posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I think the idea of a ''freeman'' is not really achievable, or certainly not achievable in anything more than being able to waive a few parking
Not even that.
I've made the mistake of following some of those links. Flippin' heck. It's like all the worst bits of the lower-quality conspiracy sites wrapped
inside psuedo-legal waffle. They seem to be obsessed with the
Cestui Que Vie Act 1666
without appearing to have
read it or researched the context in which it was passed
The rest of the arguments seem to be that the law does not apply because I've thought of a much more important "higher law" that suits me better. All
I need to do is to click the heels of my ruby slippers... ehhh... I mean "declare the law does not apply" and Robert is your mother's brother.
In fairness, law is pretty much an issue of consent. It started from the biggest guy in the tribe giving you orders, and you can consent to follow or
get thumped. Communities would set down rules for interaction and you could consent or be outcast. Eventually things got more "enlightened" and you
could choose to consent or go to jail. The only natural law is simply that whoever has the biggest stick can set the rules. The "law" is about
regulating the relationship between the people with the biggest stick and the people with the smaller sticks. If you really wish to return to natural
law only then you will lose, because there are some pretty big sticks out there to thump you with.
I've been accused of being the "problem" because I'm part of the system. Gosh, all these people on the "inside" being a problem, you'd almost think
they had all spent years studying and training (or perhaps you prefer the term indoctrination, which conveniently ignores the way that most law is
taught) and had formed good solid academic and philosophical reasons for understanding why things work the way they do. If only someone with a vague
grasp of history and the law would come and enlighten us!
The whole thing seems to be based around a very strange interpretation of what "common law" along with some rather spurious connections - it must be
an admiralty court because it has a "dock"? There are a number of legal theories surrounding the development of law that do tie in with some of the
ideas they are talking about, but not in the way they seem to think. It's almost as if they listened to an academic debate about legal development and
came away with some half-remembered ideas - a bit like when you go to see a comedian and go home to tell your friends all the bits of the act that you
can remember, messing up the punchlines in the progress.
Overall I'm not very impressed. I'm not sure this thread will be very good for my blood pressure
edit on 14-9-2010 by EvillerBob because: Just because