Freeman of the land

[Darren Polla]

But surely being a member of society has it's benefits (education, healthcare etc) so if you were to unsubscribe would you forfeit the right to these things?

 

You really should find out the name of your society. What you have to do is realise you are not a person, it's really a birth certificate, but you have a person, the certificate. What you then have to do is take control of your person and make it work for you, as was its original intention. You can access your bond/trust to offset education fees, student loans, home schooling etc. As always, there's an admin process to go through but many have done this. Not casting disburtions, but people can't get money out of it, it doesn't work that way. It's about the treasury adjusting accounts, not sending out checks.

 

Public hospitals, dentists, doctors etc. have a duty to help everyone, regardless of social status or not and you can not be turned down. But the way I see it is if you're a freeman-on-the-Land, you don't have to pay income taxes, you are exempt from levy and could afford to pay your own medical bills.

 

Just a thought!

 

I'm off to bed now, but will gladly try to answer any questions you folks have tomorrow. This is serious stuff folks. They don't teach you this in schools because you wouldn't let them treat you this way if they did.

 

That's all it is.

 

Be happy, have fun and stay free eh!

 

Darren:)

[Hallamton]

What is the name of our society? and does the name hold any significance?

 

What about policing? If you are a freeman, I would assume you lose some security as (unless I'm mistaken) you can't pay for the police to offer you that security in the same way you could with education and healthcare?

 

I understood that hospitals/schools/authorities/etc. have no duty to help you unless you're in a contract like the one you talk about.

[HeadingNorth]

Ah, but the legislation you and the majority abide by does not apply to me. You have consented, I and many others have not

 

 

You don't need to consent. You live in this country, you are bound by its laws as passed by Parliament, whether you consent to them or not. You don't get to decide what counts as living in this country.

[Hello every1]

This link backs up the fact that freeman of the land do not have a driving license etc.

 

http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=391

[KenH]

Just when I thought I had seen the maddest stuff on the conspiracy forums, this one comes along and tops it.

 

This "freeman" stuff is, of course, complete tripe. Anyone who falls for it will just find themselves with a fine at some time or another. What the deluded posters are really talking about is that the police haven't bothered to always prosecute them, but they will eventually and these these nutjobs will waste a lot of everyone's time.

 

I love the phrase "done a lot of studying", but unless that includes a law degree, pupilship, entry to the Bar, and a few years as a senior constitutional lawyer, then it is a bit of a wate of time. If "done a lot of studying" means reading what other crackpots have written on the interweb, then this just might not be quite enough to change society as we know it.

[epiphany]

Ah, a solicitor? What you say is indeed correct. It is ilegal to drive without a licence and insurance. So why are the police and courts not prosecuting me?

 

This is the key.

 

It's because the road traffic act requires my consent for it to apply to me and I do not consent.

 

There you go, simple really!

 

It's all about knowing the difference between legal and lawful, illegal and unlawful. It's also about the difference between a human and a person.

 

I am not a person, legally speaking, but I have a person, if I choose to use it.

 

All things legal are just legislation of a private corporation. They are not laws.

 

This is fascinating stuff and thought this "legal/lawful" split only applied in the US, where a similar movement exists.

 

Basically, the way I understand it, is that you are a legal "person", that is a fictitious entity within the framework of "citizenship". This is subject status rather than sovereign status - am I correct?

 

Therefore, all contracts made between you and the government (who also operates within this fictitious, legal realm) binds you to their terms and conditions. Lawfully, you are a free individual, but legally you are bound by contracts... the pen. It's like two different frameworks of existence, and the legal realm requires you to create a "strawman" version of yourself in order for your actions to be applicable in that realm.

 

I had no idea this concept existed in Britain as I assumed we were all born subjects of the Crown by default. In the US it's different because they had laws superimposed onto an existing LAWFUL framework (the constitution), and therefore they can submit their status as "denizen" in order to disenfranchise themselves from that superimposed legal system.

 

There's still a lot I don't understand about this concept, such as how you're supposed to live and co-operate within society when you're a denizen. Every aspect of societal life is built around these fictitious legal codes and contracts with various institutions, so in an institutionalised society, how does one dissassociate and still be able to operate without the benefits of legal personhood?

[epiphany]

We are not citizens, we are subjects of the crown, you are correct. And as all laws made by parliament are put into law by the crown.....

 

I assumed this freeman concept wouldn't work in this country because of that. However, let there be no doubt that this concept is going strong in the US for the very reason that they are not born subjects. The only subject status in the US is one they consent to - through legal contracts, bound byu the Uniform Commercial Code, with various corporate institutions (federal/state government, banks etc.).

 

It sounds like Darren Polla is talking about the same concept, but applying it to UK law, which I've always thought could not work.

 

As much as I detest the notion of "subject status" to a royal entity, there is no primary realm of law for Brits to "escape" to. That's what was, I believe, one of the key reasons why America was founded - as an escape from Crown-subject status. The fact they had to sail to a "new world" suggests the lengths one must go to in order to create a new society.

[Thebanginman]

All this about not having to have a driving licence sounds ok on paper,but if you are not a licensed driver your insurance is invalid,what happens if you have a accident and write the other drivers car off,who pays?.

if ever you bump into my car mate you had better be carrying a full wallet or we will be testing the law on a more personal level.

[Thebanginman]

Just been looking into this ,it must be right Mr Jesus Christ himsekf seems to be behind it..Ooops sorry I meant Mr David Icke

[epiphany]

Remember that this freeman concept is very VERY libertarian, and for those familiar with the concept, negative liberty (not "bad" liberty, but liberty that is defined by simply being "free from handcuffs"). This is opposed to positive liberty, which is about having the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential.

 

Freemen (and women!) are the absolute extreme of negative liberty. Not saying it's a bad thing, it's just a key distinction that people should be aware of.