Common Law.

Topical debate
User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Re: Common Law.

Post by Marhak » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:36 pm

Star Trek and the footie apart, it is garbage. Much more entertainment on YouTube.

User avatar
GrahamHart
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:26 pm

Re: Common Law.

Post by GrahamHart » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:45 pm

law that is.... that most people believe in
So because most people believe in it, that makes it right does it ? Or course most people don't know about it. After all, we have been conned for centuries. Control the world's media and control the world. Everyone knows that, including you.
the whole Freeman business can be traced back to various ultra-right neo-nazi groups in the States, various con-men and violent unsavoury characters.
What utter garbage; as far as the people I'm associating with. And you still haven't answered my question factotum.

User avatar
factotum
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Re: Common Law.

Post by factotum » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:19 pm

Many of the most important things in our lives are not 'real' in any physical sense, but because whether we like it or not we are all part of human society we are subject to various social realities that only exist because people believe in them. These are not absolute, they differ from time to time and place to place, but if you're wildly out of step with your time and place you'll be considered insane, and at the very least no one will be able to understand you and will ignore you and at worse they crucify you. Money is not real, it's a huge con trick, but as long as people believe in it it works. For instance I can purchase a book over the internet from someone I've never met in a distant country and mostly not get ripped off. Without the money system and various legal and political agreements such trade would be impossible. Even to trade with the next village I'd have to somehow establish a personal trust relationship with my trading partner and have some commodity that they wanted in exchange. Of course there are things wrong with our present money system and political system, mostly due to problems of scale, but you can't solve the problem by just wishing them away. If all these systems collapsed tomorrow people would immediately try to rebuild them as best they could, and the result would be even worse in almost every case. If the protection racket called the state collapsed tomorrow you'd quickly find yourself subject to some far cruder and more vicious protection racket run by the nastiest and most violent local criminal gang. If you abolish money and 'ownership' and say 'all things in common just take what you need', you don't alas get equality. What you get is the greedy and the pushy having their own way and the meek and the weak being sidelined. Believe me I've seen this! Even if you change society peoples attitudes don't instantly change, you can't just wipe away a lifetime of indoctrination or remove all outside influences from your eutopia (though the experiments are always interesting). Change is possible but it takes time, it has to evolve. Even in a benign and peaceful society you'd soon have a body of law, whether written or unwritten. You form a group or organisation based on equality and co-operation and jot down a few basic guidelines. Believe me (because I've seen this too!) if that organisation survives and grows, within ten or fifteen years those few basic guidelines will have grown to a rule book the size of a telephone directiory, and arbitrary tenets that were casually agreed upon in the beginning will be defended by those who have 'grown up' with them as though they'd been brought down the mountain on tablets of stone.

So, in striving for any kind of social change you're faced with tremendous momentum and resistance, not mostly from 'them' but from our own ingrained attudes and outlook. The best you can probably do is to avoid the worst parts of the present system and look for ways of using it against itself wherever possible. That means to some extent understanding and accepting, at least from a practical POV, the existing political, legal and financial 'realities' without getting too entangled in them and co-opted by them. And that I admit is very difficult to do, but I don't really see any other way that isn't counterproductive.

Let's at least have revolutionaries with a sense of humour, (seeing as you like fiction), actually some interesting points to ponder here (if you ignore the silly 'action sequences' needed to sell it to the networks) 18.00 -- is fun :-) :
http://www.sockshare.com/file/09C0E82A20D99070#

User avatar
GrahamHart
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:26 pm

Re: Common Law.

Post by GrahamHart » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:57 am

Bleddy 'ell ! Abn't got much say avee ? How 'bout a few paragraphs to break it up a bit ? Slow down.
factotum wrote:Many of the most important things in our lives are not 'real' in any physical sense
Congratulations. That's a start...though I would say "Most of the things 'WE PERCEIVE' to be important in our lives are not 'real' in any physical sense".
factotum wrote: ...whether we like it or not, we are all part of human society...
Are we ? :shock: Where ? :o
All I see is a human hell hole caused by the simple technique of Divide and Rule.
...we are subject to various social realities that only exist because people believe in them. These are not absolute, they differ from time to time and place to place
Because they control the Media. Get them to tell the Sheeple that we are all one consciousness and all free spirits, then maybe we could avoid so many conflagrations :) That would be a start wouldn't it ? Have you ever met anyone in your whole life who said "I want to go to War " Have you ? I'm not talking about any of your Government friends of course.
factotum wrote: but if you're wildly out of step with your time and place you'll be considered insane,
factotum. I'm a 'Truther'. I'm only interested in the truth and nothing else, because it's the only thing that's important, along with offering equal respect to my fellow human being. What people think of me is entirely irrelevant.
factotum wrote:Money is not real, it's a huge con trick
Spot on !!!
, but as long as people believe in it it works.
And that's where the truth comes in handy ;)

