My Adventures with a Freeman

[sue858]

Note: This is a repost of a thread I originally posted on the International Skeptic's forum; they suggested it might be of more interest over here. Original thread is here, but it's basically just the below post followed by suggestions that I post here instead.

Back in 2012 I had a sordid fling with a genuine real-life Freeman-on-the-Land; I'll call him 'Ash'. It was a very confusing time for me, though looking back with the benefit of the info I found on places like these, it's starting to make more sense. I thought you might be interested in what happened, what I thought of it at the time and what I think now. Because, in spite of the long period of time which has elapsed since all of these events occurred, I still feel I can offer some insights into the thought processes (such as they are) of a freeman/all-round-conspiracy-loon. I wouldn't be so dramatic as to say that had it not been for Quatloos I might've gone off the deep end, but I would've been left with a nagging "Maybe there was something to it" feeling. So I have an idea of what 'hooks' the FMOTLs use to draw in people who are otherwise sane and rational, which I hope will help know where to focus when you're trying to pull someone back from the brink. I'll keep adding bits as and when I remember them; don't expect my posts to be added in any order so logical as 'chronological'. And given that this all happened over half a decade ago, don't expect picture-perfect recollections from me.

An example to (hopefully) whet your appetites:

In paragraph 437 of Meads v Meads, Judge Rooke notes that one of the documents provided by Mr Meads bears "the cryptic notation “DLM042011960 SA 01 Registration # 11120912227”." The possible meaning/intended purpose of this kind of 'cryptic notation' is discussed no further in the judgement. Nor could I find such notations discussed anywhere - no "That won't work because ... " on these forums. Not even any "You should add X Notations because Y" instructions on freeman forums. Admittedly I didn't look very hard, so my explanation might already be out there somewhere. Nevertheless:

When Ash was showing me how to send an A4V (I think it was to the leccy company [LC], but it could have been any one of a dozen plus creditors he tried to pull his freeman stunts on), he started by showing me the 'Pay your debt to us now or we'll cut your power off' letter he was replying to. He pointed out the bit in the top left where details like his account number and the date were. In particular, he said I should notice their use of their own 'reference number' [R#].

"They think they can make me use the R# which THEY came up with for their own convenience!" Well, he'd show them; he'd use his OWN made-up R# instead and LC would have to bow to Ash's convenience OR ELSE!

You know what Freemen are like with their "Everyone is trying to trick you into entering a contract!" paranoia. Using LC's R# might somehow have indicated that Ash was agreeing to everything they wanted him to and entering himself into some sort of nefarious contract whereby he agreed to be bound by that infernal Admiralty law. Conversely, if Ash could trick LC into using HIS made-up R#, then THEY would be beholden to HIM and would be forced to something something free leccy for life!

In summary, Ash used a made-up R# for 3 main reasons:
To avoid being tricked into a contract.
To feel like the 'big man' because THEY are using HIS number, not t'other way around!
To try to confuse LC's filing system, causing Ash's letter to get lost somewhere for longer than the 10 days he gave them to reply "Or else they're automatically agreeing to everything I say!"

I'm guessing that Mr Meads's 'cryptic notation' was added for similar reasons.

So I hope you'll find my experiences interesting, or at least somewhat entertaining. If it gets to the point where all I'm doing is , let me know and I'll stop spamming you with my life story.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Welcome to Quatloos, and your experiences will be interesting.

The sordid fling aspect is a good subject hook, as a depraved old reprobate, I sometimes stray from the path of shrewd legal analysis into sordid with unbecoming alacrity.

[wserra]

Welcome, Sue. We are definitely interested, so please keep posting. And yes, you anticipated one of the things that interests us most: what is it that gets people involved with this stuff in the first place? If we understand that better, we will be able to write more effectively to get those who might be so inclined not to do so. What got you involved? Was it something personal with "Ash", or did the ideas (such as they are) appeal to some part of you?

As for the cryptic stuff you note from Meads: Trying to figure out WTF a sov is talking about does not yield reliable results. They make up their own meanings of key words and phrases, and those "meanings" frequently make no sense. Were “DLM042011960 SA 01 Registration # 11120912227” from a UK doc, rather than Canada, at a guess it refers to the registration for self-assessment process which is an option for certain UK taxpayers. It might well be what Meads refers to as well. The fact that Meads is a Canadian is only a minor hindrance; after all, sovs around the globe cite to the UCC, which (1) is law only in the US, and in somewhat different forms depending on the state at that; and (2) applies only to commercial transactions, and only to some of them. Details, details.

