Public rights of way

[brianthegiant]

hmm, interesting, I'd never heard of FOTL as an organised movement before ( though I've come across these extrapolated legal arguments a few times).

I think there are some good precedents for people making a positive difference to society by making a robust argument in the context of UK law which builds on existing case law and sets new legal precedents, on the basis of advice from experienced practising lawyers.

However the FOTL approach seems to be based on wilfully misunderstandings of the law as it stands & I'm not convinced thats an effective way to achieve positive change.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
it doesn't look like these kind of legal arguments have been effective.

seems like FOTL is an interesting intelectual /philosophical idea to a point, until you ask how FOTL people intend to run hospitals and schools if everyone opts out of paying any taxes etc?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

in times gone by gypsies were not birth registered and thats why most of the time the legal system could not touch them unless they had broken the common law.(murder assault,theft etc)

To it's credit railforums is for the most part a place of respect for fellow humans, (even when there are strong disagreements .

This line is a racist slur against a minority community in the UK, which I suspect like the other stuff is entirely without foundation. Sadly many people in Britain are quick to criticise and discriminate against the Gypsy community, in doing so not only do we lose part of our humanity, but we also conspire to perpetuate the distrust on both sides, and maintain gypsys on the fringe of our community, with all the problems that entails.

I hope the admins will take appropriate action.

 

[Proud Salopian]

I can't believe they have a Wikipedia article! Ridiculous.

 

[brianthegiant]

hmm, but the wikipedia article presents a relatively impartial view, including the flaws of the concept. So that anyone getting interested in the concept might realise it's flaws.

Whereas, no doubt there plenty of biased sites promoting it, and pretending to be by legal experts. Sadly a lot of gullible and in some cases vulnerable people are taken in by these kind of sites.

 

[Proud Salopian]

hmm, but the wikipedia article presents a relatively impartial view, including the flaws of the concept. So that anyone getting interested in the concept might realise it's flaws.

Whereas, no doubt there plenty of biased sites promoting it, and pretending to be by legal experts. Sadly a lot of gullible and in some cases vulnerable people are taken in by these kind of sites.

The deliberate misinformation of the public about the law should be a criminal offence.

I can just about imagine the number of instances - probably every day - of a person sitting in a solicitor's office in the UK where the person says "but I read online..." and the solicitor has to take a deep breath...

 

[brianthegiant]

haha, yes, likewise doctors, MPs, Psychiatrists

 

[Proud Salopian]

Too true!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

You're forgetting that we (actively serving railway infrastructure Engineers and investment scheme developers) also get this, a lot.

It is particularly prevalent where many frustrated, armchair-based, wannabee train drivers are gathered together ...

 

[Flamingo]

Here is a beaut of a "Freeman of the land" getting his commuppence last year in Ireland

Judge challenged to produce oath by man disputing summons
COLETTE BROWNE

A JUDGE was challenged by a defendant yesterday to produce his oath of office before proceeding with a case being heard at Wexford District Court.

Declaring that he was before the court “under duress”, Bobby Oliver Sludds (29), Ballagh Cove, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, said Judge David Anderson had no jurisdiction to deal with the case unless he first produced his oath.

“Where did you read that?” asked the judge.

“The Constitution. It says that a judge must offer up his oath when requested and I am asking you, do you have your oath?” said Mr Sludds, before picking up a copy of the Constitution and quoting from it at length.

“This is not a quiz, I ask the questions. I made my oath in front of the Chief Justice and I have no idea if he kept a record or not,” the judge replied.

“Do you speak English or legalese?” replied Mr Sludds, before putting down the Constitution and picking up a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary.

Quoting the precise definition of “summons”, Mr Sludds proceeded to dispute the validity of the summons issued by the court, in which he was charged with a number of motoring offences in Enniscorthy in April 2010.

“These offences are fraudulent and I’m not this Bobby Oliver Sludds you speak of,” he said. “That’s not me and this fictitious claim is a fraud on this court. This is not my name. I’ve been taken here against my will.”

Asked to clarify the matter, prosecuting garda Michael O’Grady said that when he had stopped the defendant and asked him his name, he had replied: “Bobby of the family Sludds”.

Mr Sludds then handed up a copy of his birth certificate to the court and repeated that he was not the man named in the summons.

Having heard repeated denials that he was the man named, the judge said he had no choice but to remand Mr Sludds in custody because there was some confusion about his true identity.

“I can’t accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can’t be verified,” he said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.

“You can’t do this. This isn’t over. You can expect a bill,” Mr Sludds shouted as he was led away.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0811/1224302232246.html

 

[trivran]

“The Constitution. It says that a judge must offer up his oath when requested and I am asking you, do you have your oath?” said Mr Sludds, before picking up a copy of the Constitution and quoting from it at length.

