It's an illusion

uprising2

For anybody who doesn't know him here's a man, a carpenter, John Harris, what he has to say will open your eye's. And before anybody ask's "what's the conspiracy?", watch the video's or any other by John Harris.

More info:
http://www.tpuc.org/

http://freemanireland.ning.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DX7ZI7S60w

magma69

You should really elaborate on what this guy talks about and your thoughts on it before you expect people to watch the whole 100 minutes or so.

uprising2

magma69 wrote: »

You should really elaborate on what this guy talks about and your thoughts on it before you expect people to watch the whole 100 minutes or so.

well maybe watch the first video, and if you want watch the second.

The state has no autority over us as human beings, we cannot break common law, but all the rest are "acts", same as theater, except we are duped into believing we are bound by them, when in fact we must consent, legalese, the language they use is not plain english, when a judge asks "do you understand me?", what he is actually saying is "do you stand under me".

Its 4:24am, I'll get back tomorrow and discuss it a little bit more.

Here this will take up 1:20 minutes of your time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E8zowJOtM8

theg81der

Yea very cool I`m always trying to tell people this. People get so caught up in all this stuff but if you look at whats really important and what we actually "know" its not alot. Sometimes I think all the stuff just keeps us from having to ask the important question, maybe the ones we don`t want to address.

Although I kind of exist within the system, for my own benefit of course, I`ve always felt a wee bit outside the bubble, looking at other people running around and wondering where they think they`re running to?

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

And before anybody ask's "what's the conspiracy?", watch the video's or any other by John Harris.

You don't get to define the conditions on which moderators get to ask that question.

If you're not willing to explain the relevancy, you're only showing that you have no interest in discussing the topic. If thats the case, then you shouldn't be starting a thread on it.

If you are interested in discussing the topic, then the topic is what is relevant...regardless of whether or not someone has watched your choice of source material.

uprising2

bonkey wrote: »

You don't get to define the conditions on which moderators get to ask that question.

If you're not willing to explain the relevancy, you're only showing that you have no interest in discussing the topic. If thats the case, then you shouldn't be starting a thread on it.

If you are interested in discussing the topic, then the topic is what is relevant...regardless of whether or not someone has watched your choice of source material.

I covered it a little in post 3, I certainly am willling to discuss it, but at 4am I put it up for those who may be interested to watch if they so wish and I'd be back today to discuss it, its a very complicated subject.
In its most basic form, all these acts, road traffic act, etc are not actual laws, they are contracts and a person must enter into a contract for these to apply, theres a difference between a human being and a person in law, but most people dont know this, when you register your child, you actually hand ownership of your child to the state.
In the 50's when all the young boys were sent to Dangan etc for mitching from school by the state, how many of the travelling community went to Dangan?
Lawful and legal are also two totally different meanings in the language of the law society.
I have to go out now for a couple of hours, but when I come back I'll be more than happy to discuss anything and everything here.

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

I covered it a little in post 3,

My bad. I should have made it clear that my objection was limited to what you stated in your original post....or perhaps how you stated it.

You did, indeed, clear it up in post 3.

uprising2

bonkey wrote: »

My bad. I should have made it clear that my objection was limited to what you stated in your original post....or perhaps how you stated it.

You did, indeed, clear it up in post 3.

Sorry Bonkey, I should have used my word's a little better in post 1, so my bad a little too.
But anybody that is interested will watch video 1 and decide whether to click video 2 and so on.

It's an interesting subject that people should grasp the very basics of before entering a serious discussion about. But it goes back to magna carta (or even Brehon Law) and up until now, people have applied the right words in court and given the judge no autorithy over them.
The only real law we must abide by is common law or natural law, meaning we may not harm, steal or otherwise injure another party, the rest is an illusion that we percieve as real, when it is in fact not.
We the people are not supposed to know these things, judges have ran away from it in court, people have not paid debts, lawfully, using these principles and standing up to an illusion that decided they are our masters, when in fact we have no masters, we can be freemen.

Here's a guide, with some interesting pieces.
http://www.tnsradio.com/freemanguide.pdf

EDIT:
Ohh and uprising2 is the same human being as uprising, uprising died in the hack, so if you can do some surgery and rejoin us it would be great, I can't remeber what email I used to join up first, if not not worries.

theg81der

Uprising I`ve also wondered how this is effected by Lisbon . Any thougts?

constance tench

Bunreacht na hÉireann


AIRTEAGAL 41.1.1

Admhaíonn an Stát gurb é an Teaghlach is buíon-aonad
príomha bunaidh don chomhdhaonnacht de réir nádúir,
agus gur foras morálta é ag a bhfuil cearta doshannta
dochloíte is ársa agus is airde ná aon reacht daonna.

The Constitution of Ireland

[LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

ARTICLE 41.1.1

The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary
group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it
is a moral institution which has inalienable, invincible rights
which are more ancient and higher than any human statute.

[‘Inalienability’ is defined as ‘not transferable’ in Henry Murdoch, A Dictionary of Irish Law]

IrelandSpirit

constance tench wrote: »

Bunreacht na hÉireann


AIRTEAGAL 41.1.1

Admhaíonn an Stát gurb é an Teaghlach is buíon-aonad
príomha bunaidh don chomhdhaonnacht de réir nádúir,
agus gur foras morálta é ag a bhfuil cearta doshannta
dochloíte is ársa agus is airde ná aon reacht daonna.

The Constitution of Ireland

[LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

ARTICLE 41.1.1

The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary
group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it
is a moral institution which has inalienable, invincible rights
which are more ancient and higher than any human statute.

[‘Inalienability’ is defined as ‘not transferable’ in Henry Murdoch, A Dictionary of Irish Law]

Constance tench, as regards the above article, I wonder if you can help me with something - it suddenly struck me just now, shouldn't the 'society' it refers to at least be named?

... I admit it's nit-picking and I'm writing this in haste but since looking into all this for a few years now if there's one thing I've learnt it is to be highly suspicious of everything legal and take nothing on faith. Absolutely nothing.

We know the legal definition of society refers to 'persons' - i.e. corporate fictions:

"A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose."

So are we to take it as a matter of faith that the 'society' it refers to is us, 'we the people' as living breathing souls, and not some corporate legal fiction such as the Law Society, or does the phrase 'according to nature' perhaps place said 'society' (whoever or whatever that may be) under lawful standing as opposed to legal...

Actually, that's reminded me of something John Harris said about all this 'society' business:


"The simple truth is we have all been fooled for a very long time and it’s not just us. The disease this country and many others are infected with is one of simplicity; to maintain a ‘society’ to benefit the social dominant members and to maintain these members always have dominance. This has been repeated in history many times, in many different countries, but always ultimately for the same goal: to create ‘society’"

For who (or what) was the constitution written?

constance tench

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

We know the legal definition of society refers to 'persons' - i.e. corporate fictions:

"A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose."

