Talk:Freeman on the land/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 28 October 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Criticisms of the Article

As someone who neither accepts nor denies government or the question of it's structure... This article in summary is a strawman written by strong government advocates... Pardon me for having an open mind in the matter but there are plenty of cases you can search on YouTube of the Freeman movement succeeding in court, the author(s) either can't stand the thought of having a imperfect government which makes them retaliate childishly or haven't conducted enough research simply with google or YouTube. "Freemen can't reason Waaaa, I am the arbiter of reason! Waaa! Leave my government alone! Waaa!" Is what it sounds like to an outsider... Man up authors, the fundamental purpose of the movement is to question whether financial obligations should be managed more liberally than completely in an authoritative manner... It's a question of do we have faith in people more or government... I'd personally favour people since less damage can be done... An idiot could work out their intentions. Peace. ^{— Unsigned, by: useablename / talk / contribs}

but there are plenty of cases you can search on YouTube - YouTube is the worst sort of sourcing. How about one properly sourced newspaper article of where the Freeman movement has succeeded in court. I certainly can't find one - all I get is YouTube clips. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(EC)We've had all that. Look through the archives of this talk page and you'll find links to these videos and our comments on them. And please don't wave vaguely at YouTube, show us one case where someone used a freeman argument in court and won their case. Just one. Please. Bicycle^wheel 15:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering what evidence would sway the BoN OP that the criticisms in the article are correct? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What BoN? I don't see a bunch of numbers. Bicycle^wheel 15:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hah! Everybody knows that all instances of success by Freemen of the Land (are there any Freewomen of the Land or is this entirly a boy's club?) are immediately suppressed by the government lest they loose control of the sheeple. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

YouTube is the worst place of sourcing? Respectably you're mad... It's visual imaging, the only way a video can be bad is if the full scenario is not in picture, plenty of videos show the full court cases... Visual imaging can be experienced with the naked eye (As a sensualist this makes more sense than articles that can be manipulated to fit an agenda... Perception beats agenda's any-day)... As for their "success" to be recorded anyway... You have to define exactly what is success and there are two different categories here; legitimate success and logical success... They have never committed legitimate success in a court since that's up to the judge to decide whether they have succeeded in any fashion (and is recorded in this manner)... Whereas logical success; have they evaded liability/contempt of court for a particular case not common law oriented (I'm ignoring the articles standards of "they love common law" since it is legitimately in it's own category clearly recognized by governments, people and corporations in this manner)... The answer is yes from the videos, they "de-consent from their effort to naturally bound than government bound."... I may not agree with everything they do, but the same is true for government... The freemen evade tax but the government spends tax corruptly you can argue. If the government committed correctly they wouldn't be as big of a moment as they are, they're in-fact gaining popularity and more recognition that rather makes this article too outdated to be frameworked the way it is... It's not rationalism, it's denialism... "Inclusion of one belief is exclusion of other belief(s).... The freemen are including that legislation is contractual (as the main basis of argument into much detail) this is the inclusion and they exclude that the government doesn't... This anti-Freeman page here holds just as much of a belief asserting this not to be the case... This isn't a scientific argument, it's just an argument between beliefs and I can watch their videos and assess the truth for myself... Don't see why i need rational wiki to give me answers that may not be true aswell. Good arguments for government are there... Freemen (if u really check their arguments and stand outside the cave) also have good arguments to posit for lessening government control... It's all a grey area in my view since neither view can full support themselves... Debunking claims from one arguer doesn't necessarily mean a theory you've posited holds weight either if people on the other side can prick holes in yours. - it's grey Lol. ^{— Unsigned, by: Useablename / talk / contribs}

The fact the freemen have tendencies to punctuate their names strangely and plump for weird, illogical interpretations of the meanings or words does not trouble at all, then? 'Legal' is pretty much defined by whatever holds up before judicial authority, which makes their claim to a separate common law complete nonsense on its face. If you don't see the contradictions inherent in their positions, then you might find yourself over-using ellipses and forgoing ordinary punctuation on your descent into madness. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not having a single argument stand up to anyone in court or with an actual law degree is not any sort of victory. It's no more a conspiracy than the belief that 2 + 2 = Zebra being wrong is a conspiracy among teachers. Debunking the debunking of hundreds of years of legal precedent that's been affirmed, or changed when needed, does make it invalid. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

