1984 George Orwell
I randomly read this while still in school.

I loved the way he captured society and the way we are controlled, whether we like it or not. we cannot trust anyone.

when you think about it the interweb is the big brother. everything we do is monitored, watched.
If we think we are hiding behind a handle of "Hardcoreguy100" they know your real name. You've told them before.
your email address, [email protected] is useless. they know you....

looking at something you shouldnt? they leave cookies behind and take track of your IP address. you are marked, implanted with a chip you cant escape. even if you delete it, it can be found, you CANNOT HIDE

I know people who try escape the technology, but it wont work. we are all sucked in and doomed.
dont believe me? go to www.spock.com and enter your name. your real name!

George Orwell knew about it. and you cant escape it.

Big b3ta is watching you.
(Bluffboy South Africa! World Champions!!!, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:14, 115 replies)

Well, he's not watching me
I've just checked Spock.com and while it comes up with the same name, none of them are me.

I'm invisible.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:21, closed)

Spock
It's not that brilliant. It couldn't find me, or any of my friends.
(calamarain just invented dehydrated water, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:22, closed)

haha! They got nothing on me!
*click* for being an interesting post though
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:22, closed)

nope
/hidden
( willenium Fist bump for verification, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:23, closed)

Maybe missed the point
There may well be scanning of the interweb and maybe even your phonecalls if you start sending texts saying "total jihad".

But that is not what 1984 was about.

In 1984, the purpose was to control what you think. To monitor you, and then restrict your thought.

Life's not so bad, dudes and dudettes...never confuse conspiracy with incompetence!

EDIT: I looked on www.spock.com. It gave me back everything I had chosen to put on the internet about myself. It looked on Facebook, basically. That's hardly Big Brother guys, stop with the Drama Queen already!
(Super Jet Shoes, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:30, closed)

...
I'm not there either - and my name's all over the place.

(EDIT: only 1410 google entries, though. Thought I'd do better than that...)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:31, closed)

there's not much on me either
and nothing at all for my email address, which I think is more important

the way I think about that sort of thing is: so "they" might be able to find out all about me if they want to. but why would they want to?

there are billions of other people on this planet, what makes me special enough for people to take an interest?

as long as I keep my crimes victimless then I don't think I have to worry.

and if a company that I'm going for a job with decide to look me up and don't like what they see then I don't want to work for them.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:34, closed)

well that's where you distinguish
between your 'person' and 'you'

when you register a birth you create a corporate legal entity known as a 'person' - it is through this person that they act upon 'you' (or register anything else- you give government co-ownership over it)


According to Black’s Law dictionary:
, ‘a human being is not a person because he is a human being, but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him - Specifically, the person is the legal subject or substance of which rights and duties are attributes

But not every human being is a person

you as a human being have certain inalienable human rights - Your person has certain inalienable civil rights - Believe it or not, you are not the one paying taxes, your person is

It's not you that votes, your person does. You don’t get a ticket, your person does

Now ask yourself, where does it say that you have to have a ‘person’?

Are you obliged to have one?

If you do have one, can you give it up? Why have they gone to such trouble to hide from us the fact that they act upon our persons?

Curious? - click the Rob Menard video link below and be informed - although, be warned, you'll be forever changed after learning this stuff

remember - Statutory law is concerned with persons (artificial) and their privileges, duties, and obligations within
and subordinate to collective public/government welfare

It does not, and cannot, deal with sovereign human beings who give up their 'persons'

the only law which bind human beings are the common laws of -

1.not harming others,


2.not harming others property

and


3.no fraud in contracts

everything outside this, within the legislative framework is by consent, unknowingly, through your 'person' - and you have been made to think that this legal entity is you and statutes, acts and by laws can be acted on you

think about that... ;)


a Video by Robert Arthur Menard on the Law that will change your life

short youtube links in bite size chunks
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnificent+deception&search_type=
.
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:34, closed)

www.spock.com
an experiment to see how many people will enter their real name onto a website just because they've been asked to.

You may not have been there before, you are there now.
( Mockingbird Practitioner of SCIENCE, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:35, closed)

I'm inclined to agree with Vipros
Why on earth would any one/Big Brother/Government Agency/Whoever, be interested in me?

I do think there is a danger of being caught up in the whole paranoia of surveillance - and that's not to belittle the fact that in the UK we are under almost constant surveillance with CCTV.

We are inclined to think that everything is about Me.

It's not.

Most of us will continue to live relatively boring and dull lives and die as we live - in obscurity.


That said, I'm quite interested in the idea of living off the grid.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:43, closed)

you are not
a beautiful and unique butterfly :-)
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:47, closed)

chickenlady
tell that to the generations that went to war to fight for privacy

privacy is a survival issue - a natural instinct

it's a simple fact any government will always press for greater control over it's citizens through information and greater survelliance, always with greater security as the excuse - the same thing happened in 30s Germany and with the Stasi in the eastern blocks

it is the age old battle of the individual having to constantly fight the pressure from the state to impose it's will, with the threat and fear of attack from some enemy or other always used as the excuse to abandon personal liberties

and it's no secret they're using anti-terror law for the slightest of offences or for greater control - as an example 2 pensioners were detained at a peace march with anti terror legislation and this is among many

it's easy to get complacent about these things - which is the danger

the Government is there to serve us, not us to serve them - remember that one? we seem to be forgetting this important distinction
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:54, closed)

I'm not disagreeing about our lack of privacy
I'm simply saying that any agency is no more likely to be interested in me because I'm me than my next-door neighbour.

I entirely agree that we have lost far, far too much privacy, but I don't believe that They are out to get Me. They're out to get all of us - but it's our money they're after mostly.


