Freeman Megamerge

Ms Minnie Mouse

jblack, you really don't get it do you.

The rules of spelling, grammar and punctuation are enforced upon us by British.Language.Inc.co.uk and are therefore regulations that are to be spurned and disobeyed.

I'm currently researching British Law btw. When I was studying back home, my studies were on the laws of England and Wales, so am hoping that British Law will be a wider accepted qualification.

Corruptable

For convenience, and out of boredom I have assembled some relevant information relating to the increasing phenomenon that is the "Freeman On The Land" or FOTL movement presently gripping this country and the UK, as well as some information on it's history and origin in the United States.

I've been surprised over the Christmas period, as there seems to be few ways of avoiding believers of the FOTL theory, and I must admit I've found them in some unexpected places in the past month.

The true structure of Authority

GOD
Or the Creator, the Universe, the Higher Power, ‘That from which we came’ – thus making us equal to all men, sovereign and second only to God or the Creator.

MANKIND
Man & Woman with living body and soul. Free to exist peacefully within Natural/Gods Law with all Rights and Freedoms enjoyed and protected (more on Rights later).

GOVERNMENT
Created by Man & Woman and all Power/Authority of a Government is derived directly from their Creator (i.e. Man & Woman). They are representatives of the Men & Women, who have been given the authority to manage the affairs of a Country according to the Peoples wishes.

ACTS AND STATUTES
Governments use the authority given to them by the people to enact rules which govern a society. Acts & Statutes were created by Men and therefore lower then Gods/Natural Law . As you are second only to God or the ‘All That Is’, you must consent to these rules for them to apply to you. The Government assumes they are representing you as you haven’t told them otherwise and therefore assume you consent to Statutory Laws and obligations.

PERSONS
This concept is hard to get your head around at first but it is key to understanding how the system actually works. Man created Government and therefore Government is second to and under Man & Woman. For them to gain authority over you they had to create a fictional entity known as a
‘Person’ in Legalese – the language of the Law Society (also called Straw Man, Trade Name, and Legal Entity). This can be identified by your name usually appearing in ALL CAPS on any Government issued Documents, Bank Accounts, Statements and any other Official Commercial Documents or ID’s.

You assume that this ‘Straw Man’ or ‘Person’ is You, as the name appears to be the same but it is NOT You. It represents a commercial entity/legal fiction with no Rights assigned to it. Only when you, the Man/Woman agree to represent this Straw Man do you give your Rights away (willingly albeit unknowingly).


A Short Guide to the Law

Statutes/Legislation

All Statutory Legislation is based on Contracts and are also referred to as ‘Acts’. You might be interested to note the definition of an Act according to Black’s Law Dictionary:

'act in the law': “ An Act that is intended to create, transfer , or extinguish a right and that is effective in law for that purpose; the exercise of a legal power. ”
'act of the law': “ The creation, extinction, or transfer of a right by the operation of the law itself, without any consent on the part of the persons involved. ”

Common Law

Common Law can be very easily understood by the tenet ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. In basic terms: The Rights of one Man end where another’s begins. Common law includes crimes such as bodily harm, theft, assault, cause of loss or injury and murder . This is why
you see murder referred to as ‘Un-Lawful Killing’ and not ‘Illegal Killing’.

Person v Freeman

A Person is not a Man or a Woman, it is a legal entity similar to a corporation and it is used for all of your Commercial, Governmental, and Financial documents and accounts.

