Freeman
 

Applies to UK and any other system that uses the Magna Carta (51 countries).

Not an ecuse to do what you want but to ACCEPT the great responsabilities laid upon you that are usually delt with by the government! Think carefully!

I am not not responsable foy you idiocy!

English Version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOF8sg4jD9E

Seek psychiatric help. Urgently.

Video Posted at Today, 02:09 AM

Your reply at Today, 03:49 AM

Not even time to watch the whole thing when you found it inbetween.... Nothing to say but that... :)

Why the **** do you think I would want to watch it? Anyway, a few minute's Googling reveals that John Harris is just another conspiracy-theorist loon (with, yes, you guessed it, a website with a forum with a smattering of antisemitic drivel amongst all the other zaniness). Still, I recommend everyone to watch the last 5 minutes, when Harris tells us that he wants to shut down the internet. Given the deranged ramblings on this forum, maybe he has a point....

P.S. RationalWiki on Harris: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Harris

Cor! That explains a LOT. Could this be the source of recent claims that Churchill had syphilis and Hitler offered his resignation to the British cabinet?

Possibly, but I think it more likely that they were either found on some neo-you-know-who website, or simply pulled from the nether orifice of the person posting them. ;)

Meh ... 2 hours is too long.

Anyway ... the influence of the Magna Carta has been substantially reduced in recent times.

In most common law countries the legislature is continually enacting new civil legislation which overrides the older common law precedents (Politicians do not like the idea of judges defining laws they want to be able to decide and overrule the courts).

Modern capitalist countries like the US pay lip service to the "Rule of Law" (the idea everyone is equal under the law) but in reality being a politician, having money, owning a newspaper or simply being a corporation means you are treated differently in law to the common man. Even serious cases like rape and murder are treated differently depending on who the individual is. Pascal Mazurier is an example of where "Rule of Law" was clearly not applied.

Even Habeus Corpus has been overruled in many countries with the flood new Terrorism legislation introduced over the last 10 years.

Habeus corpus originated in the English courts. To follow up on Galway's post I thought I'd touch on the two main different types of legal systems in the world.

One system is based on Roman law and the other on the English common law. Roman law is based on the rights of the state and it gives permissions for citizens to do certain things. For example a law may say that you are allowed to do X, Y and Z because the state gives permission.

Common law builds up over time from court decisions and legislation commonly says that you cannot do certain things. For example you can do whatever you like but you cannot do A, B and C because it infringes the rights of others, or you can do other things but you have to do it like so.

The split in the different types of systems follows broadly colonial lines, so the USA has a common law system (though its now a hybrid of the two) as do most ex-English colonies. Scotland and most ex-French and Spanish colonies have Roman law systems.

In my opinion most countries are having a gradual shift towards state control and this means a shift towards the Roman law system. I feel this is as a response to things like terrorism or external threats, not because of some conspiracy, and this is why habeus corpus is gradually being eroded - the state doing what it wants in order to protect the state and its peoples.

Personally I don't have a problem with it as long as it is for the right reasons. What the "right reasons" are is worthy of debate. Then the problem becomes how those reasons are applied.

Hood

Caveats

The above is a very general outline, for a better and fuller explanation do your own research. Any opinions expressed are my own and have nothing to do with previous posts or opinions expressed by anyone on this forum but instead are formed from my own life experiences and from what I do in my work.

Thanks for the link. Interesting. RationalWiki its like wiki but with hate and snide. :-P

Close, but not exactly the right choice of words in regards to civil law.

Roman law is based on the rights of the state and it gives permissions for citizens to do certain things. For example a law may say that you are allowed to do X, Y and Z because the state gives permission.

Actually the most stricing difference is not that civil law is "giving citizens permission", which sounds like some kind of dictatorial regime. It is simply not based on precedents like the common law.

In fact both systems are based on the "not guilty until proven otherweise" principle and ppl can do whatever they want until it hurts or endangers others.

Basicly, common law means that a judge makes a call in a certain case which in it's subject matter is a first one.
Later, comparable cases can call upon that judgement to get a similiar call.
It's also not so much english as the roots of this system go back to germanic practices in general, which makes it rather old, comparable to roman law.

Civil law means that ppl get together and actually write down rules for juristication based on cases that have been handeled so far. Should an incident occur that has not yet been covered, then lawmakers come together to figure out rules for future handling of such cases. This law then is written down and binding to courts, so judges do not enjoy the same kind of freedom the common law judges do.