EDIT I'm also inclined to believe that this is a very much modern way of thinking all tied up with the notion that everyone wants to be famous.

Most of us are dull. We should get over it.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:59, closed)

@mockingbird...
Nope. Maybe spock doesn't like me.

@Goat...
Here we go...
Why should the legal use of the word "person" be at all surprising? Making sense of your post would mean figuring out what you mean by "you" - and you've given no clue as to what that might be. The most I can make out is that you're saying that there's a difference between me qua member of a political community and me not-qua member of a political community - but that's just tautology.

You're right to say that legal personhood begins at birth - that's why you can't murder a foetus, for example. But I'm mystified as to how that amounts to giving the government control over anything. Just baffled.

Your claim that humans have certain inalienable rights is something that it's been fashionable to believe since the late 18^th century, but exactly what they are, how they're established and what they mean is not something you elaborate on. And it's not clear that the belief is true, anyway. More supporting argument, please.

Your claim that "my person" rather than "I" pays taxes presupposes a serious metaphysical distinction between the two - but, again, you don't offer any account of what that is. I'm not immediately inclined to believe that there is such an account to be had. Ditto votes (allowing that I vote, of course - I don't), parking tickets and all the rest of it.

Where does it say that you have to have a person? Well, if you mean person in the legal sense, it's implicit in there being law. A person is simply that entity which enjoys the protection of the law. Boom. That's it.

You ask "Why have they gone to such trouble to hide from us the fact that they act upon our persons?" Who are "they"? What's your evidence that anything has been hidden, let alone that any effort was made? (Your (mis)understanding of the law is not indicative of THEM hiding anything.)

"Statutory law is concerned with persons (artificial) and their privileges, duties, and obligations within and subordinate to collective public/government welfare..." Not really. It's just a matter of regulating and formalising transactions between people. It's really nothing all that interesting.

"It does not, and cannot, deal with sovereign human beings..." Um... yes it does. Unless by "sovereign human beings" you simply mean "that entity which is not the domain of the law" - in which case, you're tautologising again.

Your "common laws" are somewhat perplexing too. Are they really common? How're they established? What do you mean by harm? (Would requested euthanasia be a harm, for example?) What's the difference between a harm and a wrong? Why do you grant property the same importance as other people? Why is it only others that interest you? What about duties to self... and so on.

So - I did what you suggested, and thought about it. And your claims came out somewhat the worse...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:02, closed)

chickenlady they care only to the extent that
the greater information they hold on us - the greater their means of control

should you protest anything or disagree with new legislation that begins to infringe on your life - you'll realise how quickly how much of a disadvantage we are at by this stage (should the ID card be introduced and in turn the implanatble chip - as they now suggest for only pensioners and alziemers patients )

this isn't paranoia it's just fact
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:08, closed)

@Goat (part 2)
"[T]ell that to the generations that went to war to fight for privacy"
That'll be none at all, then...

"[P]rivacy is a survival issue - a natural instinct"
Not at all obvious. Evidence and supporting argument, please. Note that even if we all desire x, it doesn't follow that that desire is morally or legally demanding.

"[I]t's a simple fact any government will always press for greater control over it's citizens through information and greater survelliance, always with greater security as the excuse - the same thing happened in 30s Germany and with the Stasi in the eastern blocks"
Simple fact? Really? "Triangles have four sides" is a simple fact. Your claim about governments seems to be entirely different. Evidence, please. (And a vague wave towards Germany in the middle of the last century is not evidence.) Note, too, that government control is a good thing. There is government control in Manchester. There is little or none in Mogadishu. I'm in no doubt as to where I'd rather live.

"[I]t is the age old battle of the individual having to constantly fight the pressure from the state to impose it's will, with the threat and fear of attack from some enemy or other always used as the excuse to abandon personal liberties"
Well, if you're Hobbes, Locke, or even Nozick, membership of the state is an essential precursor to liberty. The constantly embattled individual doesn't exist outside the minds of a few Michigan survivalists.

"...and it's no secret they're using anti-terror law for the slightest of offences or for greater control - as an example 2 pensioners were detained at a peace march with anti terror legislation and this is among many"
Well, yes. There are some cretinous laws about, and they're sometimes cretinously used. That doesn't establish your hypothesis, though. (Do you have a reference to your story, btw? You're rather vague about it.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:09, closed)

@ The Goat
Can you tell me exactly how I'm being controlled then by all the information the government has on me?

The reason I ask is because every time I contact The Government - or more correctly, their agencies, I have to quote my NI number, give them my address, date of birth and so on, yet still they manage to get things wrong.

And that's entirely my point. I'm not interesting to anyone apart from me, my friends and family.

And another thing, The Government.....

We do live in a democracy...a constitutional democracy, albeit a bloody shambles of one at the best of times.

Democracy - government by the people.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:18, closed)

Enzyme
your argument is entirely missing the point

this is not theory ,it's practice

there exists a freeman of land movement started by Menard ( see the link)

they know the distinctions and the difference between statutes that apply to your 'person' and common law which apply to human beings

they drive without licence, pay no taxes and gave up their corporate persons - although they operate more ethically than most

in law words do not mean what we assume they do and it is through our lack of understanding they get our consent

you can clear up your confusion very easily better than me wasting a day trying to explain this to you from th efiollowing lecture and demostration of what I'm taking about

a Video by Robert Arthur Menard on the Law that will change your life

watch it first before you jump into replying, otherwise you're wasting both of our time


short youtube links in bite size chunks
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnificent+deception&search_type=
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:19, closed)

@Goat
Driving without a licence and paying no tax is not liberty - it's taking a liberty.

There is no right to drive. That's why licences do not infringe liberty.

Presumably, these people still make use of street lighting, would benefit from public health initiatives and herd vaccinations, would benefit from the attentions of the emergency services should the need arrive, and so on. Essentially, they're scum...


