"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[notorial dissent]

There has to be some font on unknowledge in the UK providing this not information.

[JimUk1]

I still don't understand how they have managed to link local financing to the magma carter.

If the local finance act guarantees funding to vulnerable people in that community, surely they are causing harm by withholding payment?

Oh the conundrum for a freeman!

[TheNewSaint]

That isn't what nd is asking. nd wants to know where it came from so that he/she can avoid that location entirely and the possibility of being exposed to whatever FOTLer's were exposed to.

Even so, I think it's part of the answer. People start out wanting to believe they don't have to pay their taxes, that they're being oppressed by the evil gubmint etc., and seek information to support that view.

I don't think there's any one source of freetard beliefs. They're all pretty much the same base set of fallacies: everything is a contract you can opt out of, the nature of signatures matter, you are a "true person" not your "strawman", etc., with minor details changed. Old promoters fade away, new ones adopt and repackage the same ideas. (I note that the "We Buy Your Debts To Other People" lady relies on a tortured interpretation of the Bills of Exchange Act, very much like Peter of England in his WeRe Bank scam.)

If anything, I think FMOTL arguments resemble urban legends. They are tales, with certain underlying themes, spread uncritically through word of mouth. By definition, they exist in so many places and so many iterations that it's difficult to trace where they came from.

[littleFred]

... nd wants to know where it came from so that he/she can avoid that location entirely and the possibility of being exposed to whatever FOTLer's were exposed to.

Nottingham. Keep away from Nottingham. There must be something in the water or the air or something.

[SteveUK]

... nd wants to know where it came from so that he/she can avoid that location entirely and the possibility of being exposed to whatever FOTLer's were exposed to.

Nottingham. Keep away from Nottingham. There must be something in the water or the air or something.

I'm afraid the water in my city isn't the issue. It was the scene of the start of the civil war . This rebellious scent lingers in the air .

Oh, and the twat in a hat of course

[Hercule Parrot]

If anything, I think FMOTL arguments resemble urban legends. They are tales, with certain underlying themes, spread uncritically through word of mouth. By definition, they exist in so many places and so many iterations that it's difficult to trace where they came from.

Yes, and they evolve, merge and adapt. Like Dawkins' memes.

[daveBeeston]

Nottingham. Keep away from Nottingham. There must be something in the water or the air or something.

Before realising how many idiots spout this nonsense in my home city i would have said how dare you Nottingham is a fine place, but now i agree to a degree.

I hear conversations amongst friends and random people in the pubs and shops local to me about how if you visit certain websites they can show you how to stop paying Council Tax and other bills and a couple of times how they can help claim back all your previously paid Council tax(i never got the name of that site).
For a city that has fairly decent education throughout the school system and with a top class university we really do have a lot of uneducated/stupid people.

[SteveUK]

At least Peter's last sentence is correct.
I sense another PLD success!!1!!! coming.

Ok newest update
An enforcement officer just visited my property I walked round the frobt of the house not answering the front door.
I spoke to him, it was a very nice gentleman who's on ex police officer so he knew his statute law and he said he knew is common law i explained to him my reasons Fully why I'm not paying council tax ,he said the council are pushing to have me put into prison I said they will have to try and put me in prison then .
He said the police will arrest you , ibsaid tgsts kidnapp .
the conversation lasted about 10 minutes really and just as we was parting company I explained to him that if somebody is committing a crime and I have financially support that crime I'm guilty of that crime if the government are committing crimes and I financially supported via the council tax then I am guilty of that crime, i explained i have taken an oath to Lord craigmyle to withhold all financial support and the magna carta instructs that i am to be unhindered ,and entering a common law means statutes and acts don't have any power over me as I do not consent to them then we shook hands and parted company.

So , let's see if I'm the first freeman standing under common law in lawful rebellion to get imprisoned.

Not long untill I find out I suspect

[JimUk1]

Didn't Roger of the family Hayes try this bs magma carter approach?

Only to spend a few days doing time?

Nb: seems olde Rodge has quit the freeman bs and is now peddling a similar idea to the Bristol pounds -

https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1 ... 32&fref=ts

[Hercule Parrot]

At least Peter's last sentence is correct.
I sense another PLD success!!1!!! coming.

Ok newest update
An enforcement officer just visited my property I walked round the frobt of the house not answering the front door.
I spoke to him, it was a very nice gentleman who's on ex police officer so he knew his statute law and he said he knew is common law i explained to him my reasons Fully why I'm not paying council tax ,he said the council are pushing to have me put into prison I said they will have to try and put me in prison then .
He said the police will arrest you , ibsaid tgsts kidnapp .
the conversation lasted about 10 minutes really and just as we was parting company I explained to him that if somebody is committing a crime and I have financially support that crime I'm guilty of that crime if the government are committing crimes and I financially supported via the council tax then I am guilty of that crime, i explained i have taken an oath to Lord craigmyle to withhold all financial support and the magna carta instructs that i am to be unhindered ,and entering a common law means statutes and acts don't have any power over me as I do not consent to them then we shook hands and parted company.

