the admiralty jurisdiction that previously existed prior to the enactment of the constitution. For a case to be an admiralty case though it must involve ships (for example I know of PIAB refusing to give an assessment for someone injured on a yacht in a port since it was an admiralty case and not a personal injuries action). This fact nicely turned a circuit court personal injuries case into a high court admiralty one.


  • Options
    #9
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    thanks for the input lads. Following on from this , is it true what the likes of Rob Menard and Mary Elizabeth Croft say about the person? That a man or woman is not a person but they have a person, much the same way that paperwork creates a company, birth certs create a person?


  • Options
    #10
    dermot_sheehan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭dermot_sheehan


    No, the certificates are just evidence that a certain event occured.

    A companies incorporation certificate is conclusive evidence of the fact that a company was lawfully incorporated under the companies acts section 19 companies act 1963 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/act/pub/0033/sec0019.html#zza33y1963s19)


    A birth certificate is presumptive evidence that a person with a particular name was born on a particular day
    section 68 civil registration act 2004
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0003/print.html#partviii-sec68


  • Options
    #11
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,558 ✭✭✭maidhc


    gabhain7 wrote: »
    What i think the original poster is getting at is that Common Law acts in personam and Admiralty acts in rem.

    You are not surely suggesting actions in rem only apply to the law of the sea?!?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    when a birth is registered what exactly does that mean? what is the legal definition of register? is ownership given up?


  • Options
    #13
    Quaver
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Quaver


    ownership given up???

    Registering a birth is simply registering that you were born and the facts surrounding this. See:
    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/registrar_birth_marr_death


  • Options
    #14
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    Quaver wrote: »
    ownership given up???

    ya i know it sounds kinda "nurse nurse he's out of bed again" but when something is registered is title handed over?

    :confused:


  • Options
    #15
    Quaver
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Quaver


    kamana wrote: »
    ya i know it sounds kinda "nurse nurse he's out of bed again" but when something is registered is title handed over?

    :confused:

    As in registering a house/car? It's more that you register the fact that a transfer has taken place and the house is now in your name. It's the transfer itself (be it by deed, contract whatever) that hands over ownership, not the registering of the transfer.

    Seriously, where do you find this stuff?


  • Options
    #16
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    Quaver wrote: »
    As in registering a house/car? It's more that you register the fact that a transfer has taken place and the house is now in your name. It's the transfer itself (be it by deed, contract whatever) that hands over ownership, not the registering of the transfer.

    Seriously, where do you find this stuff?

    have a look at this..the music is a bit annoying though..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpqIHMdSNEs&NR=1


  • Options
    #17
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    here's a good 'un http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eehm7orZy9E&NR=1


  • Options
    #18
    Quaver
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Quaver


    kamana wrote: »
    here's a good 'un http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eehm7orZy9E&NR=1

    more suited to the Conspiracy Theories forum methinks?:p


  • Options
    #19
    windofchange
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11 ✭windofchange


    kamana wrote: »
    What is Common Law?
    It's the "law-of-the-land". And the Grand Deception starts when you do not realise the implications of the apparently insignificant word "land". And the very real difference between "the land" and "the sea". There is "law-of-the-sea". It's sometimes called Maritime Law. Or Admiralty Law, and so on. Other terms, meaning the same thing, are Civil Law, Commerce Law, Fleet Law, etc. Statutes are the "law-of-the-sea" and, if you committed the (apparent) violation on dry land, then you are only subject to the law-of-the-land. And the only "law-of-the-land" is Common Law. Statutes, passed by any Parliament, are the "law-of-the-sea"


    from Veronica Chapmans' website


    When I started reading this stuff I thought it sounded a little loopy. It goes against everything we were led to believe but if there is common law how can its protection be taken away without your consent?

    Oh dear...dear me.

    "Statutes are the "law-of-the-sea".

    Only if passed by lizards, who live in the sea. This is beyond moronic.

    The internet is ruining the world. Well, not really, but you just know some poor person may have put something like this down on an exam. Ouchy.


  • Options
    #20
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    windofchange wrote: »
    Oh dear...dear me.

    "Statutes are the "law-of-the-sea".

    Only if passed by lizards, who live in the sea. This is beyond moronic.

    The internet is ruining the world. Well, not really, but you just know some poor person may have put something like this down on an exam. Ouchy.

    to dismiss something without understanding it will lead to a lifetime of ignorance. i haven't spent very long looking into this lark but so far it seems to stand up. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7678707764082656820

    i don't think some poor person would have put it down on an exam because the law society wouldn't teach it in the first place, so they wouldn't know about it.
    i threw this into legal discussions even though i realised it would sound nuts and no-one would have heard about it but if it is loopy how come stuff like this http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1328 is happening?


