The law recognises two classes of persons: natural persons
Evilbastardlawyer wrote:You are welcome to believe that I really am an evil bastard lawyer who knows that you are right but am lying because I'm part of the wicked regime that is seeking to oppress you. Equally, you're welcome to believe that I am telling the truth, but that universities and law schools across the country are keeping this information to themselves, and that - despite having (and making use of) comprehensive access to laws, court decisions, legal history and legal analysis - neither I nor any of my colleagues have encountered the arguments and interpretation that the Lawful Rebellion movement makes. Or you might just consider that law is a deep subject, that you've looked at a few legal definitions and old documents and got the wrong end of the stick.
Evilbastardlawyer wrote:The problem is that, as I understand it, Lawful Rebellion adherents think that the law only has power only over legal persons. (Do correct me if I've misunderstood.)
Malcolm Ramsay wrote:Evilbastardlawyer wrote:The problem is that, as I understand it, Lawful Rebellion adherents think that the law only has power only over legal persons. (Do correct me if I've misunderstood.)
Welcome aboard Evilbastard - have you ever fought the Hydra?
There's quite a range of beliefs on this site, coming from two distinct angles I think - Lawful Rebellion and Freeman-on-the-land. I'd say most of the 'techniques' being suggested come from the Freeman side, rather than Lawful Rebellion.
You say none of your colleagues have come across the idea before; there are no surprises in it, but you might be interested in a Canadian case that someone posted recently: MNR v Stanchfield
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest