Freemen on the land
Chirpy_Chicken
Posts: 1,740 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Has anyone else come across this bizarre group?
Where they claim that things like the courts have legal authority, that judges are committing treason other such rubbish
Where they claim that things like the courts have legal authority, that judges are committing treason other such rubbish
0
Comments
I suppose it's the UK version of what they've been doing in the states for years - just with less guns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_2e-VPdzoQ
Edit - this guy calls himself a scottish sovereign but he seems quite FMOTL to me. Oh, just remembered, this is the guy who isn't driving a car, but simply travelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfVbiefMdNU
It doesn't seem to fly so well in the US!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsgXWPRbKQE
It's all kicked off here.
It seems to be people denying modern law by querying definitions of words and harking back to centuries ago.
Hardly Numpties, when in reality they have an understanding of the Law that probably the majority of us dont have, which they use Lawfully and legally to their advantage.
Except they don't. They just think they do.
They have zero understanding of the law.
Some do know more, but it's easy for others to dismiss them and say they are numpties without understanding it yourself.
I don't profess to understand it all, but what i have read and the videos/ documentaries i have seen certainly makes me think.
Anyhow I have yet to hear of it actually working. Would be more than happy however if someone could post a link to prove me wrong.
I am now taking a moment to fully appreciate the thought of FotL issuing ID cards to themselves.
I do understand the law, and can quite safely say they are numpties. They read stuff which they interpret as applicable to modern life, when in fact most of what they say is rubbish.
If you listen to the way they present their case, without understanding the reality, it may seem to make sense. That's how they attract supporters.
The problem arises when they try to use their theories. It all falls down.
Actually, I believe that those things would be covered by common law (a charge of murder, for example, is phrased as "that on or about [date] you did murder [name] contrary to common law")
I'm sure that some things could be found that would be strictly a matter of statute law and still annoy them, though. Noise abatement, perhaps, or having a picnic on their front doorstep?
Murder is contrary to common law. Burglary and assault are contrary to statute law (Theft Act 1968, Offences Against the Person Act 1861), that's why I gave those particular examples. No doubt they were contrary to common law as well before the statutes were enacted, but I was just trying to illustrate how silly it is to believe in one and not the other.
I am cool with someone who challenges the right of a group to impose laws on others. Does one have the freedom to standup and simply say "I opt out of the law", do others have a right to impose their views on you?
However the free men seek to find justification to ignore laws in the law itself, simply by (arbitrarily) selecting which "root" law they like and rejecting all subsequent laws, and also choosing to use their own interpretation of words and phrases, some of which is simply bizarre.
its absolute nonsense though, utter tripe made up by loonballs that never stands up in court
they dont have an understanding of the law though they are just talking nonsense and it has never stood up in court, the only examples of it working are when policemen and women have been confused by it, im sure they are all fully briefed on this pish now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmCcghxgFI0
I really don't like going to that forum, but there was once a thread of there where the freemen were arguing with each other as to whether destroying your birth certificate removes your obligation to follow the law.
Those objecting were not doing it on the grounds of "don't talk shit", but on the grounds that there is no legal obligation to begin with,