So , let's see if I'm the first freeman standing under common law in lawful rebellion to get imprisoned.

Not long untill I find out I suspect

Stick with this advice, Peter, and you'll soon find out.

[Hercule Parrot]

Good grief, they're stupid -

Connor Jason Wilkinson

Well, I was speaking to Christopher Michael Baksa (official candidate for ukip) and I asked him where he stood in regards to the invocation of Article 61.

His responce:

"In reply to hour question covering article61 unfortunately we very much need people to understand that lawful rebellion is not about avoiding paying for anything but rather a remedy for the malaise of this country in general.

In summary justice is not lawful under our constitution – even before the invocation of Article 61. On the spot fines, claimed right to find someone guilty without a court de jure (a trial with your peers) is unconstitutional. Anyone not standing under A.61 can dispute fixed penalty notices, parking, whatever ridiculous “legislation” the claimed “authority” used against you – it is all summary justice and is prohibited in common law.

Magna Carta 1215 Article 39 states,
“[39] No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

The law of the land is common law which only acknowledges jury trials as the mechanism for justice. Summary justice as was started when they tried to remove Grand Juries in 1933 with the ‘Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act simply is not lawful.

Anyone lawfully standing under A.61 (having submitted their Oath and kept a copy of the signed & witnessed Oath and proof of postage) has a lawful duty to distress and distrain the Crown by any means possible, except for harming the monarch and his or her heirs <blah blah usual tripe...>

https://www.facebook.com/groups/practic ... 940860007/

Subsequent discussion of the extraordinary level of knowledge displayed by Baksa (who is a vicious hater in the Trumpista style). Can he be a covert member of the Lorfull Rebyllion movement perhaps?

What none of them think to do is to google a phrase or two. If they had done that, they would have realised that Baksa has simply copied text from another LR site and sent it as his ownopinion -

Summary justice is not lawful under our constitution – even before the invocation of Article 61. On the spot fines, claimed right to find someone guilty without a court de jure (a trial with your peers) is unconstitutional. Anyone not standing under A.61 can dispute fixed penalty notices, parking, whatever ridiculous “legislation” the claimed “authority” used against you – it is all summary justice and is prohibited in common law.

Magna Carta 1215 Article 39 states,
“[39] No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

The law of the land is common law which only acknowledges jury trials as the mechanism for justice. Summary justice as was started when they tried to remove Grand Juries in 1933 with the ‘Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act simply is not lawful.

Anyone lawfully standing under A.61 (having submitted their Oath and kept a copy of the signed & witnessed Oath and proof of postage) has a lawful duty to distress and distrain the Crown by any means possible, except for harming the monarch and his or her heirs <blah blah usual tripe...>

http://lawfulrebellion.info/magna-carta ... rticle-61/

[notorial dissent]

If that is indeed what Baksa said, then he displays a level of ignorance of his own history and government that is truly beyond the pale.

[Hercule Parrot]

If that is indeed what Baksa said, then he displays a level of ignorance of his own history and government that is truly beyond the pale.

I don't think he knows anything about it. I think he just googled Lorfull Rebyllion and found some tripe about historical rights under magna carta being denied by the horrible government. Because he's a stupid, nasty Little Englander, he felt positive towards it. And because he's lazy and contemptuous towards the electorate, he happily stole the text and represented it as his own views.

[JimUk1]

Oh My dear lord, deliver me for all things stupid.

Where did you find this gem, Hercule?

Nb: I've just realised I've made myself look stupid by asking re: the title of this forum.

Still, I've never seen anything as ridiculous as this!

[littleFred]

The PLD folk are often ignorant of history.

Just a quick question about the magna carta sorry,it was written by the church of England yes?

And no-one corrects him!

[ArthurWankspittle]

The PLD folk are often ignorant of history.

Just a quick question about the magna carta sorry,it was written by the church of England yes?

And no-one corrects him!

I can sort of understand where that mistakes arises from. The Barons went to a cleric to write it up, which is why it is in latin.

[AndyPandy]

The PLD folk are often ignorant of history.

Just a quick question about the magna carta sorry,it was written by the church of England yes?

And no-one corrects him!

I can sort of understand where that mistakes arises from. The Barons went to a cleric to write it up, which is why it is in latin.

I think the point is the Church of England didn't come into being until the 1530's under Henry VIII and the Reformation, so some 320+ years after the original Magna Carta was signed by King John.

[grixit]

If that is indeed what Baksa said, then he displays a level of ignorance of his own history and government that is truly beyond the pale.

Well, if he actually lived beyond the pale he wouldn't have to worry about british law at all.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The PLD folk are often ignorant of history.

And no-one corrects him!

I can sort of understand where that mistakes arises from. The Barons went to a cleric to write it up, which is why it is in latin.

I think the point is the Church of England didn't come into being until the 1530's under Henry VIII and the Reformation, so some 320+ years after the original Magna Carta was signed by King John.

Yebbut all churches look the same to FMOTLs.

[notorial dissent]

In all honesty, most of them have never been in one, so how would they really know?