They alter their names for purposes of anonymity which is a human right on the bases that no company/government etc has rule over common law jurisdiction which ties back to their political philosophy/ideology... Legal's etymology would likely be "league + -al" or "relating to league/country etc"... Which would descend from the notion that from who a country overall voted for by majority would represent the country... Their argument is if we're all equal then we can all represent ourselves outside of the country or the representative will not be for-filling his/her oath of office to be under common law jurisdiction (contractual law; which principles state there must be an offer, acceptance (consent), and consideration to contract to being made... And with no boundaries or this would be an unwarranted coercion)... Therefore they've raised a fairly good point or lead to a next question... Does parliment have "parliamentary sovereignty", I'd argue no, they're not above common law when in office as it would be by definition an obligation without consent... But do I think we shouldn't pay tax? Again no... The solution would be that the local government should keep an open checkbook on what it's spending, be able to prove in jury court to it's people that the individual not paying tax is having an effect on the rest of the county or state... ie; the government needs money for new roads; everyone else chipped in, why hasn't this individual? The attendants of the court should also have access to suing the individual not paying tax here willy-nilly since the policy would be in demand... However, if the check-book was for the local mp to buy himself a new bath then the jury can rule-out for the tax to be paid as it doesn't benefit the society as a whole... The attendants aswell should have access to making a sue if proven and anyone who paid here should have their money reimbursed for a useless policy. - this is the only system that works, always has, always will... These other two in question are much too faulty and this offers better security, perhaps even the defendant honestly is unable to pay, the jury may willingly let him/her off the hook if they can that the accused doesn't meet an ideal living standard. All are equal before the law, the system we're living in is framed against this principle and does need adapting... Can't argue with freemen here, why ultimately pay for a bugged system in all cases the same way you'd not pay for a bugged anything? Would you buy a bugged tv off me for no reason? Same argument in some cases. Caveat Emptor.

They alter their names for purposes of anonymity which is a human right on the bases that no company/government etc has rule over common law jurisdiction which ties back to their political philosophy/ideology.- BoN Dude

Nope, sorry, that's not a "human right". And common law is a government-evolved system based on governmental traditions and customs - not very efficient, really.

The REAL reason they change their name is that they think it will have an effect on how the law affects THEM. And they're wrong. Putting in punctuation in your name does not affect your legal standing.

Legal's etymology would likely be "league + -al" or "relating to league/country etc"- BoN Dude

Wrong. It comes from the Latin word "legalis", which is derived from the Latin word "lex", and has as its meaning in the original form "1) A law, legal motion, bill 2) (figuratively) agreement, condition, understanding".

This invalidates all of your other suppositions regarding application of common law to a sovereign government, as they stem from an incorrect understanding of the etymology of the word. --Castaigne (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And even if it were correct etymology, it is still an argument from etymology. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I liked the earlier suggestion that Useablename should point to a single verifiable Freeman success.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think he addressed that they never had one in any court, as a scientific success (one where you can say there is correct and incorrect), but they had a "logical success." Which seems to mean he believes it was right as he is the bastion of all that is logical. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah. My bad then for not reading the full thread.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That's probably the better thing to do to keep ones sanity. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Privacy is a human right which allows people to use different names to their disposal. No one is forced to give their name.

Legalis - Lex... I'm fairly skeptical of the connection made here by google... League makes more sense sounding the same as "leg-" pronouncialtion and people who operate wikitory are just average folk which I'm sure google has a similar or same basis of information.

The burden of proof is not on me to debunk government sovereignty... That's on the believers and practices to prove it's relivence to everyone else's life. - this I'm addressing assuming you believe in parlimentary sovereignty which died in 1688. No, not really my points are still valid within a context from however you choose to source them... The altering of one word doesn't suggest everything else written is incorrect since we're all suseptible to human error... I can understand how you many not agree league and leg- share the same root since it's not documented but studying etymology for 3 years shows their is a patten of behaviour when words trend from the same country and appears a safer assumption from my research.