"[I]n law words do not mean what we assume they do and it is through our lack of understanding they get our consent."
Your misunderstanding is not the law's fault. And while consent is a problem for liberal political theorists, it's not the kind of problem you think it is. (It's not a problem for non-liberals, btw - or not such a problem. I suggest you have a look at some Aristotle, MacIntyre, Sandel, Rawls...)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:23, closed)

Enzyme
watch the link - you'll understand then - i haven't got the time or finger power to talk you through this complex issue until you at least get the basics

all the legal terms are deconstructed fully so there is no doubt and they are then put into practice to prove the points and the fact they work
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:24, closed)

watch the link - you'll understand then - i haven't got the time or finger power to talk you through this complex issue until you at least get the basics

And the tin foil hats are on your left as you go out.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:27, closed)

the laws I've mentioned are
fully demostrated and deconstructed -

no hat required ;)
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:29, closed)

ALL law?
FULLY demonstrated and deconstructed?



Wow. That must be a hell of a video. Makes two-and-a-half thousand years of political and legal scholarship seem somehow trite...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:30, closed)

Yes
it's over two hours long. And I agree with your statement earlier regarding people who would consider it right to drive without a licence. The word for them is cunt.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:32, closed)

its a complex issue
but the link will get you the basics and evidence that people are using this to dismiss parking tickets .etc


- I suggest you just watch the first 10 minutes - then decide if you want to watch the rest from there

ok from one of the few legal books I have in PDF format:

"a ‘statute’ is defined as ‘a legislated rule of society which has the force of law’. It is a rule and has the force of
law, but only within a society.


Now we must ask, what is a ‘society’? The definition of a ‘society’ has been
given as ‘A number of people, joined by mutual consent, to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal.’

We see then clearly that these statutes only have the force of law over those who have consented to be a member
of the society governed by those statutes.
‘Consent’ is a tricky legal concept too. ItIt does not require any positive affirmation from you; your
silence and inaction will suffice to raise the appearance of consent. Anything with the word ‘Act’ in its title is
an Act of the Parliament or a Legislature and is in fact a statute. The simple fact is you have the right to exist
without those statutes having the force of law over you."


this is academic - it works
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:34, closed)

@Goat
A couple of definitions and an ex nihilo invocation of a right is not the same as an argument - much less a compelling argument.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:37, closed)

Statute and law are different things
Your quote says that itself

"It is a rule and has the force of law, but only within a society"

Perhaps if enough of you get together you can choose to disregard them, but not obeying the law essentially because you choose to leads to anarchy, and not the good kind.

Also, society may suck, but you can't just opt out.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:37, closed)

vipros read my first post above
now - I see I'm just going to go round in cirlces all day with this

here's my original post on this subject

"
remember - Statutory law is concerned with persons (artificial) and their privileges, duties, and obligations within
and subordinate to collective public/government welfare

It does not, and cannot, deal with sovereign human beings who give up their 'persons'
the only law which bind human beings are the common laws of -

1.not harming others,
2.not harming others property
and
3.no fraud in contracts"




here's the choice:

if you want the evidence for what I'm talking about - try the links I've put up, plenty of testimonials and witnesses gone through the court process which they explain simply

if not, don't

your choice


a Video by Robert Arthur Menard on the Law that will change your life

if anyone else wants more detailed info on this and Law books in PDF format , PM me - tomorrow
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:41, closed)

if I had the time to watch the video during the course of this discussion
then I would, but I can't see that anything it can contain would change my view that saying that the only laws that bind humans are the ones you mention is wrong.

In an ideal world perhaps that would be true, but this world is far from ideal.

By being part of a society, and like it or not you are, by choosing to live where you do, by taking advantage of infrastructure and health care etc. within a certain tolerance, you have to obey the rules.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:47, closed)

give the link 10 minutes
here's a post I put on links about this subject

www.b3ta.com/links/151968

short youtube links in bite size chunks
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnificent+deception&search_type=
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:49, closed)

It'll have to be this evening
but I will give it 10 minutes as you suggest.

if anyone shows a graph of anything or mentions statistics I'm turning it straight off though.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:55, closed)

vipros
private message me after you've watched - I have more legal documents I can email you should you want to take the research further


short youtube links in bite size chunks
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnificent+deception&search_type=
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:57, closed)

So let me get this right....
We should fight against society, or more specifically its laws because it's controlling us.


I'll ask this again, as I did above....

How? Please tell me where I'm being controlled.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 12:59, closed)

It will never find me.
I have a common name, one that I share with a famous politician as well as a character in a classic TV show, and in my local area alone I know of three other guys with my name.

It's being a ninja by blending into a crowd...
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Wed 21 May 2008, 13:07, closed)

chickenlady ... erm nope
like I said people are always bound by laws (the three I mentioned) but it does mean should you get an on the spot fine of £50 quid for dropping an apple core (as a guy did 2 weeks ago) - you know enough law to tell them where to stick it - a perfect example of knowing when you can be tricked into consenting through your 'person'

unless you agree with it, of course?

don't know which planet you're living on but this one isn't one with PC plod in noddy town
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 13:07, closed)

I'm not going to spend my whole lunchhour reading this thread but...
What I find scarily true in Orwell's view of the future is the way the government will lie to us about reasons for going to war e.g. "The Iraquis have weapons of mass destruction and they can arm them in 48 hours", then, when this 'truth' is found to be no longer useful, they will say "Actually, the real reason we went into Iraq is because there were systems of WMDs...oh, wait a minute, it was because Saddam was sponsoring terrorism" when all along we KNOW it was just the oil, and imperialism and supporting Israel and backing the US etc. etc.