  • Options
    #21
    Quaver
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Quaver


    kamana wrote: »
    to dismiss something without understanding it will lead to a lifetime of ignorance. i haven't spent very long looking into this lark but so far it seems to stand up. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7678707764082656820

    i don't think some poor person would have put it down on an exam because the law society wouldn't teach it in the first place, so they wouldn't know about it.
    i threw this into legal discussions even though i realised it would sound nuts and no-one would have heard about it but if it is loopy how come stuff like this http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1328 is happening?

    It doesn't stand up. These people are quoting laws and using literal meanings of words as they were 100+ years ago, it isn't relevant these days. It would not stand up in a courtroom, you might get away with it once for a minor offence, but would you really take that risk?

    These people are more or less arguing that we shoudldn't be bound by the law, but have they ever thought of the consequences of living in a world where everyone tried this crap?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    kamana wrote: »
    but if it is loopy how come stuff like this http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1328 is happening?

    What is the point of this. The case was remanded to Court 54. If the defendant does not attend it is likely that a warrant for his arrest will be issued,and when arrested he will be kept in custody until he can be brought before the court and asked to plead.He did not get away with anything. What will he do when he is in custody? He, according to himself, does not have a legal personality and so cannot make an Article 40 application.


  • Options
    #23
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    I think partly this thread is about legal fiction. Can anyone can tell me if a legal fiction in your name is created when your birth is registered? How can I be registered for something without my consent? If you haven't heard about it then thats fine but it's a huge question.:P


    Article 40 application.??


  • Options
    #24
    r14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    kamana wrote: »
    to dismiss something without understanding it will lead to a lifetime of ignorance. i haven't spent very long looking into this lark but so far it seems to stand up. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7678707764082656820

    Anyone who knows anything about the law is dismissing this because it is utter nonsense. We can't understand it because it makes absolutely no sense. The people who are talking about this freemen on the land stuff keep going on about laws needing the consent of the governed. Guess what you do consent to the law passed by Parliament when you vote (and if you don't vote you give up your right to complain about the laws)
    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    What is the point of this. The case was remanded to Court 54. If the defendant does not attend it is likely that a warrant for his arrest will be issued,and when arrested he will be kept in custody until he can be brought before the court and asked to plead.He did not get away with anything. What will he do when he is in custody? He, according to himself, does not have a legal personality and so cannot make an Article 40 application.

    + 1.

    That fellow who thought he scored a great victory by standing in court and arguing that he was not a person... WOW. If he fails to appear before the court that he insists he doesn't recognise he will be arrested. Refusing to recognise the jurisdiction of the court did not work for Saddam Hussein and it's not working for Karadzic. Just because you don't recognise the court doesn't mean society will let you escape without penalty. I'd love to be there the day he finds this out.

    Also since he's not really a person he can't invoke Art 40 but you can just bet he'll spout up with clause 38 of the Magna Carta:
    "No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him, except by the legal judgement of his peers or by the law of the land."

    This group seem to be getting confused about the right of habeus corpus whcih can only be denied by the law of the land. Kamana - law of the land is not mentioned here as the opposite of law of the sea. It simply means the law in force in the country which includes the Constitution and legislation, both of which have a lot more democratic legitimacy than the Magna Carta has.
    kamana wrote: »
    I think partly this thread is about legal fiction. Can anyone can tell me if a legal fiction in your name is created when your birth is registered? How can I be registered for something without my consent? If you haven't heard about it then thats fine but it's a huge question.:P

    Once again these people are confusing two issues. A person is a natural person no matter what. Your birth cert does not make you a person. You have all the rights and responsibilities of a human person upon birth. The birth cert is evidence of your birth. It is not necessary to register your birth cert in order to be a person (obviously).

    A company is a legal person (very different) and you have to get a certificate of incorporation in order for the company to legally come into existence. There is no comparable requirement for a natural person.

    No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert.

    (btw Art 40 of the Constitution is the modern basis of habeus corpus)

    Phew - rant over. Sorry for that just I watched some of those videos and the stupid things those people were saying really got on my nerves :o


  • Options
    #25
    kamana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭kamana


    r14 wrote: »
    Once again these people are confusing two issues. A person is a natural person no matter what. Your birth cert does not make you a person. You have all the rights and responsibilities of a human person upon birth. The birth cert is evidence of your birth. It is not necessary to register your birth cert in order to be a person (obviously).

