to think the 'common law/freeman on the land' thing is a whole load of bollocks?

[qwertypop]

I've come across a few people over the last few years that take it very seriously and bang on at length about how the police and courts have no authority over them as they are self declared 'freemen'. Something to do with common law being the only true law in Britain, I think? And not having to wear bike helmets or pay for TV licenses or repay your debts also seem important to the ones I've had the dubious pleasure of meeting.

A couple I met at the weekend have taken the biscuit though and not registered their baby's birth because apparently this will mean said baby grows up to be a 'freeman' (she's actually a girl but the term appears to be freeman anyway). They believe quite firmly that to register her birth will mean that the law assumes her and her name (which is a fucking corker, of course) are one and the same and that only by NOT registering her birth can she be free to be a human being. Quite what this actually means is a mystery to me and tbh the mumbo jumbo they gave me by way of an answer leads me to suspect they don't really know either

I've tried to read up on it but all the info I can find is written in a style you'd expect of an paranoid, delusional, and possibly hallucinating chimpanzee let loose with a legal dictionary.

So AIBU to think this is bollocky woo of the most fucking ridiculous type? Or is someone going to come along and actually enlighten me as to wtf its all about, preferably in plain English with no pseudo-legalese?

[PleaseJustShootMeNow]

Where the actually fuck do you get that deluded idea from? Was it a book written in fucking crayon?

What a brilliant response to nonsense. I'm filing that away for my own personal use in future dealings with my mother.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Well, uh, yeah, paying tax does harm the people you're effectively stealing from!

lisa, I think I love you.

I also love the 'was it a book written in fucking crayon'.

[LisaMed]

We are subject to the law not because of a contract but because of an accident of birth.

Not paying income tax means that those who are vulnerable have less support as the amount available is reduced. There are a shedload of other implications but one thing I feel okay about is knowing that part of my income tax is going towards supporting people who cannot support themselves. I hope I never have to access disability support, but I am glad that my income tax makes that support available, such as it currently is.

I suspect the whole idea of the contract is looking at the theory of feudal law (as opposed to the actual practice) where there was indeed a contract between free men. Free men in the Middle Ages had a very technical meaning and did not apply to the majority of the population. It is so irrelevant to today's society that it has no equivalent. However as the whole system of feudal dues was abolished then the idea of the contract between lord and vassals disappeared at the same time. At no time during the feudal period in England were any of the lords free from statute law and after 1215 there was a general agreement that even the sovereign was subject to the law of the land. You know, things like you have to pay road tax and have a driving licence. Stuff that is in Statutes.

I can't believe I am dignifying these arse apple arguments with a considered post.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

But, but ... also, free men doesn't mean not having to pay taxes or anything like that, does it? I mean, I'm a medievalist who knows fuck all about the law but I do know that. It's not just that it doesn't have an equivalent. It doesn't mean 'free' in the sense of 'able to fuck off and do what you please'.

[LisaMed]

Can people tell that I don't like this sort of woolly thinking. I hardly ever swear on Mumsnet (you can check) and I usually am a bit on the pink and fluffy side, but I don't like seeing History being treated like this.

I'm going away to have a calming cup of chamomile tea. However all bets are off if anyone mentions the Magna Carta (aka fucking statute law)

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

It does come over, just a hint of it under your tone of sweet reason.

It's brilliant.

[calculatorsatdawn]

DP is a scientist and often sends me article that falls into the category of 'not even wrong' (I send him a birilliant one that other day about the effect of eating clay). first time as a lawyer that I've been able to send him a link to something legal to respond in kind

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[LisaMed]

LRDtheFeministDragon I know, I know. I just read stuff that's for popular consumption and I know that in England no-one got exempt from taxes.

I suppose they could try in France where there were a load of immunities and areas of private law in the Middle Ages, but I suspect that they wouldn't be able to get past the Code Napoleon. Those immunities never applied in England.

It's just cobblers, really. According to the judge in Canada (who sounded really sensible, grounded and lovely) a lot of this is sold by people to those who are getting done for eg driving four wheel drives in areas of special scientific interest and they are really fancy and complicated and ornate not to impress the court but to impress the person buying the toilet paper this stuff is written on.

I think that the Moon landings were real as well.

[calculatorsatdawn]

sorry, my spelling on the last thread was awful probably from the laughing

[Micqdc]

the magna carta want a statute it was a royal charter they the government couldn't touch so they copied it into a statue so you can repel it.

you people actually believe that all tax money goes to roads and all that.
read the declaration of right its says in their that the royal family is responsible to pay for the army.

as for roads you pay 60% petrel tax which pays for that roads, everything else is paid by import tax and tax like that not income tax and council tax.

do you really want books on all this?
their is loads written by people this me but if you want some from history then watch this video he shows all the books that confirms everything he says.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

What's repelling a law, then?

[Micqdc]

LRDtheFeministDragon - I meant repealed

[NigellasDealer]

and did you mean 'was not' rather than 'want'?
sorry to be picky but...

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I know, I was kidding.

