Free Man Of The Land

[Jayy]

https://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/john-harris-its-illusion

Basically, things like driving licenses, speeding fines, insurance etc all operates under contractual law.

The United Kingdom is a limited company
The police are a limited company
The courts are a limited company
MPs are limited companies
Political parties are limited companies (interestingly, labour operate under Alistair Darling MP Ltd and he's also a diplomat, making them able to bend rules as they trade under his diplomatic status)

Contractual meaning, something you agree to. What happens if you don't agree? These laws don't apply.

[Itchy]

He is wrong of course, the kicker in this is the question you ask what happens if you do not agree.

The UK is a despot state whereby violence is used to force compliance of individuals, ALL governments are based on violence and force.

The difference is efficiency

So while Kim of North Korea and Somalians to enforce their will have to execute people regularly.

The propaganda and conditioning is so powerful people do not realise we live under a despot government. The propaganda and activism sponges are so powerful people hardly ever rise up.



The clue also is in the fact we use fiat money, not the gold standard, Fiat means the government to apply law to support the value of the money. Law is enforced by guns, guns = violence.

Fiat money ergo is based on the ability of the government to oppress you.
____________________
Spain 2008France 2007Big one 2009 We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will. In the end, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.

[yuri2085]

'making them able to bend rules as they trade under his diplomatic status'
That's just nonsense.

[Jayy]

[Itchy]

[Jayy]

Oh I agree, the government are all about cloak and dagger. They operate on a policy of fear and fear keeps the majority of people in check for fear of come backs on them in the eyes of the law. We've been socially conditioned over hundreds of years into their way of thinking but things like this offer the chance to fight back a bit. They will have you believe the propaganda and adhere to their laws (however upholding they actually are).

The fact is though, what they're doing is simply not enforcable by contractual law and they can threaten you with legal proceedings but if you challenge it with their own language, what can they do? I don't believe they would have you kidnapped or kidnap someone you know over not paying a speeding fine or getting stopped for having no insurance/license.

[Itchy]

[Jayy]

[smegballs]

[D O G]

https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ks2efvgh571qanttao1_400.jpg

[colin1]

It's a while since I have seen this. I like it. He may be technically correct, but whether people acting for the law would understand it or be willing to accept it is another matter.

A policeman upholds the law, or at least controls peoples behaviour. A policeman knows when he can break the law without consequences, or where he would be seen as being allowed to break the law to do his job.

If you do something a policeman thinks you shouldnt, he can detain you just because he wants to and cite some public order offence.

So when it comes to going against the state, I think you are trying to stand in front of the way of an oil tanker, when its only a metre from you, expecting it to be able to change its course to go round you.

It wont go round you, even if it should technically. Its unable to and you would be seen as wrong for getting in its way.

If you win a legal judgement in court using this free man stuff, maybe you could get other agents of the state to respect it, but until then legal arguments to them would just make no sense.

However I think the contract law stuff does apply to a lot of dealings with companies that are private companies not connected to the state.

Courts are not so likely to side with them by assumption.

For example, although I would pay a parking fine from the council, I would not pay a parking fine from a private company, as they have no legal authority to fine me. The only basis they have for attempting to extract money from me, is to say I had entered into a contract with them in which I agreed to their terms.

Maybe the council dont have a right to extract money either, but they probably have a much closer relationship with the courts.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[Jayy]

I find this stuff very interesting... like the face Lancashire County Council dissolved as a ltd company in 2008. Since then, they had their accounts removed from companies house? If you live in Lancashire and you've been paying council tax to them since, who're you paying council tax too and what for?

[-Savage-]

Didn't The_Gov_Uk (Or whatever his name is/was) do something like this?
____________________
My Bikes - - - Royal Enfield 500 with sidecar, VFR800, CBR600FX,
Peugeot Speedfight 100, Kymco Hipster 125, GSXR750K5, Jawa TS 350

[colin1]

Another thing to bear in mind, is that when the police deal with a member of the public to modify their behaviour, their actions towards you depend on what a policeman I know calls "the attitude test".

Basically, if they tell you not to do something, and you are defiant, they almost see this as an attack, as you are not respecting their authority to tell you what to do.

If however, you appologise, say you wont do it again etc they are satisfied.

This comes from the fact that they need to feel they are in control of any situation, for real practical reasons. Defiance can turn to physical threat to them.