For example; Marijuana -> Mary Jane. Alternate spelling but the similarity can be clearly recognised.

Either way this is irrelevant, I was speculating from the current system at hand informally.

Never heard of a genetic fallacy but sounds like something a poor author made or had broadened the definition of it's purpose too much since it's a subjective standard rather than objective and can be used to censore an opponent by the simple means of redefining words to suite an agenda (ie a hypothetical example say from Goebbels; "all Jews are defined as rats", would this be objectively true due to his position of authority? or wouldn't this be a subjective meaningless statement since people who are not Goebbels can objectively reason to form their own conclusion hopefully that Jews are equitably humans... Googling the fallacy i see it's been coined in 1995, I'm evidently not suprised to see a trusted philosophy like Aristotle coining it and my example would be fit enough to suggest why that would be. Just because someone has a degree in a subject doesn't make their words law or universally correct.

Just for clarification; The basis of my criticism does not stem from the etymology but from my evaluation of the UK bill of rights.

Due to the record of cherry picking I'm going to sit back unless someone can now address something of interest, I will not respond to slander, incorrect sources (related as such) etc, hypocrisy, straw mans or other fallacies due to wariness of this section since I'm fairly sure most has been said. I could present proof for Freemen winning in court but someone has already inferred these videos are on YouTube. If you're interested go look, I'm not trying to win you over just giving you an outsiders perspective on the article which is for you to address or not. I don't mind.^{— Unsigned, by: Useablename / talk / contribs}

At least sign your posts.

"I could present proof for Freemen winning in court" No, you can't, otherwise you would have. Any yahoo can upload a poor-quality youtube video and claim it supports them. Being able to show how these arguments have prevailed and cite a case where they were accepted is what you need to do, but I doubt you will because the comforting fiction in your head is more welcome than the harsh reality you actually live in. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 21:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Privacy is a human right which allows people to use different names to their disposal. No one is forced to give their name.- Useablename

That's an opinion. Right of privacy does not exist in nature. Anonymity has never been a part of common law in history; go take a look at the history of Merrie Olde Englande.

Legalis - Lex... I'm fairly skeptical of the connection made here by google...- Useablename

I am not skeptical of every Latin scholar who has ever existed. If you want to believe the Latin etymology is wrong, then you go right ahead - but the fact is, any Latin textbook or scholar will tell you the same thing. Go take some Latin lessons. Ask the Catholic Church. I have no time for pseudo-skeptical nonsense.

The burden of proof is not on me to debunk government sovereignty... That's on the believers and practices to prove it's relivence to everyone else's life- Useablename

And that's done every day. The current notion of state sovereignty contains four aspects consisting of territory, population, authority and recognition, quoting from the text. And that's it. If you have territory and population, have authority over those, and are recognized as having authority over those, congrats, you've proved sovereignty.

Go look up the history of state sovereignty for more information.

but studying etymology for 3 years shows their is a patten of behaviour when words trend from the same country and appears a safer assumption from my research.- Useablename

Etymologists say no. Etymologists say league comes from the Latin word "ligare", which means "to bind". I don't assume. I follow the work of the experts on the subject.

The basis of my criticism does not stem from the etymology but from my evaluation of the UK bill of rights.- Useablename

As an American, I don't care about the UK bill of rights as it has no application in the USA.

I could present proof for Freemen winning in court- Useablename

Then do so, as I do not believe you. I can find no video on Youtube where a Freeman argument has won in court. --Castaigne (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You claim Freeman arguments against the government; I claim Freeman arguments against you... and we descend to Thomas Hobbes war of all against all (and the man with the biggest gun shoots at the statue of Ozymandus). 86.134.53.1 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I'm not linking a video is because I'm using my phone and YouTube works seperately... You're also presuming "Guilty until proven innocent" which is just plain rude and not worth me discussing this futher, I can turn around and say just look... You've ignored looking for yourself evidently since I have seen it to be true xD I support neither ideologies evidently and you're acting defensively of your own prefered agenda... No, don't be rude and go look because I'm not bothered if you infer I'm a liar... Someone's already said there is video evidence... I contemplate the hypothesis that if I had proven myself to be true to you would you even accept the matter at hand because it's your world view I'm challenging and I doubt you'd be ready to change your mind... There are still a lot of creationists out there. Answer me this... Even if freemen proved a case that debunked parlimentary sovereignty all together... What would be your initial reaction(s)?

