The damage this freeman garbage is doing

[gravytrain]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

The following extract is from page 117 of the ninth edition of the academic text "Constitutional & Administrative Law" by Hilaire Barnett, published in 2011 by Routlage.

Interesting and pretty much the way I had thought about it. Common law evolved throughout history, some acquired from ancient Greek and Roman text but even that was the result of earlier human cultural evolution. I think evolution is a good description because the laws that endured was the ones that were most healthy for the organisation and success of the organism, society.
Parliament is the latest stage in this evolution, and it exists (sometimes uneasily) alongside its earlier counterpart not supplanting it(yet). So parliament and our system of legislature could not exist without its common law roots
In a way common law permitted the construction of the foundations of parliament if you like.
Just my take on it

[labman]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

This has been discussed at length several times both here, and on several other fora and websites. CP I think you mean Decius, not Detius.

The freeman issue has been going on for years even in its current state of argument. It is generally regarded as tosh, but there is no doubting that much of our legal system as we know it now evolved from common law. Anyone with even a mediocre knowledge of history will understand roughly how this all happened. Indeed it does go back to Decius and earlier, but it is usually later events which are used - Magna Carta and Bill of Rights being the two main ones commonly cited. From these it is fairly simple to trace how we got to where we are now.

Anyone trying the FMOTL stuff, well, I guess that's your right, but I wouldn't expect an easy ride trying to live fully to the values of common law in a modern society. IMO you'll end up in trouble fairly swiftly, human rights or no human rights.

[Inca]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

If you rent property belonging to someone else and that rental agreement is at an end,then you should move out of that property if the LL wants it back,,it's simple

[UnitedFront]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

I agree... although I'm confused where this comes into the fray... have I missed something? :confused2:

[UnitedFront]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

Scratch that last question... I've found the thread to which you were referring and I'm with you 100%.

The problem in that thread is really rather connected to the issue at hand in this thread, namely the following:

So-called Freemen-on-the-land almost always base their arguments on the common law to assert that they are not bound by statutes. They then use slight details of this "common law" to construct their own interpretation of what the "common law" is. The "base" or "starting" point that they use, that being the basis of the common law, might often be quite accurate. From there they go on to build their argument... they might use some of the right words (and an awful lot of very peculiar ones, too!) and they might even have some of the law right... but what they do is learn SOME of the law... but not ALL of the law... or they read bits and pieces of the law and fail to grasp the real meaning or application of the law. This leads to their arguments being illogical, ill-founded and, quite frankly, unsustainable under even the slightest amount of objective scrutiny.

In the thread to which I believe you were alluding, the OP had clearly started back at the Magna Carta, but had failed to appreciate the dynamic nature of legal systems and constitutions, let alone some fairly momentous events is history such as the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement. This leads to (oh so common amongst FMOL) misapprehensions about the weight afforded to the Magna Carta. Then the OP had clearly read some of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention of Human Rights, without really getting to grips with the fact that the former merely incorporated the latter into the law of this country. Having read some aspects of the HRA and ECHR, the thread then appears to try to apply them haphazardly to a situation in which they have no bearing or true application.

In essence, the basis of their arguments and the danger caused by them is a SLIGHT knowledge with no real understanding.

Ultimately, people in desperate situation react with desperate measure and, to some extent, can surely be forgiven for clutching at straws. This is my gripe with the FMOL movement - the majority of those taken in by such movements are themselves in fairly delicate, fragile or outright vulnerable states and/or positions. They are willing to clutch at straws because the "gurus" show them an "easy way out" of their problems.

The fundamental flaws, the illogical arguments, the lack of real and deep understanding are all, however, destined to cause great hardship to such people. And then what? Having been vulnerable to start with, having been given false hope, having fought with everything that one might muster and having ultimately lost not because the tactics were not applied correctly, but because they are inherently fundamentally and irreparably faulty from the very start. What are the dangers that people sucked into such nonsense will come out even more vulnerable than they go in?

[Guest]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

CP I think you mean Decius, not Detius.

No, I meant Detius.

[labman]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

They are willing to clutch at straws

More like willing to clutch at Strawmen????????

[UnitedFront]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

More like willing to clutch at Strawmen????????

Hahahaha love it!! That actually made me audibly chuckle!! :laugh:

[gravytrain]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

As with anything else it is a matter of balance common law has it's place and is effective when relevant. Unfortunately people will read into it what they want to see, instead of what it really means.
This failing is not confined to common law the same happens with statute, you see it all the time on forums like this, quite understandably none (or few) of us are legally trained on here, and even people who are, have been known to get it wrong.

The problems arises when someone has a mistaken interpretation and gains a following, the idea then takes on a life of its own and logic goes out of the window.

[UnitedFront]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

Yes I definitely agree... that was really the crux of what I was saying above... a misunderstanding can be quite dangerous.

A misunderstanding in itself it not so bad... the really dangerous (and infuriating!) thing is when a person, like FMOL's always do, refuses to acknowledge that perhaps their understanding or argument etc is flawed.

I've seen it many times with statute also, where someone has read a part of a statute and have taken it to mean a particular thing, whereas it actually has meant something altogether quite different. I think this is caused often by taken things in isolation and out of their full context.

[gravytrain]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

Yes I definitely agree... that was really the crux of what I was saying above... a misunderstanding can be quite dangerous.

A misunderstanding in itself it not so bad... the really dangerous (and infuriating!) thing is when a person, like FMOL's always do, refuses to acknowledge that perhaps their understanding or argument etc is flawed.

I've seen it many times with statute also, where someone has read a part of a statute and have taken it to mean a particular thing, whereas it actually has meant something altogether quite different. I think this is caused often by taken things in isolation and out of their full context.

This is something I have given a lot of thought to over the last few years and have seen many examples of.

It is as if some download a variety of statute then enter a couple of words into a search engine, search the text and proceed to quote as if it will have anything to do with the problem they are having.
We know of course that it does not work like that, you have to have an understanding of the law first, then when you have a problem you draw on it. You cannot dive into a piece of legislation because a couple of lines in there are vaguely similar to something you know a little about, you have to understand what the legislation is intended to do, it may have absolutely nothing to do with the problem that you are having.

[wales01man]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

We must accept that some people will beleive any old crap if they think they have a legal case by quoting outdated laws let them its the sames as religious beliefs some have them and accept them others and im one wait to be convinced

[Inca]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

I personally pick my battles carefully,,if I know I don't stand a cats chance in hell of winning,I don't try,,Lifes too flipping short to waste precious time delaying the inevitable.It's the same with my religion/faith,,it's personal to me,why fight to convince others my way is the right way?.It's right for me,and thats all that matters.