factotum wrote:For instance I can purchase a book over the internet from someone I've never met in a distant country and mostly not get ripped off. Without the money system and various legal and political agreements such trade would be impossible.
Why? How? Imagine a world without money. Seriously. Personally I can't think of anything in life where I would need money...if none existed. MONEY has got to go ! It's the token that enslaves all mankind.
factotum wrote:Even to trade with the next village I'd have to somehow establish a personal trust relationship with my trading partner and have some commodity that they wanted in exchange.
Ah. Trust. :roll: First truth, now trust. So much to contend with in life :cry:
factotum wrote:Of course there are things wrong with our present money system and political system, mostly due to problems of scale, but you can't solve the problem by just wishing them away. If all these systems collapsed tomorrow people would immediately try to rebuild them as best they could, and the result would be even worse in almost every case
Wrong! Wrong ? :shock: Fascism is touching you on the nose and it's the same across the world which obviously hasn't crossed your narrow tunnel vision yet. How much bigger does it have to loom before you notice !!!!
factotum wrote:If the protection racket called the state collapsed tomorrow you'd quickly find yourself subject to some far cruder and more vicious protection racket run by the nastiest and most violent local criminal gang. If you abolish money and 'ownership' and say 'all things in common just take what you need', you don't alas get equality. What you get is the greedy and the pushy having their own way and the meek and the weak being sidelined.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Ye Gods! Who do you think are running it now then ? They're the biggest bunch of criminals in our entire history ! The Mafia are mice compared to these people. No one EVER has sidelined the meek and the weak more than today's world.
Even if you change society peoples attitudes don't instantly change, you can't just wipe away a lifetime of indoctrination or remove all outside influences from your eutopia (though the experiments are always interesting). Change is possible but it takes time, it has to evolve.
Quite. When do you suggest we start ?
Even in a benign and peaceful society you'd soon have a body of law, whether written or unwritten.
It's already written factotum. It's called Common Law. As in 'not to cause injury or loss'.
.. if that organisation survives and grows, within ten or fifteen years those few basic guidelines will have grown to a rule book the size of a telephone directiory, and arbitrary tenets that were casually agreed upon in the beginning will be defended by those who have 'grown up' with them as though they'd been brought down the mountain on tablets of stone.
No. That's what we have now. Don't you believe in evolution ?
So, in striving for any kind of social change you're faced with tremendous momentum and resistance, not mostly from 'them' but from our own ingrained attudes and outlook. The best you can probably do is to avoid the worst parts of the present system and look for ways of using it against itself wherever possible.
Totally agree. CL is a good one.
That means to some extent understanding and accepting, at least from a practical POV, the existing political, legal and financial 'realities' without getting too entangled in them and co-opted by them.
Hold on factotum. Earlier we agreed that money is a huge con trick. You can't have it both ways, and I've stated earlier that you enter into a 'LEGAL' situation by CONSENT and only by CONSENT, which has nothing to do with acting lawfully.
I admit is very difficult to do, but I don't really see any other way that isn't counterproductive.
Then wake up factotum. Wake up. Critical thinking is back in fashion.

Fulub-le-Breton
Posts: 5528
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Breizh
Contact:

Re: Common Law.

Post by Fulub-le-Breton » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:38 pm

Hello Graham,

I hope you are keeping well. Just as a slight interjection in this long thread. As far as I remember you have a great deal of respect for the constitutional and legal knowledge of the likes of TGG, Angarrak as well as various Stannators, past and present. Have you sat down with any of the above and discussed these Freeman ideas? If so I'd be interested to know what they had to say.

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Re: Common Law.

Post by Marhak » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:53 pm

I wouldn't have thought it's quite that easy. CL is not a new subject, but a newly re-presented one. Before any discussions take place, people need to see and scrutinise the various links that Graham has put up, and judge for themselves. Many f those links will lead you onto others. so look at as many as you can and then discuss it.