So are we to take it as a matter of faith that the 'society' it refers to is us, 'we the people' as living breathing souls, and not some corporate legal fiction such as the Law Society, or does the phrase 'according to nature' perhaps place said 'society' (whoever or whatever that may be) under lawful standing as opposed to legal...


For who (or what) was the constitution written?

Hello IrelandSpirit!

We can take it as an acknowlegement that we exist in truth without/outside the State

For who (or what) was the constitution written?

CONSTITUTOR, civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another.

Maxims
________________

Cujusque rei potissima pars principium est. The principal part of everything is the beginning.

Contrà negantem principia non est disputandum. There is no disputing against or denying principles.

Legitime imperanti parere necesse est. One who commands lawfully must be obeyed.

Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.

Contractus legem ex conventione accipiunt. The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract.

---

Fraus latet in generalibus. Fraud lies hid in general expressions.

IrelandSpirit

constance tench wrote: »

Hello IrelandSpirit!

We can take it as an acknowlegement that we exist in truth without/outside the State

Yes, we can indeed take it as an acknowledgement that we exist in truth without/outside the State - the State is a fiction, we are real living breathing souls.

Algernon

I have watched 10mins of waffle. What is he talking about? Why don't you give us the gist?

squod

Algernon wrote: »

I have watched 10mins of waffle. What is he talking about? Why don't you give us the gist?

Common law. I'd be supprised if there's a person who doesn't know what he's talking about. How about watching the long version?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6526777574574871930&hl=en&emb=1#

Podman

Algernon wrote: »

I have watched 10mins of waffle. What is he talking about? Why don't you give us the gist?

There is a very good pdf file about this, linked at the bottom of post #8

Algernon

squod wrote: »

Common law. I'd be supprised if there's a person who doesn't know what he's talking about. How about watching the long version?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6526777574574871930&hl=en&emb=1#

Because I believe that argument through video is lazy and arrogant. You got something to say? Say it yourself.

bonkey

Algernon wrote: »

Because I believe that argument through video is lazy and arrogant. You got something to say? Say it yourself.

A bit more civility wouldn't go astray.

IrelandSpirit

Algernon wrote: »

I have watched 10mins of waffle. What is he talking about? Why don't you give us the gist?

In all fairness, why this lack of comprehension exists at all is a conspiracy in itself. I mean that with all due respect, I was the same for years even though deep down I knew there was something very wrong with my perspective.

We're all conditioned into believing lawful and legal mean the same, that our rights are our privileges and benefits etc. They are not necessarily the same things at all. There is a sea of difference between our (lawful) rights and (legal) privileges. Our rights are unalienable gifts. We are born with them. Whether or not we exercise them whilst alive is another matter - as Mandela said, if you don't know your rights you don't have any. But benefits and privileges are not unalienable, we apply ('beg') for them, and can be revoked at any time by whomever bestows said privileges.

You can't beg for a gift, that's an oxymoron. In a sense, when you apply for a right, you lose it.

We've the right to travel where we please, as opposed to applying ('begging)' for the privilege. The right to enter into commerce when we please, as opposed to applying ('begging)' for the privilege. The right to marry who we please, as opposed to applying ('begging)' for the privilege, and so on and so on - we don't need a licence to exist, nor to do the things we need to continue our existence. We all have the right to live this life as our life, in truth and freedom; and there is no legal or lawful way anybody can force us do anything without our freely-given consent - afterall, that is the mark of tyranny and we're not living under tyranny, are we?

Living in freedom doesn't mean being irresponsible. It doesn't mean going around stealing and hurting others and committing crime. If there is a victim, someone who has suffered harm or loss as the direct result of our actions, then lawfully we are required to provide a remedy but there had to be a real, living victim in the first place - as opposed to going to prison over some (legal) fantasy like an out of date TV license - can you have a victimless crime, or is that another oxymoron?

Well then, 'no contract - return to sender.'

As a rough rule of thumb perhaps, think of lawful as referring to the real world of living things that you are born into = Unalienable, alive, tangible. And legal as referring to a fantasy world, a role-playing game that you buy into = Alienable, dead, fiction.

For me, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with entertaining fantasy, with freely-given consent, and obviously full disclosure...

In short, be who you want, harm none.



I hope that helps.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

There is a sea of difference between our (lawful) rights and (legal) privileges. Our rights are unalienable gifts. We are born with them.

If I decide its my lawful right to do something, and you disagree....who is right?

The philosophical notion of an inalienable right that we are born with is nice, but the practical reality is that no such thing exists in the absence of a societal contract...a legal framework which recognises these rights.

In effect, lawful rights only exist inside a legal system which recognises them, as opposed to being independant of same. Even the system you describe yourself is a legal system, as it is itself a societal contract. Without such a societal contract, it becomes "each of us decides what is lawful for ourselves", which effectively robs the notion of any consistent meaning.

If there is a victim, someone who has suffered harm or loss as the direct result of our actions, then lawfully we are required to provide a remedy but there had to be a real, living victim in the first place - as opposed to going to prison over some (legal) fantasy like an out of date TV license - can you have a victimless crime, or is that another oxymoron?

It is only a victimless crime if you argue because there isn't a direct victim there isn't any victim at all.

If you follow that path, then a reprehensible action like burning down a family's house isn't a crime as long as they're not in it.The house can't be a victim, and the family who is now without somewhere to live can't be the victim, as they were only indirectly effected.

Once we allow indirect victims, then your example of non-payment for services provided does have a victim...namely those who indirectly suffer a loss because you have not paid what you should.

As a rough rule of thumb perhaps, think of lawful as referring to the real world of living things that you are born into = Unalienable, alive, tangible. And legal as referring to a fantasy world, a role-playing game that you buy into = Alienable, dead, fiction.

Its interesting that you define legal as "fantasy", when lawful is the one that can have no definition save that which we choose to make up for ourselves.

Gavin Cotter

bonkey wrote: »

If I decide its my lawful right to do something, and you disagree....who is right?

The philosophical notion of an inalienable right that we are born with is nice, but the practical reality is that no such thing exists in the absence of a societal contract...a legal framework which recognises these rights.

In effect, lawful rights only exist inside a legal system which recognises them, as opposed to being independant of same. Even the system you describe yourself is a legal system, as it is itself a societal contract. Without such a societal contract, it becomes "each of us decides what is lawful for ourselves", which effectively robs the notion of any consistent meaning.


It is only a victimless crime if you argue because there isn't a direct victim there isn't any victim at all.

