Freeman solisitorwanted Options

[of prison planet]

Hi
Any advice on this please

I am looking for a freeman solicitor; and that is someone who represents someone in court in the capacity of a freeman. And what I mean by a freeman is a human being (and not a person) that lawfully (and not legally) dose not stand under any statute/ act of parliament/ admiral law/ law of the sea because they choice as Sovereign beings by there constitutional rights (magna carta treaty for the state of England and all other crown governed country) not to represent the corporative title they where given (there name or Mr/Mrs in upper case letters) when they where born in the form of a birth certificate


Have a look at this video, it is rayman Sinclair and someone ells with a hidden camera in court representing someone in count in the above means. I have looked Raymond Sinclair up on the net and he seams to have vanished off of the face of the earth (hope he is alright!)
https://youtu.be/zfwDjbZgLqI

[Advertisement]

[Rallyman72]

Gods Own Country then ...

[The Slithy Tove]

Been skimming this thread and chuckling to myself at the sheer ignorance of the OP. I can only hope it ends the way of so may of these FotL/Sovereign Citizen cases you see on YouTube. E.g.

• The one where the Nutter ™ questions the authority of the judge, to which the judge replies "my authority lies in the fact I can get the police officer here to lock you up", and when further challenged, that's exactly what he does
• The infamous P Barnes (just look it up on YouTube) who tasers the Nutter ™

[cp8759]

[*]The one where the Nutter ™ questions the authority of the judge, to which the judge replies "my authority lies in the fact I can get the police officer here to lock you up", and when further challenged, that's exactly what he does

Ah you must be referring to the first couple in this playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTAiDBedhM...w7wxG0O1UGIjHPl

[oldstoat]

Whilst I find the Freemen of the land idea, amusing, to read. I must confess to half seeing what they say. From first principles, can any consitutional expert explain at what point they go wrong.

[southpaw82]

Whilst I find the Freemen of the land idea, amusing, to read. I must confess to half seeing what they say. From first principles, can any consitutional expert explain at what point they go wrong.

Relying on a (mostly) repealed statute? Not understanding that statutes don't require individual consent? Thinking that maritime law applies everywhere? Thinking that life is a series of commercial contracts? Thinking that the cesui que vie act does something it doesn't? How much more?

[cp8759]

Whilst I find the Freemen of the land idea, amusing, to read. I must confess to half seeing what they say. From first principles, can any consitutional expert explain at what point they go wrong.

Consent. If no law applies without your consent, how does the state stop people from robbing you or raping you if no law against robbery or rape can have force of law, given that robbers and rapists are unlikely to consent to such laws.

Our whole civilisation is built on the idea that society as a whole can unilaterally impose requirements and obligations on individuals, not because it is just or moral but simply because the only alternative is chaos.

Look at any lawless place on Earth, there's a reason they're called failed states.

[southpaw82]

Consent doesn’t mean consent of the individual (in this context), it means consent of the majority of the polity.

[cp8759]

Consent doesn’t mean consent of the individual (in this context), it means consent of the majority of the polity.

Well yes, I did mean consent in the warped FMOTL sense

[southpaw82]

Consent doesn’t mean consent of the individual (in this context), it means consent of the majority of the polity.

Well yes, I did mean consent in the warped FMOTL sense

I know - it was a stand-alone remark.