Freeman of the land

[Yozhik]

No it isn't - they tried in the 60's to use "common language" but the problem is that common language can be inferred in so many ways that it didn't work. The point of legalese is to use very specific words, which have very specific meanings.

 

I hate to say this, but you are wrong in pretty much every post you have made in this thread. I will not be returning though because you are like a religious fanatic, you refuse to listen to reason and truth.

 

Religious fanatic? ... priceless.

Of course by "reason and truth", you are referring to YOUR reason and truth ... yes?

 

... and as for you defending legalese, given you are a sworn member of the elitist club, is highly surprising, is it? I mean ... just think ... if your club's stranglehold on things was to break apart and the deception of legalese and statutes was to blow up ... you'd be out of a job!!! Oh my ... no wonder you feel threatened. I feel for you ... really ... I do.

 

Bye, bye Mr Lawyer person ... don't trip over your robe on the way out ... now run along back to your elitist buddies and your secret language ... game over.

 

Maybe, as one last song and dance routine, before you go back to your normal song and dance routine of defending laws that aren't laws and using a language that mimics the language of this country but means something completely different, you could kindly give your elitist society's "specific definitions" for the following cloned words? Definitions in English ... please ...

 

Driver

 

Passenger

 

Include

 

Must

 

Person

 

Citizen

 

Resident

 

Statute

 

Act

 

... should be enough for a start ...

 

Hmmm ... they LOOK like English words ... they SOUND like English words ... they're even DELIVERED like English words, grammatically ... but they're NOT English when used by the Law Society members in the form of legalese. When that happens, they mean something completely different and foreign ... as our good lawyer buddy knows ...

[Yozhik]

Good post. I have a question though... what happens when said society becomes so integral to many aspects of life that removing yourself from it means isolation and/or lack of access to the common fruits of said society?

 

This is not easy to explain but I'll try my best. Over the years, for the time this society has existed, many structures have been put in place and integrated into the life and labour of our people, as a common unit. Therefore, much of what we see around us is legitimised, even if just legally, by the contractual laws of this realm. When most of our world is "paved over" or superimposed upon with this fictitious realm, our existence becomes more and more defined by the institutions that grow around us.

 

What I'm getting at is, now, most people have become "institutionalised" into this society, and are now dependent upon it simply to go about every day life. What you may see as contractual slavery, others see as perfectly valid "benefits" or "privileges". Now, I'm not saying the architects in charge are not building this society predominantly in their favour, they have the wealth, power and private property to after all. However, the inevitable domination of this legal realm over its lawful equivalent is, more and more, going to leave those who declare absolute individual sovereignty disenfranchised and disassociated.

 

I have another question in regards to private property rights and how this affects a freeman society, but I'll come back to that another time!

 

You are absolutely correct.

 

Let's also be clear ... the structure of the current society and its institutional trappings and trimmings are, for a lot of people, perfectly acceptable.

This is their God given choice. Who am I to tell them it is not for them to be part of?

I do not have that right.

 

As with anything in life, when you receive benefits, you give something up, as consideration.

Again, for most, this is perfectly acceptable and they perceive it as "a good deal".

 

You accept the benefits and privileges; you give up certain rights.

That's the deal. You are free and capable of accepting this and consenting to the contract. That's the system.

 

Personally, I do not agree to this contractual offer.

In my view, it is too one sided.

I choose to decline the offer.

 

My choice is to take responsibility as an adult and to act on the private side, as opposed to being enslaved in the public side of the ledger.

Sure - there are some shiny trinkets I will need to hand back and some convenient trappings I will need to do without, but when all is weighed up, I'm happy to do so.

 

The current government was long ago served notice that they operate without my consent.

In my heart, I do not believe they are operating as "representatives" of those who (supposedly) put them in their positions; they no longer speak or act for the average man or woman.

However, look behind the smoke and mirrors, you will see that they are acting as trustees for the beneficiaries - the wards of the state - the children ... you and me.

We are not considered as responsible adults because we do not act like responsible adults.

 

Only children ask for permission to do an otherwise lawful act ... a man or a woman claims the right to do it.

 

Just think about this simple example for one moment ... why would two, responsible adults, need to ask for permission to get married?

That is simply not logical.

 

But that is the current system.

To get "legally" married, you must "apply" for a "marriage licence".

Huh?? How does THAT work?

 

The reason being, you are deemed as "wards of the state" (children) and so to get married, you must ask your parents' permission.

 

Now of course, there will some on here who instantly poo poo this ... as they always do.

So I come back again to the very simple question; why would two, responsible adults, need to ask for permission to get married?

 

Getting married is perfectly lawful. It has been around for centuries.

So why would you ask permission to do something perfectly lawful?

Only children have to do that.

"Mummy, may I have an ice cream"?

"Daddy, may I go outside and play"?

 

Last time I looked, eating ice cream and going outside to play were both perfectly lawful activities.

Why was permission required? The child/parent relationship and structure.

 

There are many other examples; have a look around and just ask yourself some basic questions.

Is this a perfectly lawful act?

Why do I require permission to do it?

[Yozhik]

I am aware of Common Purpose – both my parents are/were teachers.

 

Common Purpose affects leaders – not classroom teachers, so even though I’m not in agreement with the initiative, it shouldn’t have much effect on a child’s learning.

 

Are your parents graduates of Common Purpose?

 

"Common purpose affects leaders" ... exactly.

And you don't think that leaders impact on those under them in the structure?

Then what would be the point of having leaders?

 

Programme and indoctrinate the leaders ... the cancer will spread through the organisation.

It already has and is continuing to do so.

 

To assert that only the leaders are affected and everyone working under them is impervious or immune, is incredibly naive.

 

Leaders shape policy.

Leaders shape culture.

 

... and if Common Purpose was just about recruiting the leaders of today, then why does their own propaganda state that their objective is to identify leaders of tomorrow, ages 12 to 14, in the schools of today, under the care of their Common Purpose shills of today.

 

Common Purpose ... Brian Gerrish ... some very important information can be viewed in video form, online.

Do yourself a favour and Google it. Take some time to see this insidious cancer spreading while there is still time to do something about it.

[cumbrian]

You couldn't be more wrong, Mr Freeman, but frankly, I have no intention of arguing, because you'll clearly never listen.

 

I'll say this much. IF you're not full of rubbish, which I very much doubt, and you are driving without a licence, I hope you crash into another member of your fantasy society, rather than someone law abiding.

 

Anyway, there is absolutely no justification in what you say, despite your wordy responses, so have fun being a criminal! (Don't bother replying to me, as I don't believe you follow this "lifestyle" anyway, and I won't be reading this drivel any more.

 

 

Chill out relax no need to get angry .You can stay in your reality and pay all your fixed penalties. Why do you love to see people crashing? sounds sadist.

[onewheeldave]

You are absolutely correct.

 

 

My choice is to take responsibility as an adult and to act on the private side, as opposed to being enslaved in the public side of the ledger.

Sure - there are some shiny trinkets I will need to hand back and some convenient trappings I will need to do without, but when all is weighed up, I'm happy to do so.

 

 

Would you be able to say what some of those trinkets are? (In plain English please)

 

I'd be interested in understanding exactly what is gained and lost by becoming a Freeman.

[Yozhik]

Would you be able to say what some of those trinkets are? (In plain English please)

 

I'd be interested in understanding exactly what is gained and lost by becoming a Freeman.

 

Trinkets collected as prizes from the Game Show called "The Crown Deception" ... like N.I number, driver's licence, claiming back by birth certificate ... if I can find a way my passport will also be a trinket I will happily hand back.

 

Anything that has been issued as a benefit, which is in reality a form of enslavement or evidence of servitude.