Double-speak and changing the past and using all of the means at the government's disposal to dupe us...Oh, and what about 'soma' the drug of the masses to keep them quiet? What's TV and the Lottery and licensing laws.

I could go on, and on.

Just keep being yourself, rely on yourself and your loved ones and disbelieve anything you read or hear in the media, especially if it comes from a trusted government source.

Amen.

Oh, and one last thing: PLEASE don't use 'randomly' so randomly!!!
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Wed 21 May 2008, 13:07, closed)

Goat
I'm not living in noddy town, but I am living in a democracy where I can dispute a fine. I may dispute the fine on a number of grounds -

Cost - therefore I will contact my legally elected representative to remonstrate with him or her and if I get no joy I will (if I feel so inclined) attempt to change that cost by means of a pressure group, demonstration or by joining the government myself.

Legality - If I believe the law is wrong or simply a bad law I can also do the above - try to change it because the law is there to both protect and advise us on the ways in which to behave in our society.

If I don't like the way our society is governed as I live in a free-ish democracy I have the right to leave that democracy or attempt to change it.

Society is made up of people. Government is made up of people.

While I do agree that far too many people allow freedoms to be taken from them because of apathy, I also believe that there is no great conspiracy out there trying to get us.

Why?

Because even though I may not agree with all that you are saying, I do wholeheartedly support your right to do so.

I believe that the majority of people in democracies also support your right. That's why we have a democracy.


And that's why people fought wars in recent past - to maintain your right to free speech.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 13:18, closed)

Oh...and while PC Plod was certainly a rather large rotund man in Toy Town
where Noddy lived with his friend Big Ears, PC Plod isn't actually a large as a planet.

Just wanted to clear that one up.

;-)
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 13:23, closed)

I don't support anyone's rights other than my own.
I say round 'em up and gas 'em like badgers.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 21 May 2008, 13:23, closed)

@Chickenlady
Actually, you're wrong on this. By "democracy" I presume you mean something representative such as we see in the West now, rather than something Athenian. Either way, though, the right to protest at bad or unjust laws isn't implicit in democracy - we could imagine an "enlightened despotism" that had exactly the same mechanism: there are alternative ways to have both freedom and good government (and, for what it's worth, I'm not convinced that democracy, in the Western model, is the best. But that's for another time).

People didn't fight wars to defend freedom of speech, either. Just didn't happen.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 13:23, closed)

chikenlady that's great
but tell that to the 84 year old dragged from the labour party conference and detained under anti terror legislation for daring to disagree with Jack Straw (one of many examples, but this sticks out the most)

you see it only works if you trust the powers that be and believe that they would only use the new legislation in our interests, not their own

the reality begs to differ

also anything that you're able to do legally within the legislative structure you must be able to do lawfully outside it too

otherwise it would be illegal
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 13:24, closed)

@Goat
The Walter Wolfgang episode was a bit of a farce. But note that there was embarrassment all roud in the end. The fact that a system can be misapplied tells you nothing important about the system per se. A demand that only laws that can never be misapplied should count as legitimate would be silly: crooked timber and all that...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 13:37, closed)

@ Enzyme
I don't doubt for a moment that my spoutings are incorrect - as far as the democracy thing goes I remember getting myself into plenty of arguments at school with my politics teacher over the nature of the British Government.

And I suppose that goes to show precisely where IMHO The Goat is exercising his right to have difference of opinion - I refuse to say he is Wrong because the nature of Right and Wrong are another argument entirely.

But...taking a few examples of where things of which the majority disapprove and then using them as your argument doesn't make it right.

Even I know that's a poor foundation for an argument.


And
"also anything that you're able to do legally within the legislative structure you must be able to do lawfully outside it too

otherwise it would be illegal"

What? That just doesn't make sense. Explain please.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 13:40, closed)

@chickenlady
The nature of right and wrong? Naaah - nothing to do with that. It's simply a matter of pointing out unsound arguments. Even if The Goat's conclusions are true (they aren't), it wouldn't mean that we had to accept the argument.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 13:50, closed)

Nineteen Eighty Four
Although Winston Smith and his fellow inner party workers are under constant and intrusive surveillence - and as a result both Winston and Julia are tortured in the Ministry of Love, it should be noted that the Proletariat are shown to be relatively free from such intrusion in the novel.

Indeed, Eric Arthur Blair discusses how Smith is awaiting his fateful visit to Room 101 in a cell containing a number of inmates, that the "Proles" seem relaxed and not fearful.

Big Brother is a device to control and monitor those close to the party, those regularly working with its' media rewrites and literature an allegory to the subjugation of the intelligensia in Eastern Europe both by the invading Nazis and by the Stalinist ideology.

Ultimatelty, the people responsible for rewriting the historical news bulletins and reforming the language into Newspeak are themselves rewritten. The very people closest to the regieme who can overthrow Big Brother end up overthrowing themselves.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 21 May 2008, 13:56, closed)

Rob Menard has never payed tax for 7 years since he abandonded his legal entity of 'person' and made the distinction - they can't touch him ... how can this be? especially considering how ruthless they are in pursuing tax revenue? in addition he drives with freeman plates and no licence (he has insurance through a bond scheme)

if they detain or question him he presents his fee structure as a freeman of the land (he gained lawfully through a notary under his cliam of right procedure) so they avoid him like the plague

what does Rob Menard know that we don't?...i.e.

www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnificent+deception&search_type=
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 13:58, closed)

1984
Nineteen Eighty-Four borrows heavily from Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, so don't go thinking Orwell was some kind of seer - he just realised someone else's visions.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:00, closed)

Nineteen Eighty Four - cont'd
...which raises some important historical questions as to why Stalin managed to instill so much fear into those around him. Beria for example, head of the NKVD, who was himself purged and executed...