"Acceptance for value" (as you say, "A4V" in sovspeak) is another example. If you google the phrase, you'll find fifty sov uses for every legitimate one. Winston Shrout here in the US is about to go away for a while as a result. Unsurprisingly, it too goes back to the UCC - § 3-303 to be exact. It has infrequent real applications, but for sovs it is a magic wand.

So yes, please continue to post. You chose the UK forum - are you in fact from the UK? We're interested.

[Hanslune]

Glad you've come here Sue.

We look forward to your story.

[longdog]

Welcome, please continue.

[sue858]

I'll start at the beginning with how I met Ash. Those who are only here for the FMOTL stuff can skip the first 2 paragraphs as they're pure Jeremy Kyle Show-fodder.

I met Ash during a night of heavy drinking (on my part only; Ash was more or less sober). We went back to his place for what I thought would be a one-night stand. Afterwards, Ash asked if I'd be up for another Adult Playtime Session. It turned out that our non-vanilla predilections were surprisingly compatible, and we talked about what activities we might engage in next time when the issues of my intoxication and our lack of familiarity with one another wouldn't muddy the waters of consent. Since we were on the topic of consent:

"You know what else only applies if you consent to it?" Ash asked. "Statute law!"

And off he went. I'd planned to sleep off my impending hangover, but instead we spent the rest of the night conversing on a carousel of conspiracy theories, some of which I might come back to in more detail if there's enough interest. Among those I remember:
Aspartame, fluoride and allopathic medicine are poison.
The Illuminati is behind everything. EVERYTHING. From 9/11 through all those weird symbols They plant throughout the media to that time you stepped in dog poo and didn't realise till you'd trod all over your brand new carpet, the Illuminati is behind it ALL.
Fiat currency = banks just printing their own money willy-nilly, so why shouldn't I be able to write off my own mortgage?

The next day, Ash gave me a lift back to my place, just in time for me to get to work. He drove at 50mph through 30mph zones (not at my request, mind - we had plenty of time; I think he sort of wanted to get pulled over so he could prove his point). His car was some flashy yellow sporty thing which he called his 'p**sy magnet' . It stuck out like a sore thumb, so it was no real surprise when he was pulled over for speeding. No fear: Ash had his driving licence fee schedule at the ready! Ash proceeded to bludgeon the poor officer with a deluge of Freeman Blather. At one point, the policeman appealed to me. "Are you his girlfriend?" Asked the copper. I didn't want to lie to a police officer, but nor did I fancy divulging the current nature of my 'relationship' with Ash to him, so I said nothing. After an awkward silence, I was asked to "Please, talk some sense in to [Ash]; tell him to calm down."

This traffic stop lasted for about half an hour. We were about a mile away from where I lived, and I thought, "I could've walked home by now! If I want to make it to work on time, I'd better start walking." I was just about to tell the policeman this when he announced that he would let Ash go with a 'verbal warning'. "Great," I thought, "We can finally go." But no, Ash wanted to push the policeman further on why he, out of all the thousands of motorists who commit traffic offences every day, had been stopped. "Well, I wanted to get a good look at your sweet car," joked the policeman.

When we discussed the traffic stop the next time we met, there were a few talking points which almost convinced me that there was something to all this FMOTL stuff:
Ash was allowed to go on his way without so much as a speeding ticket. Looking back, the policeman had probably never encountered a FMOTL loon before so had no idea what Ash was on about. He didn't know how to confront such loons, and probably decided that he had better things to do with his time than argue with a nutcase over a speeding ticket. This is a good example of how/why some FMOTLers achieve minor 'victories' despite FMOTL being a load of balderdash. Unfortunately, being 'let off the hook' under such circumstances, especially when the encounter is filmed and posted on YouTube under a misleading title, lends FMOTLism undeserved credibility.

Ash also emphasised the policeman's question regarding our relationship. "What business is that of his? Whatever we do in this bedroom is our own business. We're not hurting anyone else, we're not breaking the law, so why should we have to divulge our private lives to bullies like him?" I'd previously had other encounters with the police which I'd resented for this reason - because they asked irrelevant questions which probed my private life and seemed more intended to embarrass me than to investigate a genuine crime. I'll explain this point later if there's interest.