[Yozhik]

Just to note, I have no idea where you get the idea I am a lawyer from? I am not, and am certainly not a part of "the elitist club". Unless manual workers are part of some vast conspiracy which has unfortunately missed me out. I do however know a lot. What I know comes from reality, whereas yours comes from the internet.

 

They are far more specific than the words when in common usage. Otherwise all trials would take forever because there would be constant discussion on every single word in a statute. It is very simple, but I am afraid you will (clearly) struggle to understand. And would you stop saying they mean something "different" - they don't, they mean the same as in everyday english, but with a narrower definition. A bit like when you sign a contract, you often get definitions of words contained within - well it is the same as that, but with the words predefined.

 

I know I said I was out of this thread, but ignorance like yours needs responding to.

 

Sorry ... that is utter bs.

As a very simple example;

In everyday usage, includes is expanding.

In legalese, it is limiting.

 

If a statute states in the interpretation that;

"cat" ... includes dogs.

 

This means that the word "cat", when used in the Act, is limited to dogs and just dogs.

 

If the Interpetation stated;

"cat" ... includes cats and/or dogs.

 

Then this would mean that the word cats refers to cats and or dogs.

 

If the Interpretations stated;

"cat" ... includes black cats.

 

Then this would mean that when the word "cat" is used in the Act, it is referring to black cats only. White cats, brown cats, ginger cats, or any other cat of a colour other than black, are NOT relevant.

 

This is but one example; a very simple one, but also indicative of the insidious, nefarious and intentionally deceptive game the statute writers and legalese users play.

 

... and FYI Mr Know A Lot ... that doesn't come from the internet.

So now that you have decided to come back and give us all some of your incredible knowledge, which is limited to very vague, general, non-specific dismissal and argumentum ad hominem ... how about sharing some of those specifics, which you have acquired with your self proclaimed higher intellect?

[onewheeldave]

Trinkets collected as prizes from the Game Show called "The Crown Deception" ... like N.I number, driver's licence, claiming back by birth certificate ... if I can find a way my passport will also be a trinket I will happily hand back.

 

Anything that has been issued as a benefit, which is in reality a form of enslavement or evidence of servitude.

 

And none of those are any lreal loss (because you can drive without a licence and incur no problems from the police etc?)

 

So, you seem to be saying that by becoming a Freeman and handing back the trinkets, you are no worse off? In any way?

 

Are there any downsides to becoming a Freeman? If so, what are they?

[Yozhik]

Told you you wouldn't understand.

 

Anything specific to offer?

Or just more generalised, negative nonsense?

 

 

... and you're correct; I do not understand.

I do not stand under your words, nor your assertions upon me.

 

I do however find it incredibly illuminating that when you make a broad, general statement and then get specific rebuttle, your response is not a factual counter argument, it's more along the lines of school yard taunting.

 

For everyone's sake; if I am wrong, then offer some facts to support your negative, dismissive response.

Is my detailed reply re: "includes" incorrect?

Can you and will you refute it?

[Yozhik]

And none of those are any lreal loss (because you can drive without a licence and incur no problems from the police etc?)

 

So, you seem to be saying that by becoming a Freeman and handing back the trinkets, you are no worse off? In any way?

 

Are there any downsides to becoming a Freeman? If so, what are they?

 

Sure there are "downsides".

Most in authority act on what they have been taught, rather than what is based on law.

So whilst you claim your rights, very few comprehend what your rights are.

The police are taught to enforce policy and they are taught how to respond, as opposed to fully understanding the difference between what is legal and what is lawful.

It isn't their "fault"; it is what they have been taught and instructed to do.

Let's be honest ... it is what all of us are taught.

Its very difficult to free your mind from the generational programming.

 

There is also the "downside" of being fully responsible for your actions.

Some (many) prefer to have the support of the Nanny State. Nothing wrong with that; it is a choice.

 

Travel, at this time, is also difficult.

There are ways around it, but again, it takes time and inconvenience to establish your standing.