Person: A corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

Here are some points to note with reference to the ‘Person’

• The Person is also known as a Legal Entity, a Straw Man, a Fictional Entity , and a Trade Name.
•The Person requires You the (flesh and blood) Man or Woman to represent It in its affairs, furthermore, the State/Government (also a fictional/legal entity i.e. Not a flesh and blood man or woman) can only apply Legislation to this Person when you agree or consent to represent it.
•The Person or Straw Man was created by the State of your Birth on ‘bonded paper’ shortly after you were born. Your Birth was registered which in actuality signs over authority or ownership to the State. This is how they can claim the right to take your children from you if they feel you are not taking care of them (their property) according to their liking.
• As the Government/Country is operating in Bankruptcy they are actually using You, the living Soul as collateral and take loans on the back of this Bond (created at birth). This is due to the expectation that You will generate revenue in your life, work and pay tax which contributes to
the National Debt. The Birth Cert is evidence of the Bond as it is created on Bond paper.
• The Straw Man has no Heart or Soul. Reclaim your power by acting and living from yours! Declare sovereignty and be Free! Reclaim your Straw Man to access your bond and the credit you are entitled to!
•Your PPS Number is the equivalent of an Employee Number. You work for the State, and as long as you continue working for the company you have to follow the rules (statutes) which apply to the Employees/Persons.
Society

A Short Guide to Contracts

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties creating obligations which are enforceable or recognizable at Law.

A Contract has four requirements for it to be considered Lawful:
1. Full Disclosure - Meaning that both parties must be fully open in setting and agreeing upon the details and the terms of the contract. Both parties must be left with no doubt or confusion about the terms set out in the contract.
2. Consideration – Can be ‘that which is offered’ in the agreement. Allows the parties’ time to consider if they stand to lose or gain from the contract.
3. Terms & Conditions – Outline the structure and the requirements of the agreement and obligations of each or all of the involved parties.
4. Signature - This is the most important part of the Contract and is the proof that the agreement took place. It also implies ‘consensus ad idem’ or a ‘meeting of the minds’. Your Signature is very powerful and you should always pay caution to what you are signing.

Honour/Dishonour

The key to dealing with contracts is to remain in honour. State Policy enforcers may try to force or trick you into dishonour to secure a conviction. There are four responses you can give when you are being claimed against.

1. Ignore – If you ignore a claim made against you, you (tacitly) agree by your silence or acquiescence. Failure to respond or dispute implies acceptance. If you ignore a Notice or a claim made against you, you are in Dishonour.
2. Dispute – If you dispute the details of the claims against you, you are raising controversy i.e. not seeking remedy . Again this places you in Dishonour.
3. Acceptance – If you accept the charges or the claims, you have agreed to remedy the situation by following the requests made. Although this option places you in to a state of Honour it is definitely not the most desirable or empowering choice you can make.
4. Conditional Acceptance – This is where the power lies when handling Penalty Notices, Charges and Court Summons, which believe it or not are All offers to contact with your Legal Title or Straw Man!
You can conditionally accept the Charges or Demands upon the Condition that Your terms are met for example: Proof of Claim that they have suffered debt or have any authority over you. (More on this later)

Picture the scene...

You get a Parking Ticket on your Car . This is an offer of contract stating “Your Vehicle was illegally parked, all Persons found illegally parked must pay a fine of €50 in accordance with Road Traffic Act”. Now we’ve already established that you are not a person, you have a person so how doe
this Act apply to You, the Man or Woman? It doesn’t! You see, they are not attempting to charge You the Man or Woman, they are attempting to charge the Straw Man or contract with the Company using Commercial Statutes. Because you believe this applies to you, you accept the offer and the liability! However , what you’re not told is- You are not obliged to accept this offer...

The above used with consent of Tir Na Saor, from http://oymireland.com/freeman-guides.html

Origins of the Sovereign Citizen (Freeman on the Land) movement:

At its core, the current sovereign belief system is relatively simple and is based on a decades-old conspiracy theory. At some point in history, sovereigns believe, the American government set up by the founding fathers — with a legal system the sovereigns refer to as "common law" — was secretly replaced by a new government system based on admiralty law, the law of the sea and international commerce. Some sovereigns believe this perfidious change occurred during the Civil War, while others blame the events of 1933, when America abandoned the gold standard.

