Free Man Society

MungBean

Whats the deal with this free man society lark ? I'm hearing the term more and more and recently was also informed a good few people who live close by attend free man meetings regular.

Seen a few clips on youtube about it and its basically just clowns arguing with Gardai claiming they are being unlawful. Seeing as its mostly people in trouble with the law that are involved in this I'd imagine its just some kind of lame attempt to weasel out of whatever they have done by challenging the law itself.

Any free men around to enlighten us as to why they are above the law ?

Fago!

Hello, I'm Morgan Free man. You are reading this in my voice.

Buceph

Hello, I am Gordon Freeman, you are not reading this in my voice.

Guill

Hello, I am Gordon Freeman, you are not reading this in my voice.


Why we doing this?

Chuck Stone

It's an interesting concept which I was looking into recently.

My understanding is that the freemen movement claim that when you're born you're birth cert kinda ties you into a system of being viewed as a corporate entity which allows you to be prosected in a civil court without having entered into contracts (speeding fines, insurance, taxes levied, TV licence etc).

Apparently when we go to court we inadvertently allow them to have jurisdiction over us as corporate entities by slight of tongue legalese.

That's my rudimentary understanding.

Edit: Hello my name is Ramadan Griefman. You are smelling me with your eyes.

marcsignal

I'm not free at the moment........















...this is a recording :pac:


.

Oh_Noes

Can I exchange mine for a free woman instead?

MagicSean

They think they are children of God and only obligated to obey Gods law

Diageio_Man

Freemen = crustys.

My name is URL

Hookah wrote: »

The philosophy runs thus...

Common law jurisdictions derive their law from British Law, which stretches back to the Magna Carta.

Common law was based around around the simple philosophy of causing no harm, loss or injury to another, and using no fraud in your dealings.

These laws cover a whole gamut of crimes, from theft to murder to burglary etc. and the freeman has no issue with these laws. They are for the common good.

Down the centuries various acts were introduced to govern society and it is with a lot of these statutes that the freeman has trouble. (if you're still reading please note that there is a distinction between the common law and statutory law)

The freeman sees these statutes as being detrimental to society, say the Misuse of drugs Act, or as being for the benefit of the ruling elite, say the laws governing finance, or the zoning of land, or tax laws, which various ruling elites have used and are now using to leach our country.

Judges have taken an oath to uphold the law. The freeman argues that this oath pertains to common law only.

Where a judge presides over a case covered by statutory legislation, say the issuing of a speeding fine, the freemen say that this is not in accordance with the judge's oath, nor the rule of the judiciary.

Similarly the freeman sees the role of the Gardai as upholders of the law, keepers of the peace if you will, and not as enforcers of statutory legislation, say the knocking down of someones door to capture a tomato plant.

That, apparently.

MagicSean

Did I mention they think they should not have to pay tax but should still be entitled to dole and healthcare and education? Because that's important.

cml387

Long thread in Conspiracy Theories.

Warning:as you read it your brain will gradually leak out of your head.

bonzodog2

Don't bother asking about this in the Legal Discussion forum, they'll throw a fit !

Quazzie

cml387 wrote: »

Long thread in Conspiracy Theories.

Warning:as you read it your brain will gradually leak out of your head.

That's what they want you to believe.

Executive Steve

Diageio_Man wrote: »

Freemen = crustys.

On a global scale, after a quick Google anyway, it's would appear to be a really really odd hotchpotch of crusties, libertarians, the Jim Corr brigade, anti-semites, black gang members in Baltimore, white supremacists, David Icke, the singer from East 17 and anti-water fluoridation campaigners.

Basically it's one of those odd little memes that seep out from the crazier corners of the internet from time to time now that Geocities is gone and the crazies have to share the internet with the rest of us.

blackdog2

Hello, I am More Than Free man. You are less free than me

Buceph

Ah yeah, the famous "You can't make me tidy my room Mom, I didn't ask to be born!" argument.

MungBean

Surely you cant pull that one once ya sign on the dole. I mean your saying "Here I am, a member of this society, I'm hungry and cold, please feed and clothe me" then ya get caught growing weed and all of a sudden "You cant force your law on me, I'm a free man and not contractually obligated to pay anything in this "society" of yours".

mickydoomsux

Yeah, it's pretty much spongers and crusties giving themselves a new name.

They don't want to put into the system or abide by its rules but they will take anything they can get from it for nothing. Guess that's where the "Free" part of the name comes in.

cml387

I believe I read a case recently where the crusty was up on a fairly minor charge, and he challenged the judge on the oath he took.

The judge pondered the question for a few moments and then decided to remand the crusty in Clover Hill while he figured out what to do next.

Not the outcome expected I would guess.

My name is URL

http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/08/17/challenging-a-wexford-judge-to-produce-his-oath-being-remanded-and-then-released/

Chuck Stone

What intrigues me is the vitriol that seems to arise from critics of the freemen.

Libertarians and anarchists also face this vitriol. Rather than actually consider their ideas, postulations, and criticisms of the status quo critics seem to get angry and engage in ad hominem attacks and ask to walked by the hand into the detailed alternative future like some sort of frightened child.

Intriguing.

Buceph

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What intrigues me is the vitriol that seems to arise from critics of the freemen.

Libertarians and anarchists also face this vitriol. Rather than actually consider their ideas, postulations, and criticisms of the status quo critics seem to get angry and engage in ad hominem attacks and ask to walked by the hand into the detailed alternative future like some sort of frightened child.

Intriguing.

I think you're confusing people laughing at them with vitriol.

mikemac

Fair enough.
If they want nothing to do with the State just deny them welfare.

After all, that is controlled by the Finance Bill and they have lots of issues with statutory acts including not recognizing them

cml387

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What intrigues me is the vitriol that seems to arise from critics of the freemen.

Libertarians and anarchists also face this vitriol. Rather than actually consider their ideas, postulations, and criticisms of the status quo critics seem to get angry and engage in ad hominem attacks and ask to walked by the hand into the detailed alternative future like some sort of frightened child.

Intriguing.

The pursuit of the utopian dream and the freedom of man is indeed a noble and worthy cause.

I would suspect that most "freemen" are looking to avoid either

a) Paying tax
b) A conviction under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984

Emiko

cml387 wrote: »

b) A conviction under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984

A couple of Freemen challenged the drug laws in Scotland last year.

They wrote to the authorities, said they were going to grow some weed, and after having the plants seized a number of times, were eventually brought before the court, whereupon they challenged the laws using Freeman principles.

Last i heard they were on remand, but I never heard the outcome.

Some of it is here...http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=5809

Chuck Stone

Buceph wrote: »

I think you're confusing people laughing at them with vitriol.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's vitriol. It seems some people are just naturally averse to alternative ideas.

Just look at the answers in this thread or any other thread that espouses alternative ideals from the traditional (aristocratic - I know what's good for you) 'left' and the traditional (just plain evil conservative) 'right'.

MungBean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What intrigues me is the vitriol that seems to arise from critics of the freemen.

Libertarians and anarchists also face this vitriol. Rather than actually consider their ideas, postulations, and criticisms of the status quo critics seem to get angry and engage in ad hominem attacks and ask to walked by the hand into the detailed alternative future like some sort of frightened child.

Intriguing.

Its interesting to an extent but when its mostly people trying to get out paying fines and get off of drugs charges you have to expect a certain amount of hostility towards it.

If it was old man Jim next door trying to get out of paying property tax I'd have some time for it. But when its the 20 somethings in the estate down the road trying to figure out how to get away with growing weed I'm a little more dubious.

Chuck Stone

cml387 wrote: »

The pursuit of the utopian dream and the freedom of man is indeed a noble and worthy cause.

I would suspect that most "freemen" are looking to avoid either

a) Paying tax

Tax can be used to do great evil. Who was it that said 'war is the health of the state'?.

b) A conviction under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984

So?

Drug prohibition laws are just plain evil and punish individuals, families, communities and societies.

The multi billion dollar global drug war has been an abject failure. The prohibition of drugs has become a tax-payer raping cluster fuck for the legal apparatus of states (police, solicitors, customs officials, judges, prison officers, parole officers).

MagicSean

My name is URL wrote: »

http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/08/17/challenging-a-wexford-judge-to-produce-his-oath-being-remanded-and-then-released/

In actual fact he did not walk free. He was granted high court bail and was back in court on Wednesday. This was as a result of him dropping all his ideals and hiring a legal team.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What intrigues me is the vitriol that seems to arise from critics of the freemen.

Libertarians and anarchists also face this vitriol. Rather than actually consider their ideas, postulations, and criticisms of the status quo critics seem to get angry and engage in ad hominem attacks and ask to walked by the hand into the detailed alternative future like some sort of frightened child.

Intriguing.

The vitriol is towards their extreme hypocrisy.

My name is URL

mikemac wrote: »

Fair enough.
If they want nothing to do with the State just deny them welfare.

After all, that is controlled by the Finance Bill and they have lots of issues with statutory acts including not recognizing them

So, if I sign an affidavit which means I can never be entitled to any sort of welfare payment or free healthcare etc, it mean that I would, in return, be exempt from paying taxes and allowed to grow a bit of weed? Sign me up!

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Drug prohibition laws are just plain evil and punish individuals, families, communities and societies.

The same can be said of drug dealers.

Frank Black

From a brief flick through the boards thread when I was bored I'm pretty sure it's something to do with not paying parking fines.

Emiko

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

In actual fact he did not walk free. He was granted high court bail and was back in court on Wednesday. This was as a result of him dropping all his ideals and hiring a legal team.

He had a barrister with him the whole time, afaik.

This, as posted on tirnasaor, from his brother apparently...

Ken Ofthefamily Sludds ‎@charlie

Bob was sitting at the back of the high court, the judge never addressed him.
The barrister who asked could he handle the case, submitted an affidavit to the judge, and the contents of that affidavit were twisted and turned against bobby by the media. I'v been in contact with the irish independent to inform them of their error in print, and asked them to submit a retraction, as it is classed as defamation
I'v been handling and advising on the case, and i have a copy of the affidavit that was submitted by the barrister..

The media also said that he MUST appear in wexford district court on wednesday.
However, the high court granted unconditional release!!
Unconditional release means there can be no more said about the charges..
The reason the high court released him is because Anderson had no lawfullauthority to issue the order demanding his detention, because he had not acknowledged his oath, or gained jurisdiction in the matter.

This means that Anderson is deemed to have vacated his office, but it turns out he is the residing judge for the case on wednesday...

Come to wexford on wednesday if you have any doubt about who won, or who will win..

I didn't see the outcome of the case anywhere online, though.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The same can be said of drug dealers.

The same could be said of suppliers of alcohol during the Prohibition era.

FlutterinBantam

Nah.. just the crusties trying to re-invent themselves.

Since they were shaken out of the trees down in the Downs, fcukers have been trying to get a bit of traction.

Just a bunch of freeloaders, trying to leech JQTaxpayer.

Of no consequence, the economic climate won't help them.

Chuck Stone

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The vitriol is towards their extreme hypocrisy.

I agree that there are probably many freemen who are just agitators 'just because'

Some of their grievances seem to be pretty well founded. Like being stopped for going 15 kph over the speeding limit on an empty safe road at 2am in the morning. Who wouldn't feel like telling the police to fuck right off in this type of situation?

As regards hypocrisy I guess it's difficult to not be some sort of a fish when all you have to swim in is water.

Emiko

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Of no consequence, the economic climate won't help them.

The economic climate has caused, and is causing, a rethink of the drug laws in several U.S. states.

The hospital wards will soon be overrun with pizza-faced crusties with joints hanging out of their veins.

Chuck Stone

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The same can be said of drug dealers.

No. How do you make that out?

It's the demand for drugs that gives rise to drug dealing and it's the illegality which gives rise to the violence which orbits illegal drugs.

Drug disputes cannot be settled in courts so they tend to be settled with violence.

Drug prohibition creates criminals and drug taking is a victimless 'crime'.

FlutterinBantam

Emiko wrote: »

The economic climate has caused, and is causing, a rethink of the drug laws in several U.S. states.

The hospital wards will soon be overrun with pizza-faced crusties with joints hanging out of their veins.

Joints?:rolleyes:

I will say though that Mexico is totally fcuked with drugs wars.

Can see the border states getting exited in fairness.

Chuck Stone

Emiko wrote: »

The economic climate has caused, and is causing, a rethink of the drug laws in several U.S. states.

The hospital wards will soon be overrun with pizza-faced crusties with joints hanging out of their veins.

The only thing, imho, which will end the US drug war is out and out bankruptcy of the state.

Here's why.

Let's say the drug war is worth $20 Billion a year to the state apparatus - well that's 20 Billion dollars worth of inducement to keep the farce going.

That's the tax-payer paying the wages of a lot of cops, lawyers, prison officers, customs officials, parole officers, judges and (ironically) drug dealers too.

Now when you have all that ^^ 'professional' self-interest versus a couple of thousand stoners and a few thousand e/speed/acid-heads and people who smoke it for medical reasons, well, then you won't get much movement.

Killer Pigeon

Don't go, it's already been infiltrated by the Illuminati.

MagicSean

Emiko wrote: »

He had a barrister with him the whole time, afaik.

Not on the first day. He had been brought in on a bench warrant as far as i know.

Emiko wrote: »

This, as posted on tirnasaor, from his brother apparently...



I didn't see the outcome of the case anywhere online, though.

The outcome was reported in a number of national newspapers. He was remanded to custody and applied for high court bail which was granted. His case was up for mention last week and was put back to a future date. He is still on bail. His brothers post is a prime example of the bull**** and lies in the Freeman movement.

Emiko wrote: »

The same could be said of suppliers of alcohol during the Prohibition era.

That it could.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No. How do you make that out?

It's the demand for drugs that gives rise to drug dealing and it's the illegality which gives rise to the violence which orbits illegal drugs.

Drug disputes cannot be settled in courts so they tend to be settled with violence.

Drug prohibition creates criminals and drug taking is a victimless 'crime'.

Really? Have you ever dealt with a family torn apart by the actions of a heroin adict? Have you seen Amy Winehouse? Look at a before and after picture.

Panty_thief

I thought this was gonna be about some new anti-feminist crowd (free man) who wanted to get rid of all this 'equality' and 'harassment' stuff and get back to the good days when women were kept in the kitchen and their panties were kept on the line til morning.

Chuck Stone

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Really? Have you ever dealt with a family torn apart by the actions of a heroin adict? Have you seen Amy Winehouse? Look at a before and after picture.

There are people who will destroy themselves no matter what you try to do. The state adding a criminal record on top and wrenching them away from their loved ones and locking them in a room with other desperate people is hardly going to help. No, in fact it's wholly sadistic.

Some people will cause death and destruction to themselves driving cars. Even worse, some will even take the lives of others in the process. Does that mean that cars should be banned? Of course not, that would be a patently stupid thing to do.

Regardless these are futile circular arguments. The only thing people should be concerned with is whether people who mean no harm to anyone should be violated by the state because of the ****ing vegetation they have in their pockets.

Quazzie

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Some people will cause death and destruction to themselves driving cars. Even worse, some will even take the lives of others in the process. Does that mean that cars should be banned? Of course not, that would be a patently stupid thing to do.

No. Cars shouldn't be banned but restrictions should be placed on their use to prevent such deaths. Such restrictions include speeding fines and licensing.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There are people who will destroy themselves no matter what you try to do. The state adding a criminal record on top and wrenching them away from their loved ones and locking them in a room with other desperate people is hardly going to help. No, in fact it's wholly sadistic.

Are you talking about rehab or prison? I've never seen anyone get a prison term for a first offence of drug use. In fact mostly they seem to get probation.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Some people will cause death and destruction to themselves driving cars. Even worse, some will even take the lives of others in the process. Does that mean that cars should be banned? Of course not, that would be a patently stupid thing to do.

That's why we have a licence system. And traffic offences. So that if someone is a danger they can be banned from driving. Don't think you thought that one through.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Regardless these are futile circular arguments. The only thing people should be concerned with is whether people who mean no harm to anyone should be violated by the state because of the ****ing vegetation they have in their pockets.

I wouldn't consider ecstasy to be vegetation.

Fukuyama

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The same can be said of drug dealers.

It's the whole chicken or egg things mate. Only this time it's a lot easier to know where the problem starts; the law.

Fukuyama

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Are you talking about rehab or prison? I've never seen anyone get a prison term for a first offence of drug use. In fact mostly they seem to get probation.



That's why we have a licence system. And traffic offences. So that if someone is a danger they can be banned from driving. Don't think you thought that one through.



I wouldn't consider ecstasy to be vegetation.

Ecstacy is one of the safest drugs you can take. Don't do it myself - don't think I'd enjoy that kind of high. But scientifically speaking, it's safe as houses.

But I suspect you read the Star and have been misinformed otherwise.

Quazzie

Dean0088 wrote: »

It's the whole chicken or egg things mate. Only this time it's a lot easier to know where the problem starts; the law.

So the drugs problem is caused by the law and not by the drug dealers/trafficer/users? That has to be the most retarded thing I've ever read on Boards.

humanji

Having read a fair amount of stuff on Freemen I've come to the conclusion that in theory it's a good thing. It's people just wanting to be free from what they see is an unfair and soul crushing system.

But in practice, it's only used to try and wriggle out of minor offences such as drug possession, speeding, illegal parking etc, and the supposed Freemen still feel that they should have full access to everything society can offer without giving anything back.

So they're kind of like an unsuccesfuly Fianna Fáil.

seamus

humanji wrote: »

Having read a fair amount of stuff on Freemen I've come to the conclusion that in theory it's a good thing. It's people just wanting to be free from what they see is an unfair and soul crushing system.

It's like anarchism. Built on noble idea and concepts and workable in theory, but it requires the co-operation of people and is based on the idea that the individual works for the greater good.

These systems fail in practical use because the individual is largely only interested in their personal good, with community good deeds being a side-effect.

There is a certain subset of humanity who will always do their best to screw everyone else over and look after themselves, and this is why any such notions of allowing people to manage their own personal responsibility don't work.