It is very true that much of what we are told is real isn't real at all. Let's take money as an example. Perhaps you have a mortgage, as I do (albeit a small one). The bank agreed to lend me that money, but they didn't. What they actually "lent" me was a set of figures on a sheet of paper. I've never seen a note of that money. Nor has the bank. Nor have you. Why? Because it doesn't exist in physical form, and a set of figures on a statement sheet is not currency. Think about it. At the head of that statement sheet is your name: MR J. SMITH. Only it isn't your name. It isn't you. It's who the government/establishment says you are. How often do you write your own name that way? Rarely, if ever, I'll warrant. MR J. SMITH (always in capitals) isn't you.

Fulub-le-Breton
Posts: 5528
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Breizh
Contact:

Re: Common Law.

Post by Fulub-le-Breton » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:01 pm

This is what I found on the net : Freeman on the land : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

User avatar
factotum
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Re: Common Law.

Post by factotum » Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:02 am

Do you know what a mortgage really is? To start with you give the mortgage (rights over property) to the bank, they give you a loan in exchange. Mortgages are now created by registering a legal charge over your land in favour of the lender, but underneath this bureaucratic convenience (which allows for multiple mortgages on the same property) the legal fiction which the courts act on is that the mortgage was created as they once were. So what happened was that you signed over your property lock stock and barrel to the lender, and they in exchange gave you a loan and a contract. The contract said that if you paid back the money in full on a given date they would convey the property back to you ... and if you didn't it was theirs for good. Oh, and the contract usually gave you license to occupy the property subject to conditions as long as you kept all the other terms. That's still probably the common law position. Fortunately equity began intervening in such cases so you can now pay off the loan early and get your property back, or pay in instalments (as is generally the case), and if you break your side the of the contract the court will normally grant an order for sale rather than allow foreclosure (where the bank takes the property in full and final settlement of the debt and you get nothing). When the property is sold the bank only gets the value of its outstanding debt, and you get anything left over (after costs). This your 'equity' in the property, i.e. the share of the value that the rules of equity allow you. In common law you have no rights in the property at all until the very last penny is paid off, the bank remains the legal owner. So basically once you give a lender a mortgage over your property it's no longer your property, all you have is a promise that the bank will give it back to you if you're good and keep all their conditions. I wonder how many people would take out mortgages if they really understood the process? And note that whatever rights you have against the bank while a mortgage is in force come from the rules of equity, not from common law.

Rosko
Posts: 587
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:45 am

Re: Common Law.

Post by Rosko » Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:36 am

Re: Common Law.
by factotum » 06 Sep 2012 20:19
"Many of the most important things....
Unlike others, for right or for wrong, much of your post (above) makes abs sense to me, Factotum. Even more so, after studying some of the links included by everyone.

Ironically, where I might disagree with you, and where some others seem to agree, is where you talk about 'money'. In my opinion, it's very real and is what has allowed the easy development from pure bartering (which, by the way, as I'm sure we're all aware, is still very much alive and kicking), and as a consequence, has evolved into today's financial system. The problem, as with all things that affect us, is that man's basic instinct for self-preservation, has allowed the clever and/or the powerful, to exploit weaknesses & loopholes in this system, as they will in others, for their own benefit (read: greed).

Money in itself - which, as you point out, depends purely on 'trust' and general acceptance - isn't the problem here, but as in so many cases, in our corrupt human societies, the way it is abused for personal gain, is.

All least with a simple barter, both sides get immediate value in their exchanges. But many 'services' today, trade on the back of hot air. Wealth is created, but there is actually no underlying value....

User avatar
factotum
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Re: Common Law.

Post by factotum » Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:34 am

Well I agree. Money is based on confidence, so it's a confidence trick, a con. Likewise a state is a protection racket. Maybe they really do protect you from harm (real or imaginary), but the only certainty is if you don't pay up the state will do you over.

Even in a simple market system you need a little token money to lubricate the system, otherwise I couldn't buy from you until someone had bought my produce from me, which they couldn't do until someone had bought from them ... (Bit like a housing sale chain). So we'd be limited to direct barter where we each had something the other wanted. Money at this basic level is useful. The problem is that layer upon layer of abstraction gets built upon this, and as the sums increase and money becomes more and more abstract it starts to behave in completely different ways to the 'pound in your pocket' money we're familiar with everyday. It doesn't really matter whether anyone set it up deliberately or if it just happened the problem still exists and needs to be understood before it can be tackled. Basically the problem is human greed. People want to spend money they haven't yet got, and so take out loans. Every time you take out a loan or any kind of credit you're feeding the system you say you're against.

However I came back to give a quote I'd been looking for, re. things can be unreal but still very important ...

--------
Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy --- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
-------

User avatar
GrahamHart
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:26 pm

Re: Common Law.

