is it a crime?

[ref1ect1ons]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-T_R2wZwr4&feature=related

common law stuff in reference to raising a herb on your land.

Edited March 26, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[nabraxas]

not sure how or if any ov that relates to Australian law.

[mr me]

Governments can make up any law they want. If there is a law saying you can't grow then you are not allowed to grow unless there is a law stating why you get an exemption.

[ref1ect1ons]

Australian law and British law also have statutes and common law. Under Australian common law there is no crime unless it has caused harm or loss, as he has explained.

Stautes are not criminal laws, they are commercial or maritime 'laws' (they are actually policies that carry 'the force of law' according to blacks law dictionary), you need to give your consent to be subject to them.

There is heaps of info on this in the huichoi thread and the freeman thread. I recommend those posted by grantoss; which also has a short excerpt by Australia's premier freeman. Ill put 1 of his vids at the bottom, he goes into common and statutes. He drives without a licence, for two reasons, but the most interesting is that because Australia has anti-monoply legislation the government's commercial registration offices are illegal as they don't have competitors. So he has set himself up as a competitor, and through this he can issue his own registration and licence for free.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[ref1ect1ons]

 

[Slybacon]

I enjoyed that John Harris talk. I do question BBC's involvement though???

Hmmm

[bℓσωηG]

im not about to go along to get along , sharing is caring...

Top 20 Lies of the World

 

[vual]

He drives without a licence, for two reasons, but the most interesting is that because Australia has anti-monoply legislation the government's commercial registration offices are illegal as they don't have competitors. So he has set himself up as a competitor, and through this he can issue his own registration and licence for free.

 

Hahahha Oh my... Hahaha that is pure gold, absolutely classic, but does he get away with it.

[occidentalis]

Australian law and British law also have statutes and common law. Under Australian common law there is no crime unless it has caused harm or loss, as he has explained.

Stautes are not criminal laws, they are commercial or maritime 'laws' (they are actually policies that carry 'the force of law' according to blacks law dictionary), you need to give your consent to be subject to them.

 

I haven't watched your videos because I'm on a slow connection here, so maybe this is a redundant question, but I've been looking into the freeman stuff recently and finding a major problem. The main point of the freeman idea is that statutes are only effective with consent, therefore if you withdraw your consent by taking particular actions they are no longer applicable to you.

However, nowhere in any of the information I have found is a simple explanation, with reference to legal documents, of how and why this is the case. I really want to believe, but so far the skeptic in me has not been even nearly convinced... and I've been trying to find the answer on all the FMOTL websites to no avail. What I have found is a lot of rambling, poorly written ranty crap. Anyone help me out?

[ref1ect1ons]

Hahahha Oh my... Hahaha that is pure gold, absolutely classic, but does he get away with it.

Yes, there was a police officer in one of his lectures and he explains that as he was getting in his car the copper brought up the subject, as he had said it in his lecture. Apparently the copper said that he wouldn't waste his time trying to give him a fine. This guy is good though, he tells a story of how he walked into a police station and would tell them to get fuked if they wouldn't give him a receipt for a summons, eventually the sarge came out and told the young police officer to 'give him a fuken reciept'..

Occidentalis, you really have to know it through and through to get anywhere, because they will pick-up on the smallest mistakes, and try to trick you into making a contract with them.

The most info is on utube, i usually prefer non-videos but in this case there alot of very good people who speak openly about it, whereas in the blogs there are alot of amateurs who may or may not know as well. Because it is natural law there is not a distinct set of precedures that you can take to declare yourself 'a freeman'. There is no do a-B-C and you're 'free'. There is no system, which is what we (the brainwashed left mind obsessives) need to understand or exploit an idea or resource.

Essentially it is you taking responsiblity for yourself, you would have to almost forget the whole of 'society' and live within it as an observer or such. Any encounter with the dying and outdated society of today would be met with reason, you would reason as is only natural, that you are not a part of the society to which the policies apply, you are simply a man who happens to live alongside the society and do not wish them harm. Therefore you question juristiction, this is the fundamental argument, their juristiction over a natural man.

Ofcourse they presume they own the land on which you walk and when they say 'what is your name' they are literally saying 'what' IS your name, and who are you to be on their land. So it is difficult when we live alongside people that wear hats and uniforms and call themselves judges and police and think, in thier unusual logic, that this is the case simply because they wish it to be so. Something else has to change first, freeman is not the way.