On the topic of private lives, the copper asked Ash why the address on his Driving Licence was different to the one he'd insured the car under. Ash had just said that he was 'between addresses', but he later said to me, "I just said that because you would've been late for work had that stop gone on any longer. I could've said that I have 2 addresses. After all, if I can afford to own 2 houses, and I split my time more or less equally between them, why wouldn't I be able to use different addresses for different purposes according to what suited me and my mood at the time? In such a situation, why would it be illegal to have one address on my licence and another on my insurance?" To be honest, I've never come up with a proper answer to this, though I'm aware that "But what about this potential loophole?" doesn't invalidate the whole legal system.

Ash also complained that he'd been stopped 'just so the copper could ogle my car'. After all, if anyone else had wanted to see his car close-up, they'd have to just follow him around and wait till he parked. Nobody else would be able to make Ash stop for half an hour so they could see his car; why should the police have that power? I'm not entirely sure why the copper gave that answer, but I reckon it was half-joke, half "I'm not paid enough to deal with this kind of nutter, so I'm gonna call it a day now."

This incident also illustrates an interesting dilemma with the Freeman movement. One minute its gurus (I'm thinking of Menard specifically, but I'm sure other gurus act similarly) say that their followers should NOT 'go looking for trouble'. But they'll also boast about how they often drive around while drunk in an untaxed uninsured vehicle and, although often stopped, they never get in any real trouble with the law because their names are on some secret 'let him off' database of Freemen, thus implicitly encouraging their followers to follow suit. So which is it? Keep your head down and only bring out the Freeman stuff in the event that the authorities harass you despite your generally good behaviour, or keep your camera on while you flagrantly flout Admiralty Law so you can document and later boast about your wins against 'The Man'?

[TheNewSaint]

In paragraph 437 of Meads v Meads, Judge Rooke notes that one of the documents provided by Mr Meads bears "the cryptic notation “DLM042011960 SA 01 Registration # 11120912227”." The possible meaning/intended purpose of this kind of 'cryptic notation' is discussed no further in the judgement. Nor could I find such notations discussed anywhere - no "That won't work because ... " on these forums.

Here's paragraph 437 of Meads, with a little context:

[435] The UCC Financing Statement registered in Ohio (NOTE: This is a Canadian case) for a Certificate of Birth purports to create or reflect a trust of “DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust” in favour of “Dennis-Larry:Meads, as Beneficiary of the Revested Trust”. The document continues:

[quoted sovcit gibberish snipped]

Translated out of ‘gibberese’, Mr. Meads is purportedly assigning the value of his birth certificate, a “commercial transaction” presumably with Canada, to his “flesh and blood” self.

[436] The Alberta Personal Property Registry Verification Statement for “DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust” presumably does the same for his a birth certificate, social insurance number, UCC1 financing statement, a certificate of marriage, a motor vehicle operator’s license, Canadian passport, and several court orders.

[437] The “Commercial Security Agreement”, which is identified by the cryptic notation “DLM042011960 SA 01 Registration # 11120912227” purportedly promises that “DENNIS LARRY MEADS, A LEGAL ENTITY” assumes all debts and obligations of “Dennis-Larry:Meads, a "Personam Sojourn and People of Posterity"”, while granting Dennis-Larry:Meads all his property. Similarly, the “Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement Non Negotiable Between the Parties” causes “DEBTOR: DENNIS LARRY MEADS” to generally indemnify “CREDITOR: Care of Dennis-Larry Meads”.

[438] This duplicates in general effect the analogous material advanced in Mercedes‑Benz Financial v. Kovacevic:

To summarize: this magic number was part of an avalanche of gibberish filings, which had already been rejected in a previous case. It was required no further analysis. But sovcits can't see the forest for the trees, and have childlike minds. So they latch onto one detail and conclude "they never debunked that! Never said we couldn't do it! That must be the key!"

[sue858]

Wow, I never expected to generate so much interest so quickly! I need to log off soon, so my answers will be brief for now. Given the interest shown, I'll post more tales another day which will hopefully provide proper enlightenment in their details.