As for someone looking to correct my earlier position... I'm stating you've used fallacious arguments... Privacy exists you can't read minds for one Lol... You can't force anyone to give their name etc.

If you trust "expects" fine but they're simply not always correct... Doctors don't always reach the correct diagnoses at first but to an outsider I can understand how they'd believe etymologists will always find the correct roots of words since it's not so evident to show a false etymology since there are no easy repercussions.

You guys really must understand... I don't mind what you think... Please stop believing you know what I think or seek in this discussion because it's confusing... Suggesting I'm looking to convince you of anything in itself is a straw-man... You can only convince yourself of matters based on your experiences.

You can say I use Freeman arguments if that satisfies you but I'm half-believing you think I'm a Freeman not reading the thread where you would be incorrect.

Why we won't look at your crappy videos

Because you're not the first - by a country mile - to come along insisting that, if only we look at a load of videos we will be convinced. And everytime we take the trouble to actually watch they're always crap and they always fail to convince. So I'm not goign to waste any more of my valuable time following links to videos dumped on us by yet another Freeman enthusiast.

Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously, then come up with something new, come up with something like a link to a reputable news source, or something other than a bloody video.

Oh, and sign your posts Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is...

... 'we the general population' tend to think that having 'a general system of law accepted by all' (and 'be thou never so high the law is above thee') is A Good Thing - even if they disagree with particular bits of it (and possibly 'do not think much of the legislators') - and that the system the Freemen want or propose would be 'a tad chaotic.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

All IMG links are red linked

Reading through RW cover articles and noticed that all of the "img" links on the page are red. Looks like CarpetBot deleted all of the linked screenshot images on 11/4. -Said by 104.14.40.27

Sign your posts, BoN. Either click the pen icon at the top of the edit bar, or use four tildes like this: ~~~~ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Added a note to User talk:Carpetsmoker about his overenthusiastic botwork - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Can this quote be added?

As a "freeman on the land" I am a sovereign state, but I take umbrage with the diminishing term 'micro'-nation. This ain't your house anymore, it's my embassy; I don't have to pay rent and I changed the locks. I've annexed what's in your fridge. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If he's linking here I really doubt he is one - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources from reddit post

https://www.reddit.com/r/amibeingdetained/comments/4nl0a1/trackreddit/d4502zf/ Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Legal name fraud

Does this belong in this article? 94.1.147.255 (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I think they do! Those are Freeman billboard ads afaik... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's probably Freeman, it's very Freeman ideas. But nobody can clearly identify them as being such. (This was also being discussed for the Wikipedia article.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

But let's say the signs powerfully point to it, what with them being SHORT TO THE POINT "DID YOU KNOW?" LEGAL INFO TIDSBITS IN ALLCAPS and so on. It's got pseudolaw written all over it... But confirmation is lacking I suppose. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Definite pseudolaw, but the precise species is another matter - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

When I saw one I wondered if it was a warning against copyright infringement/fakery or a 'marketing of advertising space' campaign ('If you can see this, so can your clients'). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This website has that billboard towards the top of the page, and proceeds to go into Freeman style pseudolaw. Admittedly, it could be that the website adopted the sign after they saw it. A Gloomy Axe (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

(reset) The last link is non-working.

Reversing the logic as many people in the wikiverse are using pen-names are #they# operating legally? (Ditto Eleanor Hibbert and Lenin 'with 150 known pen-names') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Another Reddit comment

Pretty funny, though.

The call came in from another department. Customer wanted to pay his bill. All very routine, until I went to call up the account.

