Freeman/Strawman

robtri

giant_midget wrote: »

I have read a little bit into this freeman thing, Some of it makes sence.

The part i dont like or get is this thing where these folk think that their consent is needed for everything.

i.e " i got a parking notice, how do i respond to this?"

advice would be

"send it back, no contract return to sender, i dont understand you etc."



Well what these fools dont realise is that their "consent" is not needed on issues like this :rolleyes:

Buy signing the driving licence application it states that you agree to abide by the road traffic acts and any future amendments, by having a driving licence you abide to such acts...

If i am right i think part of the argument is that they dont apply for a licence, that they have the right to free travel therefore if no driving licence is signed no agreement is in place to for the driver having agreed to abide by the rules of the road

giant_midget

robtri wrote: »

If i am right i think part of the argument is that they dont apply for a licence, that they have the right to free travel therefore if no driving licence is signed no agreement is in place to for the driver having agreed to abide by the rules of the road

Your probably right on that, but the people i am on about are people who have tax, insurance nct, valid driving licences..makes me laugh

I know if you de-register your car and have your own personal number plates this might work in theory, but the garda would just work against you as they would see you as annoying..

Mahatma coat

yeah, its all about the contract, I Cruise about QLD in a 'Company' Car with an Irish DL I CAN claim that right, I have not at any point personally contracte with Main Roads for the Use of their roads, Possession of a Legit vehicle and a recognised licence is all thats required, What that also means is that altho they brought me to court repeatedly for parking outside my own home, they couldnt actually Ban me from driving, in retaliation they have decided to Garner my old Bank account, Which I consider unconstitutional and Am Fighting

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yeah, its all about the contract, I Cruise about QLD in a 'Company' Car with an Irish DL I CAN claim that right, I have not at any point personally contracte with Main Roads for the Use of their roads, Possession of a Legit vehicle and a recognised licence is all thats required, What that also means is that altho they brought me to court repeatedly for parking outside my own home, they couldnt actually Ban me from driving, in retaliation they have decided to Garner my old Bank account, Which I consider unconstitutional and Am Fighting

So how exactly are they to know that you don't use the roads? Just take your word for it?

How do you justify using land/services you do not own for no recompense? Isn't that against your concept of "cause no harm/loss"?

And what about insurance? What happens if you cause an accident and the other person is forced to pay for the damages to their car?
Isn't that causing loss?

And how can you argue for constitutionality when you believe the constitution shouldn't apply to you?

And seriously is this the noble struggle for rights you think you're fighting?

I'll take it you can't actually solve the contradiction we've pointed out in the previous example?

Mahatma coat

The Monies required by them to pay for the registration and tax of the vehicle are collected the same as every other vehicle, these monies are supposed to be spent on the upkeep of the roads, my 535 is Legit, it just dosent trace back to me, my licence is legally acceptable (Prior supreme court case) I am not breaking any of the natural laws, its only when they tried to apply their revenue raising tactics that I declined o contract.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The Monies required by them to pay for the registration and tax of the vehicle are collected the same as every other vehicle, these monies are supposed to be spent on the upkeep of the roads, my 535 is Legit, it just dosent trace back to me, my licence is legally acceptable (Prior supreme court case) I am not breaking any of the natural laws, its only when they tried to apply their revenue raising tactics that I declined o contract.

And none of that answers any of the questions I asked.

So rather than repeated ask them only to have them ignored as usual, I'll assume you can't actually answer them honestly.

Joshua Jones

King Mob wrote: »

And what about insurance? What happens if you cause an accident and the other person is forced to pay for the damages to their car?
Isn't that causing loss?

Minority report.

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The Monies required by them to pay for the registration and tax of the vehicle are collected the same as every other vehicle, these monies are supposed to be spent on the upkeep of the roads, my 535 is Legit, it just dosent trace back to me, my licence is legally acceptable (Prior supreme court case) I am not breaking any of the natural laws, its only when they tried to apply their revenue raising tactics that I declined o contract.

So you're using this freeman stuff...to try and get out of fines and other obligations?

robtri

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The Monies required by them to pay for the registration and tax of the vehicle are collected the same as every other vehicle, these monies are supposed to be spent on the upkeep of the roads, my 535 is Legit, it just dosent trace back to me, my licence is legally acceptable (Prior supreme court case) I am not breaking any of the natural laws, its only when they tried to apply their revenue raising tactics that I declined o contract.

where does it say that the monies collected from registration, motor tax are supposed to be used on the upkeep of the roads...

I am assuming that you know how much money is collected by this means u stated and how much money is spent on the upkeep of the roads????

Mahatma coat

Mob, What is Your Question then, I provided an answer to the last post and to all the other questions.

SO its ok for the Gardai to target some for being ''Annoying" :rolleyes:

Yes Phantom I Fight, I fight petty beurocracy and State sponsored Standover Merchants, are you saying you wouldnt? are you people trying to tell me that if the Govt violated your natural rights you'd just roll over and take it?

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Mob, What is Your Question then, I provided an answer to the last post and to all the other questions.

All of them. you haven't addressed a single one.
Oh and then there's all the previous ones you ignored.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

SO its ok for the Gardai to target some for being ''Annoying" :rolleyes:

No it's not. And that's not what's happening to you.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Yes Phantom I Fight, I fight petty beurocracy and State sponsored Standover Merchants, are you saying you wouldnt?

Isn't what you are doing the exact same thing that the people you say "aren't real freemen" are doing?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

are you people trying to tell me that if the Govt violated your natural rights you'd just roll over and take it?

So which "natural right" is the government violating in your case?

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Mob, What is Your Question then, I provided an answer to the last post and to all the other questions.

SO its ok for the Gardai to target some for being ''Annoying" :rolleyes:

Yes Phantom I Fight, I fight petty beurocracy and State sponsored Standover Merchants, are you saying you wouldnt? are you people trying to tell me that if the Govt violated your natural rights you'd just roll over and take it?

What right are you defending here? Just sounds like petty tax evasion to me.

Mahatma coat

How is it tax evasion of the Taxes are paid???????????????????????

You Boys really arent paying attention and just reading what you want to see.


Mob

I'll make this fairly simple for you

If you have A Question ask it
altho I suspect that you will just ignore my response and Claim that it dosent answer some Other Question

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

How is it tax evasion of the Taxes are paid???????????????????????

You Boys really arent paying attention and just reading what you want to see.

Well you understand that there are many different taxes right.
So what are the horrible police saying you haven't paid?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Mob

I'll make this fairly simple for you

If you have A Question ask it
altho I suspect that you will just ignore my response and Claim that it dosent answer some Other Question

These ones here:

How do you justify using land/services you do not own for no recompense? Isn't that against your concept of "cause no harm/loss"?

And what about insurance? What happens if you cause an accident and the other person is forced to pay for the damages to their car?
Isn't that causing loss?

And how can you argue for constitutionality when you believe the constitution shouldn't apply to you?

Also:
Isn't this exact situation the same thing you claim the fake freemen are doing?

Which "natural right" is the government violating in your case?

And what about the contradiction we've been lead to in the meth lab example which you've ignored?

Sorry there's so many MC, unanswered questions tend to pile up around here.

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

How is it tax evasion of the Taxes are paid???????????????????????

You Boys really arent paying attention and just reading what you want to see.

What are you being pursued for exactly? Also what natural right is being violated?

Mahatma coat

How do you justify using land/services you do not own for no recompense? Isn't that against your concept of "cause no harm/loss"?

sorry What?? Land that I dont Own??
The ROADS, who does own them, WE do, recompence comes in the form of the Registration fee for my Cars ( of which I have a few)

And what about insurance? What happens if you cause an accident and the other person is forced to pay for the damages to their car?
Isn't that causing loss?

All my vehicles have at a minimum CTP, some like my Favourite Landcruiser and my BMW are fully comprehensive

And how can you argue for constitutionality when you believe the constitution shouldn't apply to you?

Where did I say that the constitution dosent apply to me?? thats another case of you reading what you want to see rather than whats there.
the constitution is the Rule.


as for the Meth lab 'contradiction' you are failing to grasp a fundamental principle of the Freeman movement. I could try to explain it to you but in your head you would hear something compley different to what I Say, as is evidenced here already.



Phantom

NO, its an ongoing case, and I'm nt gonna discus particulars.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

sorry What?? Land that I dont Own??
The ROADS, who does own them, WE do, recompence comes in the form of the Registration fee for my Cars ( of which I have a few)

Well over here the yearly road tax pays for the road, not the registration tax. And no MC we don't own the roads.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

All my vehicles have at a minimum CTP, some like my Favourite Landcruiser and my BMW are fully comprehensive

So what exactly are they saying you're not paying?
Tax? Insurance? Parking fines? Cause by what you've stated of the freeman principles these are all necessary and aren't in conflict with the principles, and therefore trying to weasel out of them is the exact same thing you gave out to the fake freemen for doing.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Where did I say that the constitution dosent apply to me?? thats another case of you reading what you want to see rather than whats there.
the constitution is the Rule.

Well it's hard to tell what you think actually applies to the freeman and what he can ignore. It seems to change depending on what suits.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as for the Meth lab 'contradiction' you are failing to grasp a fundamental principle of the Freeman movement. I could try to explain it to you but in your head you would hear something compley different to what I Say, as is evidenced here already.

But the right to land and the right to safety can conflict with each other. And this is just in a random simple example, there's many others we can pick before we even get to a practical level as opposed to the hypothetical.
And yet you can't actually solve this contradiction. And the fundamental freeman principle seems to be just give short, silly one line answers that don't address the point.

And of course, you're still ignoring points and questions you can't answer.

Penn

King Mob wrote: »

Well over here the yearly road tax pays for the road, not the registration tax. And no MC we don't own the roads.

I'm pretty sure you do own the land to the middle of the road outside your site. The councils have an easement (right of way) over them though for public purposes.

King Mob

Barrington wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you do own the land to the middle of the road outside your site. The councils have an easement (right of way) over them though for public purposes.

I don't think you own it beyond "you can park your car there".
You certainly can't dig it up and extend your garden or prevent people from using that space. And you still need to obey the rules of the road in that area.
And there's no extra responsibility on you to maintain that section of the road

So in what sense do you own that piece of the road?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think you own it beyond "you can park your car there".
You certainly can't dig it up and extend your garden or prevent people from using that space. And you still need to obey the rules of the road in that area.
And there's no extra responsibility on you to maintain that section of the road

So in what sense do you own that piece of the road?

Which is the single most positive aspect of the freeman movement in your opinion?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which is the single most positive aspect of the freeman movement in your opinion?

I could say the idea of respecting each others rights as much as possible.
But I think any particular positive you can argue for is entirely negated by the hypocrisy of the "movement".

Saying you're fighting for rights and all isn't noble when it's just a cover to weasel out of parking fines.

What is the point of this question exactly?

Penn

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think you own it beyond "you can park your car there".
You certainly can't dig it up and extend your garden or prevent people from using that space. And you still need to obey the rules of the road in that area.
And there's no extra responsibility on you to maintain that section of the road

So in what sense do you own that piece of the road?

I know you can't do anything to the road, but you still own it. The councils have the power to create a right of way over it to use it for roads and services however. Same way if I walked across your land every day for 20 years, and then you decided to build a house right where I usually walk, I can make you move the house because I have earned a right of way over your land.

Basically, you own out to the centre line of the road. However, since the public has been using the road for so long, they have a right of way, which means you can't do anything with that road. It's still technically your land, but the council maintain it.

I'll have a look for the legislation later.

King Mob

Barrington wrote: »

I know you can't do anything to the road, but you still own it. The councils have the power to create a right of way over it to use it for roads and services however. Same way if I walked across your land every day for 20 years, and then you decided to build a house right where I usually walk, I can make you move the house because I have earned a right of way over your land.

Basically, you own out to the centre line of the road. However, since the public has been using the road for so long, they have a right of way, which means you can't do anything with that road. It's still technically your land, but the council maintain it.

I'll have a look for the legislation later.

So you only own the land on paper and in no other sense?

And you still have to follow the rules of the road on the stretch you "own" right?

And what about the vast majority of the road that isn't in front of people's houses? That is owned by the government, and there is little to no difference to that ownership when the road passes in front off your house.

So I really don't see how this legal technicality affects my point.

Penn

King Mob wrote: »

So you only own the land on paper and in no other sense?

Yes.

And you still have to follow the rules of the road on the stretch you "own" right?

Yes.

And what about the vast majority of the road that isn't in front of people's houses? That is owned by the government, and there is little to no difference to that ownership when the road passes in front off your house.

It doesn't have to be in front of your house, but every road is beside somebodies land, whether there's a house on it or it's just a field. Again, you own the land to the halfway point of the road outside your field/land/house, but the council/government has a legal right of way for roads and services. If you and I owned fields beside each other, the council may want to build a road between them. So they would remove the hedge, replace it with two hedges and a road in between. I'm sure they remunerate you financially for it though. Of if you refused, they might just put the road on my land and remunerate me more. Again though, I'm not sure of the full technicalities of it. But I know that in a lot of cases (bar housing estates, where the roads are 'taken in charge' by the council), that if you look at the Land Registry map which shows what land you own, it shows the boundary out to the middle of the road.

So I really don't see how this legal technicality affects my point.

The roads are technically on your land, but the council pays for it and controls it for the benefit of everybody, which is surely a Freeman principle. Similar to somebodies previous example of using someone elses land to grow your own crops, but sharing them with everyone. The council uses your land to build a road, but everyone can use the road and the council pays for the upkeep of the road.

I'm not sure my point affects either your or MC's points, just clarifying.

robtri

Barrington wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you do own the land to the middle of the road outside your site. The councils have an easement (right of way) over them though for public purposes.

thats not true, when you buy your house you get a map and it shows your boundaries and property ownership rights, and it doesnt extend out on to a public road...

Penn

It doesn't in cities/towns and housing estates, but I have seen plenty where they extend to the centre of the road. mainly rural areas.

Mahatma coat

Barrington is Right. You own to the centre of the road in Rural Ireland

Not only that but its your responsibility to keep your Roadfront clean.

Mahatma coat

Anyway the POINT ( yes ythere was one of those) I was trying to make is that We all own the Roads.

Mob has highlighted the problem inherrent in modern society which is peoples voluntary devolution of power to some mythical Government Entity, We The PEOPLE Own the Roads, the Government are OUR Elected Representatives Nothing More.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Anyway the POINT ( yes ythere was one of those) I was trying to make is that We all own the Roads.

Mob has highlighted the problem inherrent in modern society which is peoples voluntary devolution of power to some mythical Government Entity, We The PEOPLE Own the Roads, the Government are OUR Elected Representatives Nothing More.

So we own the roads but aren't allowed to do anything we can do with other land we do own, such as: remodel it, sell or rent it, or prevent others from entering it.
And on top of this we still have to abide by rules that we don't have to follow on other parts of our land.
That's some point you've got there.

Ignoring the rest of the points and questions I assume?

clever_name

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Anyway the POINT ( yes ythere was one of those) I was trying to make is that We all own the Roads.

Mob has highlighted the problem inherrent in modern society which is peoples voluntary devolution of power to some mythical Government Entity, We The PEOPLE Own the Roads, the Government are OUR Elected Representatives Nothing More.

As a co-owner of the road I would like to assert my right of ownership and demand that all road users pay any fines they are issued, this is my right as an owner of the road! I also demand that any users of my roads are licensed.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Barrington is Right. You own to the centre of the road in Rural Ireland

Not only that but its your responsibility to keep your Roadfront clean.

So MC you say that in rural Ireland I own the road to the centre, it is 100% mine, a part of my property. At the same time I have to maintain it to someone else's standard, If its mine why can I not let it become overgrown?

Are you beholden to the government for the state of your garden?, your house? Why would a freeman tolerate the government deciding what he does with his own land?