Thanks for the tip CHCB, I will seek out We
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 21 May 2008, 14:01, closed)

It's bollocks
it didn't even find my facebook page, ffs

and We is a fabulous read
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:05, closed)

We
Indeed, 'tis good.

A harmony to the Zamyatin theme is provided by the oddly dreamy The Foundation Pit by Andrei Platonov...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:15, closed)

He hasn't paid tax for 7 years!
I bloody well hope that he doesn't ever drive on any roads then.

Roads paid for by taxes.

How the hell does he think they'd get there if we all decided to give up paying taxes?

I'm all for enjoying more liberty and kicking against the establishment in the search for a better society, but refusing to pay your taxes is just being a cunt.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:20, closed)

PJM - Zamyatin's "We"
I wouldn't bother if I were you. It's pretty unreadable. The only claim to fame it has is inspiring 1984, Brave New World and the Pet Shop Boys song 'Integral'. As a book it's not really very good.
(davywavy, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:24, closed)

Chickenlady, got it in one
The "great system" this fuckhead has hit upon is not a brilliant way of confirming his independence and liberty, it's being a bludging cunt. I hope he gets a nasty disease, I would love to see him go to a hospital and them tell him to fuck off until he starts paying his own way.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:25, closed)

@Goat
OK - I've watched your video.


It's balls.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:26, closed)

^@this
LOL
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:26, closed)

It didn't look on my facebook page either
what it did come up with was a recipe I sent to a newspaper because they were looking for Jewish recipes and were cleverly searching for them only days before the religious festival they were a feature for ie at a time when everyone's busy preparing for the festival and can't be bothered to save your arse by giving you recipes.

*sigh* I feel these arguments get a bit silly sometimes, I mean, what's the actual problem with ID cards? Take away all the ranting, what seems to come out is 'it costs money' and 'no, don't wanna, you can't make me, police state, out to get me, argh!'. In practical terms, you need ID for so many things which all require different kinds of ID (passport, passport and birth certificate, passport and utility bills, any form of photo ID, oh wait, no, your student card isn't good enough, etc) that having a universally recognised ID that doesn't leave you in as much shit as a passport would if you lost it would be useful.

cue civil liberties rant
( Hampster Squared has stuff at www.tilla.co.uk, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:29, closed)

@HS
I don't think anyone'd deny that identification is useful. For it to be compusory, though, is a different matter. (The utility argument'd only float if we were obliged to make our own lives as simple as possible. But that's clearly not the case. So it doesn't float.)

There is no need and no warrant for compuslory ID cards.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:33, closed)

Speaking as someone...
...with a huge axe to grind when it comes to the current government and privacy, I do not agree that dropping out of the system or what amounts to common room bravado about dropping off the radar, not paying taxes and living off everyone else is the way to shake the system.

It just makes you look like Rik from The Young Ones.

We pay taxes to ensure that there are police on the streets, trains to take us to work and an army to defend us. We might also pay taxes to ensure that those in society less fortunate than ourselves are looked after to some extent.

If you want to make a difference, join Privacy International, or No 2 ID, or even the Taxpayers Alliance - all of whom engage with Members of Parliament to raise objections toward policies that some people might find contrary to their beliefs in liberty and justice for all.

Living in the woods and not washing didn't get Che Guevara the Unabomber much in the way of sex either.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 21 May 2008, 14:34, closed)

True
I think it's more the hype that annoys me though. It's the kind of reaction I'd expect to the tatooing of barcodes on us all so we can get scanned.

Mind you, I have a barcode. My wonderful wonderful shitty university gave it to me. Yay!
( Hampster Squared has stuff at www.tilla.co.uk, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:37, closed)

PJM - Che Guevara
Che is famous for his sex life, reputedly having it away with some hundreds of women during his life.
If you want a revolutionary dropout who didn't get laid much to make your point, try the Unabomber.
(davywavy, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:40, closed)

yep he doesn't pay taxes
which demonstrates that no matter how much discussion there is about the law he's discovered you really need to demonstrate it to show it works and what he's achieved is true in practice

and in demonstrating it he's revealed people can follow the same path should they feel any statutes inflicted on them are unjust - however, should you feel everything is fine and dandy and all stautes are conducted fairly - why bother, eh?

he discovered it after having a child removed by the government, unjustly as it turned out, which set him on a path along with a lawyer friend of looking into the law with a passion
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:43, closed)

No Goat
it demonstrates that he is a cunt.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:48, closed)

@Goat
Under no legislature anywhere in the world can you opt out of a law because you've decided that you'd rather not be bound by it. Your Menard guy doesn't convince me - his understanding of the law is weak, he falls victim to the confirmation fallacy, he poisons the well at every available opportunity... I'll grant that he's an extremely effective speaker. But what he says just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

And his story about being stopped by the police strikes me as being... um... possibly not entirely true.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:49, closed)

Taxes are not an unjust statute
Not paying your taxes is morally indefensible in my opinion.

Don't want to be a part of society? Don't want to pay taxes?

Then fuck off and live in the woods where there is no access to any part of society.

You cannot pick and choose which bits you want to obey and which bits you don't.

If you don't like something change it, but not by just saying, well I don't like it so I'm not going to do it!

That's behaving like a child.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:49, closed)

chickenlady
you missed the point about this being about taking power over any statutes inflicted on you deem unfair

if you agree - knock yourself out - carry on

but for those who think a £50 fine for dropping an apple core is a little unfair they can do something about it

and in demonstrating it he's revealed people can follow the same path should they feel any statutes inflicted on them are unjust - however, should you feel everything is fine and dandy and all stautes are conducted fairly - why bother, eh?


hope you understand this time :)
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:52, closed)

I don't think paying a £50 fine for droppping an apple core is unfair
Grow up.