The other agent gave me the number and I ask for the name.

Transferer: Well, he told me his name was (forename), and then when I asked for the surname he got a bit weird.

Me: Huh. Here he is, (forename) (surname). Have you verified him?

Transferer: I'm not sure, he gave me his password which matches the two characters I can see (at this point I check and it also matches the characters visible to me), but I think you need a first name and a last name to properly verify.

Me: Eh, it's enough to verify him. Yeah, pass him through.

Conspiracy theorist (CT) comes on the line.

Me: Hello, is this (forename) (surname)?

CT: Yeah, that other guy was talking to me about some kind of law that says he has to verify me! What the hell law is he on about?

Me: That would be the Data Protection Act.

CT: And what law are you citing?

Me: The Data Protection Act.

CT: Yeah, that's not a real law.

Me: Uh, yes it is.

CT: No it isn't! It's an Act of Parliament, and Acts and Statutes are not laws! The only true, valid law is common law. Acts and Statutes are only valid if both parties agree to comply.

Me: That's... not how it works.

CT: Yes it is! You ought to do some fucking homework, lad, then you'll see that Acts and Statutes are not the same as laws. I've got a police handbook here, and it says absolutely nothing about data protection!

Me: (OK, let's not argue with a real-life YouTube comment any more) Right... anyway, Mr (surname), you want to pay your bill, is that right.

CT: Yes.

Me: Your current outstanding balance is (amount), do you want to pay all that today?

CT: Yes.

Me: (pulling up the payment system) Will you be paying by your own card?

CT: (in the exact tone of voice he's been using up to now) No, I'll be using someone else's.

Me: Is the cardholder present.

CT: I'm using my own card, mate, obviously. Why would I use someone else's?

(Note: People regularly make payments using other people's cards.)

Me: (So as well as law, this guy also doesn't understand how sarcasm works) OK, debit or credit card.

(I took the payment here, all very normal and reasonable)

Me: Right, that's all done and your balance is now at £0. I see...

CT: Thanks. Now when you get home, do a bit of homework and you'll see that Acts and Statutes aren't laws.

Me: They really are.

CT: No they're not! They're acts passed by paedophiles in Parliament which have no legal standing!

Me: (jaw drops) ...

CT: All those paedophiles get together and try to con us into accepting fake rules. Take my advice, do your homework and don't believe those paedophiles. Goodbye. (hangs up).

Imagine what daily life is like for these people. Do they obey traffic law, or is that another pedophilic anti-law? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Most likely freemen on the land don't obey it. But they wouldn't dream of driving without due care and attention, or in a dangerous or careless way, right? Kiko4564 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This argument is the same as thinking that if people were allowed to murder, people who do not kill others would start randomly murdering. ^{— Unsigned, by: 62.133.99.58 / talk / contribs}

Nasa non-story

Should [1] be passed on to the freemen? ('Wide eyed innocence') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A destination ?

Would [2] be a suitable place for them to go to? Anna Livia (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No because the land borders both Egypt and Sudan. Therefore no one can create an independent Kingdom (or any other type of country) of Bir Tawil without the consent of both countries. On top of that, Egypt de facto administers the territory anyway so anyone claiming it doesn't control it. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Freemen and outlawry

How do the two concepts inter-relate - the one being self-applied and the other a state-applied sanction? ^{— Unsigned, by: [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] / [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]}

Surely the 'principles of Freemandom' work both ways - they do not wish to pay taxes, so they cannot make use of the public roads, the law courts if someone decides to do 'things that are against the law' against them (this #is# a concept-for-discussion, not a suggestion for action) etc? Anna Livia (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to say that things should work that way, but only up to a point. For example, if they choose not to pay their road tax, then letting them drive (or ride their bicycle or motorcycle or any other vehicle save for a vehicle approved for use on a footpath) should be a no-no. But they should still be allowed to use the footpath. As for the law courts, they should be restricted to filing cases under common law only, that means no trying to sue anyone for breaching a statute e.g. harassing them contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and no reporting any criminal offences (except those under common law) to the Police e.g. committing a common assault against them contrary to the Criminal Justice Act, or reporting anti-social behaviour contrary to the Anti Social Behaviour Crime and Policing and Crime Act 2014. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

'Road tax' will only apply to those vehicles to which are so covered - and bikes on footpaths are an illegal nuisance (UK legislation - which may or may not include the Channel Islands (with a nod at the situation on Sark) and Isle of Man).