If you follow that path, then a reprehensible action like burning down a family's house isn't a crime as long as they're not in it.The house can't be a victim, and the family who is now without somewhere to live can't be the victim, as they were only indirectly effected.

Once we allow indirect victims, then your example of non-payment for services provided does have a victim...namely those who indirectly suffer a loss because you have not paid what you should.


[/SIZE]
Its interesting that you define legal as "fantasy", when lawful is the one that can have no definition save that which we choose to make up for ourselves.

Your very lazy to not have watched the videos posted and then your trying to argue a point.Does that not seem silly to you?

If you follow that path, then a reprehensible action like burning down a family's house isn't a crime as long as they're not in it.The house can't be a victim, and the family who is now without somewhere to live can't be the victim, as they were only indirectly effected.

Your causing someone loss.

bonkey

Gavin Cotter wrote: »

Your very lazy to not have watched the videos posted and then your trying to argue a point.Does that not seem silly to you?

I'm engaging another poster in discussion on the points that they raised. A video can't engage in discussion with me.

If my line of reasoning is flawed, then someone who has watched the video can engage in discussion and tell me why. If the video is that good, then having watched it will give them an insurmountable advantage. They may actually give me an incentive to watch the video. Being told I'm lazy for wanting to actually discuss a topic isn't such an incentive, to be honest. Maybe it is for others, but not for me.

Your causing someone loss.

Yes, I accept that I am. Similarly, not paying a TV license causes someone loss. It may be a small loss, divided across a larger number of people, but that doesn't change the fact that its a loss. Imagine if no-one paid their TV licenses...there would be large numbers of people suffering a loss as a direct result. As a simple example, the orchestras who are funded from license revenue could no longer be funded, and thus the members of the orchestra would suffer a direct loss.

Now, of course, one person not paying their license won't cause this....but now we're just dickering over scale...that a loss only counts as a loss once some notional threshold is crossed. Where is this threshold defined? It can only be defined in a consensual, societal framework...a legal system.

Taking the reasoning in a slightly different direction, one also has to recognise that the notion of punishment is legal, not lawful. There is no natural, inherent punishment defined....any more than there is any meaningful definition of inherent lawful rights. They are, again, a consensual concept....a legal system. If I cause harm to someone else, I need only reject the legal framework which says I can be punished for it, and I must be free. Even if I were to accept that I had violated someone elses lawful rights...there is no lawful punishment, only legal. Thus, it again comes consensual.

Getting back to the forum-relevant line of reasoning...the inescapable conclusion must be that if the current system is a conspiracy to fool us into consensual acquiesence, so must the concepts John Harris be a conspiracy. People are conspiring to make us believe that we should acept the system that Harris believes in, just as people are conspiring to make us believe that we should believe the established system.

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

If I decide its my lawful right to do something, and you disagree....who is right?

If you decide its your lawful right to do something, and it does not infringe on my unalienable rights or the lawful rights of others, how can I disagree?

No harm done, no crime, knock yourself out doing whatever you choose to do.

The philosophical notion of an inalienable right that we are born with is nice, but the practical reality is that no such thing exists in the absence of a societal contract...a legal framework which recognises these rights.

In effect, lawful rights only exist inside a legal system which recognises them, as opposed to being independant of same. Even the system you describe yourself is a legal system, as it is itself a societal contract. Without such a societal contract, it becomes "each of us decides what is lawful for ourselves", which effectively robs the notion of any consistent meaning.

Hmmm, it's the other way around: Lawful rights are for real living souls with a mind, it is we who operate in the real world. The legal world is for dead fictional 'mindless' entities like corporations and tv licenses.

Which is the higher order of importance, the creator or the creation?

A vessel (person/corporation) cannot navigate (do business) on the sea (world of commerce) without a captain (a mind) at the helm.
Similarly, our unalienable right to choose the way we live, by mutual consent, gives the force of law to the entire legal system. Not the other way around. We are free to withdraw our consent to be governed (stop role-playing in the game) any time we wish. Anything less is tyranny.

And remember, we set up governments to protect our rights, not grant them. They're not there to grant us anything either. We created them, they did not create us.


Interesting that word again, you use the word inalienable rather than unalienable too...

We know that the Irish constitution translated into English uses it, and there might be an exemption, but to my mind these are two very different things and we need to be careful which one we use. Careful in the legal sense, not in the lawful. When talking about unalienable rights it's pretty clear (to me) that it's the word we normally use in everyday speech - for example, I cannot buy another human being because they have an unalienable right to their life/body and freedom, and neither can another buy me. I cannot surrender, sell or transfer my unalienable rights to anybody. They are as much a gift of life as life itself. Everyone has unalienable rights from birth, and under no circumstances can they be lawfully taken away.

Inalienable is a far trickier word because that appears to operate exclusively in the legal world of commerce. Perhaps someone can correct me on this, but 'persons' i.e. legal fictions, corporations, have inalienable rights, which is why I think most countries' (another 'person') constitutions (hopefully not Ireland's) only recognise inalienable rights and not unalienable rights... ?

Either way, in the legal (fictional) world you can surrender, sell or transfer just about anything, even property on the moon, and that's where things can run amok into corporate fantasy, or nightmare. Slavery existed legally (not lawfully) because governments did not recognise the unalienable rights of all individuals. Unalienable rights are inherent in the world of man, and do not belong in the world of commerce – obviously.

In essence then, you, or rather your 'person' can be sold, surrendered and transferred as the State ('person') wishes or deems fit. It's legal, not necessarily lawful. But if you consent to identify with that person (legal fiction) you are bound by the conditions of the world (legal fiction) in which it operates.

It's a bit like role-playing in a game where nobody told us we're role-playing and we end up believing it's real. Or perhaps a bit like when we sign up (register) to post here... we've our monikers (persons) to discuss (do business) under the rules (legislature) of boards.ie. and sometimes we go nuts with each other but can't say things like ****ing ****, for example. Other sites operate under different posting rules where you can swear and all sorts, but in the same way a rule for a website is not a law in the real world, an act or statute is not a law either.

Lawful - real living soul with mind.

Legal - fictional dead mindless entity.

It is only a victimless crime if you argue because there isn't a direct victim there isn't any victim at all.

If you follow that path, then a reprehensible action like burning down a family's house isn't a crime as long as they're not in it.The house can't be a victim, and the family who is now without somewhere to live can't be the victim, as they were only indirectly effected.

Once we allow indirect victims, then your example of non-payment for services provided does have a victim...namely those who indirectly suffer a loss because you have not paid what you should.

Bonkey, if you burn someone's house down there is a victim because they have suffered the loss of their home, regardless of whether they were in it or not.