[desertgirl]

Micqdc, how on earth does not taking property form part of 'natural law' (as you describe it) when not all societies actually had a concept of property ownership?? It's totally culturally specific.

[SlowlorisIncognito]

As I understand it though, with statute laws, the most recent law takes precedence (unlike common law where older judgements usually take precedence). This means that any laws passed since the Magna Carta have precedence over it. It's not a special document like the US constitution which has to be changed through special process. Every law passed since the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights can contradict them.

For example, the Bill of Rights said there could be no royal interference with the right of people to have arms. However, since then, laws have been passed restricting the ownership of weapons. These laws have precedence, because they are more recent.

Trying to apply historical laws to today's legal systems simply don't work, and if you want to avoid things like tax, you usually need to find an expensive accountant who can help you out with all the legal loopholes.

Tbh, stuff like this is why we should be teaching more about how the legal system works in schools.

[Micqdc]

what happens to some dogs when you give them a bone and an hour later you try to take it off the?
they get made and bark at you.

a society by definition "A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose" so if you wanted to creat a society with other people where you wont have private property then fine go ahead, that would be a rule which will be apart of that society.

also notice how that definition does not say its a geographic location, so people who are saying to leave the country then you should take note of that.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/society

[Lilymaid]

I love these threads with loony bollocks and great spelling mistakes -
Cannon Law (boom boom) - Canon Law
Statue - Statute
Petrel (stormy?) - Petrol??
Repel - Repeal
As someone pointed out on the UK Human Rights Blog:"You can’t reason someone out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into"

Perhaps we should have a Rawlsian debate on rights and duties rather than constant reference to Magna Carta, a document that was for the benefit of the barons rather than the people.

[Micqdc]

SlowlorisIncognito - the bill of right was a statutory copy of the declaration of rights. written by the king at the time.
they changed the wording a lot but the original is still their and is still in full force.

[LisaMed]

The Magna Carta was a statute - a proclamation by the king and agreed and consented to by the peers of the realm. The one that wasn't repealed by a King (John, the one that signed it, btw) was as much an Act of Parliament as was possible in the reign of Edward I - assented to by the peers of the realm and extorted by what passed for a parliament or collection of lords in exchange for money. Iirc and LRD can correct me, the original proclamations by kings were called Statutes, the idea of a king creating rather than codifying law goes by over a thousand years and the codifying of laws in this country (that is, collecting all the laws that have been used as Common Law in one place so that the law is 'common' to all and not varying from place to place. We are bound by them because we live here.

And what difference would it make if the law requiring you to pay income tax was issued solely by the monarch? You still wouldn't pay. btw I am happy that my income tax goes into the pot that pays for things I agree with, things I don't agree with but including things like kidney machines as well as politicians' salaries.

And if I don't like those laws I can apply for a judicial review or use my democratic right to vote as established by the rule of law that you are pissing on to get those laws changed. I don't sing la-la-la and sprinkle fairy dust on some toadstools and pretend that the things I don't like will go away.

You do know that the Da Vinci Code is fiction, don't you?

[nomorequotes]

I knew a couple who didnt register the babies birth, something about neither or them wanting to be an 'informant' of the child into a broken society. They got a knock at the door and asked to prove that the child was theirs, which they could do with DNA testing but it ended up being a lot of trouble for them and they can't enroll the child in school or go to the hospital or anything like that.

I know someone else who believes she is a freeman and doesn't have to pay back her substantial debts, she is getting away with it at the moment because she doesn't have a postal address but I do wonder what will happen when the dust settles and she has to get a proper job or support a family because it will catch up with her and will cause her grief.

She is incredibly dismissive of other peoples views, she called everyone who voted 'fucking idiots' even though when faced with the inevitable options of Anarchy, Democractic vote or Dictatorship she found it hard to express what she would rather we do instead.

She feels she is 'out of the system' because she doesn't claim benefits but she spends time in the houses of people who do receive support through tax money and then she looks down on them for having proper jobs.

People like this do exist and they are scarily apathetic when it comes to things like paying tax, supporting a child and voting.

[qwertypop]

'book written in fucking crayon'

calculators I look forward to your DPs response.

[Micqdc]

Lilymaid - im dyslexic so don't segregate me for that.

[LisaMed]

THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT ACTIVELY STILL IN FORCE

And breathe.

It has been superseded by all sorts of stuff. It has no real currency. And you will still have to pay taxes. Bits still apply, but not all. It's like the bank statements from years ago - some bits are still relevant like the account number but it's not that much use for current concerns.

I am not really up for a discussion of the nature of Nation States. However if you are within geographical borders then you are expected to obey the laws of the Nation State whether or not you are a citizen - like the British drug mules expected to obey the laws of Peru even though there was no 'contract' and they were not citizens but within their national geographical borders.

If you murder someone then you would be subject to the laws used by the nation of that particular geographical location. That is true whether you are in China, Saudi Arabia or France. Oddities occur with planes and boats but you are not on a plane or boat, you are in China, Saudi Arabia or France. If you are defrauded within the geographical limits of those nation states you expect to be able to recourse to the local law concerning fraud.

I need another chamomile tea.

[TheVermiciousKnid]