toward being a free man on the land

[Bryan_Ekers]

So did their flag have fringes on it?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

GOLD fringes?

[Der_Trihs]

Don’t think so…sadly.

[Czarcasm]

@Elendil_s_Heir

GOLD fringes?

Surrey, you jest?

[LawMonkey]

@BrainGlutton

Of course, on any particular question of common law, what the FOTL think is probably very different from what any lawyer would tell you, but that only makes it more reliable, because lawyers are elites with a vested interest in the statist statute-law system. See Appeal to no authority.

Silly. Everyone knows that we’re secretly practicing admiralty law and calling it common law to confuse the rubes.

[Saint_Cad]

The OP has left the thread. Does that mean we won?

[mlees]

@Saint_Cad

The OP has left the thread. Does that mean we won?

No, not by The Dope’s standards. We must hear him/her admit defeat, and hear the lamentations of their spouses.

[Among_Liberals]

It appears our friend is gone. Oh well. I just wanted to say that if marc went to a public school, the school he entered probably in some way received some federal help, small as it may be.

[thicksantorum]

I think the alchemy comparison is unfair to alchemists. The rules of the physical universe were a lot more mysterious and unintuitive than the rules of society and human nature. I think it’s a lot sillier for a human to expect magic words to work on another human, than to expect a magic formula will turn one metal into another. After all, we’re not born with an intuitive understanding of how metals work.

[dropzone]

@LawMonkey

Silly. Everyone knows that we’re secretly practicing admiralty law and calling it common law to confuse the rubes.

What is this shit with admiralty law, anyway? Because I wouldn’t mind if some of those FOTL clowns got flogged now and then.

My brother is a maritime lawyer. I’d ask him, but I have only so many minutes left on my cell phone.

[BrainGlutton]

@thicksantorum

I think the alchemy comparison is unfair to alchemists. The rules of the physical universe were a lot more mysterious and unintuitive than the rules of society and human nature. I think it’s a lot sillier for a human to expect magic words to work on another human, than to expect a magic formula will turn one metal into another. After all, we’re not born with an intuitive understanding of how metals work.

Magic words will work on a human, that fact underlies all human social and political relations. The catch is, ya gotta pick the right words for the job. And the FOTL can’t do it, in a field where only lawyers are really qualified to pick the right words for the job.

[BrainGlutton]

@dropzone

What is this shit with admiralty law, anyway? Because I wouldn’t mind if some of those FOTL clowns got flogged now and then.

My brother is a maritime lawyer. I’d ask him, but I have only so many minutes left on my cell phone.

Well, it’s like this:

Admiralty law and court appearance techniques

Freemen see a distinction between (what they call) common law and statute law, which they refer to as “admiralty law,” “law of the sea,” “maritime law,” or the “universal commercial code” (a distortion of the US-only Uniform Commercial Code) — something that only applies to corporations, e.g. legal persons, not flesh-and-blood humans.[23] They see admiralty law as being the law of commerce, the law of ownership, citizenship, and indeed anything else ending in “-ship.” They see evidence of this in various nautical-sounding terms used in court, such as “dock,” “birth [berth] certificate,” “-ship” suffixes and any other fancy word they think might have a vaguely naval sound.[34] Freemen will take this further by referring to the court as a “ship”, its occupants as “passengers” and claiming that anyone leaving are “men overboard.” This gives their legal arguments a hilarious nautical theme.[23]

They see courts as being a place of business intended to make profit for the government corporation. They sometimes refer to these courts as “de facto courts.” When they receive a summons to appear in court, they insist that this is not a summons but, in fact, an invitation to a place of business to discuss the matter at hand.[27][23] When one initially enters a court they are then operating under “admiralty law” rather than (their version of) “common law”. American freemen will sometimes try to argue that if the flag in the court has a gold fringe, this signifies that it is an admiralty court. British courts tend not to have flags of any type, so the claim has largely failed to cross the Atlantic.

Freemen believe that a victim must exist for a common law crime to have been committed.[23] One attempt at defence will be to demand to see evidence of a victim. They may also complain that the trial is unfair because the judge and prosecution are on the same team, both being employed by the state. If a freeman has had their property confiscated, they will request that it be returned to them.