Non-payment of services is one thing - I'm not arguing that if someone actually does something for me I would not pay them. But I have had people trying to argue that if someone doesn't pay for their tv licence then the State is out of pocket, and indirectly us, and yet fail to recognise that putting people in prison is thousands of times more costly in every sense of the word - never mind that it's inhumane to take someone's freedom away just because they can't afford a piece of paper and that a licence to operate a tv is a ridiculous notion anyway... please don't get me started!

Its interesting that you define legal as "fantasy", when lawful is the one that can have no definition save that which we choose to make up for ourselves.

No definition...? Well, again it really is the other way around in my mind. We can see how legal definitions create nightmares such as slavery and causes untold pain and suffering. Operating under lawful conditions that would not be possible. Our right to live life the way we choose is not something 'we made up' - freedom is inherent within all individuals, happiness, respect love is inherent within all individuals - and claiming the right to create the conditions for these things to flourish, for ourselves and others, is perhaps a good definition of lawful to have ... if we need a definition for common sense, at least that's where I'd start.

uprising2

Ok a few links to help people grasp this a little better:

The magna carta, an ancient document,
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/index.html

Only three of the original clauses in Magna Carta are still law,
but the third is the most famous:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/basics/basics.html

Now think of us as:The villeins,
Most of the population of thirteenth-century England were unfree peasants called villeins.They were bound to their lord in a close, restrictive, tenurial tie which they were not free to break.
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/people/villeins.html

Here's the people the magna carta era:
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/people/index.html
(notice the hand sign of the freeman)

Freemen: Although Magna Carta focused primarily on the interests of the barons, a significant proportion of its clauses dealt with all free men, from the barons, through the knights, down to the free peasantry. The most famous clause, providing protection against arbitrary imprisonment and the seizure of property by the king, applied to all free men.
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/people/free.html


Why is Magna Carta important?

Magna Carta was the first grant by an English king to set detailed limits on royal authority. Through its statement of liberties, it sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power in arbitrary ways and it made clear that the king was subject to the law, not above it.
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/basics/basics.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUVnpe8uffs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Charter_of_Ireland
Irish magna carta

Now it should be clear from that, that's its preferable to be a freeman than a villein, now I know this is 12 o splash stuff but it's still around today and is relevant, and with careful study, a little walk through history, you realise how we got to where we are today.
I dont have the right to walk outside, see some human who is doing no harm and control him, expect him to obey my command I am not his master and he is not my subject, now I am not saying we should be lawless, if I go out and see somebody punch an old lady and steal her handbag my inner judgement would tell me this person needs severe punishment for such a callous act, and should get it, now a person who steals, should not steal, but if that person is stealing out of desperation and need for food or basics of life, that person has a right to life, and punishment should be fair and measured.


We are controlled without realising, and some are happy to be controlled, it's easier to hand your safety over to authority, and let them deal with it, play by their rules even when it disrupts your God given rights.

I want to live in peace with my fellow humans, I also want choice over my actions.

Since I was a child I always knew "this is not the way its supposed to be", I couldnt understand while looking at the famine in Ethiopa in 1985, live aid etc, why doesn't anybody go get them and bring them here, help them, I was horrified when I found out the price of a few bombs would feed all the starving people, America, the great country that saves the world as i was led to believe, why didn't they just make a few less bombs and help the starving people, i just couldn't get it, the world was so unfair, wars and bombings, why can't people live in peace?

Then I woke up and realised this is the way the want it, our masters, our controllers, the slave drivers, and they haven't went away.

Edit:
There are lots of good post's here, but I cant show my thanks. So thank you!

uprising2

The Brehon Laws
The beginning of the 17th Century saw English law and rule prevail in Ireland and the Irish laws outlawed and declared barbarous. These "barbarous" laws had been what had kept the English from implanting its feudal system in Ireland and from completing its conquest of Ireland for four centuries. These ancient "barbarous" laws of Ireland have since been recognized as the most advanced system of jurisprudence in the ancient world, a system under which the doctrine of the equality of man was understood and under which a deeply humane and cultured society flourished.

The democracy of these laws is shown in dozens of ways. For example, a king carrying building material to his castle had the same and only the same claim for right of way as the miller carrying material to build his mill; the poorest man in the land could compel payment of a debt from a noble or could levy a distress upon the king himself; the man who stole the needle of a poor embroidery woman was compelled to pay a far higher fine than the man who stole the queen's needle.

The Irish law expected most from those who had received the most from God. For example, a member of the clergy might be fined double that of a lay person for the same offense.

In ancient Ireland, under Brehon Law, the lowest clansman stood on an equal footing with his chieftain.
http://www.irish-society.org/Hedgemaster%20Archives/brehon_laws.htm

Brehon Law

Despite the Roman and subsequently Anglo-Norman and English descriptions of the Celts as a bunch of lawless barbarians the Celts owned one of the oldest and perhaps most humane collection of laws in Europe. These laws are commonly known as the Brehon Law, a name derived from the Gaelic breitheamh, meaning judge or probably more accurate arbitrator. The real, but rarely used, name of this law system is Feineachas, which is usually translated as Laws of the Freemen.
http://www.triskelle.eu/history/brehonlaw.php?index=060.030.020

IrelandSpirit

uprising2 wrote: »

The Brehon Laws
The beginning of the 17th Century saw English law and rule prevail in Ireland and the Irish laws outlawed and declared barbarous. These "barbarous" laws had been what had kept the English from implanting its feudal system in Ireland and from completing its conquest of Ireland for four centuries. These ancient "barbarous" laws of Ireland have since been recognized as the most advanced system of jurisprudence in the ancient world, a system under which the doctrine of the equality of man was understood and under which a deeply humane and cultured society flourished.

The democracy of these laws is shown in dozens of ways. For example, a king carrying building material to his castle had the same and only the same claim for right of way as the miller carrying material to build his mill; the poorest man in the land could compel payment of a debt from a noble or could levy a distress upon the king himself; the man who stole the needle of a poor embroidery woman was compelled to pay a far higher fine than the man who stole the queen's needle.

The Irish law expected most from those who had received the most from God. For example, a member of the clergy might be fined double that of a lay person for the same offense.

In ancient Ireland, under Brehon Law, the lowest clansman stood on an equal footing with his chieftain.
http://www.irish-society.org/Hedgemaster%20Archives/brehon_laws.htm

Brehon Law

Despite the Roman and subsequently Anglo-Norman and English descriptions of the Celts as a bunch of lawless barbarians the Celts owned one of the oldest and perhaps most humane collection of laws in Europe. These laws are commonly known as the Brehon Law, a name derived from the Gaelic breitheamh, meaning judge or probably more accurate arbitrator. The real, but rarely used, name of this law system is Feineachas, which is usually translated as Laws of the Freemen.
http://www.triskelle.eu/history/brehonlaw.php?index=060.030.020

Ha! I just this minute finished reading that freeman-on-the-land thread in 'legal discussion', but the thread was closed; it was deemed 'unsuitable' there because 'the forum charter now bans "Brehon lawyers" or other such wacky ways' - seriously! lol. Wacky ways! Well anyway, I found that funny just now getting to the end of the discussion but actually on second thought it's not that funny...