“This is not a quiz, I ask the questions. I made my oath in front of the Chief Justice and I have no idea if he kept a record or not,” the judge replied.

If the Irish constitution does ask that..and he didn't..then surely that is bad..?

(Yes, I'm clueless)

 

[jopsuk]

I've just had a skim through. I've found the bit on judicial oaths

5.
1° Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration:
"In the presence of Almighty God I, , do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me."
2° This declaration shall be made and subscribed by the Chief Justice in the presence of the President, and by each of the other judges of the Supreme Court, the judges of the High Court and the judges of every other Court in the presence of the Chief Justice or the senior available judge of the Supreme Court in open court.
3° The declaration shall be made and subscribed by every judge before entering upon his duties as such judge, and in any case not later than ten days after the date of his appointment or such later date as may be determined by the President.
4° Any judge who declines or neglects to make such declaration as aforesaid shall be deemed to have vacated his office.

So, um, no, it doesn't say what the chap reckoned it said. Typical Freeman wooly, twisted thinking trying to catch out the law on technicalities and interpreations of words that are fundamentally wrong.

 

[Yew]

Just because you don't like the law it does not mean you can ignore it (even with spurious justification).

Generally What you do in that place Is buy some offshor structure and try and call it a principality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

 

[ralphchadkirk]

This is the hilarious depths some freemen go to in order to explain themselves:

The English language and its accepted rules of grammar are likewise precise, however, and make no accommodation for proper nouns to be written in all-capital letters. The all-capital letters-written name which appears on your IRD [Inland Revenue Department] Statements, driver's license, passport, bank statement, credit cards, etc., and which is rigidly enforced by the legal system, is not there by mistake - as the law is very precise.

But it is not your "True Name," which appears with only initial letters capitalised. The all-caps version is the name of your mirror image straw man and is written in another language: "Legalese." The primary pitfall is that an all-capital letters name sounds exactly like a true name when spoken). This phenomenon has no particular significance in our society - except in a courtroom, and a courtroom can be a dangerous place.

I have never laughed so much...
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17559

 

[Proud Salopian]

 

[jopsuk]

This is the hilarious depths some freemen go to in order to explain themselves:

oh crikey. This bit especially:

The English language and its accepted rules of grammar are likewise precise

Um, the English language is the wooliest, fuzziest language on the planet. Given that as I understand it, this really is the basis of the insanity, you can see that when they build from such an demostratably false position, everything they say is basically wrong.

 

[Jonny]

<shortened>

seems like FOTL is an interesting intelectual /philosophical idea to a point, until you ask how FOTL people intend to run hospitals and schools if everyone opts out of paying any taxes etc?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
<shortened>

I'm not FOTL but I see where they're coming from, and I can answer that question for them - privately and/or charity, as some schools and hospitals still are

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Good luck funding the £106 billion NHS budget through charity.

 

[ainsworth74]

Good luck funding the £106 billion NHS budget through charity.

I suppose their argument is that the budget of the NHS wouldn't be £106bn as there wouldn't be an NHS in the first place. Hospitals and what not would be funded through charity and by paying the market rate for healthcare (and I guess the same goes for things like Schools).

 

[brianthegiant]

the NHS is often derided from all sides.

What I find very interesting, is that the US govt spends twice as much per capita as the UK Govt.* The UK Govt provides a basic level of healthcare. In the US if you have no money you have no treatment, period**.

In that context the British model of taxpayer funded nationalised system of universal healthcare starts to look quite good. Sadly I think the creeping privatisation we're seeing wont discover rafts of efficiency savings but will just introduce more costs, a la rail industry, which I guess already happened with PFI. Interesting parallels.

* 'the undercover economist' or 'freekonomics' cant remember which
** recent TV documentary - Ch4?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I suppose their argument is that the budget of the NHS wouldn't be £106bn as there wouldn't be an NHS in the first place. Hospitals and what not would be funded through charity and by paying the market rate for healthcare (and I guess the same goes for things like Schools).

Would you donate to charity healthcare if you knew you'd still have to pay the full cost of surgery anyway? I wouldn't. Healthcare is just one though - what about refuse disposal, a fire service, roads, clean water, street lighting, ...

What these FMOTL idiots are proposing is anarchy, pure and simple. If they are not going to respect the conventions of a public existence, then I too will take this attitude when I next meet one. I should then be able to use the defence, in court, that as the victim refuses to acknowledge authority of the court (or indeed their own existence) then I can't be prosecuted for harming an un-person* ...


* These words should not be interpreted as any kind threat or determination to use violence against those person or persons expousing the creed of "Freemen of the Land" or any belief system bearing a resemblance either superficial or exact to "Freemen of the Land" and the writer does not condone any such action being taken by others.