Either way, they stake their lives and livelihood on the idea that judges around the country know all about this hidden government takeover but are denying the sovereigns' motions and filings out of treasonous loyalty to hidden and malevolent government forces. Under common law, or so they believe, the sovereigns would be free men. Under admiralty law, they are slaves, and secret government forces have a vested interest in keeping them that way.

The next layer of the scheme is even more implausible. Since 1933, the U.S. dollar has been backed not by gold, but by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. According to sovereign researchers, this means that the government has pledged its citizenry as collateral, by selling their future earning capabilities to foreign investors, effectively enslaving all Americans. This sale, they claim, takes place at birth.

When a baby is born in the U.S., a birth certificate is issued, and the hospital usually requires that the parents apply for a Social Security number at that time. Sovereigns say that the government then uses that certificate to set up a kind of corporate trust in the baby's name — a secret Treasury account — which it funds with an amount ranging from $600,000 to $20 million, depending on the particular variant of the sovereign belief system. By setting up this account, every newborn's rights are cleverly split between those held by the flesh-and-blood baby and the ones assigned to his or her corporate shell account.


The clues, many sovereigns believe, are found on the birth certificate itself. Since most certificates use all capital letters to spell out a baby's name, JOHN DOE is the name of the corporate shell "strawman," while John Doe is the baby's "real," flesh-and-blood name. As the child grows older, most of his legal documents will utilize capital letters, which means that his state-issued driver's license, his marriage license, his car registration, his criminal court records, his cable TV bill, and correspondence from the IRS will all pertain to his corporate shell identity, not his real, sovereign identity.
The process sovereigns have devised to split the strawman from the flesh-and-blood man is called "redemption," [In Ireland and the UK, redemption process has been substituted with the issuing of the "Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right"] and its purpose is two-fold.

Once separated from the corporate shell, the newly freed man is now outside of the jurisdiction of all admiralty laws. More importantly, by filing a series of complex, legal-sounding documents, the sovereign can tap into that secret Treasury account for his own purposes. Over the last 30 years, there have been hundreds of sovereign promoters packaging different combinations of forms and paperwork, attempting to perfect the process. While no one has ever succeeded, of course, they know with the religious certainty of a true cult believer that they're close.

From the Southern Poverty Law Center in the United States, which has conducted extensive research into the phenomenon as well as monitoring racist groups, apparently the Sovereign Citizen movement has it's root in antisemitism and extreme Christianity:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/sovereign-citizen-kane

MagicSean

It's pretty much as I expected. They're all bat**** crazy.

charlemont

Utter madness indeed. Fair play to them for trying it but its rubbish. And I'd bet they have no problem using the system when it comes to signing on.

Corruptable

MagicSean wrote: »

It's pretty much as I expected. They're all bat**** crazy.

Exactly what I was thinking the deeper down the rabbit hole I went in terms of reading their ideological, political, and legal commentary. Quiet frankly it seems to simply be a mutilation of the law as we know it and their own version of it.

I just thought it would be interesting to take it from their own sources and see what people thought. Sean, out of interest, you should open the pdf document on the first website and read all about their understanding of dealing with AGS.

And yes, I have nothing better to do than rot my brain with this as opposed to working on an upcoming Land Law assignment.

johnnyskeleton

Corruptable wrote: »

MagicSean wrote: »

It's pretty much as I expected. They're all bat**** crazy.

Exactly what I was thinking the deeper down the rabbit hole I went in terms of reading their ideological, political, and legal commentary. Quiet frankly it seems to simply be a mutilation of the law as we know it and their own version of it.

I just thought it would be interesting to take it from their own sources and see what people thought. Sean, out of interest, you should open the pdf document on the first website and read all about their understanding of dealing with AGS.

And yes, I have nothing better to do than rot my brain with this as opposed to working on an upcoming Land Law assignment.

I also find it facinating and would love to see an articulation, not of what they say is wrong with the current system, but what system they would propse instead. Do they really think that giving people the right to choose to pay tax, obey the law, be governed by their democratcally elected government will lead to a better system?