    A company is a legal person (very different) and you have to get a certificate of incorporation in order for the company to legally come into existence. There is no comparable requirement for a natural person.

    No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert.

    You say that a person is a natural person no matter what but ....


    person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)
    Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

    I don't know what more evidence of a birth is needed than the existence of a man? You also said ..


    "No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert."
    I didn't register my birth cert. It was done without my consent....:rolleyes:

    Another question.What is the Law that requires people to stand in the courtroom when the judge comes in??:confused: Has it to do with jurisdiction?

    Bringing Saddam into it is a little over the top.:eek: ...The link I gave was to a lad in Dublin who declined to give a blood test or urine sample, there is no victim in that claim.

    Back to consent.....I understand that the only government in Ireland is a representative one,
    representation requires mutual consent and in the absence of mutual consent neither representaion or governance can exist.....


  • Options
    #26
    Quaver
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Quaver


    kamana wrote: »
    You say that a person is a natural person no matter what but ....


    person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)
    Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

    I don't know what more evidence of a birth is needed than the existence of a man? You also said ..


    "No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert."
    I didn't register my birth cert. It was done without my consent....:rolleyes:

    Another question.What is the Law that requires people to stand in the courtroom when the judge comes in??:confused: Has it to do with jurisdiction?

    Bringing Saddam into it is a little over the top.:eek: ...The link I gave was to a lad in Dublin who declined to give a blood test or urine sample, there is no victim in that claim.

    Back to consent.....I understand that the only government in Ireland is a representative one,
    representation requires mutual consent and in the absence of mutual consent neither representaion or governance can exist.....

    Your posts hurt my head. Instead of reading up and doing research on these "legal theories", why don't you do some research and read up on other well-established (and in my view) correct legal principles.


  • Options
    #27
    r14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    kamana wrote: »
    You say that a person is a natural person no matter what but ....

    person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)
    Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

    Natural person and a legal person are legal definitions. The definition you have given treats the two as if they are the same but they are not.

    Got this from Osborn's Law Dictionary (9th ed)
    Person: ... Persons are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being; an artificial person is a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation.

    kamana wrote: »
    "No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert."
    I didn't register my birth cert. It was done without my consent....:rolleyes:

    It was done without your consent because you were a minor and incapable of consenting. Your parents obviously got your birth certified. It is simply a a form of evidence which the State uses to ascertain who you are. Useful if you want to get things like passports etc. If you don't want your birthcert/passport feel free to get rid of it but you might find it hard to get by without the State's help when seeking to travel/open bank accounts etc.
    kamana wrote: »
    Another question.What is the Law that requires people to stand in the courtroom when the judge comes in??:confused: Has it to do with jurisdiction?

    You just have to show the judge some respect because he is a representative of the justice system of the State which administers Justice in our name.
    kamana wrote: »
    Bringing Saddam into it is a little over the top.:eek: ...The link I gave was to a lad in Dublin who declined to give a blood test or urine sample, there is no victim in that claim.

    Until the next time he drink/drug drives and kills somebody.
    kamana wrote: »
    Back to consent.....I understand that the only government in Ireland is a representative one,
    representation requires mutual consent and in the absence of mutual consent neither representaion or governance can exist.....

    You consent to the government by living in this society. As long as you use our justice system, seek our medical care and generally invoke the constitutional rights (privacy, freedom etc) that our society has decided to give you, you are a part of this society and bound by its rules.

    Feel free to head off and try to start your own country on any bit of land not already owned by someone else (Don't think there are many left though).

    You seem very interested in all this stuff so it might be a good idea to get a few books written by legal people dealing with the whole idea of the rule of law etc. I find Irish constitutional books aren't great on it but if you can get your hands on some French, British or US Constitutional books they really go into the whole theory behind government etc.


  • Options
    #28
    freefromgov
    Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭freefromgov


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    What is the point of this. The case was remanded to Court 54. If the defendant does not attend it is likely that a warrant for his arrest will be issued,and when arrested he will be kept in custody until he can be brought before the court and asked to plead.He did not get away with anything. What will he do when he is in custody? He, according to himself, does not have a legal personality and so cannot make an Article 40 application.

    Well now there Milk & Honey .......your not correct the judge was trying to remand this man ,whoever he is and he did not, this guy walked out of the court the Gardai did nothing to interfere with him...... Do you think they just forgot to take him as a prisoner on remand...?????


