Everything is ok - BANNED - Police, Camera, Action(Video)

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
reply to post by duality90

 

Consternation is your rebuttal to that argument?

Also, my post contained at least a brief outline of why it is wrong to describe traffic offenses as contracts. Such a desperately legally baseless claim.

Due to an unfortunate willingness to take legal advice from internet forums that I have seen on this site, I think it is important that the 'freeman' arguments are opposed wherever they pop up. Unfortunately, some of the readers around can be painfully impressionable

reply to post by duality90




have you watched this yet? watch all 9 parts, then tell me it is not a contract.
anything that requires you to give a name and address before a fine can be issued is a contract, and without those personnal details the contract cannot exsist.

it works exactly the same with a business, you must provide personal details before you can do business, without it the business can do nothing.

infact just watch the videos, you'll see it is all to do with corporations.

haha, I suspect the reason is probably alot more practical than legal. How absurd would you feel radioing in a pursuit of a suspect...

...on a bicycle?

Probably felt like the effort wasn't worth it.

Perhaps possible, in my experiences with law enforcement, not probabale or likely in my opinion or experience.

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
reply to post by duality90

 

Consternation is your rebuttal to that argument?

Long history debating it with other users on the forum.

No personal attack on you of course. I just get fearful when I see arguments like that being made because people on this site (and this is an honest-to-god example) are taking those arguments and using them in court . Worrying stuff.

Oh I understand completely, and I share the same concern...looking at the subject intellectually, I have to admit there is some merit to the 'freeman arguments'.

Anyone who foolishly espouses something in a court that they do not understand...well I won't even say it...About as smart as taking medical or financial advice from a forum, I guess. No cure for foolish .

I do, however, encourage research on the subject of law. I read and draw my own conclusions...and I think this case is meritous to the 'freeman perspective'.

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
reply to post by duality90

 

Consternation is your rebuttal to that argument?

Also, my post contained at least a brief outline of why it is wrong to describe traffic offenses as contracts. Such a desperately legally baseless claim.

So your position is the authority here? I then assume that you have personal experience making such a 'legally baseless' argument? If you haven't how can you KNOW such a thing...your opinion, am I correct?

Due to an unfortunate willingness to take legal advice from internet forums that I have seen on this site, I think it is important that the 'freeman' arguments are opposed wherever they pop up. Unfortunately, some of the readers around can be painfully impressionable.

Bah, really? I routinely get advised to buy gold, penis enlargement pills, political opinion and endless other 'noise' every time I log on. If, as an individual you have a propensity to jump on each passing bandwagon, than I would suggest such a person should avoid the internet entirely.

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
reply to post by duality90

 

Consternation is your rebuttal to that argument?

Also, my post contained at least a brief outline of why it is wrong to describe traffic offenses as contracts. Such a desperately legally baseless claim.

So your position is the authority here? I then assume that you have personal experience making such a 'legally baseless' argument? If you haven't how can you KNOW such a thing...your opinion, am I correct?

Due to an unfortunate willingness to take legal advice from internet forums that I have seen on this site, I think it is important that the 'freeman' arguments are opposed wherever they pop up. Unfortunately, some of the readers around can be painfully impressionable.

Bah, really? I routinely get advised to buy gold, penis enlargement pills, political opinion and endless other 'noise' every time I log on. If, as an individual you have a propensity to jump on each passing bandwagon, than I would suggest such a person should avoid the internet entirely.

Although I'm not yet qualified (admitted to their Law Society or the Bar Council as a member) I'm in my final year of legal studies. Take from that what you will (I once had someone on this site inform me that law schools 'do not teach the law' and then went on to say that judges and lawyers are all part of some vast conspiracy to enslave people), but I feel fairly confident when I make my assertions.

I can of course provide you with all the relevant authorities so that you can look into it and read it yourself, if you would please. Might take me a while as I'm currently studying final exams, but I'd be willing to try.

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
reply to post by duality90

 

Consternation is your rebuttal to that argument?

Long history debating it with other users on the forum.

No personal attack on you of course. I just get fearful when I see arguments like that being made because people on this site (and this is an honest-to-god example) are taking those arguments and using them in court . Worrying stuff.