Thank you to you all for your warm welcome. I am indeed in the UK. As to what almost drew me in: politically, I lean towards Libertarianism. But back then, I'd never even heard the word 'Libertarian', so didn't know that joining the Libertarian Party (or engaging in similar legitimate political action) was an option. UK politics is dominated by Labour and the Conservatives. If you want to make a 'protest vote', there's the Lib Dems. Maybe Greens or UKIP, depending on whether any of their candidates are standing where you live and your willingness to 'waste your vote'. None of those parties really represented my views, and even if they had (I could live with a "Vote for the Greens and dismiss their lefty hippy woo-spouting lay members as 'fringe elements'" compromise) the First Past the Post system prevented the minor parties from gaining much influence.

If Ash had ended his "Why does the government need to interfere in our private lives when we're not harming anyone" rant with "You should come to the next Libertarian Party conference with me", I might still be with him today. Alas, the first person to present Libertarian philosophy to me did so with it all wrapped up in Freeman woo and almost led me down the rabbit hole. That aside, for reasons I'll detail another time, I was gradually worn down from debating with him (which was like talking to a brick wall) to 'agreeing to disagree' to nodding along pretending I agreed to finally nearly getting sucked in myself.

As for the comment on the R# WRT Meads, I didn't think that Judge Rooke not discussing the reasons for its use and debunking them meant there was any truth to Ash's 'theory'. Just an insight into the mind of a Freeman. It wasn't all about 'free stuff' and 'sticking it to The Man'. A lot of it was 'TPTB (I'm including Leccy Companies under that heading) can do X, Y and Z, so why can't I?" On the face of it, the fact that one must stop when ordered to by a police officer, communicate with utility companies on their terms and abide by laws whose sole purpose appears to be to stop you from having fun is rather unfair.

[Pottapaug1938]

Welcome aboard, Sue!

As Wes note, the UCC applies only to certain commercial transactions within the United States; but many FMOTLers have turned it into a would-be universal get-out-of-almost-anything-free card -- a sort of legal talisman to ward off the dark forces of the Evil Government.

[TheRambler]

Hello Sue,

It’s quite possible that the policeman didn’t have sufficient grounds for issuing a fixed penalty notice for excess speed, however he did have grounds to require the driver to stop due to the manner in which the vehicle was being driven. One could reasonably assume that his intention all along was to give a verbal warning unless other offences came to light. He probably satisfied himself that Ash was properly licensed and the car insured by enquiries to DVLA and the MIB. One could also presume (dangerous I know!) that there were no criminal markers against the vehicle or its keeper.

He had achieved his aim and was probably anxious to get back to the business of persecuting ordinary decent criminals; drug dealers and the like. Ash would trip himself up in future and find himself as a guest in a custody suite somewhere or maybe he would just grow up. Either way he could wait.

Having little “victories” is important to Freemen as it reinforces their sense of belief. What they first seem to lose though is a sense of perspective which if unchecked leads to the familiar delusional characteristics that they tend to display.

What interests me Sue, is whether at any subsequent point you felt that you were being manipulated by Ash to play out by proxy any confrontations?

TheRambler

[TheNewSaint]

As for the comment on the R# WRT Meads, I didn't think that Judge Rooke not discussing the reasons for its use and debunking them meant there was any truth to Ash's 'theory'. Just an insight into the mind of a Freeman.

I didn't mean to imply that you had; I was just responding to the claim. Welcome, and I've enjoyed reading your story.

[notorial dissent]

Sue welcome, a very interesting story, looking forward to more. Thank you.

[sue858]

Not much FMOTL stuff today, just a quick scene-setting needed before I move on to some of my other stories.

First, thank you all for your warm welcome. In response to Rambler:
Your explanation makes a lot of sense. So a lot of Freeman 'victories' are kind of like when people think that antibiotics/herbal medicine/homeopathy can cure colds/flu, because the last time they were suffering from a nasty viral URTI they used their favoured folk remedy and - hey presto! - a few days later, they were all better. That's the kind of answer I was looking for when I posted here. Although I already know that Freemanism is a load of codswallop, I still have some lingering - not so much doubts, but questions about why some things happened.

I sort of felt pressured to play out Ash's Freeman fantasies, but not 'by proxy' - more like as a 'partner in crime'. At one point, Ash suggested that one day we should stand outside the local tube station and hand out leaflets 'educating' members of the public. Luckily we never went through with that idea. There were other ways I became complicit in his shenanigans, but I'll get to those later.

