When I ask for evidence supporting your claim, what I want is, say, binding legal sources that suggest your theories actually do describe the operation of the law as it stands. I have asked a number of your adherents for such, and yet the response is always the same.
Here’s me at Captain Ranty’s
Can you, or can you not, present evidence of the applicability of Freeman legal theories to the English legal system?
The response from CR:
Nope.
I don’t need to. I only need to prove that the courts lack legitimacy. Now I can.
I don’t need anything other than that.
Your move.
CR.
So, uh, apparently the burden of proof does not rest with Freemen. Right.
And on twitter, I was told:
Hard to face, but your LLM is just legal brainwashing funded by the Rockefellers to undermine the Magna Carta 1215 & bill of Rights
And now, via a commenter at Wh00ps:
Just because some one does not complete a course or gain a ‘Degree’ in LAW doesn’t mean they have no understanding of the LAW or may not comment on the LAW as many ‘would be’ lawyers and libertarians claim. As I understand things the Common Law, the ancient charters and the Constitution were created to defend the rights and Freedoms of ‘all’ the people of these islands, statutes especially over the past 100 years are created only to remove property and wealth from the people, to trample over their rights and force them to be governed by an unelected foreign power.
I’ve no doubt you will put me right when you have gained the Law Degree.
I hate to break it to you guys, but: If you’re gonna make a claim as to how the English legal system operates, it’s up to you to demonstrate it. Stop trying to divert attention to your legal ignorance, stop trying to pass the burden of proof onto others, and if you seriously think you have a legal claim to, I dunno, withdraw from statute or whatever it is you want, go and make your case, properly. Because right now, you’re taking the exact same course regular old conspiracy theorists do.
They have stated their case and their arguments … you offer no rebuttal or solid reasoning.
I don’t need to. I only need to prove that the courts lack legitimacy. Now I can. I don’t need anything other than that.
So, uh, apparently the burden of proof does not rest with Freemen. Right.
He has said that they can prove the courts lack legitimacy … your response as written here, is to put it mildly .. complete pish ..
That is a claim. Not an argument. If I tell you that I can cure cancer, it is not suddenly up to you to disprove me.
As for solid factual basis, there is none so far provided. Can you provide any?
‘When I ask for evidence supporting your claim, what I want is …’
&
‘I hate to break it to you guys, but: If you’re gonna make a claim as to how the English legal system operates, it’s up to you to demonstrate it.’
First off if you ask for evidence, one cannot dictate what that evidence is.
Second to ask another to demonstrate a claim as to HOW the legal system operates, it is NOT up the the bringer of the claim to demonstrate it; that is what the claim is, it is up to those who deny the claim to disprove it. If it was not so how can a claim be proved either way. A claim is made and a rebuttal is required, hence it is a requirement of the defendant to prove otherwise. This could be through evidence.
So your first statement is entirely incorrect. ‘What I want is …’
My claim is that the LAW is being corrupted, the PROOF positive are the LAWS that are being made by those other than our elected government.
Do you need any other proof?
Did you vote to pay Brussels multimillions of tax payers money annually to be a trading partner with the EU? AND will you VOTE to become a member of the EU?
If you don’t get to vote is that entirely down to the government or the people?
Who is saying we cannot have a vote? and is it in the statutes that such an event is to be put to referendum?
Which LAW is ours and which LAW comes from a foreign land (Europe)?
Namaste
In terms of the claim, take debt as an example ‘You owe me £100′. No I don’t. I have a bill saying you agreed. The defendant has to provide a counter claim. The claim is in the ‘CLAIM’.
CL .. I’m sorry but CR is way better human being than you will ever be. I have read his comments and yours; either you are an internet troll on behalf of the TPTB or you are just gutless; either way you are no anarchist or free thinker and you certainly offer no solutions to the injustice that is perpetrated on the citizens.
Perhaps you would prefer the citizens just revolt and use violence to end this oppression of their rights to live as free men ??
@ rev .. Nice one. I suspect CL will come back with so much much hot air and no substance as most of his posts do …
CL, reading your nonsense makes me want to punch someone, namely you. May you long continue to mug yourself off.
Your Mum…
Three comments in a row with no evidence.
Thanks, guys. You are truly intellectuals.
Such an intelligent response CL. And this is your blog?
My claim is that the LAW is being corrupted, the PROOF positive are the LAWS that are being made by those other than our elected government.
What other proof do you need?
DID you vote to pay Brussels multimillions of tax payers money annually to be a trading partner with the EU? ???
CAN you VOTE to become a member or not of the EU? ???
If you don’t get to vote is that entirely down to the government or the people? ???
Who is saying we cannot have a vote? ???
Is it in the statutes that such an ‘event’ is to be put to referendum? ???
Which LAW is ours and which LAW comes from a foreign land (Europe)? ???
I do not wish to insult you, I consider myself a respectful man, however to ignore the questions I ask is, in and of itself an insult.
These are my beliefs and as a libertarian you ‘should’ respect them. You think differently to me and I, as best I can have answered your question, however you ignore mine.
You are not doing the libertarian movement any good by supporting them with the stance you currently have.
Namaste, rev;
So, let me get this straight; your claim is you don’t like the actual laws currently on the books. I get this.
What I don’t get is: Why does this lend you to a totally fictional, and incoherent set of nonsense legal theories, that have gotten its practitioners jailed?
The rest makes it clear you don’t like the EU. Fine. There are plenty of good reasons that do not delve into fantasist nonsense such as Lawful rebellion and Freeman on the land stuff. The entire concept of Lawful rebellion merely discredits goals of personal autonomy and freedom, by dressing it up in pathetic, pseudo-legal conspiracy theories.
You have avoided the questions again.
Why is it so impossible for you to answer them?
Because they are meaningless and make no sense? They are unrelated to the topic at hand; they’re not serious questions. They are a rant with questions marks thrown in for good measure.
No, it is not. If you make a claim, it is up to you to demonstrate its veracity, not the sceptic who questions it.