Common law is more individual, judges enjoy more freedom and sentences are mostly based on personal opinions of judges and juries (within the legal framwork), but precedents are often dependent on present day fashion and in the long run, rather chaotic.

Civil law is more rigid and less flexible, on the other hand more reliable and predictable in it's outcome and often (well, sometimes) more based on common sense (lawmakers actually not having anything to do with the case are making the descisions, which makes for laws that are more based on principle)

Both systems, in the long run, tend to become incredible complex, the on in it's chaos, the other in it's regidity.

Imho, a mix of both systems probably is the best way to go, though the less emotions you have in a court, the better.

accept it we live in an anarchy where the stronger imposes the rules

why people decieve themsleves

Money ,power rule

Yesterday, you said that you were leaving this forum for good. And that you were going to post on the Rise of Flight forum instead. You were yesterday very annoyed with this forum.

Why the 'U' turn?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Actually, as civil law is not so much reliant on interpretation and research by lawyers, given the more rigid nature of the laws, in most countries with a propper judiciary you have good chances for being treated quiet fairly.

Germany sports civil law codes since the days of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation. One reason why germans, in general, have a lot of trust in the state is this tradition that goes back centuries. Back then, a peasant could go up to the "Reichsgericht", the imperial court, with some chances of winning even against a nobleman or cleric.

Even today ppl believe in the general fairness of this system, the judiciary is one of the few branches of government which people actually trust.

It certainly looks different on an international level.....yet at least.

Small but interesting tidbit:
Hitler tried to implement a common law style system, first because of it's germanic originins, second because it made Friesling style judgement born out of the moment and not bound by written law easier. Get the right people in the jury and everything's possible.

haha... you called him out :D

Why am I still posting on this forum? Simple. I've changed my mind, and have decided to use the forum to conduct research into abnormal psychology. My thanks to all those who are contributing....

you need your friends close but your enemies closer ;)

RationalWiki:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

Hmmm... really...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywYkx...watch_response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8wZu...eature=related

Thank you Farber: more material for my research into abnormal psychology.

Tell me, do you actually believe that by saying a few magic words you can absolve yourself from responsibility under the law, as these 'Freemen' seem to be suggesting? And if so, have you said them yourself?

P.S. Driving without insurance or tax is morally reprehensible, and if you think it harms no one you are an idiot. If some a-hole gets away with it, that doesn't make it right.

Not a problem always happy to help my communist friend. :-P

NO. However some people do think this is a get out jail free card! Its not! To do something like this you must accept ALLOT OF RESPONSABILTY! Allot of people from what I have seen are riding it like a free gravy train. They are perverting it and if anything, if there is any validity, are going to ruin it!

Take this idiot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kScy-...eature=related

He wants to run the new bank of England essentially... Telling us all about Greedy bankers and his secret system to retire legal money to create his own monies uder the guise of saving the people... ;) Fat greedy git!

No I have only had few dealings with police. Ive never needed to have any such dialougue with the peelers. ;)

Tax only goes to help the enviroment in no way though... so tax, meh. The actually amount that goes on roads is laughable next to the rest of the payment.

Insurance, yea unless your loaded and are willing to accept FULL RESPONSABILTY! Which most people are not. Most people need the government to look after them. However we should not be taking a rifting to get insured as we are, seeing as how, I have never had an accident on motorcycle or car for pffff? 7 years? Yet they charge you on age, sex etc... Its a scam...



Can you show me the anti-semetic stuff from John Harris's website/forum. I could not find it!


You should actually watch the first post so you have more of an understanding. Then you might be able to engage better. I found the bit about registration quite intriging, resgister means to surrender, in a legal sense apparently, which means you dont own your car the DVLA does, you are the keeper, its all there in you docs.

I think on the whole I'd rather not take legal advice from a carpenter - particularly one who seems to think the Israelites wrote in Cherokee (see about 10 minutes from the end of the video - I generally find with such stuff if you wan't to get a sense of what it is about, but can't be bothered to watch the lot, watching the end is more useful - as in detective stories, you find out 'who done it')

Meanwhile in the land of the free you can be arrested for putting on the wrong T-shirt that morning :D

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/couri...a2386427a.html

Ho hum, stranger and stranger. Farber's 'Freemen' seem to be led by a man who wants to establish "a benign dictator".http://www.tpuc.org/content/what-cou...-%E2%80%98true Now where have we heard that before? Actually, ignoring the more recent examples, he reminds me of nobody so much as Oliver Cromwell in his 'Protectorate' days - with added atheism, and a rather different (if more honest) attitude to democracy, which Cromwell was of course all in favour of until it did something he didn't like.