So, to my story. When I met Ash, I was living in a squat. Not because of some pre-existing Freemanist leanings, just because I was a skint student and couldn't afford to live anywhere else. It was quite a decent place for a squat; it had running water and intermittently working electricity (to this day I don't know for sure where the leccy came from, though I suspect my neighbour's bill might have been rather higher than it ought). I didn't 'break in' or anything. It was a room in the basement of one of those houses which used to be a grand Victorian mansion but has since been divided up into bedsits and flats. The landlord hadn't yet got around to doing the basement. I think he started but didn't finish or something. In any case, there were no locks to break; I just walked in and made the place 'my own'. I didn't trash it or anything. If anything, I left it in a better condition than I found it because I managed to cadge a mattress and a working (so long as you remembered to put the belt back on between loads) washing machine from people who would otherwise have thrown them away. Those 'possessions' of mine stayed when I left.

This is to explain why I bit Ash's arm off when he asked me to move in with him, even though it was way too soon in our relationship to do so. It's rather ironic. In a lot of respects, I was living the Freeman dream. No rent/mortgage, free water and electricity, no council tax, etc etc. And it sucked!

I didn't even pay any of that dastardly income tax or national insurance because my job was cash-in-hand. Not through choice, mind. As a student I wasn't entitled to any state benefits and it was the only job I could find. I worked answering phones evening and weekends at a Chicken & Chip shop for £4 an hour. Minimum wage back then for someone my age was £5 per hour, but I was lucky - the other workers there were illegal immigrants, and they only got £3 an hour. I also got free food, but only if I ate it while at work or after clocking off but before going home. The owner didn't want to let me take food home because otherwise I might distribute it among my friends. Since I was skint and didn't have any cooking or refrigeration equipment to speak of (see 'intermittent electricity' and 'squat'), I rarely ate outside of work. In terms of work, only Friday and Saturday evenings were guaranteed (other days, I'd be called at 3pm and told to be there at 5 or 6 if I was needed), so I became used to going half the week without food and then eating a 'Family Bucket' of chicken & chips all at once.

I mention this because, on our second 'date', Ash took me to a restaurant. He expressed astonishment at how I could eat so much yet stay so slim. When I explained about my work and the 'free food'* (*see Ts & Cs). He was horrified. "How could you let them exploit you like that?!" he asked. Back then, I didn't make the mental connection, but if I saw Ash today, I would point out this. In Freemantopia, everyone could be exploited like this. After all, my boss and I were both adults who had mutually agreed to this 'contract'. What business is it of the state to impose such burdens as 'A living wage', 'Proper Health & Safety precautions' and 'Sickness/maternity pay' on workers who would be willing to relinquish such 'rights'?

That's all I have time for today. I'll get back to Freemanism soon, I promise!

[longdog]

In Freemantopia, everyone could be exploited like this.

That is of course the main problem with footlers... They don't think the same rules should apply to them as to others. Nor do any of them seem to make a connection between statute law and the benefits so many of them claim. Try pointing out that the social security system is entirely based on statute law and so are the laws that bring in the taxes that pay their benefits and you won't get an answer... Well... You might get an answer but it won't make any sense and will fly in the face of logic, basic economics and general reality.

PS: Not having a go at benefits claimants... I'm one myself... A council tax and utility bill paying one.

[Burnaby49]

Our self-appointed minister paraclete Belanger is one of the benefit hypocrites. He claims that almost none of Canada's laws are valid or binding against him because only God's laws, those laws specifically included in the King James bible are valid. But he demanded and lived off of welfare for years and, when it was cut off, he went ballistic on a campaign demanding that he get it reinstated as his right. A right bestowed on him by statutory law clearly not included in the King James Bible.

[longdog]

A right bestowed on him by statutory law clearly not included in the King James Bible.

"Blessed are the poor. They shall have the state benefits for their possession" - Jebus, 30AD-ish

[Burnaby49]

I'm actually putting together a posting (next few days) that's a perfect example of the sovereign hypocrisy of swilling away at the government trough while demanding that their rights as sovereigns include not paying taxes to support it. A Canadian married couple who refused to pay taxes because they were not subject to the laws of Canada but had no problem accepting the benefits funded by other people who actually paid their share. Paying taxes would make them slaves when they are sovereign and have absolute rights. Imagine their horror when they found the government was garnisheeing their pensions and had put a lien on their house! I almost wept when I read about this criminal activity carried on by my own government. However a judge put their entire position in context for me with this statement;

The idea that some Canadians, can by personal fiat, simply opt out of their legal obligations while claiming the benefits of the taxation paid by other Canadians is legally untenable.

[Burnaby49]

I'm actually putting together a posting (next few days) that's a perfect example of the sovereign hypocrisy of swilling away at the government trough while demanding that their rights as sovereigns include not paying taxes to support it. A Canadian married couple who refused to pay taxes because they were not subject to the laws of Canada but had no problem accepting the benefits funded by other people who actually paid their share. Paying taxes would make them slaves when they are sovereign and have absolute rights. Imagine their horror when they found the government was garnisheeing their pensions and had put a lien on their house! I almost wept when I read about this criminal activity carried on by my own government. However a judge put their entire position in context for me with this statement;

[5] The remaining allegation of constitutional invalidity fails to stipulate any legal basis for the claim. In the absence of particulars and in the face of a hundred years of jurisprudence upholding the income tax obligations of all Canadians, this assertion is also legally untenable and unsustainable. The idea that some Canadians, can by personal fiat, simply opt out of their legal obligations while claiming the benefits of the taxation paid by other Canadians is legally untenable.

You won't find the quote through Google. It's not yet generally released but I keep ahead of the curve on tax matters.

[sue858]

Good points being made about the hypocrisy of these sovrun types: "I shouldn't have to pay taxes, but I should get all the benefits which are paid for by those taxes." Glad my stories are provoking interesting discussions. Since the discussion is going towards 'Freeman Hypocrisy', 'Electricity' will be the theme of my post today; I'll explain the link between these themes in my story.

I mentioned in passing that I got 'free' (albeit unreliable) electricity. Now, I was under no illusions about the fact that someone, somewhere was paying for it. Maybe one of the electric companies (or rather their customers through marginally higher prices). Probably one of the people living legitimately in the house above me - possibly any one of them, most likely the one in the room directly above where the cables came down. I did consider introducing myself to them and offering to pitch in towards the difference. Heck, if I could've found the Consumer Unit which supplied the basement, I could've installed a meter between me and the CU so there'd have been no arguments about who was responsible for the latest shockingly high bill. But I didn't know how they would've reacted. Maybe they would've accepted my offer of a few bob a week in the spirit it was intended. On the other hand, maybe they would've been jealous that I was living rent-free and resentful of the fact that I'd heretofore been stealing leccy from them; they might've decided to get revenge by grassing me up to the building's owner, then next thing I know I would've been on the streets in search of a new place to live. I felt guilty about not paying my share, but not quite guilty enough to risk eviction by blowing my cover. 'Keeping my cover', by the way, also involved trying not to be seen going in and out of the basement, making as little noise as possible (no wild house parties for me!), stuff like that - I wasn't just looking for an excuse to not pay for my electric!

Ash, however, thought electricity should be free for everyone. He believed that there is some super-secret free energy technology that TPTB are keeping a secret for some poorly-defined reasons. At my college, I was doing a 'Beginner's guide to construction' course where I learnt the (very bare) basics of plumbing and electrics. So there was this time when, after I'd become so sick of listening to his rant that I gave up on trying to explain the second law of thermodynamics ("It was TPTB that taught you that 'law' in the first place!") and said, "OK, maybe there is some free energy machine out there, but I have no idea how to make it." So Ash said to me, "You're almost a qualified electrician (ha!) - have a google around and show me what you find." I knew I'd find nothing but scams, so I just bookmarked a few links to videos of machines which looked legit - at least to someone who thinks that the most likely explanation for a 2-minute YouTube video of some machine running without any apparent external power supply is that some random schmuck has invented a perpetual motion machine.

A few days later, Ash asks me how my 'research' went. I pull up the videos, but he immediately calls BS on them. I gently try to nudge him into realising for himself that there's no such thing as 'Free Energy', but he insists there is. I tell Ash that if he wants to get 'free energy', he should invest in rooftop solar panels or a garden wind turbine. Though I cautioned him that such an installation wouldn't power his whole house, but only a part of it. For example, evacuated tubes would just about give him hot water; a small wind turbine would just about cover his lighting needs etc. It would also require an upfront investment of at least 4 figures, if not 5. He might be able to get a loan to cover part of the setup costs, but not all of them. He reacted to the prospect of spending thousands of pounds in much the way you'd expect a Freeman to.