They will try to claim common law (rather than admiralty law) jurisdiction by asking “do you have a claim against me?” which supposedly removes their consent to be governed by admiralty law and turns the court into a common law court, forcing the court to proceed according to their version of common law. (This has never worked.) Any cooperation with the court is seen as accepting their terms of contract, and freemen will therefore refuse to do anything asked of them. When asked to stand or approach the bench, they will often refuse to do so, or only do so as long as their “inalienable God-given rights remain intact,” in order to prevent them inadvertently entering into a contract.

Freemen will also attempt to “put the judge on their oath” to force them to act in accordance with common law, which entails asking to see evidence of this oath.[23] Judges typically give short shrift to this kind of request, and either adjourn the hearing or threaten the freeman with contempt of court. The freeman might then ask whether the judge means civil or criminal contempt; this is because freemen believe that civil contempt would come under admiralty law, and therefore require a consensual contract, and that criminal contempt would require a victim. When judges leave the courtroom, Freemen will attempt to claim common law authority and then attempt to dismiss the charges themselves, often with a cry of “ship abandoned” or “man overboard.”[35][36]

They will never accept legal representation, as to do so might entail contracting with the state. They also believe that professional lawyers and solicitors owe a duty to the crown before their client due to their oath, and therefore cannot represent them effectively. Professional lawyers are all part of the legal system and therefore not to be trusted.

Court appearances are by far the most hysterical part of the freeman delusion, as various YouTube videos will attest. Watching freemen trying to apply their delusions to reality is like watching a video of a slow-motion train wreck onto which someone has dubbed delusional gibberish. The fact that freemen put these videos (note that most filming in court is illegal in the UK[37]) on YouTube at all suggests powerful cognitive dissonance, since they typically make the protagonist look very foolish. Techniques used to overcome the manifest failure of freeman logic in court include editing out key moments in favour of voice-overs and mistaking adjournments for acquittals.

[LawMonkey]

“Hilarious nautical theme” indeed. That’s one of my favorite parts of the whole farce. You expect them to change into a sailor suit before entering a courtroom, and to greet the judge with a hearty cry of “Ahoy, yer matey!”

[Elendil_s_Heir]

On the other hand, it’s fun when the judge orders them to walk the plank.

[Der_Trihs]

@LawMonkey

“Hilarious nautical theme” indeed.

“Berth certificate” is always worth a snicker. They really are the sort of “truth is stranger than fiction” phenomenon that you’d never see in a serious work of fiction because no one would consider it plausible.

[marcmcroy]

@tomndebb

You have been told to refrain from launching personal insults at other posters.

This is a Warning that such continued behavior will result in the loss of privileges to post to this board.

[ /Moderating ]

I did not put that “ain’t on of them” in there. no personal insult meant that it was a declaration of conversing style, associating with the character of the nic.
Thanks for the warning though, understood.

[marcmcroy]

@BrainGlutton

Well, it’s like this:

Yes this is one of the defenses I read about .
Things for posting.
When a sneeech walks into a town of Star Bellied sneeches, and the PTB judge the individual sneech in that has no star as being in violation of the star bellied sneech state statute code of showing the star at all times. Why is the starless sneech bound by the code.

[Chimera]

@Elendil_s_Heir

On the other hand, it’s fun when the judge orders them to walk the plank.

Ok, I’m very sick and I’ve been reading physics articles.

I intially read this as ‘walk the planck’.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Why is the starless sneech bound by the code.

'cause he’s in their fucking town. You’re in the USA; if you don’t want to abide by its laws, you can leave.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@marcmcroy

When a sneeech walks into a town of Star Bellied sneeches, and the PTB judge the individual sneech in that has no star as being in violation of the star bellied sneech state statute code of showing the star at all times. Why is the starless sneech bound by the code.

Once again: what if I walk up to you and break a couple of your bones while taking your stuff? And, when the PTB judge – or anyone else – says I’m in violation of the state statute, I keep patiently replying that “I consent to no contracts! I am not an employee of your corporation! I refuse to waive my immunity!”