Who is going to stop them throwing you in gaol if they really want and acting against true justice.

I think it is best to not play these games at all, no freeman, no nothing, just common sense and freedom. But unfortunately many of our fellow man cannot take care of themselves and need these policies to guide their actions. So we are not ready, but when we are I am sure there will be no talk of freeman leading to true freedom and free expression.

[reshroomED]

Are you people joking?

Try it out youselves before encouraging others.

If you've a lazy $500K, you've got a shoe-in. Get a cranky judge on the day and it's gone plus legal fees.

In my youth I was charged and bashed on many occasions, once to the point of laying in the shower for three days, sporadically hitting the taps to get rid of my piss, spew, and blood

FWIW, my last crime was being asleep in a sleeping-bag in the back seat in possession of my car keys, which copped me a driver's license cancellation for eighteen months.

I think that telling a copper that you are 'above the law' wouldd't work (unless you were a masochist).

ed

[ref1ect1ons]

I think that telling a copper that you are 'above the law' wouldd't work

I dont think anyone said that ed. I think you need to do some more research, no offence.

[reshroomED]

I'd sugest that you need more 'real-life' experiences, no offense.

In all practicality, the jacks are the people that will confront you for refusing to be part of the system (and most have a very poor understanding of the law at best).

In my experience, aggravating cops is a silly move.

Please explain how you can interact with society in general (and the cop who wants to stop you for a random license check, whilst not complying to Law). Refusal to play their game is punishable, regardless of right/wrong or good/bad.

And if you haven't a shit-load of ready cash, you're obliged to play their game.

My point was that, regardless of technical legalities, police will be the people who you'll officially have to confront.

Stating that you have no obligation etc to the current goverment is not going to mollify them, the reverse in fact.

ed

Edited March 28, 2010 by reshroomED

[Slybacon]

Ok so in the blacks law dictionary- (From memory not quoted)

Driving - To operate a vehicle between two or more ports for a commercial transaction

Journeying - To operate a vehicle not intended for a commercial transaction

Cop - Do you know your driving an un registered vehicle sir

Driver - But officer Im not driving Im journeying to the beach for some R&R

Cop - Sir your vehicle isn't registered can i see your licence

Driver - Officer I dont have one as there is no business taking place

Cop - Sir step out of the vehicle

Driver - But officer what law have i broken

Cop - Step OUT of the vehicle!

Driver - ok (steps out)

Cop - Tell me your name

Driver - John of the Citizen family

Cop - And what is your date of birth

Driver - I dont understand what this is about

Cop - Answer the questions sir

Driver - What have i done wrong officer?

Cop - Ok your coming down to the station for un registered un licenced driving of a vehicle on public roads

Now John Citizen would most definitely appear in court. I would love to hear what a judge would say in a public court of petty crime about a case like this. I honestly have no idea what would happen. Im guessing he would be charged for unrego uninsured unlicensed but fuck it would be fun to go and watch from the stalls. Blacks Law dictionary would probably change if more cases like this started appearing.

[occidentalis]

Occidentalis, you really have to know it through and through to get anywhere, because they will pick-up on the smallest mistakes, and try to trick you into making a contract with them.

The most info is on utube, i usually prefer non-videos but in this case there alot of very good people who speak openly about it, whereas in the blogs there are alot of amateurs who may or may not know as well. Because it is natural law there is not a distinct set of precedures that you can take to declare yourself 'a freeman'. There is no do a-B-C and you're 'free'. There is no system, which is what we (the brainwashed left mind obsessives) need to understand or exploit an idea or resource.

Essentially it is you taking responsiblity for yourself, you would have to almost forget the whole of 'society' and live within it as an observer or such. Any encounter with the dying and outdated society of today would be met with reason, you would reason as is only natural, that you are not a part of the society to which the policies apply, you are simply a man who happens to live alongside the society and do not wish them harm. Therefore you question juristiction, this is the fundamental argument, their juristiction over a natural man.

 

Yeah I've read all that on the various sites I've looked at, it all makes sense in some way, but you still didn't answer my question. I want to see some evidence of this claimed distinction between common law and statute law that means statutes only apply with consent.

[ref1ect1ons]

Occ, quick search for some text, I know the library would have a better explanation. The first person I heard speak of the distinction was Jordan Maxwell.

Civil law is primarily contrasted with common law, which is the legal system developed among Anglophone people, especially in England. From wikipedia.