Oh I understand completely, and I share the same concern...looking at the subject intellectually, I have to admit there is some merit to the 'freeman arguments'.

Anyone who foolishly espouses something in a court that they do not understand...well I won't even say it...About as smart as taking medical or financial advice from a forum, I guess. No cure for foolish

.

I do, however, encourage research on the subject of law. I read and draw my own conclusions...and I think this case is meritous to the 'freeman perspective'.

I found it quite interesting initially, but after honestly doing some proper research (as well as just listening to some of the wantonly misused and misunderstood terms - like what the 'common law' is and what your rights at common law are) I found almost all of it to either be a completely frivolous on the basis of innocent misunderstanding, or a concerted attempt to misrepresent what the actual legal position is on certain points.

For instance, one of the most commonly cited documents in the UK freeman arguments is the right of 'lawful rebellion' in Magna Carta 1215. What the 'freemen' conveniently leave out is the fact that nearly all of Magna Carta was later repealed or drafted into other documents, and that the original document itself and it's right of lawful rebellion extended those rights to Barons, and not freemen or the general populace . Magna Carta was an important document in the evolution of our respect of the Rule of Law, but feudal England remained an extremely unjust place for the average man in the street (unfortunately the 'man on the clapham omnibus' metaphor favored by English judges is historically inappropriate here). I fear that the freemen accord much greater weight to certain points of their arguments which are, either by their own mistake or even willing obfuscation of the truth, legally incorrect.

You can hate the law as it stands as much as you want, but the fact remains that mere public dislike does not amend the legal position.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by duality90

 

have you watched this yet? watch all 9 parts, then tell me it is not a contract.
anything that requires you to give a name and address before a fine can be issued is a contract, and without those personnal details the contract cannot exsist.

it works exactly the same with a business, you must provide personal details before you can do business, without it the business can do nothing.

infact just watch the videos, you'll see it is all to do with corporations.

That is not a contract. The definition of a contract is an offer, an acceptance, and consideration given in respect of that acceptance. There must furthermore fundamentally be the intent to create legal relations. Otherwise, a promise to have friends over for dinner could become a legally enforceable contract.

You do not promise to pay a fine when you sign a ticket or give your details. You provide your details as a sort of 'security' or surety to ensure your appearance at court to either plead innocent or guilty to the crime/offense with which you are charged. Your details are taken because it is an offense to abscond from an ordered court appearance.

At no point in the process are you considered guilty. Yes, it is a pain in the ass, but you are innocent until proven guilty. If you feel the ticket is completely without justification (i.e. the officer literally did it just because he disliked you) you are given the chance to contest this in court, and may very well walk away without any fines imposed upon you.

At no point does any contract come into existence between you and the state in the legal sense. Contract is the realm of private law; summons to court is in that of criminal (and thus public) law.

Edit: Haven't got 90 minutes at the moment but I will humor you and watch the series.

Incidentally, although the cite exclusively refers to American law, there is some general discussion of the freeman principles, as well as a prima flawless analysis of why and how many (if not all) of the principal freeman arguments are, in many cases, simply the fabrication of one individual's over-active imagination, with little or plainly no regard to what the position actually legally is.


Eidt: hiwaay.net...


Edit 3: Unfortunately even these folks fall victim to the Magna Carta misunderstanding. The important (so it would seem) provision is para.61 ('article 61'). On the website they bolden the part which talks about correcting a 'transgression', but conveniently fail to do so when the same provision says that this applies only to a select number of Barons.

Keep in mind, this was the 13th century. Feudalism was at its height. Barons had no reason (nor legal means of punishment for failure to do so) to petition on behalf of those underneath them if the complaint was contrary to the interests of the Baron. Magna Carta 1215, although important, must be read in the context of its times.

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
reply to post by duality90

 

Consternation is your rebuttal to that argument?

Also, my post contained at least a brief outline of why it is wrong to describe traffic offenses as contracts. Such a desperately legally baseless claim.

So your position is the authority here? I then assume that you have personal experience making such a 'legally baseless' argument? If you haven't how can you KNOW such a thing...your opinion, am I correct?

Due to an unfortunate willingness to take legal advice from internet forums that I have seen on this site, I think it is important that the 'freeman' arguments are opposed wherever they pop up. Unfortunately, some of the readers around can be painfully impressionable.