So the public are people who are compliant and people who arent. If you put yourself in the camp with the bad guys, the police will feel justified in doing whatever they can to get you back, even if its not stictly legal. Because to them, you are now a bad guy.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[Jayy]

I realise I can't just go round reeling off legal terms and telling them they aren't the police they work for corporations etc but one of the key points John Harris brings up is the fact that most people are scared of the police and don't understand what they're saying when speaking in "legalese" language.

It's true, how many people who have never had a dealing with the police would just agree to do whatever they asked of them? How many people who have had multiple runnings with them would start questioning un-reasonable requests or spot things they were doing wrong?

I'd rather not find out through personal experience of being prosecuted or arrested for something, I'd rather know a bit about it beforehand.

[colin1]

A police officer has been trained and probably has experience of getting you to do what they want.

If you enter into any conversation with one, they can get the better of you due to their training and experience.

Thats why a solicitor representing someone accused of a criminal offence will tell their client to say nothing until they have taken advice.

And thats just assuming the police abide by the rules, which of course they dont as many of them have an intimate knowledge of how not only to get around the rules, but what rules they can break and get away with.

The ones that dont have this knowledge, will just assume they have ultimate authority in all matters, so a legal challenge wont stop them.

I'm far more interested in legal challenges to all the other things that we by custom surrender to the state.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[pa_broon74]

Not that I usually find myself on the wrong side of the law, if ever I do have to deal with the police, I never apologise on point of principal. You apologise to a person, you can't apologise to system and it's rules, what's the point.

It might be important to the policeman that I show deference and contrition, but its more important for me to show that he or she is not some moral barometer to which I should aspire.

I'll show exactly the same amount of respect as they show me, given that I'm not a nob end and not predisposed towards nobbish behaviour, usually it works. One thing I hate is being patronised, especially by someone who's yet to pass through puberty, so for some smooth cheeked pious tosspot to start in as if I've been throttling babies when infact all I was doing was speeding or had a tail light out; I cut them short and ask for the ticket.

I think i've seen this guy on youtube, he was going to deregister his car as the DVLA was a limited company and had no right to insist he keep it registered and pay the RFL money to them. He also pointed out that on paper (I thought it was a bit ropey tbh,) apparently he didn't awn his car as he was only down as the 'registered keeper'. I thought that was always to one side of ownership.

That said, how many people kept the receipt or invoice or whatever when they bought their car or bike. He talked like they could whip it away any time they pleased (which I suppose they can do.)

Anyway, interesting stuff but a wee bit moot. Statute law is consensus-based. If the majority of folk follow it then thats what you'll get.


____________________
Didn't catch anything.

[colin1]

Yeah you buy a car, but apparently the V5 means you sign it over to the government but keep possession of it, and can use it and sell it on to someone else who could be the new keeper and use it.

You road register it because you want to use the roads.

If you kept it on a farm and never on the road, you wouldnt need to register it or tax it. Which I think is fair enough, as the upkeep of roads is a substantial part of the usefullness of being able to use a vehicle.

Although someone I know who has a farm told me, that the DVLA were talking of even off road vehicles having to be road registered just in case they ever get used on the road. This may have already come in, or might not, I don't know. He was talking about his landrover he used on the farm.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[pa_broon74]

It wouldn't surprise me if they did insist all vehicles being registered and taxed. They'll justify it by calling it a green tax.

I've just remembered, if its the same guy I saw on youtube, he also wrote to his council blethering on about not having to pay council tax for the same reason, the council being a PLC and him not being answerable to statute law.

Something to do with it applying to the legal entity of the person (you get that when your birth is registered I think,) he kept refering to himself as John of the Harris family... If its even the same person...


____________________
Didn't catch anything.

[Luke_Retrofly]

Bored, people read to much into gouvenment consiparcy theories and crap.

I'm happy to live in a stable society and pay taxes if it means I get free health care etc.

You can bang on about how I'm a dribbiling tool to the gouvernmentm becuase I pay taxes and fill out forms, but the way I see it I'm enjoying my life.

Spend more time enjoying life with friends and family rather than worrying about what "the man" is doing.
____________________
Flounced - Long overdue
Fuck you bitch I'm in the top 10 list I can do the what the fuck I want!

[colin1]

[colin1]

[Luke_Retrofly]

It was mainly in reply to Itchy's comments.

The ammount of people wanting to go and live in the woods without anything to do with gouvernment and normal living, is so insignificant and surprised anyone really cares.
____________________
Flounced - Long overdue
Fuck you bitch I'm in the top 10 list I can do the what the fuck I want!

[GhostRider]

[Jayy]