In short, I am coming to the conclusion that they are very much like the "libertarian" posters on boards.ie who point to every scandal of government as a failure of the state system which would be avoided in a libertarian society but yet cannot provide evidence to back this up nor can they explain how things that don't fit into their system would work

Finnbar01

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In short, I am coming to the conclusion that they are very much like the "libertarian" posters on boards.ie who point to every scandal of government as a failure of the state system which would be avoided in a libertarian society but yet cannot provide evidence to back this up nor can they explain how things that don't fit into their system would work

Out of interest, what sort of things don't fit into libertarians system?

johnnyskeleton

Finnbar01 wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In short, I am coming to the conclusion that they are very much like the "libertarian" posters on boards.ie who point to every scandal of government as a failure of the state system which would be avoided in a libertarian society but yet cannot provide evidence to back this up nor can they explain how things that don't fit into their system would work

Out of interest, what sort of things don't fit into libertarians system?

A typical boards.ie debate on libertarianism will go as follows:

libertarian: government intervention in the labour Market is bad because it restricts the right to enter a contract therefore all employment laws should be abolished to that we are all free.

cynic: but what about laws that prevent exploitation of children or slavery?

Libertarian: well obviously they are prohibited because they hurt other people, but everything else should be abolished.

It's the same rigid adherence to a belief that ignores the practical nature of our current system of democracy. Essentially, both ideologies are flawed because they reject the right of a democratically elected government. However, they differ in one important aspect: fremen are trying to avoid our laws without a theory behind it whereas libertarians accept our laws but are trying to theorise a different way of running the economy

batistuta9

is the trouble with the definition of a person & personhood where the freeman groups get a lot of their stuff?

if you look them terms up on wikipedia you'll see what i'm talking about if some of you don't know what i mean, there's also something about a company being some sort of 'person' on it in terms of law. which i think they also say right?

johnnyskeleton

batistuta9 wrote: »

is the trouble with the definition of a person & personhood where the freeman groups get a lot of their stuff?

if you look them terms up on wikipedia you'll see what i'm talking about if some of you don't know what i mean, there's also something about a company being some sort of 'person' on it in terms of law. which i think they also say right?

Companies have legal personality that is they are a different entity to the people who own/run it.

Fremen have flipped this on its head and are trying to pretend that people have corporate personality as well as their human personality. Which is of course groundless nonsense that has no foundation in statute, in written judgements, in law textbooks nor in any serious political/philosophical treatise. If it were true, it would be the best kept secret in the world. If you think about it, there is more evidence of space aliens or t the knights Templar run the world than is there is that our birth certificates create a corporation and that law applies only to our corporate personality, not to our human personality.

It is also utterly inexplicable because there are good reasons why governments would keep the existence of aliens secret, but there is no good explanation as to why they would set up governments that deliberately choose not to govern by force of law but instead govern by a form of trickery where people have to be conned into obeying the law.

Most rational people would accept that a state is an organisation that exercisesultimate control over a geographical area and has the exclusive use of legitimate force in that area. The power of a democratic parliament to pass acts is not significantly different in substance to that of a king declaring what the law is. In either case the use of force is the ultimate authority for enforcement of the laws and the Irish state does have access to this force. In a modern democracy the force is imprisonment and they can use this to force a citizen to obey the law, whether they consent to the law or not.

So forgive us having little patience for them but they twist the words of one legal concept to make a crazy theory sound vaguely familiar to the unsuspecting. They completely fail, however to explain why this would be the case. A good conspiracy theory has to have a motive for the conspiracy.

Corruptable

The odd thing is that they accuse the judicial system and the legal profession of being the ones who are misleading vulnerable people in desperate situations. Yet the whole freemen charade is attempting to spread untruths, and seriously mislead vulnerable people to their guaranteed detriment.