What is the status of 'outlawry as a legal concept' in the US ([3] may apply) and attainder (both were abolished in the UK in the 19th century). Anna Livia (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

True but if they refuse to consent to the law, why should they have the rights afforded by it? I'd be tempted to say bringing it back, but only in part would be sensible. Kiko4564 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If freemen don't want to pay taxes, pay mortgages or pay bills; freemen have the choice of leaving their home country and never return

If you do not want to pay any bills yet use public services, you can just leave. Not so much "love it or leave it" speech but rather "Mooch, get out of my house". --Racia zombio94 (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. If one doesn't want to pay taxes, then they should (in my opinion) be deprived of the ability to use public services, if they won't pay their mortgage then (in my opinion) they should be taken to court and made to pay by them (even if under protest and duress), but repossession should be abolished, or at least require that the defaultor be given a reasonable chance to pay their debt, as it can lead to people being needlessly thrown out of their home when most freemen will pay if given the chance (even if under protest and duress), and if they won't pay their bills, then they should (in my opinion) have their utilities switched off. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Gnosticism

Am I suffering from a pareidolia, or this has a strong whiff of Gnostic shit? The whole "Sheeple are bound by some stupid laws made by a Big Bad Someone, but this is a scam! Perform a correct ritual (the one I can teach you for a (small) token of gratitude), and you're free and can do as you please, while these morons will envy you". Only this is applied to legal laws and government instead of natural laws and gods. And result is exactly the same. ^{— Unsigned, by: 5.128.33.17 / talk / contribs}

This is known to be bullshit. I doubt that even the likes of David Robinson (who claims that "Lawful Rebellion" works in any court of law) could say that his antics would actually work in any court of law. Kiko4564 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Tonguetwister question

Freeman on the land wish to exist outwith the law: but can they actually live without the law? Anna Livia (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anna Livia That's a good question, but I disagree with it. I'm afraid that you used the wrong words, the correct term for someone who "wish to exist outwith the law" is an Anarchist, not a FMOTL. Thanks. Is that what you meant? Harry Potter (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

But there is also 'outlawry' (which status has been legally abolished in the mid-19th in the UK along with attainder/corruption of the blood: I don't know the status in the US, or in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands). Anna Livia (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Freeman in fact suggestion

Take an abandoned town 'somewhere in America' and offer it (with sufficient surrounding land) to the freemens and adapt 'free port legislation' to designate the town outside the local legal system - and they have to pay tolls for using the roads, water/sewage and other resources from elsewhere. Anna Livia (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Another disproof of the argument

Those who spawn spam/phishing 'emails, phonecalls etc' activities and place 'dubious adverts' ('Earn a second income', 'One simple trick...', 'This is a message from Microsoft/HMRC/PayPal etc', 'You too can become a published author' etc) have not moved in on the field as even they think it is too dubious to monetarise. Anna Livia (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Anna Livia Of course they do! Scammers like to use methods which actually work and bring in money. This is widely debunked as bullshit, so why bother? That said you are right to a degree, but I'd argue that this isn't an actual disproof of the argument, only proof that this is widely debunked as bullshit. Harry Potter (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As the saying goes - follow the money, those who take taxes, and the makers of quick bucks (as provided by punters of little sense). Anna Livia (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Magna Carta

Would this be appropriate here? Anna Livia (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Anna Livia I'd say yes. Go ahead, be bold, and add it. Harry Potter (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Updating

Are there more recent figures than 'as of 2015' and 'as of 2013' - and the David Icke link no longer works - I have better rabbit-holes to explore. Anna Livia (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Admiralty Court

Are the Footlers 'all at sea' as to what the AC actually does? Anna Livia (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)