Freeman solisitor

[Amethyst]

Whilst you're reading - this is worthwhile*https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...012abqb571.pdf

[Batista230]

The two posts below explain why FMOTL principles are absolute drivel.

Batista230I would highly recommend you read the latter link and the judgment Meads v Meads (all 192 pages of it). You won't of course accept the judgment because that's what FMOTL do but I would have zero sympathy if you end up in prison as a result of whatever the case is against you, be that civil or criminal. Maybe it will do you some good and knock some sense into you.

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/1...rous-nonsense/

The artical quotes

My second example arose when I did jury service last month (a generally positive experience – see my comment on it here). One of the trials involved a defendant who was accused of stealing sports cars. When we entered the court, the judge told us that the defendant had released his legal team and was denying the court’s jurisdiction

Well exactly! this is the point I have been making

Whilst you're reading - this is worthwhilehttps://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...012abqb571.pdf

what is it?

[R0b]

My second example arose when I did jury service last month (a generally positive experience – see my comment on it here). One of the trials involved a defendant who was accused of stealing sports cars. When we entered the court, the judge told us that the defendant had released his legal team and was denying the court’s jurisdiction

Well exactly! this is the point I have been making

Alright let's not be selective here, the rest of the blog goes on to say "We found the Defendant guilty on 7 of 8 counts, and I will not say anything about our reasoning. I do suspect that the car stealing Defendant’s bizarre and misguided defence influenced the judge’s sentencing,"

what is it?

It is the link to the Meads v Meads case. Page 61 onwards deals with the typical arguments FMOTL and the judge meticulously goes through each and every one of them as to why they are a nonsense. Whilst it is a decision by a Canadian court, it has been referred to and applied in court cases over here. Indeed, there was a 2013 Scottish case where a purported FMOTL tried his chance and, low and behold, failed. The decision was littered with references to the Meads v Meads case and in particular I think the below paragraph sums it up neatly.

"79. But there is a more fundamental objection; whatever the provenance of the document and even if on some, as yet undetermined, basis the pursuer can point to a consensus, the pursuer's position in reliance on the document is manifestly unstateable; no citizen can remove himself from the legal framework within which society is regulated. To paraphrase the wording of Justice Brooke at paragraph [318] of Maids, if the pursuer does not wish to be governed by the laws of Scotland, he need only leave Scotland and break his ties with the jurisdiction. Otherwise he cannot evade his responsibilities. The proposition that he can is absurd and nonsensical. The document is legally illiterate" (my emphasis)

You wouldn't trek to Saudi Arabia and tell them you aren't going to abide by their laws because you are a FMOTL and can only abide by something if you consent to it; you'd get lashed for starters, maybe your fingers chopped off if they still have those sort of punishments.

Anyhow, I think this thread has already had enough air, this forum abides by and upholds the rule of law and principles of justice so I don't think it's worthwhile you being a member if all you want to do is reject or not accept the laws of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland or any other commonwealth jurisdiction. As I said before, you are better off finding a forum, place or group that thinks like you do because we don't promote that kind of belief here.

[jaguarsuk]

The OP is not a freeman of the land, if you have an internet connection to post here (even if you use the library or some other public access) you are entering into an agreement covered by our laws, thus you accept and conform to our laws.

The prosecution rests m'lord.

[Batista230]

Alright let's not be selective here, the rest of the blog goes on to say "We found the Defendant guilty on 7 of 8 counts, and I will not say anything about our reasoning. I do suspect that the car stealing Defendant’s bizarre and misguided defence influenced the judge’s sentencing,"

The point I am trying to make hear is if they can not prove that you consented to the title of the names being then they can not claim jurisdiction. Unless tired under common law and for the purpose of this case it is a stolen motor vehicle. Now under magna carta treaty theft is a crime. Like our freeman friend from Burnly who was bosting on youtube about growing cannabis and selling it as his main source of income, but it turns out they got him on his name, weather that be his internet connection or his tenancy agreement. And lets face it people get away with murder all the time because of our corrupt justice system because the wrong name was served on the papers and they where tired for the criminal offense of murder and not the crime of common law for murder. BTW it is not a crime to sell drugs!

Now If you can find me an instance where someone has been prosecuted without a name under a law of commerce that I might start to agree with you that the whole thing is noncnece

Anyhow, I think this thread has already had enough air, this forum abides by and upholds the rule of law and principles of justice so I don't think it's worthwhile you being a member if all you want to do is reject or not accept the laws of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland or any other commonwealth jurisdiction. As I said before, you are better off finding a forum, place or group that thinks like you do because we don't promote that kind of belief here.

That I will leave to the discretion of the owners of this site

The OP is not a freeman of the land, if you have an internet connection to post here (even if you use the library or some other public access) you are entering into an agreement covered by our laws, thus you accept and conform to our laws.

The prosecution rests m'lord.

Not if one is on a mobile pay as you go device and has paid by cash for it
*

[pt2537]

I thought about typing out a full on reply to why this thread was soooo wrong, then i found this and thought it summed up my thoughts perfectly

[jaguarsuk]

I think the OP will find when they insert the SIM card into the phone and top up funds they are agreeing to the networks terms and conditions, ones that are governed by our laws.