The whole "get out of debt free" thing is the basis on which they "market" the idea and their public meetings. Their leader, Kevin Flanagan (taking his lead from author of the biggest load of non-sense on stilts I have ever read, Blank of Ireland, Darrell O'Dea) asserts that it is as simple as demanding the bank show you the original I.O.U or "instrument of original indebtedness".

Surely this means that once the bank can produce the loan or mortgage contract, this whole approach becomes useless. To escape criminal charges, they advise you demand the Judge's oath to ensure that he is aware that he is no longer allowed practice admiralty law in dealing with your case, something he was never doing in the first place. Hence, Judges tend to get highly offended by this conduct (and unfortunately the only rational result is as we saw in the first post of this thread).

As has been mentioned in previous posts, seemly claiming their social welfare benefit doesn't result in a contract with the State in their strange theory? Some might say that's a low blow, but it's a legitimate question.

Finnbar01

Corruptable wrote: »

The odd thing is that they accuse the judicial system and the legal profession of being the ones who are misleading vulnerable people in desperate situations. Yet the whole freemen charade is attempting to spread untruths, and seriously mislead vulnerable people to their guaranteed detriment.

The whole "get out of debt free" thing is the basis on which they "market" the idea and their public meetings. Their leader, Kevin Flanagan (taking his lead from author of the biggest load of non-sense on stilts I have ever read, Blank of Ireland, Darrell O'Dea) asserts that it is as simple as demanding the bank show you the original I.O.U or "instrument of original indebtedness".

Surely this means that once the bank can produce the loan or mortgage contract, this whole approach becomes useless. To escape criminal charges, they advise you demand the Judge's oath to ensure that he is aware that he is no longer allowed practice admiralty law in dealing with your case, something he was never doing in the first place. Hence, Judges tend to get highly offended by this conduct (and unfortunately the only rational result is as we saw in the first post of this thread).

As has been mentioned in previous posts, seemly claiming their social welfare benefit doesn't result in a contract with the State in their strange theory? Some might say that's a low blow, but it's a legitimate question.

AFAIK, Mr Blank of Ireland has multiple properties rented out. I would love to see his face if one of his tenants tried to use freeman of the land nonsense to get out from paying the rent. Also, he printed a letter in his book from BOI claiming that they've 'redeemed' his mortgage. It now turns out the letter was obtained fraudlently and BOI haven't let him off the hook.

As for claiming social welfare, they claim that at birth the government iniates some sort of birth bond, which is worth millions and that's all they are claiming, so they (think) are entitled to it.

I'm really looking forward to the day when one of these freeman preachers (the big fish) have their collar felt by the law. Some how or another, I have a sneaky suspicion they don't practise what they preach.

If I was a cop (which I'm not), I'd find out everything about any big fish freeman type that might live or work on my patch. I'd make it my mission to catch him out. I know that sounds immoral or unethical but I wouldn't care.

pirelli

The true structure of Authority

GOD
Or the Creator, the Universe, the Higher Power, ‘That from which we came’ – thus making us equal to all men, sovereign and second only to God or the Creator.

MANKIND
Man & Woman with living body and soul. Free to exist peacefully within Natural/Gods Law with all Rights and Freedoms enjoyed and protected (more on Rights later).

GOVERNMENT
Created by Man & Woman and all Power/Authority of a Government is derived directly from their Creator (i.e. Man & Woman). They are representatives of the Men & Women, who have been given the authority to manage the affairs of a Country according to the Peoples wishes.

ACTS AND STATUTES
Governments use the authority given to them by the people to enact rules which govern a society. Acts & Statutes were created by Men and therefore lower then Gods/Natural Law . As you are second only to God or the ‘All That Is’, you must consent to these rules for them to apply to you. The Government assumes they are representing you as you haven’t told them otherwise and therefore assume you consent to Statutory Laws and obligations.

PERSONS
This concept is hard to get your head around at first but it is key to understanding how the system actually works. Man created Government and therefore Government is second to and under Man & Woman. For them to gain authority over you they had to create a fictional entity known as a
‘Person’ in Legalese – the language of the Law Society (also called Straw Man, Trade Name, and Legal Entity). This can be identified by your name usually appearing in ALL CAPS on any Government issued Documents, Bank Accounts, Statements and any other Official Commercial Documents or ID’s.

