"Legal Name Fraud" posters......

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
Has anyone in the UK (or elsewhere) seen these? They've been popping up around West Yorkshire recently (I've seen them in Leeds, Wakefield and Huddersfield).



The Mystery of the "legal name fraud" billboards
There's a site which seems linked - legalnamefraud.com (not linking).

It looks like footler nonsense, but whoever is renting them seems to have money to spend. None of the posters I've seen have been in what could be called prime spots, but they do appear to be widespread.

Ray Von
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Simply thus, all legal names are owned by the Crown, and therefore using a legal name without their written permission is fraud."
isnt the whole point of a birth certificate (registration) to legalize that name with that body? and it is witnessed and signed by the appropriate registrar people. ie. the government giving you permission.

add: my BC has the town's offical seal embossed into it too.
seen here https://www.metabunk.org/claim-your-birth-certificate-is-worth-millions.t7098/#post-172134
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Yes, I saw one a few weeks ago near my office in London. I think it's still there but I haven't been past that way recently.

IMG_6728.JPG

I looked into it at the time and found that same BBC article.
 

mm1145

Member
there was one here in oxford as well but it is gone now.
I remember looking a few things up yes it is the standard freeman on the land type of thing where words seam to have different meanings than we are used to. I will try to find the link but I was most impressed by there assertion that on the birth certificate "parents" meant "Payer-of-rents"
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
there was one here in oxford as well but it is gone now.
I remember looking a few things up yes it is the standard freeman on the land type of thing where words seam to have different meanings than we are used to. I will try to find the link but I was most impressed by there assertion that on the birth certificate "parents" meant "Payer-of-rents"
I have a screenshot of some brilliantly convoluted naval derivations for common words... let me have a look.

Ah yes:
IMG_7555.jpg
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
I have a screenshot of some brilliantly convoluted naval derivations for common words... let me have a look.

Ah yes:

A friend of my dad's started feeding him lots of CT stuff, and as he wasn't in the best state of mind at the time he went for it in a big way. Footler was his favourite topic (and the loss of the gold standard).

It's such guff, hard to read and even harder to listen to.

RAY of the family VON GEEZER
 

mm1145

Member
this legal humor web site had a good review of it and it was nice and funny as well

http://loweringthebar.net/2016/06/is-it-illegal-to-use-a-legal-name.html
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Had quite a few around Bristol, one bang opposite my place, which was replaced by a Sky TV poster last week. It was there for about 2 weeks. Its not That expensive to put these things up...
http://www.marketingdonut.co.uk/mar...ising/outdoor-advertising-making-a-big-impact

...and as these posters are showing up, around my way at least, on side streets and back roads I suspect the bunksters are aiming at the lower end of the market where two weeks on a back street hording can cost as little as £75 a week.

What gets me though is that these adds are a tad confusing to say the least, I knew what they are on about, but thats cos I hang around sites like this one and keep up on the latest bunk where possible, but most of my neighbours were baffled about the whole thing and didn't have a clue what it was all about.
 

mm1145

Member
What gets me though is that these adds are a tad confusing to say the least, I knew what they are on about, but thats cos I hang around sites like this one and keep up on the latest bunk where possible, but most of my neighbours were baffled about the whole thing and didn't have a clue what it was all about.

that was what got me as well. I can undertsnad things like this to "raise awareness" but I would have at least put a web url on it
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
as has been mentioned it is one of the funniest (conspiracies) theories simply because you can demonstrate its patent falseness

every one who tries it gets convicted in a court of law - so a demonstrably flawed theory

I suppose it does raise a few philosophical questions about the concept of "law" - i.e. is it valid if it can't be enforced
 

mm1145

Member
as has been mentioned it is one of the funniest (conspiracies) theories simply because you can demonstrate its patent falseness

every one who tries it gets convicted in a court of law - so a demonstrably flawed theory

I suppose it does raise a few philosophical questions about the concept of "law" - i.e. is it valid if it can't be enforced
the De facto justification for the state to enforce the Law is they have the power to do so. in effect the law is what those with the power agree it is.

all the Soverian citizans say may well be true and the state may have no moral or "legal" rights over them but since the state pays the strong man who is dragging you off to prison what's the difference?
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
the De facto justification for the state to enforce the Law is they have the power to do so. in effect the law is what those with the power agree it is.

all the Soverian citizans say may well be true and the state may have no moral or "legal" rights over them but since the state pays the strong man who is dragging you off to prison what's the difference?
Philosophically I do think the right of an individual to be able to "opt out" of state control is an attractive idea. In reality, adhering to the law is one of the costs of being part of society, and there's very few opportunities to truly opt out left - only so many private islands to buy.