  • Options
    #29
    Quaver
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭Quaver


    freefromgov wrote: »
    Well now there Milk & Honey .......your not correct the judge was trying to remand this man ,whoever he is and he did not, this guy walked out of the court the Gardai did nothing to interfere with him...... Do you think they just forgot to take him as a prisoner on remand...?????

    He remanded him on bail, so the guy does get to walk free, and if he doesn't turn up in 7 days he will be arrested. He's not going to get away with refusing to take a blood/urine test because he interprets the law differently, if he doesn't like it, then move somewhere else.


  • Options
    #30
    freefromgov
    Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭freefromgov


    r14 wrote: »
    Anyone who knows anything about the law ( clearly not you )is dismissing this because it is utter nonsense( Ignorance is never a good replacement for wisdom ). We can't understand it because it makes absolutely no sense(to you perhaps, but then you don't seem to have had any cause to question). The people who are talking about this freemen on the land stuff keep going on about laws needing the consent of the governed. Guess what you do consent to the law( so do you think consent to be governed can be withdrawn ) passed by Parliament when you vote (and if you don't vote you give up your right to complain about the ( don't you mean Statutes )laws)

    You are incorrect on so many levels my friend. You do not seem to comprehend the meaning of the word consent.
    what you are describing is a catch 22 situation.....That is not consent.....
    It is not even the shadow of the word consent.....




    + 1.

    That fellow who thought he scored a great victory by standing in court and arguing(he did not argue...re-read the post) that he was not a person... WOW. If he fails to appear before the court that he insists he doesn't recognise he will be arrested. Refusing to recognise the jurisdiction of the court did not work for Saddam Hussein( actually thats not true. thats why they could not try him..thats why they had to return him.) and it's not working for Karadzic. Just because you don't recognise the court doesn't mean society will let you escape without penalty. I'd love to be there the day he finds this out( wow , thats just nasty dude).

    Also since he's not really a person he can't invoke Art 40 but you can just bet he'll spout up with clause 38 of the Magna Carta: ( yet again you are incorrect. the Magna carta was for the barrons not the peasants and debtors - re read it and you'll see )
    "No freeman (see the only freemen at the time were Barons so thats who the Magna Carta was referring to)shall be taken, or imprisoned, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him, except by the legal judgement of his peers or by the law of the land."

    This group seem to be getting confused about the right of habeus corpus whcih can only be denied by the law of the land. Kamana - law of the land is not mentioned here as the opposite of law of the sea. It simply means the law in force in the country which includes( look up the word includes in numerous law dictionarys you'll get a supprise I'll bet on it.) the Constitution( would that be the constitution of Ireland or the constitution for the land known as Ireland ) and legislation, both of which have a lot more democratic legitimacy than the Magna Carta has.



    Once again these people are confusing two issues. A person is a natural person no matter what( really !!! well yet again if you take the time to look up these words in various new and old law dictionarys. Blacks, murdocks, bouviers etc, you'll see the word person refers to a man acting in a role and it is artificial. so you cannot have an artificial natural thing so the words Natural person is a misnomer). Your birth cert does not make you a person ( about time you said something correct) ( the cert is the PERSON ). You have all the rights and responsibilities of a human person upon ( do you mean berth )birth. The birth cert is evidence of your birth. It is not necessary to register your birth cert in order to be a person (obviously).

    A company is a legal person (very different) and you have to get a certificate of incorporation in order for the company to legally come into existence. There is no comparable requirement for a natural person.

    No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert.

    (btw Art 40 of the Constitution is the modern basis of habeus corpus)

    Phew - rant over. Sorry for that just I watched some of those videos and the stupid ( you seem to be a little intollerant of others I am happy to discuss anything you wish calling people stupid is only demonstrating to all that you are incapable of having a peaceful conversation )things those people were saying really got on my nerves ( well that is not the intention of those people , Perhaps you should look into your motives for posting the way you do) :o

    Peace to you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    r14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    Conspiracy theory anyone?

    I do know quite a bit about the law and I think my interpretation is generally accepted by everyone on this site except you.

    And consent to be governed can be withdrawn. Go out and organise a campaign to bring in a new Constitution to govern the country the way you want. Don't think you'll get much support tho.

    This freeman stuff is nonsense. If you believe it that is fine but try to back your points up with some legal arguments. If you just want to make strange claims without justifying them there are other forums you can post on that might be more appropriate.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement