Adverse Possession

[yozhik]

Originally Posted by asky

You dont you consent by default (if you dont like it you can leave at any time)

We are in complete agreement.

Given you also named the society as 'Post Modern Society', I am confident you're now not going to try some form of back peddling by inferring that a society known as 'Post Modern Society' is actually a piece of land in a specific geographic location ...

Are you?


Or are you now going to pull a rabbit out of the illusionists ass and claim that leaving 'Post Modern Society' actually means leaving the geographic location formerly known as Albion?

[asky]

You dont need to leave a geographical location.
You just need to live in a place where you will not cross societies path (jurisdiction) becasue if you do you are deemed to be using its services and as such you will be treated as your are part of society.

Alternatively you can make sure you have no possessions or fixed abode and society wont want much do do with you as you have nothing it can benefit by wasting time with you.

However society would still look after you if you fell ill.
Its nice like that.

asky

[fotheringsmirth]

Back to the point of this thread: if you could withdraw consent and ACTUALLY become unbound from statute, then you would be able to acquire land through the common law limitation periods to this day, claiming that you don't consent to the statute in place. The fact that you can't is proof that the Freeman ideas in practical application are bullshit.

[yozhik]

Originally Posted by asky

You dont need to leave a geographical location.
You just need to live in a place where you will not cross societies path (jurisdiction) becasue if you do you are deemed to be using its services and as such you will be treated as your are part of society.

No problem.
You can simply waive the benefit/privilege.
No contract for service.
Simple.

Originally Posted by asky

Alternatively you can make sure you have no possessions or fixed abode and society wont want much do do with you as you have nothing it can benefit by wasting time with you.

Interesting concept.
So you're saying that a man is not allowed to own anything unless he agrees to becoming part of your 'post modern society'?

Can't wait for you to exlain the premise of that argument.

Originally Posted by asky

However society would still look after you if you fell ill.
Its nice like that.

asky

I dare say its simply another matter of contract.

[yozhik]

Originally Posted by fotheringsmirth

Back to the point of this thread: if you could withdraw consent and ACTUALLY become unbound from statute, then you would be able to acquire land through the common law limitation periods to this day, claiming that you don't consent to the statute in place. The fact that you can't is proof that the Freeman ideas in practical application are bullshit.

You should know there is no such word as can't.


The question is; who says you can't?
Your society and its statutes?



Its a cyclic argument you're presenting here ...

[fotheringsmirth]

Originally Posted by yozhik

You should know there is no such word as can't.


The question is; who says you can't?
Your society and its statutes?



Its a cyclic argument you're presenting here ...

How is it cyclic? Break it down:

The claim: That in practical application, Freemen are able to successfully argue in courts that statutes are non-applicable. Judges will uphold their decisions based on the principle of 'government via consent', based on the argument that the Freeman has withdrawn his consent. Decisions will therefore be made according to common law and common law alone.

The challenge: Common law relating to adverse possession (squatter's rights) says that one who has been making use of land for 12 years adverse to someone else's claim iThis runs counter to the Land Registration Act 2002, which requires someone making use of land for ten years to apply to be granted title of the property, which can be defeated by objection.

If Freemen arguments are right: Then a successful argument in court would be that the Freeman refuses to consent to the Land Registration Act 2002 and be granted title to the property. Furthermore, statutory regulations allowing easier eviction of squatters will be ignored, as the Freeman refuses to consent to the statute. Therefore, the police will not arrest someone who is on the property.

If they are wrong: Then title will not be granted to someone who has made an adverse claim to land after 12 years. Furthermore, protests regarding evictions will be ignored by the authorities.

I'm simply asking you which one of these is the correct answer, and ask for some evidence to back up your claim.

[asky]

yozhik wrote

No problem.
You can simply waive the benefit/privilege.
No contract for service.
Simple.

Thats correct but dont expect provision of any services.

So you're saying that a man is not allowed to own anything unless he agrees to becoming part of your 'post modern society'?

No Im not Im saying if you do own anything and you live within the reach of society then it will always be looking for its cut.

I dare say its simply another matter of contract.

I dont know many who if they fell ill with a heart attack would tell the ambulance staff "No contract" do you?

asky