You assume that this ‘Straw Man’ or ‘Person’ is You, as the name appears to be the same but it is NOT You. It represents a commercial entity/legal fiction with no Rights assigned to it. Only when you, the Man/Woman agree to represent this Straw Man do you give your Rights away (willingly albeit unknowingly).

I am not an overly religious person, in fact I am just trying to help interpret matters.

Notwithstanding any argument that the common law is or is not based on the ten commandments...
My understanding of the structure of authority would be that Man was made in the image of God, and we worship God and as such live Godly lives so our days may be long on earth to worship God.

One misconception in the above structure might be we are second only to God. We are not second only to God; we must worship God.

The structure would be as follows

GOD
AUTHORITY
MAN


Of the Ten commandments the fourth commandment begins to deal with Man
4.Honour thy father and thy mother


Therefore you must honour authority as you would your father and mother. So if you mother and father live in sin then it is up to yourself to honour the Godly in your father and mother and not the ungodly.

Therefore Authority like your parents must be honoured.

Sometimes it is hard to know if it's Godly or ungodly and usually when it's evasive and ambiguous then it's leading away from what we might honour but perhaps that's leadership of man. However if it is leadership of man what i find with the Irish judiciary and Authorities is much of the evasion and ambiguity has led the Irish people to misfortune.

So you have to tediously and painstakingly re examine every action of authority to discover the Godly from the Ungodly. Good leadership from bad leadership.

So authority is for the most part good not bad.

Hoffmans

fmotl, lol, wpuldnt want to contract with pure nonsense......

234

pirelli wrote: »

I am not an overly religious person, in fact I am just trying to help interpret matters.

Notwithstanding any argument that the common law is or is not based on the ten commandments...
My understanding of the structure of authority would be that Man was made in the image of God, and we worship God and as such live Godly lives so our days may be long on earth to worship God.

One misconception in the above structure might be we are second only to God. We are not second only to God; we must worship God.

The structure would be as follows

GOD
AUTHORITY
MAN


Of the Ten commandments the fourth commandment begins to deal with Man
4.Honour thy father and thy mother


Therefore you must honour authority as you would your father and mother. So if you mother and father live in sin then it is up to yourself to honour the Godly in your father and mother and not the ungodly.

Therefore Authority like your parents must be honoured.

Sometimes it is hard to know if it's Godly or ungodly and usually when it's evasive and ambiguous then it's leading away from what we might honour but perhaps that's leadership of man. However if it is leadership of man what i find with the Irish judiciary and Authorities is much of the evasion and ambiguity has led the Irish people to misfortune.

So you have to tediously and painstakingly re examine every action of authority to discover the Godly from the Ungodly. Good leadership from bad leadership.

So authority is for the most part good not bad.

Well that's certainly interesting as a form of social comment but it really has no bearing on the force, legitimacy or authority of law. An ungodly law is still a law.

nuac

Pirelli

I agree with 234 on this. I recall you were posting some years ago sensibly about injunctions etc. Keep a\way from this Freeman stuff. It is nonesense.

Theology and law don't run well together - perhaps somewhere in the academic sphere, but not in practical legal work.

Happy New Year

pirelli

234 wrote: »

Well that's certainly interesting as a form of social comment but it really has no bearing on the force, legitimacy or authority of law. An ungodly law is still a law.

nuac wrote: »

Pirelli

I agree with 234 on this. I recall you were posting some years ago sensibly about injunctions etc. Keep a\way from this Freeman stuff. It is nonesense.

Theology and law don't run well together - perhaps somewhere in the academic sphere, but not in practical legal work.