Then again, rules are rules, we're under boards' jurisdiction through our consent after all.

constance tench

The birth cert/person is similar/equal to the token in the game of
monopoly (move your 'man')

One does not 'own' ones legal name/person or title, Mr Mrs Ms (Messers/ship-mates)
or anything that is done in/through the legal name, one holds an interest.. 'my car' 'my savings account'
which, in effect stops the 'money' from being returned to the game.

there are many who accept other titles/fictions such as 'the consumer'
'the tax payer' etc..accept the title *as you.. loose your rights/responsibilities (response ability)

so are you a man/woman?..or a 'consumer'?
are you a woman/man?..or a 'tax-payer'?

now if all of us knew this, what would we have??
.....Equity.

uprising2

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Ha! I just this minute finished reading that freeman-on-the-land thread in 'legal discussion', but the thread was closed; it was deemed 'unsuitable' there because 'the forum charter now bans "Brehon lawyers" or other such wacky ways' - seriously! lol. Wacky ways! Well anyway, I found that funny just now getting to the end of the discussion but actually on second thought it's not that funny...

Then again, rules are rules, we're under boards' jurisdiction through our consent after all.

I didn't even realise there was a thread, just read the last post, but I don't normally frequent them quackery forums.

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

Taking the reasoning in a slightly different direction, one also has to recognise that the notion of punishment is legal, not lawful. There is no natural, inherent punishment defined....any more than there is any meaningful definition of inherent lawful rights. They are, again, a consensual concept....a legal system. If I cause harm to someone else, I need only reject the legal framework which says I can be punished for it, and I must be free. Even if I were to accept that I had violated someone elses lawful rights...there is no lawful punishment, only legal. Thus, it again comes consensual.

Getting back to the forum-relevant line of reasoning...the inescapable conclusion must be that if the current system is a conspiracy to fool us into consensual acquiesence, so must the concepts John Harris be a conspiracy. People are conspiring to make us believe that we should acept the system that Harris believes in, just as people are conspiring to make us believe that we should believe the established system.

Firstly, the conspiracy angle. I hear what you're saying. Although i don't think he's out to intentionally fool anybody, I wouldn't put my faith in everything John Harris says - they are very much his truths, not necessarily mine - albeit they do to a large extent concur at present.

Similarly, I wouldn't say that the current system is a conspiracy to fool us into consensual acquiescence, not just because it appears set up for control and monitory gain - it is only a system, human beings created it, and it is dead in the water without humans at the helm. It depends who is at the helm and what their intentions are. At present they're finning and locking people up over trivia, victimless crimes - whereas bankers and real criminals are being rewarded and getting away scot-free - people are doing this, not the system. I think the legal system could work fairly, for all of us, if we all remember who we are within it, what our standing is, and ever reclaimed it.

Possible, but not likely, imo, the way things are going...

Could you reject the legal framework which says you can be punished for causing harm or loss? I dunno, probably if you do not create joinder or contract. Not as simple as it sounds, there are numerous 'traps' lets call them when dealing with legalese - but you would not escape the lawful framework anyway because harming someone violates their unalienable rights - it is a crime. If you cause harm to someone else, you need to provide the remedy. Always.

Lawful punishment? Under common law that means a financial remedy or jail or even your death at one time depending on the nature of the harm, which is not something I would agree with, but under Brehon Law (where the death penalty does not exist) perhaps you'd serve your time in servitude to the individual you'd harmed, working off your debt or any number of things to level the score, again depending on the nature of the crime.

Put it this way, if someone broke into your house and stole your property, wouldn't you rather have them do something for you, pay their debt to you the victim rather than locking them up in prison to pay their debt to society - whoever that is. Well I know what I'd prefer, but as uprising says, 'if that person is stealing out of desperation and need for food or basics of life, that person has a right to life, and punishment should be fair and measured.'

Well said, that..

There is no sane reason why we can't all have everything we need - the world produces 10 times what it needs, only to have it sold back at us at 10 times what it costs to produce. And then we chuck most of it away - have a look around the back of your local supermarket.

Anyway, as I've said before, I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with entertaining fantasy, as long as we know that's what we're doing and that we are free to get out when we want - there is a real world out there too.

With my bed in it somewhere... good night.

uprising2

Brehon Law

Brehon Law is the ancient and True Law of Ireland. It has been around for as long as we have and dates back

thousands of years. Brehon Law is one of the world’s oldest systems of Law next to the ancient Vedic Laws of
India. Brehon Law existed up and until the 1700’s when it was stamped out by a foreign intruder and the
heavily oppressive Penal Laws they introduced. When Ireland gained her Independence, for some reason we
decided to keep the British Legal and Financial systems which are still in force today.
During the Brehon Law system there was No Police Force, No Capital Punishment and No Judicial System as
we know it today. These were ‘unnecessary’ institutions to the Peaceful inhabitants of the Land. Brehon Law
is the Law of Man and is in many ways superior to Common Law. Common Law is in actuality a foreign
jurisdiction and you have a Right to claim Brehon Law! Further study is encouraged and resources can be

found at end of booklet.

http://www.tnsradio.com/freemanguide.pdf

IrelandSpirit

uprising2 wrote: »

I didn't even realise there was a thread, just read the last post, but I don't normally frequent them quackery forums.

Hahaha! ... nice one

uprising2

Algernon wrote: »

Because I believe that argument through video is lazy and arrogant. You got something to say? Say it yourself.

You got anything to say now that there's a few pages of less lazy and arrogant content?, You get the gist yet?, anything to say yourself?

Mahatma coat

Thats an interestin thread in Legal Discussions

Typical response from the 'establishment' Deny everything and Ban anyone that questions it.

I can 'Anecdotaly' confirm the name thing too, I've utilised that technique to walk off scott free a few times.

Mahatma coat

Lads ther is another route,

Build yerself a proper strawman corporation

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Firstly, the conspiracy angle. I hear what you're saying.

Well...if I'm understanding your response, what you're saying is that neither the current system nor Harris' proposed systems constitute conspiracies.

At that point, I have to put my mod hat back on and ask what is the forum-relevant angle?

I'm aware of the points made about the Legal forum, but I'm not so comfortable with the notion that this form becomes the catchall for everything that's considered "too wacky" for somewhere else.

people are doing this, not the system.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Here's the thing though...if the people are the problem, how will changing the system do anything? The people remain the problem. In any new system, there will be those who set out to turn it to their advantage, just as there are those who have done so in the current system.