Bah, really? I routinely get advised to buy gold, penis enlargement pills, political opinion and endless other 'noise' every time I log on. If, as an individual you have a propensity to jump on each passing bandwagon, than I would suggest such a person should avoid the internet entirely.

Although I'm not yet qualified (admitted to their Law Society or the Bar Council as a member) I'm in my final year of legal studies. Take from that what you will (I once had someone on this site inform me that law schools 'do not teach the law' and then went on to say that judges and lawyers are all part of some vast conspiracy to enslave people), but I feel fairly confident when I make my assertions.

Congratulations, good luck with your studies! You are certainly qualified to state your legal opinion. I know the whole 'legal system is a vast conspiracy' conspiracy, and it is a pretty incredible claim...however, given how the other pieces of the 'grand conspiracy' may or may not have an element of truth to it, you can't entirely discount it, however unlikely.

Recently here in Canada, there was a hit piece by a major newspaper against the 'freeman movement'. Essentially, the conclusion was drawn that they are 'domestic terrorists'-which immediately makes me sit up and pay attention. These people are onto something.

I can of course provide you with all the relevant authorities so that you can look into it and read it yourself, if you would please. Might take me a while as I'm currently studying final exams, but I'd be willing to try.

I'm curious who you would cite as authorites, and am always interested to learn something new or expand my knowledge-especially in Law...please don't put yourself out though

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
reply to post by duality90

 

Consternation is your rebuttal to that argument?

Long history debating it with other users on the forum.

No personal attack on you of course. I just get fearful when I see arguments like that being made because people on this site (and this is an honest-to-god example) are taking those arguments and using them in court . Worrying stuff.

Oh I understand completely, and I share the same concern...looking at the subject intellectually, I have to admit there is some merit to the 'freeman arguments'.

Anyone who foolishly espouses something in a court that they do not understand...well I won't even say it...About as smart as taking medical or financial advice from a forum, I guess. No cure for foolish

.

I do, however, encourage research on the subject of law. I read and draw my own conclusions...and I think this case is meritous to the 'freeman perspective'.

I found it quite interesting initially, but after honestly doing some proper research (as well as just listening to some of the wantonly misused and misunderstood terms - like what the 'common law' is and what your rights at common law are) I found almost all of it to either be a completely frivolous on the basis of innocent misunderstanding, or a concerted attempt to misrepresent what the actual legal position is on certain points.

I can't really argue that...everyone with a youtube account has a platform these days, and it doesn't take a lot of jargon on arcane topics to convince someone you're an expert. I'm an engineer, and I certainly wouldn't search youtube for new methods to...build a cable-stay bridge for example. But I would expect there to be a FEW videos from people who are authoritative on the subject, all the same. I suspect the same is true on the current subject...95% garbage, and 5% gold.

For instance, one of the most commonly cited documents in the UK freeman arguments is the right of 'lawful rebellion' in Magna Carta 1215. What the 'freemen' conveniently leave out is the fact that nearly all of Magna Carta was later repealed or drafted into other documents, and that the original document itself and it's right of lawful rebellion extended those rights to Barons, and not freemen or the general populace . Magna Carta was an important document in the evolution of our respect of the Rule of Law, but feudal England remained an extremely unjust place for the average man in the street (unfortunately the 'man on the clapham omnibus' metaphor favored by English judges is historically inappropriate here). I fear that the freemen accord much greater weight to certain points of their arguments which are, either by their own mistake or even willing obfuscation of the truth, legally incorrect.

True, but by the same measure you are leaving out how common law evolves, and how the MC is still an integral part of Commonwealth law today

. How about how Roman and possibly Canonical law has evolved as common law? What weighting or merit 'old law' has in the current day is up for interpretation by the courts

You can hate the law as it stands as much as you want, but the fact remains that mere public dislike does not amend the legal position.

I LOVE the law, but I am bound by honor to stand against injustice and frivlous action from the other side of the system. If it can be 'beat' by means conventional or unconventional, then I am all for it.

The bike rider 'won', I found his argument interesting (and possibly correct), and good on him for being astute enough to keep that hundrid quid in his pocket!