The Lemon Fool

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/3 ... ghts-back/

"Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense”: Canadian judge fights back."

Btw, in case you think this 'freemen on the land' stuff is totally cuckoo, I have a member of my family who laps this tosh up

There was a memorable message from one of the childminders, who asked what we call the virus. My family member emailed the childminder to say, "there has never been any substantial proof that a virus exists. Thousands of medical professionals have now come out to expose how it has never been isolated or purified, and none of the koch's postulates criteria have been met either."

That was some months ago - I really must get an update, to hear the latest explanation of the reaL tRUtH AbOUt tHe VirUS...

Continuing my surreptitious attempt to keep myself in your consciousnesses, by posting articles and replying to myself ad nauseum, you might be interested to trawl this website. I suggest occasional bites rather than a gorging, to avoid over-eating pains.
https://quatloosia.blogspot.com/

Very interesting. CRT (Canal and River Trust) run into this Freeman On The Land claptrap, paradoxically, when attempting to enforce the regulations regarding boat licensing on the rivers. I'm sure your link will percolate into their lawyers' consciousness shortly if it has not already.

ISTR in the early days the argument was simply that a court only had authority over a FOTL if they consented to be bound by The Law, and the FOTL did not consent, which left the judge floundering.

Just to help your thread along....

Mike4 wrote:Very interesting. CRT (Canal and River Trust) run into this Freeman On The Land claptrap, paradoxically, when attempting to enforce the regulations regarding boat licensing on the rivers. I'm sure your link will percolate into their lawyers' consciousness shortly if it has not already.

ISTR in the early days the argument was simply that a court only had authority over a FOTL if they consented to be bound by The Law, and the FOTL did not consent, which left the judge floundering.

Just to help your thread along....

The FOTL ought to think carefully before declaring themselves outlaw. The meaning of which was (as I understand it) that they were not afforded protection by the law - anyone could offend against them without consequence (from the law).

NomoneyNohoney wrote:https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/

"Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense”: Canadian judge fights back."

I was considering buying a property until I noticed it was formerly owned by a FOTL. I ran a mile but the poor chap who bought it had to have said FOTL and his mates removed by a posse of police with helicopter upon purchase, and then when he went away one weekend a few weeks later the entire scene had to be repeated!

Glad to have dodged that one!

GS

At times the FMOTLers are responding to real injustice, but with pseudolegal nonsense. x of the family y is normally a sign as are references to the wrong version of Magna Carta. The version which is in force is 1297 not 1215.

johnhemming wrote:At times the FMOTLers are responding to real injustice, but with pseudolegal nonsense. x of the family y is normally a sign as are references to the wrong version of Magna Carta. The version which is in force is 1297 not 1215.

Or in the case of the CRT fight with a FOTL, disputed injustice. The injustice railed against was CRT confiscating a boat for being on the River Trent without a license to use the river. His initial argument (IIRC) was that the river is naturally there for all to use and CRT have no business charging boats to be on it. After a few years of this drivel CRT used their powers to remove the boat. CRT then damaged their own case from a moral standpoint by keeping the boat as a lien for all their enforcement expenses and unpaid back-license fees, when a court had ruled that while they were entitled to remove it from the river, it didn't belong to them so they must give it back to the owner. FOTL was happy to use the law for this.

I've massively over-simplified it.

I accept that sometimes the perceived injustice is not actually an injustice.

At times it is when people don't agree with the law.

I had occasion to fight a parking ticket and I won this case in September this year when the parking company gave up, but a lot of times people fight parking tickets without a cat in hells chance of winning.

I'd hold that it is always when people don't agree with the law!

I doubt whether any of you agreed to obey any sets of rules when you came into this world. Why should they apply if you didn't agree to them?
But then, I doubt whether any police officer agreed not to cart anyone off against his or her will either.
Nor did any judge agree never to opine that any other free man should be locked away.
And no police officer or prison officer agreed not to enforce that judge's opinion.

We are all free men, but are subject to the actions of other free men. Fortunately, most free men co-operate in maintaining a structure which maintains a degree of fairness.

If I claim that I am free to do anything I like, you can claim that you are free to take any action you like against me.


Julian F. G. W.

jfgw wrote:I doubt whether any of you agreed to obey any sets of rules when you came into this world. Why should they apply if you didn't agree to them?

That raises a really good point. Philosophical almost.

You are born, you have zero choice in the matter.

You (likely) grow up in country X - you have zero choice in the matter.

Eventually you reach an age where you do have choice, and the cognitive development not only to make it but also deal with "getting on" with wherever you choose to live.

Except... the way the world is you dont really have much choice at all if any. You can only go to places that will let you in (places here meaning other countries aside from X), and having got there can only probably stay a limited time. Probably without the chance to support yourself.

If that can be overcome/doesn't actually exist for you, however at this juncture you HAVE had a choice which entails you realitically accepting that where you have gone to - by choice - has rules that you will now need to accept. Because you HAVE a choice with this other place.

So in fact the ONLY place (probably) you can truly claim to have no choice is in fact country X. Except if there is just ONE other place you can go to (notwithstanding accepting their rules etc) you now DO have a choice. And to stay in country X you have now CHOSEN to be in country X - so can no longer claim you have no choice.

And of course if there really really is no other place except X - whilst its true you have no choice still... you cant leave either. But... gain the protection that is available in X.

A few years ago when I was in quite a dark place I called this the "how do I get off the bus" scenario. If I really dont like where I live (society) but cant actually go anywhere else so in reality I am "trapped" in X - how do I get off the bus? How do I avoid the trappings of X - dont buy into X and ask nothing from X? Because I cant. I cant even go and be a hermit and live in a cave/in a homemade shack in a forest. Because I either have to own that land the cave/shack is in/on, or somebody esle does and you may be required to leave said cave/shack. So you have no tenure or security even if you dont want it - but are still now stuck with society in X. Ultimately you cant escape X even if you chose not be in X . You are truly trapped.

The above is totally syimplified if instead X being a country its a planet. And now you arte back to being in X with no option but to be in X but unable tom escape X.


I'm not sure I am explaining it all at all well so I'll give up now

GrahamPlatt wrote:
The FOTL ought to think carefully before declaring themselves outlaw. The meaning of which was (as I understand it) that they were not afforded protection by the law - anyone could offend against them without consequence (from the law).

Didn't this derive from 'without', meaning 'outside?' 'Withoutlaw' becoming 'outlaw', as in 'outside the law?'

Hmm- just checked and found :-

https://www.etymonline.com/word/outlaw

"outlaw (n.)

Old English utlaga "one put outside the law" (and thereby deprived of its benefits and protections), from a Scandinavian source such as Old Norse utlagi (n.) "outlaw," from utlagr (adj.) "outlawed, banished," from ut "out" (see out (adv.)) + *lagu, plural of lag "law" (see law). Formerly it was lawful for anyone to kill such a person."

Just noticed this story on the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-55057700

The picture in it only claims to be of "A similar sign to the one on the salon door, ..." (my bold), but assuming it's reasonably similar, it seems that "'Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants' (OPCA)" are closer to home than Canada and the US...

Gengulphus

Gengulphus wrote:Just noticed this story on the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-55057700

The picture in it only claims to be of "A similar sign to the one on the salon door, ..." (my bold), but assuming it's reasonably similar, it seems that "'Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants' (OPCA)" are closer to home than Canada and the US...

They would appear to have pulled that image from an earlier article (found by scrolling down at your link);

Two arrests at Christian tearoom that refuses to close
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-54950773