The original difference is that, historically, common law was law developed by custom, beginning before there were any written laws and continuing to be applied by courts after there were written laws, too, whereas civil law developed out of the Roman law of Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law).

Common Law is based on natural law, judges originally dealt predominantly with common law but now that has changed completely.

There is also a list of countries, that do not have this division and do not have civil laws, it is on wikipedia.

In the same table it describes how each law is applied, common law is legislation, civil law is statutes.

I suppose your next step would be to look at the definition for statute.

I do not mean to convince you of anything, you can find out, believe/disbelieve but from memory, it is something that is given 'the force of law' but which is not a law in itself.

Sly ur right, I would like to see what would happen and ed, I'm sure the person would end up in gaol despite everything, but the point is to start looking at ways that we can make a change.

I said previously that imo freeman is not the way. It is a stepping stone. I am not going to explain how to deal with the police because there are many youtube videos entitled 'how to talk to the police', take some responsibility and learn for yourself or your other option is to keep gettin what you've been getting and telling everyone else that they must be wrong because 'look what happened to me', 'look what happens to everyone who grows some balls and a brain'.

[occidentalis]

Occ, quick search for some text, I know the library would have a better explanation. The first person I heard speak of the distinction was Jordan Maxwell.

 

the thing that worries me is that this distinction seems to be the basis that the whole FMotL thing relies on. And yet none of the 4 or 5 sites that I looked through gave me any evidence to support this claim, which to me, makes it hard to believe anything they say. There were also many other examples of other 'factual' points that were on these sites that make it hard for me to have any trust in them. From the writing style I can infer that the people involved in this are generally not that well educated, and therefore I can forgive a bit of sloppiness in referencing. But if you can't show evidence for the main point that your entire belief system relies on, it may as well be a paranoid delusion. Or possibly even a piece of disinformation created by the grand conspiracy in order to land a whole bunch of gullible people in jail! ;)

The idea of FMotL is great, it is based on common sense and aims to create genuine freedom rather than just get out of paying fines and taxes and so on. However, it is pretty crazy, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case I am not looking for extraordinary evidence, just a simple, one sentence reference to a well-recognised legal document that should not be difficult for anyone as familiar with the law as these people claim to be to produce.

Edited March 29, 2010 by occidentalis

[ref1ect1ons]

.

Edited March 29, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[rogdog]

My understanding of fmotl is the distinction between what is legal and what is lawful. Common law is lawful, Acts and Statutes are legal. Common Law is law of the LAND, Statutes are Maritime law. If you are charged under a statute or act while on the LAND, it is up to you if you consent to being accountable under that jurisdiction

[vual]

My understanding of fmotl is the distinction between what is legal and what is lawful. Common law is lawful, Acts and Statutes are legal. Common Law is law of the LAND, Statutes are Maritime law. If you are charged under a statute or act while on the LAND, it is up to you if you consent to being accountable under that jurisdiction

 

...And you consent by answering to your "STRAWMAN" at any stage during the Arrest/Court.?

strawman being the "Trading Name"(MR BLAH BLAH)??? were one who would practice freeman would be "blah of the blah family" ?

From my understanding just showing up to court is "Consent" its admiting you are MR BLAH BLAH, if you refuse the "Invitation" then you are still not consenting?

By simply getting out of the car you are giving consent.. by slowing down.. pulling over or getting out of the car you are acknowledging there authority,

To do Freeman properly would be extremely dangerous and would most likely up in death. But its a Nice idea.

Edited March 30, 2010 by vual

[rogdog]

...And you consent by answering to your "STRAWMAN" at any stage during the Arrest/Court.?

strawman being the "Trading Name"(MR BLAH BLAH)??? were one who would practice freeman would be "blah of the blah family" ?

From my understanding just showing up to court is "Consent" its admiting you are MR BLAH BLAH, if you refuse the "Invitation" then you are still not consenting?

 

To start with, I would dispute that the prosecution had a just cause. To acheive this, when I first recieved a summons, I would reply to the prosecutor that they must explain which aspect of the COMMON LAW I had broken, by registered post, giving 30 days from receipt of my rebuttal to reply. Naturally, the prosecutor could not respond. The prosecution would then fall into dishonour by virtue of not adequatly responding by the due date. Therefore, there is no dispute, there is no cause for arbitration, there is no case to answer to. Thank your mother for the rabbits

[edit] assuming I had not offended COMMON LAW, and just broken a statute.

Edited March 30, 2010 by rogdog