Lawful punishment? Under common law that means a financial remedy or jail or even your death at one time depending on the nature of the harm, which is not something I would agree with, but under Brehon Law (where the death penalty does not exist) perhaps you'd serve your time in servitude to the individual you'd harmed, working off your debt or any number of things to level the score, again depending on the nature of the crime.

But "common law" and "Breton law" are both systems. Thus, it is not lawful punishment, but legal....they are punishments defined by a system.

The distinction, perhaps, is that Harris (and his supporters) see a close correlation between a legal system such as Brehon law and what he (they) consider to be lawful rights.

Put it this way, if someone broke into your house and stole your property, wouldn't you rather have them do something for you, pay their debt to you the victim rather than locking them up in prison to pay their debt to society - whoever that is.

I'm not trying to argue that teh current system is ideal, nor suggest that I have an idea of what a better system would be. I'm trying to point out that the notion of punishment belongs to a system of law. Thus, it is a legal concept....and yet Harris' argument (as initially presented in this thread) was about putting the concept of "lawful" above the concept of "legal".

There is no sane reason why we can't all have everything we need - the world produces 10 times what it needs, only to have it sold back at us at 10 times what it costs to produce. And then we chuck most of it away - have a look around the back of your local supermarket.

I guess it depends on what you define as need. We, in Europe, take something like 5-8 times our fair share of production. If we combine that with your figure of world production being 10 times need, we end up in a situation where the average Joe Bloggs living in Europe is taking more than 50 times what he needs.

Now...while you may believe that there is no sane reason we can't all have what we need, trying telling people that sanity means giving up between 80 and 98% (four fifths, to reduce to a fair share, or 49 fiftieths to reduce to what we need) of all they consume in their lives and I'm not entirely sure you'll meet with widespread agreement. And remember...I'm not talking about the fat cats here. I'm talking about the average person from a statistical viewpoint. Anyone with a decent job....above average...needs to give up more. Maybe 99%...maybe more.

I'm not saying, incidentally, that its wrong....just that if we define sanity as making the morally right and fair choices for humanity, its fair to say that humanity is and always has been insane.

Mahatma coat

OK, in that particular video Harris does ramble on for a fair bit about tangents, but the key premise if I'm readin it right is that, a shadowy group have conspired to dupe the population into this system for their benefit, the system has been building for a long time, they have over many generations gotten the population to play along, and slowly but surely created the system we are presented with today, where our courts are more concerned with revenue collection than justice and that revenue itself is based on another con trick.





harris and the rest of the freeman organisation just want to get the word out there, and it


This world you accept as reality is being manipulated to keep you enslaved, We are free.
its whether people will actually grasp the concept of what Free actually means thats interestin

Undergod

Sorry, tried to write this up last night but library colosed before I was finished, so I may be a page or so behind.

uprising2 wrote: »

Here's a guide, with some interesting pieces.
http://www.tnsradio.com/freemanguide.pdf

Okay so it starts off by saying money is not backed by any gold or anything of fixed value. This is a terrible idea, because it means gold or whatever must be constantly mined, and it's a finite resource. I'm sure there are other reasons people more knowledgeable on the subject could expand on.

It claims that we become the commodity, when in fact their argument is saying "the taxes that we pay are as good as anyone else's money to trade upon". Frankly, I'm okay with that.

Then it declares that supreme authority comes from god. Wow. Great step backwards, freemen movement. What about anyone who doesn't believe in God, or who don't acknowledge a supreme creator of the universe, or have any one of many different objections to the notion? No place for them in the freemen movement? I could make a snarky comment about Freemasonry parallels here, but I'll let you think up your own.

Brehon law? Are you for real? Brehon Law, with an enforced class system and a monarchy? Over a representative democracy, however flawed and ****ty it is? And over right to trail before a jury of your peers? Seriously?

It is important to point out that ‘COURT SERVICES’, ‘DUBLIN CIRCUIT COURT’ and ‘THE LAW
SOCIETY OF IRELAND’ are all registered companies trading for profit. (This can be verified by going
to www.smallbusiness.dnb.com).

I was unable to verify this.

Remember...
• This is not a way to break the law and get away with it.

Sure sounds like it.

• It is a real opportunity to take responsibility for yourself and your actions and claim your independence as a Sovereign Man or Woman.

Skipping on a bus or train fare is taking responsibility?
Wonderful, fabulous goals that I honestly do support are being outlined here, but the methods of acheiving them are weak.

• Right now we are living in virtual tax and debt Slavery. Most of us working jobs we don’t like, paying tax to clear a debt we are not responsible for that only exists if we believe it does.

Or, y'know, paying tax because that's part of the social contract we are involved in, and it pays for education and healthcare and maintaining infrastructure and water treatment and sewerage treatment and keeping murderers and rapists in jail. There's that too.

• This is a true path to Freedom

I remain unconvinced.


Edit: More on the Brehon Law thing.

Brehon Law
Brehon Law is the ancient and True Law of Ireland. It has been around for as long as we have and dates back thousands of years. Brehon Law is one of the world’s oldest systems of Law next to the ancient Vedic Laws of India. Brehon Law existed up and until the 1700’s when it was stamped out by a foreign intruder and the heavily oppressive Penal Laws they introduced. When Ireland gained her Independence, for some reason we decided to keep the British Legal and Financial systems which are still in force today.
During the Brehon Law system there was No Police Force, No Capital Punishment and No Judicial System as we know it today. These were ‘unnecessary’ institutions to the Peaceful inhabitants of the Land. Brehon Law is the Law of Man and is in many ways superior to Common Law. Common Law is in actuality a foreign jurisdiction and you have a Right to claim Brehon Law! Further study is encouraged and resources can befound at end of booklet.

How do you define foreign jurisdiction? The legal jurisdiction supported by the legitimately elected government? The British legal systems were kept because they worked, and there would have been chaos if we had tried to implement a changeover to a completely different setup. Lawyers and judges out of jobs, everyone in the country requiring reeducation on Brehon Law? I'm not usre what is meant by financial system. We shared a currecny for a while didn't we? Unless it means the banking and fiscal system, which the entire rest of the world uses.
No police force, no capital punishment and no judicial system? Do you honestly think that would work in a modern society?

Undergod

uprising2 wrote: »

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

Irish magna carta

As near as I can tell, this is a document issued by the British king, an adapted Magna Carta with reference to the Irish, incorporating some Brehon Law for simplicity's sake, and acutally showing a good deal of respect for our laws (like I said above, switching straight over would be difficult to implement).