Happy New Year

Thanks for the new years wishes Nuac but you have misinterpreted my post. Do you think me such a simple person that the intellectual weight of the poster 'corruptor' lengthy post about Freeman is too mighty a temptation for my radical mind. I think you should at least go back one page and read to better understand my post.

I was just pointing out that theology itself conflicts with the Freeman structure and therefore would not work in my view although i think essentially the Freeman would prefer a Chinese approach to Monetary policy rather than the western approach. If you understand this than you need read no further.


The Freeman argument about birth certs appears to revolve around the Fiat system and the Gold standard, where the Federal reserves ( central Bank) lends Trillions to Banks to maintain the liquidity and prevent bank runs during a financial crisis.

This money must be paid back by the end the close of business by the banks. Therefore when an economist says the Federal reserve lent 16 trillion to banks...they are referencing the systematic distress guage and in actuality this money was an accumulation of day to day lending throughout the year.

In reality the most the Federal reserve ever lent out was 1.5 trillion in one day which would have been paid back theoretically by the close of business.

What the Freeman are complaining about is fractional reserve banking where the bank can (depending on the reserve requirement ( presently 10% ) or monetary policy which the main complaint being is controlled by the Federal reserve or europe's central bank ) borrow up to ten times ( in this instance 9 times) the initial loan as soon as it hit's the banks books even though that money has already been returned to the federal reserve.

Therefore the money not only does not exist but it has been multiplied 10 times. The only way for the bank to claim as it were that money is to lend it to another bank which in turn must find someone to lend it to and create a debt. The burden of which falls to the people who borrow this vritual money and have to come up with the assets i.e commodities to pay it off.

Our monetary policy is more or less controlled by the central bank rather than the goverment unlike China whose goverment controls monetary policy .

Happy New year

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

What the Freeman are complaining about is fractional reserve banking where the bank can (depending on the reserve requirement ( presently 10% ) or monetary policy which the main complaint being is controlled by the Federal reserve or europe's central bank ) borrow up to ten times ( in this instance 9 times) the initial loan as soon as it hit's the banks books even though that money has already been returned to the federal reserve.

They fail to understand, however, that fractional reserve banking was not created but instead evolved.

If I make shoes and have 10 pairs in stock and make 5 pairs per day, is there anything wrong with me taking an order for 50 pairs today, on condition that they be delivered later on? I enter a contract to sell 40 pairs of shoes that I do not have, but I anticipate that I will have. If I do not make them quickly enough, I will fail to live up to my end of the bargain, be sued and possibly go out of business. If I do live up to it I will have made a good business deal and hopefully made some profit from it.

So too with banking. If I lend out €100 now with only €10 to my name, but I know that I will have the rest in a few days time, can I not lend it out (knowing that no one will call on my account until the other money is in)? If I'm successful, I make a profit. If I don't I go bankrupt.

So what Freemen should be doing is taking their money out of banks and refusing to borrow money from them. If they don't like FRB then they don't have to get involved with it. Or, if they don't mind taking a chance on it, they can put their money in the bank or take out a loan. Either way there is no problem.

The problem comes when they want the benefit of the FRB system i.e. cheap loans, but don't want the downside i.e. paying the money back. So I really can't see their "movement" as a valid criticism of FRB, instead, I see it as a criticism of taking personal responsibility for one's actions.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They fail to understand, however, that fractional reserve banking was not created but instead evolved.

If I make shoes and have 10 pairs in stock and make 5 pairs per day, is there anything wrong with me taking an order for 50 pairs today, on condition that they be delivered later on? I enter a contract to sell 40 pairs of shoes that I do not have, but I anticipate that I will have. If I do not make them quickly enough, I will fail to live up to my end of the bargain, be sued and possibly go out of business. If I do live up to it I will have made a good business deal and hopefully made some profit from it.

So too with banking. If I lend out €100 now with only €10 to my name, but I know that I will have the rest in a few days time, can I not lend it out (knowing that no one will call on my account until the other money is in)? If I'm successful, I make a profit. If I don't I go bankrupt.

So what Freemen should be doing is taking their money out of banks and refusing to borrow money from them. If they don't like FRB then they don't have to get involved with it. Or, if they don't mind taking a chance on it, they can put their money in the bank or take out a loan. Either way there is no problem.

The problem comes when they want the benefit of the FRB system i.e. cheap loans, but don't want the downside i.e. paying the money back. So I really can't see their "movement" as a valid criticism of FRB, instead, I see it as a criticism of taking personal responsibility for one's actions.

As long as the bank maintains Balance sheet solvency. Therefore if the shoe market bubble collapses your assets are suddenly worth very little and you will never be able to cover the liability.

berrypendel

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The problem comes when they want the benefit of the FRB system i.e. cheap loans, but don't want the downside i.e. paying the money back. So I really can't see their "movement" as a valid criticism of FRB, instead, I see it as a criticism of taking personal responsibility for one's actions.

they want all rights and no responsibilities and no law to apply only what they say

Milk & Honey

pirelli wrote: »

As long as the bank maintains Balance sheet solvency. Therefore if the shoe market bubble collapses your assets are suddenly worth very little and you will never be able to cover the liability.

It is different when the shoe is on the other foot!

nuac

Thanks Pirelli but my NY resolutions include avoiding Freeman and similar stuff on the internet.

As holidays are over I have practical problems around the office to cope with and tend to lose patience with their carry on

Finnbar01

There seems to be an awful lot of freeman out there, judging on their internet sites.

How many actually put into practise what they preach?

Do gardaí come in contact with them on a regular basis I wonder?

MagicSean

Finnbar01 wrote: »

There seems to be an awful lot of freeman out there, judging on their internet sites.

How many actually put into practise what they preach?

Do gardaí come in contact with them on a regular basis I wonder?

I saw one in court recently. He was clueless. Tried to claim the government had no authority to make him get a firearms licence. Last I saw he was in a cell for contempt.

Robbo

Anyone else get the whiff of Freeman off this.

The applicant is also seeking leave to argue that Ulster Bank have no longer any entitlement to benefit from the order for possession because as part of some unspecified securitisation agreement the bank has sold the applicant’s mortgage, and is therefore no longer owed anything on foot of the mortgage herein.

FreudianSlippers

Robbo wrote: »

Anyone else get the whiff of Freeman off this.

The applicant is also seeking leave to argue that Ulster Bank have no longer any entitlement to benefit from the order for possession because as part of some unspecified securitisation agreement the bank has sold the applicant’s mortgage, and is therefore no longer owed anything on foot of the mortgage herein.

Not necessarily, if UB doesn't hold the mortgage anymore it would be for the new holders of the mortgage to apply for possession. Now, the caveat there being that in these sales, the buyer of the debt usually leaves the bank to deal with possession.

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not necessarily, if UB doesn't hold the mortgage anymore it would be for the new holders of the mortgage to apply for possession. Now, the caveat there being that in these sales, the buyer of the debt usually leaves the bank to deal with possession.

On a more fundamental level, I'm not sure that he had any evidence that the loan was sold on. AFAIK, most of the securitization of funds does not involve transfer of ownership but simply a charge over certain loans.

It's an interesting argument that can't really be resolved without seeing exactly what the bank has done, but in the absence of any evidence that the loan was sold on and with an affidavit from a bank stating that it had not been sold on (or is currently due and owing) it is unlikely that there is any stateable evidential basis for the assertion.

Moreover, judicial review is not the correct procedure for making the argument.

pirelli

nuac wrote: »

Thanks Pirelli but my NY resolutions include avoiding Freeman and similar stuff on the internet.

As holidays are over I have practical problems around the office to cope with and tend to lose patience with their carry on

There might be one of two in your waiting room :eek:

Milk & Honey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Moreover, judicial review is not the correct procedure for making the argument.

Who said anything about judicial review?

FreudianSlippers

It's the case the quote is from: Wellstead v Judge White & Anor.