Don't drop it.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:56, closed)

@Goat
You've edited your post, but a moment ago you invited Chickenlady to "look into the IRS collecting taxes which go to pay off the interest on the loan supplied by the Fed Reserve made up of privately owned banks."

Well? What's she supposed to find?

Look: governments provide services. That means buying stuff. Among the stuff that they buy is credit. This credit is then used to raise funds to buy other stuff. What's the problem? There is nothing sinister about the idea of a national debt serviced by taxation - it's perfectly sound.

(Note that this isn't a convenient stitch-up. You, too, can buy government bonds that pay a dividend on maturity - in effect, that is, you can turn yourself into a tiny little bank)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:57, closed)

No again
Goat, you are comparing a fine for littering which you may or may not agree with, with not paying taxes. They are not the same thing. Your taxes pay toward the upkeep of your country. No taxes means no public health service, no public schools and no roads.

If you don't want a fine for littering, don't litter. If you don't want a fine for speeding, don't speed. If you disagree with the laws on littering or speeding, lobby you member of parliament or congress or whatever or join a protest group to try and change those laws. But just saying "I don't like it NER NER NER" is pathetic. And it makes you look like an utter twat because it's a completely indefensible argument.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 14:59, closed)

chickenlady (and althegeordie )
I really can't make this any simpler

Menard discovered that we accept statutes by consent through our person - unknowingly

should there be a statute people feel is grossly unfair they have the choice to consent to it

clue: it's not about the apple core , or road tax etc

any sinmpler I'd need a blackboard and some chalk
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:00, closed)

Go geodie!



(That's got that horrible Fifty Cent song into my head now. Why do I do these things to myself?)

@Goat: you coming to ancrenne's London bash?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:01, closed)

Menard discovered that we accept statutes by consent through our peroson - unknowingly
Sorry....but you don't seem to understand...


You may have accepted them unknowingly, but as I actually choose to vote, choose to pay taxes, in fact, I choose to be a member of society.

In other words, I choose to be useful and not a cunt.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:05, closed)

chickenlady
try choosing not to pay taxes without knowing the law Menard cites and see what happens

you'll see soon enough how much choice you have in the matter

if you agee with the statutes fine - like i've said (5 times now I think)

however should there be a statute people feel is grossly unfair, they have the choice to consent to it

and should those in authority behave unfairly, bizarre as it sounds in the Noddytown you seem to live in, people can do something about it

clue: it's not about the apple core , or taxes etc
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:08, closed)

Tell you what
You choose to live as your messiah says...


I'll live in the real world.


Sadly you don't seem to understand either...and I'd need more than a chalk board to make you understand...but there's the thing - I don't *want* to make you understand because I'm not on a crusade.

Good luck.

EDIT *Clue* I don't really give a shit.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:17, closed)

I've just had a read of the About page on thinkfree.ca
and I'd have to say that it is a load of balls.

He seems to have a flawed idea of what a society is in the real world.

And what if everyone were to do as he has done, where would be then?

Up a certain metaphorical creek with out the necessary implement that's where.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:18, closed)

Yes Goat you can do something about it
within the system you are living in. As chickenlady said, if you don't like the system, go and live under a different one. But. if you want to live in a country with laws, statutes and taxes, then you have to take the rough with the smooth.

You can't say "I don't like that law because I want to drop litter" whilst being protected from murderers by the police. You brought up three basic laws (or however you referred to them) without any basis on where you got them from. Why are those three so sacrosanct and yet everything else isn't if it gets your knickers in a twist?
(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:19, closed)

pffft
chickenlady I really think it's stubborness on your part - it's clear enough what the point is

noone is saying to disagree with laws which are fair in a civilized society which contribute to it's advancement

however if they feel something is grossly unfair (as they can be in the real world - believe it or not these things happen!) - they can do something about it ( 7 times I've said this now?)

that's it

I really am repeating myself now - I cannot make this concept any simpler
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:19, closed)

Enzyme and Chickenlady are right
Governments do provide a service. A democracy is a means of ensuring that enough people with enough concerns will overrule the government on an issue.

If you feel that strongly, join a pressure group and make sure your MP knows about it. With enough members a pressure group may even evolve into a political party - which is exactly how the Labour Party came into existence.

Take ID cards.

Now, the cost to the taxpayer is going to be £5bn, that personally I'd rather see going to Higher Education, not to mention the moral arguements about privacy, for which I see as a fundamental right for anyone.

Now, I like roads. I like them very much. I also like the Healh Service which provides me with my prescriptions. I also like railways, the Police, the people to take my rubbish, the BBC, the armed forces and I feel very strongly that the disabled are entitled to a degree of dignity, not poverty.

To stick out my lower lip and refuse to pay my taxes smacks of petulance of the most irksome kind. That would be bludging from a system I refuse to contribute to, which frankly offends my moral sensibilities as much as ID Cards do.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 21 May 2008, 15:19, closed)

PJM see my post above yours

(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:36, closed)

I fear
we have all let our emotions run a tad high and have fallen into the trap of troll feeding. Best just leave it there I think.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:38, closed)

Hmmm
@ Goat

You say

The definition of a ‘society’ has been
given as ‘A number of people, joined by mutual consent, to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal.

and by simply opting out gives you free reign to do as you see fit?

As a member of a "society" that could be defined as "The United Kingdom" part of our common goal is to take and retain possesion of a geographical area commonly defined as the British Isles and impose our agreed rule of law on those who choose to reside therin. Those who do not wish to accept this rule of law are free to leave. Otherwise I, and my society collectively are happy to accept the responsibility to impose our societys laws on those who choose not to leave and to ignore them whether they wish to be a part of the society of the United Kingdom or not.
( RadG Drinking Mojitos in the sun, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:39, closed)

RadG
once someone has chosen to 'opt out' they are not given "free reign to do as they see fit", as I've already said in my very first post in this thread above (Wed 21 May 2008, 11:34)

i.e

" Statutory law is concerned with persons (artificial) and their privileges, duties, and obligations within
and subordinate to collective public/government welfare

It does not, and cannot, deal with sovereign human beings who give up their 'persons'

the only law which bind human beings are the common laws of -
1.not harming others,
2.not harming others property
and
3.no fraud in contracts

everything outside this, within the legislative framework is by consent, unknowingly, through your 'person' - and you have been made to think that this legal entity is you and statutes, acts and by laws can be acted on you "


*throws in towel
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:40, closed)

Nope, gotta make one more point
In your first post you referenced three "common laws". Why are these unbreakable but not everything else? Following your argument, if I wanted to kill people I could renounce those pesky murder laws and do what I want.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:45, closed)

RadG
You're wrong on a couple of points. The British Isles include Ireland and the Isle of Man, neither of which is part of the UK. That's a small point.

The "tacit consent" model you voice when you say that we're free to leave is also a crock, not least because it's not clear where we should go. Have a look at Hume's essay "Of the Original Contract" - it's probably online somewhere. The analogy with the ship strikes me as being spot-on: when the only alternative is leaping into the water, staying on board doesn't really count as consent in any meaningful sense.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:46, closed)

ok ,one last one I can't resist
"Nope, gotta make one more point
In your first post you referenced three "common laws". Why are these unbreakable but not everything else? Following your argument, if I wanted to kill people I could renounce those pesky murder laws and do what I want.
(althegeordie ""


althegeordie, in that case there is every justification to lock the murdering bastard up - with the police acting in their role as peace officers (mainting the common law - the three laws I have said and punishing those that break it)

rather than as 'law enforcenment' officers enforcing statutes - which apply only to your legal entity known as 'person' (as menard and his merry men have proven)

common law applies to you the human being - you can't wriggle out of them

there is a big distinction
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:52, closed)

Yup
You are almost certainly correct Enzyme, my geography is weak as is my grasp of Law. :)

However I stand by my acceptance of the responsibility to impose the law of my society on those who consider themselves not to be members of that society but operate within the claimed borders of my society.

Its is this acceptance of responsibility as a society coupled with the will to enforce its laws, beliefs, etc that negates any argument forwarded by Goat.

He can believe or declare whatever he likes, but while he is within our borders and we have the will, we will expect him to conform to our societys wishes or lock the bugger up if he won't. :)
( RadG Drinking Mojitos in the sun, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:55, closed)

^^ *Slaps forehead on palm, walks away shaking head*

(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 21 May 2008, 15:56, closed)

Why can't I wriggle out of them?
"Because you can't" is not an argument. They are no more imposed than any of the other laws such as taxation and speeding that you seem to thin are optional.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:57, closed)

@Goat: the question is
why do those three laws apply and not the others?

one answer is that they are an innate part of our humanity, but property and contracts have nothing to do with that.

if the answer is because they are right and good then that is equally wrong, and it would be naive to think that is the case.

I don't have an answer, but I'd be curious to hear yours.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:58, closed)

RadG
It appears to me that your arguments are actually similar to The Goat's in many important ways - the difference seems to be one of where you take them.


*looks at large pile of marking that needs doing*
*sighs*
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:58, closed)

althegeordie
"Why can't I wriggle out of them?
"Because you can't" is not an argument. They are no more imposed than any of the other laws such as taxation and speeding that you seem to thin are optional."


yes, they are enforcable because they break common laws - the other laws you mention, tax etc are statutes

common laws apply to you the human being

statutes to the legal entity you have known as your 'person'

I've said this already
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 15:59, closed)

You are determined not to answer my question
Where do these "common laws" come from?
(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 16:02, closed)

@Goat
Nevertheless, the distinction that you draw between statute and common law is just not correct. Statues are laws passed by the legislature (such as Parliament or Congress); common law is that which is derived from the courts. They're both equally compelling.

Actually, the stuff about common laws applying to the human being and statutes to the person is simply incoherent - in the words of Pauli (in a different context): not even wrong.

*actually does some marking*
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 16:02, closed)

You are determined not to answer my question
Where do these "common laws" come from?
(althegeordie

Common law rights and freedoms of life, liberty and property (the three laws I've mentioned) as in the Magna Carta of 1215
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta


enforcable by the police in their role as 'peace keepers'

you break common law - you go down

edit: Enzyme the point about the statutes, and 'persons' definitions you mention about being true is academic - Menard and others have done it and are doing it - doing it lawfully and they even have a fee structure they give to the police should they be detained - they obtained thsi right by submitting their claim of right through the Notary Republic - the process was entirely lawful
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Wed 21 May 2008, 16:09, closed)

The Magna Carta
was merely a charter detailing certain rights and rules, which was written about 800 years ago. It doesn't mean that those rights and rules are inherent in our being.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 21 May 2008, 16:17, closed)

If...
"Common law rights and freedoms of life, liberty and property" are so great, why are things so rubbish?
( Cawl, Wed 21 May 2008, 16:18, closed)

@Goat
The fact that someone's doing something isn't sufficient to indicate that they're justified or entitled to do it. Nor does the fact that they get away with it. Surely you can see that?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 16:27, closed)

for fucks sake
stop editing your posts to include further points. If you want to reply get it right (or least pretty much right) the first time.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 16:38, closed)

and just by looking at your link
I can see that the Magna Carta version of 1332 is the one on the statute books of england and wales. Not 1215. Or does the 1332 one not count because some sponging cunt said so?
(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 16:41, closed)

@Goat
Al's right - you really oughtn't to go adding bits to old posts ex post facto.