But this counts as foreign jurisdiction, I think.

thecommander

Has anyone any links to Irish people in Irish courts getting off an offense because they're claiming freeman?

Mahatma coat

arent 2 of the youtubes in th OP claimin to be exactly that??

IrelandSpirit

thecommander wrote: »

Has anyone any links to Irish people in Irish courts getting off an offense because they're claiming freeman?

i think there's one at he bottom of the op ... wait ..

here it is:

Lab_Mouse

that clip has been edited.You have to take what is scrolled on screen at face value.

Was there a link posted at the start to the transcripts?my interweb is fubared so its nearly impossibe to watch clips at the mo.

EDIT:did it give the freeman's name?

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

Well...if I'm understanding your response, what you're saying is that neither the current system nor Harris' proposed systems constitute conspiracies.

At that point, I have to put my mod hat back on and ask what is the forum-relevant angle?

I'm aware of the points made about the Legal forum, but I'm not so comfortable with the notion that this form becomes the catchall for everything that's considered "too wacky" for somewhere else.


Truer words have never been spoken.

Here's the thing though...if the people are the problem, how will changing the system do anything? The people remain the problem. In any new system, there will be those who set out to turn it to their advantage, just as there are those who have done so in the current system.


But "common law" and "Breton law" are both systems. Thus, it is not lawful punishment, but legal....they are punishments defined by a system.

The distinction, perhaps, is that Harris (and his supporters) see a close correlation between a legal system such as Brehon law and what he (they) consider to be lawful rights.


I'm not trying to argue that teh current system is ideal, nor suggest that I have an idea of what a better system would be. I'm trying to point out that the notion of punishment belongs to a system of law. Thus, it is a legal concept....and yet Harris' argument (as initially presented in this thread) was about putting the concept of "lawful" above the concept of "legal".


I guess it depends on what you define as need. We, in Europe, take something like 5-8 times our fair share of production. If we combine that with your figure of world production being 10 times need, we end up in a situation where the average Joe Bloggs living in Europe is taking more than 50 times what he needs.

Now...while you may believe that there is no sane reason we can't all have what we need, trying telling people that sanity means giving up between 80 and 98% (four fifths, to reduce to a fair share, or 49 fiftieths to reduce to what we need) of all they consume in their lives and I'm not entirely sure you'll meet with widespread agreement. And remember...I'm not talking about the fat cats here. I'm talking about the average person from a statistical viewpoint. Anyone with a decent job....above average...needs to give up more. Maybe 99%...maybe more.

I'm not saying, incidentally, that its wrong....just that if we define sanity as making the morally right and fair choices for humanity, its fair to say that humanity is and always has been insane.

Although I am not entirely convinced that the legal system we have in place as defined by John Harris (Admiralty/law of the sea/law of commerce) was originally set up to screw anybody over, a lot of people do - the conspiracy is very much alive and kicking, everywhere.

And the fact remains that regardless of the original intent, every day innocent people are being criminalised using that system, for things which are not crimes, whereas the real criminals walk free and are even rewarded. (Not just talking about dodgy bankers and paedophile priests here). Is that because it's somehow natural, just 'human nature' to wanna fukc everybody over?

Or is it, perhaps, that the worst criminal elements of society are in control of a system which (I agree) might otherwise be good - 'the lunatics have taken over the asylum', as the song goes. Probably did begin happening a long time back in humanity's history, but I don't think all humanity is criminally insane.

As far as I understand it, the system we have in place goes back thousands of years, to Sumer, Babylon, and the Phonecians (who had a massive trading fleet and excellent seamanship) spread it far and wide, and it might've worked fine back then - as rules of commerce and trade. Humans do need rules for these things, and it's safe to say that these rules were probably centred on a sense of fair play, trust, else business would've degenerated into barbarism long before now.

It's when we begin to believe it is acceptable to stand under rules which do not apply to us (in real life) that things go south. For example, we have the unalienable right to travel in a car, van, whatever, freely and without needing to apply (beg) for the privilege (licenses, etc). That is fact as far as I can verify.

If, however, we are conducting trade, then the rules of trade come into effect. At that point you have entered into the world of rules applicable to the situation - trade. And it is your right, both lawfully and legally, to enter that world with consent and full disclosure. But if you are not engaged in trade on the roads, the anterior rule applies, it is still unalienable anyway, the lawful right to travel does not go away. None of your lawful rights do.

But one of the things JH is questioning is why do we need to stand under the rules of commerce when we are not engaging in commerce, only exercising our right to travel freely.

And by extension, why stand under any rule of commerce when we have anterior lawful rights which supersede all that anyway.

The answer he reckons is simple - we didn't know. Nobody told us the bloody rules! We just go along with things thinking it's 'The Law' when it is only a rule, a statue. Which as he correctly says, is given the force of law through mutual consent.

'Given the force of law by mutual consent' means exactly that, it is not law unless you consent to it. It is simply an offer to contract. And like the rules of any commercial contract, it needs to be mutually agreed upon. I.e. bilateral.

So nobody's actually forcing us into these contracts, or forcing us to apply (beg) for anything because that would infringe upon our unalienable rights. I.e. forcing people to do things against their will and nature (like begging) is the mark of tyranny. And seeing as they know what we do to tyrants (sooner or later) throughout history (and getting strung up on lampposts is seriously bad for business), that leaves only the one option:

'Let him that be deceived, be deceived'

... hmmm?

Sorry, not good enough. To enter into lawful contract we need freely-given consent, and consent is not freely-given without knowing what you are consenting to. I.e. full disclosure, again.

That is fair and logical, to my mind...

But anyway Bonkey, that's just the way I understand what JH is saying. And yeah, perhaps you're right about changing the system, won't change a thing. Whatever system we have in place - brehon law, common law, commercial law - it won't matter a toss - any system's gonna favour the same shower of insane greedy scumbags who gain control of it...

so is there hope?

... human history does kinda prove there isn't, collectively, up till now anyway...

Lab_Mouse

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

so is there hope?

... human history does kinda prove there isn't, collectively, up till now anyway...

Human nature messes the best ideology up.Read a good bit about anarchism when I was younger and thought it would be the ultimate way for society to be in an ideal world,but as I travelled more and read more I relised it wouldnt happen.Evil greedy people would Fuk it up.Communism is an idealogy that it happened to.

As for the consent to be governed Im no legal eagle,but I doubt very much that argument would hold up in our current courts.I think if it did 'get you off' evry tom dick and harry would be using it as a defence.

Slightly different thinking but IRA men never recognised the Irish Free State but they still got locked up.

Zombrex

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Although I am not entirely convinced that the legal system we have in place as defined by John Harris (Admiralty/law of the sea/law of commerce) was originally set up to screw anybody over, a lot of people do - the conspiracy is very much alive and kicking, everywhere.

And the fact remains that regardless of the original intent, every day innocent people are being criminalised using that system, for things which are not crimes, whereas the real criminals walk free and are even rewarded.

They are crimes. You can argue they shouldn't be crimes, but the legal system in Ireland is relatively transparent. You can see what crimes are what, and you can lobby your elected representative to change them.

The way you make it sound is as if judges or Gardai were just making laws up on the spot to arrest people they didn't like.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

It's when we begin to believe it is acceptable to stand under rules which do not apply to us (in real life) that things go south. For example, we have the unalienable right to travel in a car, van, whatever, freely and without needing to apply (beg) for the privilege (licenses, etc). That is fact as far as I can verify.

As Bonkey has already pointed out rights have no meaning divorced shared social contract between people.

Saying you have an "unalienable" right to travel in a car is pointless if no one else agrees with you.

Someone could just as easily say they have an unalienable right to kill people they don't like. You may disagree, but there is no universal book of rights that you can look up to see who is right and who is wrong.

Rights are basically ethical principles that people agree should be applied universally. But they don't exist independently to agreed standards.

And you don't actually have a universal right to drive a car because society, represented by the State, consider cars to be dangerous and thus require that the person demonstrate to the State skill at handling such a machine to the point where the State is satisfied they do not pose an unreasonable danger to the rest of society. What that has to do with the rules of commerce I'm not sure.

IrelandSpirit

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Human nature messes the best ideology up.Read a good bit about anarchism when I was younger and thought it would be the ultimate way for society to be in an ideal world,but as I travelled more and read more I relised it wouldnt happen.Evil greedy people would Fuk it up.Communism is an idealogy that it happened to.

As for the consent to be governed Im no legal eagle,but I doubt very much that argument would hold up in our current courts.I think if it did 'get you off' evry tom dick and harry would be using it as a defence.

Slightly different thinking but IRA men never recognised the Irish Free State but they still got locked up.

Yep, I still think though that it's only a small percentage of people who suffer from the kind of pathology which requires them to be in control, and to profit from others, and that the vast majority of us are inherently decent; and that maybe left to our own devices we'd of probably created the conditions for the world of our dreams to arise a looooong time back.

As regards the consent to be governed, it is very much a right as far as I can verify, and it makes sense too as regards otherwise living under tyranny. The government was created to serve us, the people, the government was not created to be served.

I'm not a legal head either, just been looking into this freeman stuff for a bit now, learning as I go along. A lot of it makes sense to me, some don't, but I can't see how anybody would get off crimes just by withdrawing their consent to be governed, not if they've infringed upon the rights of someone else. Dunno if 'get off' is the term I'd use though, I mean if someone hasn't infringed upon the rights of someone else, there is no crime to get off from...

thecommander

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

i think there's one at he bottom of the op ... wait ..

here it is:

Cant accept that as evidence of it. Nothing against you but come on. A loophole that allows you to walk free from court and one person has done it, and its only record is a static filled edited youtube video.

uprising2

Listen, we are/were duped into giving control over ourselves to others, we can take some of this back, we must respect human rights, we may not harm, cause loss to, injure or any other way cause any kind of suffering to another human being, we must be civil and courtious to each other.
Now if we were to act in this manner, should we be pulled into court to answer to our superiors for doing something that did not break any these true human values?, well some people are and thats a problem.

Now at the same time the DPP is refusing to prosecute a satanic paedophile ring in the beautiful town of Dalkey, ohh but 3 garda were members and an upstanding businessman who had his face obscured in the subday world a couple of weeks back are members, but no charges will be forthcoming there, some fine manors in the town were used for depraved child rape and sacrafice sessions, but no charges to follow, a fukking thread on it's own.

If I do not cause harm or loss to anybody I expect to be allowed live without the laws of man breathing down my back telling me I can't do this or must do that, I was born with the right to tell them to "Fukk Off".
Don't get me wrong we need laws, common law, natural law, people who break them should pay.

IrelandSpirit

Wicknight wrote: »

They are crimes. You can argue they shouldn't be crimes, but the legal system in Ireland is relatively transparent. You can see what crimes are what, and you can lobby your elected representative to change them.

The way you make it sound is as if judges or Gardai were just making laws up on the spot to arrest people they didn't like.



As Bonkey has already pointed out rights have no meaning divorced shared social contract between people.

Saying you have an "unalienable" right to travel in a car is pointless if no one else agrees with you.

Someone could just as easily say they have an unalienable right to kill people they don't like. You may disagree, but there is no universal book of rights that you can look up to see who is right and who is wrong.

Rights are basically ethical principles that people agree should be applied universally. But they don't exist independently to agreed standards.

And you don't actually have a universal right to drive a car because society, represented by the State, consider cars to be dangerous and thus require that the person demonstrate to the State skill at handling such a machine to the point where the State is satisfied they do not pose an unreasonable danger to the rest of society. What that has to do with the rules of commerce I'm not sure.

Well, you make it sound like everything is just fine and dandy; that everybody is in universal agreement and that the system works; and of course, there is truth and justice for all - which I'm not knocking, I'm not trashing your world view, beautifully mistaken as I believe it is. It might very-well be your situation too, and if that's seriously your truth, it's yours - keep it if it serves you.

I wish I could claim the same for all.

uprising2

thecommander wrote: »

Cant accept that as evidence of it. Nothing against you but come on. A loophole that allows you to walk free from court and one person has done it, and its only record is a static filled edited youtube video.

Yea you cant really bring in a big sound system with furry boom now can you, it's not a Hollywood set, and yes, do some reading, take it in and realise they are "acts" not laws.

IrelandSpirit

uprising2 wrote: »

Listen, we are/were duped into giving control over ourselves to others, we can take some of this back, we must respect human rights, we may not harm, cause loss to, injure or any other way cause any kind of suffering to another human being, we must be civil and courtious to each other.
Now if we were to act in this manner, should we be pulled into court to answer to our superiors for doing something that did not break any these true human values?, well some people are and thats a problem.

Now at the same time the DPP is refusing to prosecute a satanic paedophile ring in the beautiful town of Dalkey, ohh but 3 garda were members and an upstanding businessman who had his face obscured in the subday world a couple of weeks back are members, but no charges will be forthcoming there, some fine manors in the town were used for depraved child rape and sacrafice sessions, but no charges to follow, a fukking thread on it's own.

If I do not cause harm or loss to anybody I expect to be allowed live without the laws of man breathing down my back telling me I can't do this or must do that, I was born with the right to tell them to "Fukk Off".
Don't get me wrong we need laws, common law, natural law, people who break them should pay.

Dalkey ... i think there was something about that back in 05, not sure...