Of course, the words of this lowly carpenter do sometimes appeal: "Every banker, lawyer, barrister and his or her assets and buildings would be seized in the peoples name. Every bank destroyed". I seem to remember reading about another carpenter getting upset by bankers/moneylenders, though his response was a little more restrained. ;)

Ahh yes the Hitler method. ;)

He doesnt say Isralies wrote in cherokee... Your making it up now.

Are you Jewish? You keep bringing them up.



Come on SHOW IT!



The thing is, it wasnt him that found it out. I believe but dont know it was Robert Menard, a Canadian. ;)

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?...edit&redlink=1

Actually no - he says that Cherokee and Hebrew are both based on an ancient Cornish language, my mistake. See his explanation for his symbol, starting from about 1h 49m in the video.

Do I have to dignify that with a response?

Regarding the antisemitic stuff on Harris's forum - I'll find it for you.

And as for Robert Menard (who?), you seem to be linking to an article on RationalWiki that doesn't exist. Are you proposing to write it?


Edit: That didn't take long. Antisemitism on Harris's forum? Would a forum member citing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as 'evidence do? http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic....ewish&start=10 - see the 7th post. And I see the notable loon Lord Monckton gets a look in on the forums too...

Yes please.

Excellant.

No, Im not much of a writer.

Robert Menard;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtoFqh2PTUk

All right: mind your own f&%#ing business.

wow, what? What a strange response. So you are but your ashamed or your not but you want to be?

Either way you can be whatever you want to be for all I care.

If you don't care, why did you ask? :confused:

Anyway, I've provided the link demonstrating antisemitism on Harris's forum. I've corrected my assertion re Israelites speaking Cherokee (Cornish instead, an easy mistake to make ;) ), I've shown that the 'Freemen' are led by someone who wants to establish a dictatorship. Do you need any more evidence to demonstrate what a bunch of deranged loons they are, or shall we just leave it at that?

I dont care what you. Im more interested in why you so touchey about it. I dont believe in god. I do not practice any religion. Han Solo said it best when he said "Theres no mystical energy field controlling my destiny..." :-P

Did you forget the link? Becuae you didnt do it.

No you havent. Did you do it when no one was looking? :confused:

Have you lost the ability to read, Farber, or merely the ability to remember what you have read for more than ten seconds? I've already provided the links to what you are asking for...

You seem locked up in a tiny victim room, wearing goggles of paranoia.

Maybe you're just very open minded, then again I expect you to defend the Islam with the same elan the next opportunity you get.

I see, you hid it away in a previous post. However they are the views of forum members. Its a bit like comming on here and talking about RoF, it doesnt mean the devs have anything to do with RoF... :rolleyes:

Err, no. I merely don't think that discussing my ethnicity and/or religious beliefs is relevant to the discussion - except to a significant proportion of deranged conspiracy-theorist loons, who seem to have a predilection for finding 'the Jews' behind everything. Given that any response I gave would promptly be incorporated into the conspiracy theory anyway, it seems obvious that it shouldn't have been dignified with a response. Still, for the record, since others seem to think it matters too: no, as far as I'm aware I don't have any Jewish ancestry (I'm English-Scottish-Irish with a bit of Belgian-or-possibly-French, at least as far as I know - though one of my brothers is investigating our ancestry further, so who knows what will turn up next). And as an atheist, I've no wish to convert to Judaism either.

Of course, the conspiracy theorists will now assume that I'm lying, to hide the dark secrets...

...who seem to think the forum is an appropriate place to discuss them.


And no, Harris arguing for a 'benign dictatorship' doesn't come into the 'forum members views' category, does it? Do you agree with him, or not?

wait, what?

Don't expect it to make sense - this is an investigation into abnormal psychology. ;)

Aren't we all here for that? :cool:

I must have missed the part about a dictatorship. Can you show me that bit. I could not find it.

"Do I agree with him?" What he is saying is the terms and definitions of law. You cant disagree with a definition really. In most technical books you will find a definition of terms, detailing each word used and its meaning. The legal book would be blacks law dictionary, however there are several versions of it and to make it even more complecated the basis of law the Magna Carta is written in Latin and the people that wrote it up spoke in old English. So a modern term or word wont nessicarly mean the same thing today as it did then.

Farber, if you can't be bothered to look at links when I provide them, why should I bother to provide them again?

As for the "Freemen's" interpretation of the law, it is total bollocks. You may be gullible enough to believe this nonsense, but the courts don't. You've been had...