Footlers don't seem to want to opt out though, and I don't see much if any evidence of any kind of principled stance. Whenever it comes up it seems to be people trying to manipulate the law for their own benefit, mainly petty offenses and tax dodging.

Ray Von
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
the De facto justification for the state to enforce the Law is they have the power to do so. in effect the law is what those with the power agree it is.
At the risk of going wildly off topic, although I can understand the whole CT / freeman type argument, things are not that black and white. Although the powers that be frame the laws and put in the structure for their enforcement, most laws originate from with in society itself. Take an obvious one like murder, even pre-Roman celtic society had rules about killing people, where and when it was justified and what would happen to the murderer when it wasn't, all that has happened in the 2,000 years since the Romans arrived in the UK and after is a system being put in place to tighten up and clarify the definition of murder and put in place an enforcement system to up hold those laws. (after all most folks will agree murder is wrong)

In most democracies, (yes I know the flaws in the system) society elects its leaders, the leaders (in theory at least) act on the will of the people and legislate the rules of that society and put in place the systems to enforce them, and if society wishes to change those laws it can do so.

Two examples
1) In the 1980's the Thatcher government introduced The Poll Tax (Community Charge) in an attempt to over haul the UK's out moded local taxation system (something that was needed). The result was a real dogs dinner of legislation that landed a grossly unfair system that penalised those least able to pay. This resulted in a mass campaign of non payment, civil disobedience and civil unrest that not only forced the abolition of the tax, but brought down the Thatcher government.
2) After the UK's two most notorious mass shootings at Hungerford and Dunblane, there was a mass groundswell of opinion that there was no place for private gun ownership in the general population (despite what the American NRA will have you believe the UK was never big on private gun ownership) and the government reacted to that opinion and changed the law accordingly.

Basically, if say you don't want laws that support big business over the common people, stop electing governments that support big business over the rest of society (I know that has been a case of easier said than done over the past 20-30 years in the UK, but with the UK labour party returning to its socialist roots there is now an alternative)

Bottom line, we are all society, from the guy in the council house to Lord Iffy Boatrace in his stately pile, society chooses its leaders, and we get the government we deserve if not the one we want, and therefore get the laws we deserve if not want. After all, we elect the law makers in the first place.

And what's the alternative, even in a true anarchist system, some form of 'rules of society' or 'natural justice' have to be agreed on and enforced to stop society descending into the total chaos of an everyman for himself free for all. Something these freemen tend to overlook.

(edited for typos and spelling errors)
 
Last edited:

tadaaa

Senior Member
Philosophically I do think the right of an individual to be able to "opt out" of state control is an attractive idea. In reality, adhering to the law is one of the costs of being part of society, and there's very few opportunities to truly opt out left - only so many private islands to buy.

Ray Von

yes I have some sympathy with that, not so much state control - but the right to be anonymous

the right to sign into a hotel as Mr and Mrs Smith

one thing that is maybe coming down the road is the abolition of cash - as a payment system

so every financial exchange you do is recorded - lend a mate a tenner, text him the money, but a pint of milk at the village shop - contactless payment

no cash transaction is to big or small to be replaced by electronic methods

if that happens it would give the state enormous control

that seems very dangerous to me
 
Last edited:

tadaaa

Senior Member
At the risk of going wildly off topic, although I can understand the whole CT / freeman type argument, things are not that black and white. Although the powers that be frame the laws and put in the structure for their enforcement, most laws originate from with in society itself. Take an obvious one like murder, even pre-Roman celtic society had rules about killing people, where and when it was justified and what would happen to the murderer when it wasn't, all that has happened in the 2,000 years since the Romans arrived in the UK and after is a system being put in place to tighten up and clarify the definition of murder and put in place an enforcement system to up hold those laws. (after all most folks will agree murder is wrong)

In most democracies, (yes I know the flaws in the system) society elects its leaders, the leaders (in theory at least) act on the will of the people and legislate the rules of that society and put in place the systems to enforce them, and if society wishes to change those laws it can do so.

Two examples
1) In the 1980's the Thatcher government introduced The Poll Tax (Community Charge) in an attempt to over haul the UK's out moded local taxation system (something that was needed). The result was a real dogs dinner of legislation that landed a grossly unfair system that penalised those least able to pay. This resulted in a mass campaign of non payment, civil disobedience and civil unrest that not only forced the abolition of the tax, but brought down the Thatcher government.
2) After the UK's two most notorious mass shootings at Hungerford and Dunblane, there was a mass groundswell of opinion that there was no place for private gun ownership in the general population (despite what the American NRA will have you believe the UK was never big on private gun ownership) and the government reacted to that opinion and changed the law accordingly.

Basically, if say you don't want laws that support big business over the common people, stop electing governments that support big business over the rest of society (I know that been a case of easier said than done over the past 20-30 years in the UK, but with the UK labour party returning to its socialist roots there is now an alternative)

Bottom line, we are all society, from the guy in the council house to Lord Iffy Boatrace in his stately pile, society chooses its leaders, and we get the government we deserve if not the one we want, and therefore get the laws we deserve if not want. After we elect the law makers in the first place.

And what's the alternative, even in true anarchist system, some form of 'rules of society' or 'natural justice' have be agreed on and enforced to stop society descending into the total chaos of an everyman for himself free for all. Something these freemen tend to overlook.


yes its interesting Whitebeard, my younger brother is married to an Italian - and has a house in Italy etc (loves the country in all its madness, as I do)

he says that if the Italians have a law that they don't like - he cited one regarding the licencing of Scooters, they simply refuse to adhere to it en masse

and in the end the government simply abandon it

I have a sneaking respect for that type of behaviour :)
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
I had an Australian on my Facebook come out with some of this Freeman nonsense and he was saying stuff about Admiralty law but somehow implied that meant the POPE controlled Statute law in Australia. Really not sure how that came into it.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
While I was studying Forensic Psychology I took to going to the courts to watch trials. I have seen a few people try the Freeman play and state they do not recognise the court. The best one was a protester from a fracking site was pulled up and refused to give his "given" name and refused to recognise the court. The Magistrate simply said "Well the court recognises you. 5 days contempt of court".
 

darrenr

Member
These have been going up where I live (Merseyside), though lately they've been replaced by ones which say 'Now You Know The Truth'. I couldn't help feeling that a stage had been missed out somewhere.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Two Large Planes Flying Parallel, Chiloquin, OR. Is it Legal? Yes. Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
David Fraser Legal implications of conspiracy belief. General Discussion 2
SeriouslyDebatable Did FBI Director Robert Mueller Really Say There Was No Legal Proof of hijackers ID? 9/11 18
cosmic Name change? Site Feedback & News 3
MikeC Bellingcat: the Russians did it, and we name the names Flight MH17 4
Mick West Debunked: Seattle Trying to Ban Land Ownership in Name of Equality General Discussion 4
Leifer Scott Fistler (R) changes name to Cesar Chavez (D) People Debunked 4
Mick West Mike Lindell's 2-Hour Election Fraud Claim Video "Absolute Proof": Hacking Claims Election 2020 7
Mendel John Lott's Paper on Election Fraud Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
Mick West Claim: R-Squared Coefficient of Determination as a Election Fraud Signal Election 2020 5
Trailblazer Debunked: French election fraud by damaging Le Pen ballots [sample ballot papers] Conspiracy Theories 1
Spiemel Fontus - self-filling water bottle (indiegogo scam campaign?) Science and Pseudoscience 185
Mike Fl Can someone debunk this? Sandy Hook Shooting 100% Fraud Proof in 2 mins. - Photo Time Analysis Sandy Hook 21
Clock 8 Ways to tell a Conspiracy Theorist is really a Fraud (or full of baloney) Practical Debunking 9

Related Articles

Top