Friday, February 11, 2011

Nick Kollerstrom

Inquest into 7/7; Muad'Dib
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. jakeFebruary 18, 2011 at 10:36 AM

    I am fed up with blatant stupidity, Muad is clearly being railroaded. I cant wait to hear what amazing mix of fantasy they will spin up to illustrate that regardless of the content of 7/7 RE, the evidence as they had it was leaning toward conviction, and that regardless of the actual guilt of the three men Muad's video was "perverting" that course. In the words of Morgan Reynolds "MADNESS!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nick DeanMarch 8, 2011 at 1:37 AM

    Indicated here and indicated previously in the interview at this site with another friend of Muad Dib is “Dib’s” commitment to one or other variant of the Freeman on The Land philosophy. This also appeared to be a feature of Karen Quinn-Tostado’s thinking (e.g., all the references to common law and the US as a corporation) and was also apparently an approach of that Australian / Kiwi fella interviewed a coupla months back on the Real Deal. I don’t think Prof. Fetzer has ever picked up the thread. Online sources of information on the philosophy include 1215.org (US), thinkfree.ca (Canada), lawfulrebellion.org and tpuc.org (UK), I don’t know that these are the best, they’re just the ones I’m familiar with. I don’t have a very great understanding of the arguments and haven’t come to a judgement about their truth or utility.

    I do think, though, that it’s a little rich of Muad Dib, after recognising the authority of the court over these issues, which he surely did when posting his DVD’s care of that institution, to then try and argue that the court has no jurisdiction over him as he involves himself in the matter. I fear that a lot of the impetus behind the FMOTL movement is as self-servingly hypocritical. Most fundamentally the Freemen appear to be opting out of the very specifically national social contract from which they source their individualised claims to a land right. Can you base a claim in Magna Carta and other Common Law sources, or even a covenant with God for some of the Freemen, and yet deny an obligation to defend the collective from which you inherit these traditions? Not honourably, I think.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)