#1

Apparently:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0811/1224302232246.html

5 people have thanked this post
#2

That made me laugh.

#3

About time they stamped on this freeman bull****

27 people have thanked this post
aacs Registered User
#4

It's a really interesting and funny case. This Mr. Sludds has just invited wrath of judge in his case. lol

2 people have thanked this post
source Registered User
#5

I love it, when will these loonies learn that this freeman crap doesn't work. Fair play to the judge for sticking him in prison, but he should have been sent to a mental hospital.

13 people have thanked this post
Robbo Witchfinder General
#6

I feel this freeman things going to get worse before it gets better, I've noticed posters all around Galway this week for an event promoted by that "Blank of Ireland" guy. He's got a bus pimped out with various nonsense. I'd assume that there's no tax, insurance or licence on the bus, otherwise he hasn't the stones to carry through with his ideas.

The posters are along the lines of "Clear all your debts now! There's no contract!".

mcmoustache Registered User
#7

A fiend of mine is into this rubbish and I really don't understand how he can swallow it. He quotes nonsense about admiralty law, contracts, new definitions of common words such as "understand" and "person" and seems to think that the current legal system is a work of fiction. It's like someone being convinced that there is no such thing as gravity. Discussing this with him gets nowhere.

Coincidentally, he's also into and believes a lot of the common conspiracy theories. There might be a connection there. He's from Enniscorthy too.

I'm delighted that the judge did what he did. People trying that nonsense need some sense knocked into them and the ironic nature of this is the icing on the cake. I can't wait to tell him of this case.

11 people have thanked this post
#8

mcmoustache said:
A fiend of mine is...


Your subconscious is telling you something.

18 people have thanked this post
#9

One thing I don't get about this is why he went to court. I very much doubt the summons gave his name as "Bobby of tha family Sludds" so by appearing in court he is effectively accepting his identity as Bobby Sludds. It doesn't seem well thought through on his part.

8 people have thanked this post
nuac Moderator
#10

David Anderson is an experienced judge. He dealt with this man appropriately.

This freeman stuff is utter nonesense.

3 people have thanked this post
blueythebear Registered User
#11

Seanbeag1 said:
One thing I don't get about this is why he went to court. I very much doubt the summons gave his name as "Bobby of tha family Sludds" so by appearing in court he is effectively accepting his identity as Bobby Sludds. It doesn't seem well thought through on his part.



I think that they believe that the summons compells his birth certificate to attend and not the person themselves or something like that. This freeman thing is complete nonsense. I am delighted that he got put in jail and fair play to the judge who got it spot on. I'd love to see what happens the next return date.

If anyone knows the next return date, I'd love to know...

4 people have thanked this post
mcmoustache Registered User
#12

Seanbeag1 said:
About time they stamped on this freeman bull****


Has anyone tried to pull that nonsense on yourself in the line of duty?

If so, and if you're able to say, how did it work out?

bath handle Banned
#13

nuac said:
David Andrews is an experienced judge. He dealt with this man appropriately.

This freeman stuff is utter nonesense.

David Andrews is not a judge, so he could not have dealt with it.
It appeards the individual in question failed to answer a summons last year and was probably appearing on foot of a bench warrant.

johnnyskeleton Moderate
#14

Seanbeag1 said:
One thing I don't get about this is why he went to court. I very much doubt the summons gave his name as "Bobby of tha family Sludds" so by appearing in court he is effectively accepting his identity as Bobby Sludds. It doesn't seem well thought through on his part.


+1.

Also, if the judge accepts that the person who stood up when the case was called was not the person named in the summons, shouldn't the judge have just proceeded to convict and fine Bobby Sludds in his absence because he didn't appear in court and it is a minor offence?

I imagine a night or two in the cells will soften his cough, but he could equally bring an Article 40 application and, if successful on some point or other, he will most likely claim that freemanism "worked".

#15

johnnyskeleton said:
+1.

Also, if the judge accepts that the person who stood up when the case was called was not the person named in the summons, shouldn't the judge have just proceeded to convict and fine Bobby Sludds in his absence because he didn't appear in court and it is a minor offence?

I imagine a night or two in the cells will soften his cough, but he could equally bring an Article 40 application and, if successful on some point or other, he will most likely claim that freemanism "worked".


Of the same view, as in he deserved it for acting the maggot, but has reasonable prospects of being released on a habeas corpus application.

The Supreme Court has said that the District Court's power to remand a person in custody should never be used as a form of punitive sanction.

He was however in contempt of court given his back answering to the judge. He should have been asked to enter a plea, if he refused to a not guilty plea should have been entered, and trial should have proceeded. If the state made its case he could be convicted and fine/imprisoned appropriately.

And on top of the penalties for the road traffic offences, the district judge should have immediately sentenced him for some small period in custody for contempt if he back answered the judge as the press release seemed to say he did.

1 person has thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!