Post by GrahamHart » Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:49 am

Fulub-le-Breton wrote:Hello Graham, I hope you are keeping well. Just as a slight interjection in this long thread. As far as I remember you have a great deal of respect for the constitutional and legal knowledge of the likes of TGG, Angarrak as well as various Stannators, past and present. Have you sat down with any of the above and discussed these Freeman ideas? If so I'd be interested to know what they had to say.
Hello Fulub - I am very well thank you and hope you and your family are the same. I'm glad you intervened. I thought of asking about attending a Stannary meeting and giving my views, but it had slipped my mind. I will do that shortly, but thanks for reminding me. I emailed JA the Strawman link a short while back, but as some know, JA's not the easiest person to get hold of. :) I must speak with Colin Murley as well. I have spoke briefly with TGG on the phone about it, and was supposed to have gone to see him this week [sorry Jim!] but time has beaten me, but will definitely be seeing him next week.

2012 has thus far been the biggest learning curve of my life with stunning information flying at me by the day on the NWO. If you want to know how the world really works, then you must watch "Zeitgeist 2007" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq0CPzZ0Rvc and "Thrive" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s The only other thing worth mentioning is CHEMTRAILS !!! Please check out this brilliant hour documentary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0fBcH0iuX0 Once you know about them, you start to see them every week.But what they are doing to this planet is the biggest fear ever! For you or your families sake, you have to watch them! They are extraordinary films.

I skim-read the Wiki entry Fulub, and it's biased, loaded with inaccuracies and untruths. So. No surprise there. :( I've been studying CL for eight weeks now and basically know my way around to protect my freedom. But I haven't had time to learn enough or even consider how it could be used by the Cornish movement. I was hoping someone here might be jolted. Yet, at the back of my mind, I feel it has enormous potential.That's why I sent it to John. The Courts he used are far more fraudulent than he thinks.



Ye are truly a wise man oh Craig of the Weatherhill family ;)

Fulub-le-Breton
Posts: 5528
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Breizh
Contact:

Re: Common Law.

Post by Fulub-le-Breton » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:52 am

Yes we are all fine. Back from a long two weeks in Kernow. I'm a little overworked at the moment but that's better than out of work I suppose.

Good! I'm glad you've tried to contact our eminent constitutionalists and legal experts with what you have found. Can I suggest that you continue to badger them until you get a response. As you probably know, even if I respect their combined knowledge and campaigning skills, I'm not on such good terms with most of them any more so I can't help you in that.

Lets hope they can find the time to respond to your quickly and honestly with their point of view.

Rosko
Posts: 587
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:45 am

Re: Common Law.

Post by Rosko » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:06 pm

The courts are far more fraudulent than JA thinks?!!! You're having a laugh? Either you know sod all about JA's day in court, or you think he's a half-wit...
In eight youtube-filled weeks you become post-doctoral on legal matters, and how we could derail the global legal & banking systems together, and yet you have no clues as to how it might be applied to the Cornish question!!
Don't mean to sound skeptical or defeatist, but it's a lot to swallow on one c24 thread and a few YouTube references...

User avatar
GrahamHart
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:26 pm

Re: Common Law.

Post by GrahamHart » Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:52 am

Still trying to agitate then Rosko. If you want to try the respectful route, I'm happy to debate you.

Rest assured I will contact those people next week Fulub.

Oh yes. There's a whole World of difference between a practising Freeman and a practising Freemason.

User avatar
factotum
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Re: Common Law.

Post by factotum » Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:43 am

Graham, you replied to my post of a couple of days ago by simply saving over and over, "t'aint so!" Now I do speak from some limited experience with co-operative and radical groups, alternative finance etc. so I must ask you the following :
1. Are you now or have you ever been a member of a small to medium housing co-operative?
2. Ditto worker's co-operative?
3. Ditto land-owning group?
4. Have you ever been even a temporary member of an income-sharing group (other than a conventional couple/family)?
5. Ditto capital sharing group?
6. Have you ever belonged to an organisation that makes all decisions by consensus (everyone has a veto)?
7. Have you ever belonged to a group or organisation that develops its rules and procedures on the basis of past decisions?
8. Have you ever helped set up a company, co-operative, charity or similar and been responsible for drawing up the legal structure and getting it registered?
9. Have you ever helped to set up or to run an organisation that takes investments and makes loans to projects intended to counter the status quo?

I can tick quite a few of these boxes, can you? If not then I think when you talk about abolishing money and law etc. you simply don't know what you're talking about, how people really behave and so on.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest