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, Reply)