"Well," I said to him, "Even if the Electric Company was producing most of their energy from renewable sources as opposed to fossil fuels, they would still have had to pay incredibly high startup costs. How would you propose they cover the cost of that initial outlay?" Ash insisted that the Electric Company need not invest exorbitant sums in wind or solar or hydro; they could build a large version of the Super Secret Free Energy Machine [TM]. I pointed out that, even if such a machine existed, it would still require significant resources to build in the first place. It would also require ongoing maintenance. Although its maintenance costs would be much lower than a conventional power station's, they wouldn't be nil. Even if the only maintenance an SSFEM needed was an annual once-over and the occasional squirt of WD40, that would still cost about £50 a year. Who should pay that? You'd also still have to cover the costs of distributing that electricity somehow. Those pylons don't pull themselves back up after a bad storm, y'know. Ash countered with "Tesla invented an SSFEM which can also distribute electricity through the air." Now, Wireless Power Transfer isn't total BS, but its real-life applications are limited; 'Transferring power from a faraway large SSFEM to your energy-sucking house' is, as far as I can tell, outside those limits. There would also still be setup and maintenance costs associated with such a method of distribution, though I couldn't speak to the relative costs of air vs wire distribution methods.

Ironically, Ash also subscribed to the 'Phone masts are giving everyone cancer' theory. Since those two topics were discussed at different times, I never saw the contradiction till now. But I guess his response would've been that since power lines give everyone cancer too, at least with air distribution the hazard would be spread evenly (and therefore more thinly) rather than unfairly falling mostly on those living near power lines. If things were the other way around - if electricity were currently all air-distributed - Ash would probably wish that a cable method of distribution were used instead, since then at least one could avoid getting too close to the 'danger'. And if someone wants to live near a pylon, well, that's their lookout.

But I digress. "Say you somehow managed to make your own SSFEM." I asked. "Would you be willing to give away half the energy it produces to your next-door neighbour? How about keeping only 10% for yourself - you could power your whole street with the remainder!" Well, the only thing that gets a Freeman riled up more than spending money is the idea of spending money for someone else's benefit. He sputtered about for a bit trying to explain why the electric company should be willing to let him have free electricity when Ash would never in a million years want to pay for an SSFEM for his neighbours. He eventually settled on "Because they're keeping their FEM secret. If only they would release the blueprints, everyone would be able to make their own, and then there'd be no need to distribute the energy; you'd just make and use your own. But because they're keeping the FEM plans a secret to maintain their profitable monopoly, I'm morally justified in trying to rip them off."

From reading other threads on here, it seems Ash is not alone in being in the FMOTL/Free Energy overlap. There was a thread about how WeRe Bank offered a discount on some FEM scam. I guess that stems from the need of such people to believe that everything in life is (or should be) free. It begs the question though as to why FMOTL feel the need to A4V their electric bills when, with a trip to the local scrapyard and a little elbow grease, they should be able to make their own free leccy in no time. Well, aside from SSFEM being BS, 'a little elbow grease' is a lot more than the typical Freeman is willing to exert, so there's that.

Apologies for the rambling, disorganised and TL;DR nature of my posts. Like I said, I'm remembering stuff that happened years ago and would quickly lose my train of thought if I tried to properly edit myself. I can't remember what order stuff happened in so I won't be able to do 'chronological order' but I'll try to stick to a general theme with each post. I might go off on tangents and need to come back to some topics though, because a lot of things are jogging my memory about other stuff and so on. I might change my mind based on your responses, but tomorrow I plan to post on 'Water-Powered Cars' and 'Ash fiddles his meter'.

[SteveUK]

Welcome, and don't apologise.

That's the things with footlers, all the various conspiracy sects eventually start to merge. You might have a starter of common law, but then perhaps 5G cancer as a main and birth bonds for desert. Settle the bill with a promissory note and voila.

My personal thought, based on the 2 footlers I sort of know, is that it's a way of converting your bad life choices into other people's fault. I'm not saying that implies to all of course.