I still don't believe Menard. I'm not a lawyer, so I had to rely on Google for his "freeman" shizzle - and every site that came up was associated with his kind of wingnut. No academic journals in which it's noted, nothing on Wikipedia... I just don't think that he's correct. (Look at it this way: if it was really so easy to opt out like that, why hasn't just about everyone done it? And why don't the all powerful governments in whom you believe close the loophole?) It just doesn't stand up.

Your claims aren't aided by the fact that they're laced with malapropisms, either - that doesn't smack of nuanced research.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 16:43, closed)

100
Yes.
( Cawl, Wed 21 May 2008, 16:57, closed)

fucksocks

(Bazongaloid, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:02, closed)

Addendum
OK - a small retraction. I've now found some peer-reviewed academic articles that mention "freemen on the land"... but it's always in a different context. So my point stands.

Goat, if what you're suggesting is true, then it's explosive. And yet the world's finest legal scholars have, in the past couple of centuries, come up with only a little over 100 papers in which the term "freeman of the land" is even used. (There's a hundred and twenty-something citations under law on JSTOR, for example.)

That leads me to think that it's really not all that big a deal. Certainly not as big as you and Menard would seem to think.

So the next question I asked myself was this: whom should I believe? People whose vocation it is to probe and shape the law and who publish high-quality articles on it? Or a guy who's not a lawyer but who does have a silly hat?


It took me about a femtosecond to resolve that problem...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:02, closed)

@Kaol
I like your take on the argument.

Succinct and insightful
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:02, closed)

@Enzyme
Silly hat all the way?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:06, closed)

@ Vipros
Yeah. I noticed it has been widely ignored.
I'm too advanced for these people.
( Cawl, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:07, closed)

@Vipros
Yup. Transparent, aren't I?

*sighs*
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:08, closed)

I feel
like I've not been adding much to the proceedings with my last few posts.

it's the end of the day though and I feel I should be excused.

Also, Enzyme, you scare me a little ;-)
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:10, closed)

Google finds me
This thing don't
( monkeyboyalpha jumping on the bandwagon since, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:24, closed)

Woah!
I'll not get entangled in this thread, because all I have wanted to say has been said more elonquently by people vastly more intelligent than me.

But let me say this:

Has anyone actually looked at the website? And, if you have, can you really believe The Goat expects us to take this seriously?

Looks like a shoddy cult website to me.

The whole thing smacks of a five year old chucking a wobbly because his trousers are the wrong colour.

*Goes out and drives without a licence*
*Gets arrested*

"You can't arrest me because I opt out of your laws!"

*shivers in cell, listening to the laughter of the police fade*

Alright, B3ta, can't we all just get along?

EDIT: What a surprise, it'll cost you $25 and a 'reasonable donation'to learn how to 'think free'.
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:31, closed)

Yeah, well, what I think is....
oh, you've all gone.

*shoves hands in pockets*

*skulks back out of the room*

Damn work, made me miss all the fun.
( Moey, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:49, closed)

@Gunther
You seem to have missed the point of work. This thread has represented most of my working day. I'm about to go home. I won't be online there: I'd have to pay for it...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:52, closed)

Enzyme
That's what I keep telling my boss.

"If I do work now, I'd have to get broadband or something at home and that would cost me money."

He seems to think differently.

Sulking doesn't help.

I might opt out of society... I hear there's a fella who knows all about this.
( Moey, Wed 21 May 2008, 17:55, closed)

113 Replies!!!
Is there a record set?

ok people. let me do this again. Even though you may not be currently under some forced control, you might just be.

do you own a house?
A car?
Owe the Banks money?
get any calls offering you insurance or other crap?
How did they get your details?

Spock was set up to search the web for your details from any site, except facebook. True its the info you choose to add there. thats why I advise not adding info thet should be kept private.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist just pissed off with the internet.
(Bluffboy South Africa! World Champions!!!, Thu 22 May 2008, 6:52, closed)

@Bluffboy
(1) 113 relplies is, sadly, not the record. Hey ho.
(2) Even absent facebook, I'm not on spock - which is odd, given the places where my name crops up.
(3) Being visible does not imply being under surveillance. Less does it imply being under control.

Cheers!
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 22 May 2008, 9:20, closed)

Enzyme

"OK - a small retraction. I've now found some peer-reviewed academic articles that mention "freemen on the land"... but it's always in a different context. So my point stands.
Goat, if what you're suggesting is true, then it's explosive. And yet the world's finest legal scholars have, in the past couple of centuries, come up with only a little over 100 papers in which the term "freeman of the land" is even used. (There's a hundred and twenty-something citations under law on JSTOR, for example.)
That leads me to think that it's really not all that big a deal. Certainly not as big as you and Menard would seem to think.
So the next question I asked myself was this: whom should I believe? People whose vocation it is to probe and shape the law and who publish high-quality articles on it? Or a guy who's not a lawyer but who does have a silly hat?
It took me about a femtosecond to resolve that problem"


phrase it another way

who do you believe....

1. people who have a vested interest and have made a sworn oath to serve 'The Bar' and the sytem that keeps it running. People who charge hundreds an hour for the most simple legal process using a language they claim represents us yet we cannot understand ( like a priesthiood with their own arcane language and system kept out of reach and understanding to the 'profane')

2. or a guy with legal friends who hit the law books and legal dictionaries for a few years with a passion after they illegally took his kid away and is offering this information free - one of the few people to do it to this extend and intensity who wasn't a member of the Law Society

no brainer
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Thu 22 May 2008, 10:40, closed)