Gardai, Government, Privately owned Corporations. Enslavement

robtri

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if your name is written in all capitals then thats the Strawman

and if its not?? like on the fine i post(again apologies for bad quality)

any fine i recieved on the road side was not written in all capitals.. or it didnt have a MR or other title... can you explain that..

as i said earlier i have very limited understanding of strawmen

TalkieWalkie

robtri wrote: »

and if its not?? like on the fine i post(again apologies for bad quality)

any fine i recieved on the road side was not written in all capitals.. or it didnt have a MR or other title... can you explain that..

as i said earlier i have very limited understanding of strawmen

If you recieved a fine on the roadside, you most likely produced your license, meaning you automatically contracted.

Di0genes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if your name is written in all capitals then thats the Strawman

Good grief what next the ticket is invalid because they used sans serif font?

Mahatma coat

Essentially yes, Many cases are dismissed through errors in paperwork

Di0genes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Essentially yes, Many cases are dismissed through errors in paperwork

Thats a complete and total non sequitur MC, and totally different argument, typical of you. Your name is your name whether it is typed all caps, in times new roman or any other way.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats a complete and total non sequitur MC, and totally different argument, typical of you. Your name is your name whether it is typed all caps, in times new roman or any other way.

But you are not your name, you are you. Your name is a seperate entity.

Scarab80

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

But you are not your name, you are you. Your name is a seperate entity.

And you were driving the car, not your name, therefore you are liable.

TalkieWalkie

Scarab80 wrote: »

And you were driving the car, not your name, therefore you are liable.

Actually no, your license was issued to your strawman, not your flesh and blood.

GerardKeating

studiorat wrote: »

Still no proof of this statment...

You weren't seriously expecting actually facts or proof ?

Pot Noodle =

Where do i sign up

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Actually no, your license was issued to your strawman, not your flesh and blood.

so who actually sat the test? You? Or did Worzel Gummidge? You do even remember the test? The fact you had to provide proof of identification sign the form.

This suggestion is insanely absurd. The logic of the alternative argument presented by TW isn't even explained.

PS ohhhhhh weren't I mean to you and weren't you ignoring me?

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

so who actually sat the test? You? Or did Worzel Gummidge? You do even remember the test? The fact you had to provide proof of identification sign the form.

This suggestion is insanely absurd. The logic of the alternative argument presented by TW isn't even explained.

PS ohhhhhh weren't I mean to you and weren't you ignoring me?

What test ?

Ha Ha, It's a new day, I don't hold grudges. Love the worzel comment lmfao..



Actually it reffers more to the strawman (scarecrow) from the wizard of oz..

As Dorothy takes her first step onto the yellow brick road, the lyrics are "With, without, who can deny, that's what the fighting's all about." Well, The Wizard of Oz as a story is an expansive metaphor for the debate in the 1896 elections over using the Gold Standard as the measure for currency. The Scarecrow represents dumb farmers, the tinman is a heartless industrial worker, the lion is a loud but impotent William Jennings Bryan, the Wizard is the US President, McKinley and Emerald City is Washington D.C. which is entirely green - money based.

But anyway, the fighting is over Gold, which of course, is represented by the Yellow Brick Road!
Dorothy's Ruby Slippers were silver in the original story, but because "ruby" looked so good in technicolor, they went with that. Either way, still symbolic of money. [The character definitions according to this theory are as follows:] Dorthy as "Traditional American Values"... Toto as "the Prohibitonist party, also called the Teetotalers"... Munchkins as "Citizens of the East"... the Wicked Witch of the East as "Grover Cleveland"... Wicked Witch of the West as "William McKinley" (which I think David Carpenter (above) listed as the Wizard ... the Wizard as "Marcus Alonzo Hanna, chairman of the Republican Party"... and Oz being the abbreviation for "Ounce of Gold.

The song Money is very significant, which begins just as Dorothy enters Oz. This is the scene where she first encounters the Yellow Brick Road and the ruby slippers. In Baum's book, the slippers were silver. One popular interpretation, published by Henry M. Littlefield in 1964, of Baum's The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz is that the story is a parable concerning populism in the United States and the effects of US monetary policy on the common man. The theory includes the proposals that the Yellow Brick Road represents the gold standard and the silver shoes represent the silver standard. The timing of the song, its subject matter and the direct parallel to the scene and Littlefield's theory are uncanny.

Scarab80

Just a few judge's reactions to various "Freeman defences"

http://www.adl.org/MWD/suss4.asp

TalkieWalkie

Scarab80 wrote: »

Just a few judge's reactions to various "Freeman defences"

http://www.adl.org/MWD/suss4.asp

Fascinating stuff, really :eek: Very unreadable. I'll try again when I find my calculator.

Judgs (actors in gowns and wigs but ill call them judges for arguements sake) are tricky f*uckers. They don't like folk standing up for their rights, they try to make examples of them. Not because folk are wrong, but because they don't want the word spreading.
Usually judges will leave these freeman cases to the end of the day, when few other "laymen" are around, then throw the case out or not.

Scarab80

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Fascinating stuff, really :eek: Very unreadable. I'll try again when I find my calculator.

I know it's not the most inspired formatting I've ever seen.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Judgs (actors in gowns and wigs but ill call them judges for arguements sake) are tricky f*uckers. They don't like folk standing up for their rights, they try to make examples of them. Not because folk are wrong, but because they don't want the word spreading.
Usually judges will leave these freeman cases to the end of the day, when few other "laymen" are around, then throw the case out or not.

Then appeal the case to a higher court, if freeman is a valid defense why has it never got to supreme court?

Scarab80

Tried to pull out some extracts for you...

Objections to name printed in block letters (all-caps):
("The court finds Jaeger’s arguments concerning capitalization otherwise specious. The court routinely capitalizes the names of all parties before this court in all matters, civil and criminal, without any regard to their corporate or individual status...."; crank's reference to a law dictionary's definition of "capitalize" -- as a financial term -- was completely misdirected);

(court explicitly found that perp was the same person as his name typed in all-caps and without punctuation); ("claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons. ... completely without merit, patently frivolous, and will be rejected without expending any more of this court's resources")

(tried to refuse all pleadings and court papers that spelled his name in all caps and without intervening punctuation);

("Plaintiff's response ... consists of nothing more than a protest against the capitalization of his name in the caption. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.");

(tax evasion defendant's refusal to read court papers that capitalized his name and his other misbehavior justified the court refusing to reduce the his sentence)

(tax evader complained of "his name being in capital letters in a prior order issued by this Court and then ... makes an incorrect reference to this form of using all capital letters as being proper only in reference to corporate entities. This is an incorrect statement of the law and ... is illustrative of [his] continued harassing and frivolous behavior." and fined under Rule 11)

(claimed that name on indictment is not him but a "fictitious" person because all-caps, "this contention is baseless.")

(tried to sue judge for violating his civil rights by having his name printed in court documents in a way other than the "appellation" this crank prefers, crank reacted by refusing to respond to prosecution's complaint whereupon the judge entered a Not Guilty plea on his behalf; suit against judge dismissed) ;

("I believe that not only is this case subject to dismissal .... but it is also subject to sanctions under Rule 11. Making a distinction between all-capital letters and capital and small letters is frivolous." litigant tried to deny validity of traffic ticket because it printed the court's name in all-caps)

{In a Missouri arraignment in 1996, "one of the 'freemen' stood up to announce that ... he refused to recognize anything but his 'full Christian name' [evidently not printed in all caps and with some strange punctuation]. This resulted in an unusual scene: An arrest warrant was issued and executed for the defendant's failure to appear at his arraignment even though he was physically present in the courtroom."

TalkieWalkie

Scarab80 wrote: »

Tried to pull out some extracts for you...

Objections to name printed in block letters (all-caps):
("The court finds Jaeger’s arguments concerning capitalization otherwise specious. The court routinely capitalizes the names of all parties before this court in all matters, civil and criminal, without any regard to their corporate or individual status...."; crank's reference to a law dictionary's definition of "capitalize" -- as a financial term -- was completely misdirected);

(court explicitly found that perp was the same person as his name typed in all-caps and without punctuation); ("claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons. ... completely without merit, patently frivolous, and will be rejected without expending any more of this court's resources")

(tried to refuse all pleadings and court papers that spelled his name in all caps and without intervening punctuation);

("Plaintiff's response ... consists of nothing more than a protest against the capitalization of his name in the caption. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.");

(tax evasion defendant's refusal to read court papers that capitalized his name and his other misbehavior justified the court refusing to reduce the his sentence)

(tax evader complained of "his name being in capital letters in a prior order issued by this Court and then ... makes an incorrect reference to this form of using all capital letters as being proper only in reference to corporate entities. This is an incorrect statement of the law and ... is illustrative of [his] continued harassing and frivolous behavior." and fined under Rule 11)

(claimed that name on indictment is not him but a "fictitious" person because all-caps, "this contention is baseless.")

(tried to sue judge for violating his civil rights by having his name printed in court documents in a way other than the "appellation" this crank prefers, crank reacted by refusing to respond to prosecution's complaint whereupon the judge entered a Not Guilty plea on his behalf; suit against judge dismissed) ;

("I believe that not only is this case subject to dismissal .... but it is also subject to sanctions under Rule 11. Making a distinction between all-capital letters and capital and small letters is frivolous." litigant tried to deny validity of traffic ticket because it printed the court's name in all-caps)

{In a Missouri arraignment in 1996, "one of the 'freemen' stood up to announce that ... he refused to recognize anything but his 'full Christian name' [evidently not printed in all caps and with some strange punctuation]. This resulted in an unusual scene: An arrest warrant was issued and executed for the defendant's failure to appear at his arraignment even though he was physically present in the courtroom."

Freemen do get sentanced, no-one will deny that. Considering you are up against a corporation, "judges" with years of experience in court. It's difficult not to contract. Many freemen new to the idea go to court thinking they know it all end up in a cell. The one's who win, it doesnt usually get reported for obvious reasons. Take a look at this clip...
#Notice how the "judge" completely ignores the "defendants" rights. It goes to show the absolute supression that goes on in court. Keeping in mind the "judge" is supposed to be there to make sure YOU get a fair trial. Is it any wonder freemen often get sent down ? Or anyone else for that matter.. ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6IS-edTEH4

Mahatma coat

Oh an ADL Link, I'll bet thats fair balanced and impartial

Article Headline wrote:

Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments

Oh well Shouldnt have expected much, we all know the Jews are in on it anyway;)

TalkieWalkie

phantom_lord wrote: »

That's interesting because i did a few searches myself on the company registration office http://www.cro.ie and didn't find any of these institutions

Hi honey, welcome back, I missed you.

Given your lack of initiative, I'll help you out this once..

Try http://www.dnb.com/us/

On the right hand side from the drop down menu, select Ireland
Underneath that, type "Garda" or corporation or your choice.

Here is a direct link to the result i got just now...
https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/ePlatform/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=10001&catalogId=70001&busName=garda&state=&country=IE&cm_mmc=dnb*home*gws*lookup

It's weird. It turns up a list of corporations or businesses.

But let's not let that detour a good skeppie..

EDIT: i just realise these direct links are supplied on the opening post. How ignorant of me.

EDIT 2 : Why would you look at CRO ? Do you think if it's on that site or now would be proof enough, or not for you ?

Mahatma coat

Where does the bond market fall in te trading categories

mugs1

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Hi honey, welcome back, I missed you.

Given your lack of initiative, I'll help you out this once..

Try http://www.dnb.com/us/

On the right hand side from the drop down menu, select Ireland
Underneath that, type "Garda" or corporation or your choice.

Here is a direct link to the result i got just now...
https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/ePlatform/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=10001&catalogId=70001&busName=garda&state=&country=IE&cm_mmc=dnb*home*gws*lookup

It's weird. It turns up a list of corporations or businesses.

But let's not let that detour a good skeppie..

EDIT: i just realise these direct links are supplied on the opening post. How ignorant of me.

EDIT 2 : Why would you look at CRO ? Do you think if it's on that site or now would be proof enough, or not for you ?

Is that your only source all the links on the OP are from the same site DnB

It looks like a credit report company, Is it possible it could be using some kinda source like a yellow pages or something, and just pulls names and addresses of buisness and oganizations both public and private, and just doesn't filter them?

TalkieWalkie

mugs1 wrote: »

Is that your only source all the links on the OP are from the same site DnB

It looks like a credit report company, Is it possible it could be using some kinda source like a yellow pages or something, and just pulls names and addresses of buisness and oganizations both public and private, and just doesn't filter them?

I clicked on page 6 instead of last page (i think). Thought phantom lord was last comment posted :rolleyes:

Anyway, I agree it's not the most damning evidence in the world. But even without that evidence, it doesn't take a genius to see that it is truth. I mean, come on, look at the system..

Do you think they place speed timits to save your life ? or to profit and protect their investment ?

Do they enforce these laws because they think it's the right thing to do ?

We all know how these f*cks operate. The don't give two f*ucks about you or me, as long as you are just about healthy enough to work and pay taxes is enough for them.

Do they want you to flourish ? be all that you can ? Why do they make living so difficult for all of us ? Why is education so sh*t ? Why are they dumbing ppl down ? Why do they never answer our questions ? Why are we in so much debth ? Why don't they defend us ? Who's side are they on ?
Do they fulfill their promises when the get into power ? Do they f*uck everything up ? Are they gangsters ? Do they rob the system ? Take advantage ? Do they drive in expensive cars ? the list goes on and on and on.

Torakx

Just to clarify on some points made earlier as i was reading through the thread.
On the issue of freemen versus crime and acts within the law.
These acts are considered part of law when the "person" consents to represent their company and contract(to do bussiness).
So these traffic offences are not crimes if the man/woman does not consent to contract and substanciates there is no subject juristiction linking them to anything they are discussing(possibly contracting to).
Basically its a crime if you decide to consent to it.Otherwise it isnt lawfully a crime, lawfully aka non bussiness just basic human flesh and blood.
Hope that clears up a little on some of the ideas used today when facing court hearings.Its what you are seeing in these videos.Judges trying to gain the upper hand symbolically like an honour system or whos the boss childish game back and forth to gain subject jurisdiction.

namloc1980

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Hi honey, welcome back, I missed you.

Given your lack of initiative, I'll help you out this once..

Try http://www.dnb.com/us/

On the right hand side from the drop down menu, select Ireland
Underneath that, type "Garda" or corporation or your choice.

Here is a direct link to the result i got just now...
https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/ePlatform/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=10001&catalogId=70001&busName=garda&state=&country=IE&cm_mmc=dnb*home*gws*lookup

It's weird. It turns up a list of corporations or businesses.

But let's not let that detour a good skeppie..

EDIT: i just realise these direct links are supplied on the opening post. How ignorant of me.

EDIT 2 : Why would you look at CRO ? Do you think if it's on that site or now would be proof enough, or not for you ?

So can you now tell us which stock exchange the Gardai and other Irish public institutions trade on?? Hers's a little reminder of your claim in case you forgot.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It turns out that the Irish Government and the Gardai Siochana and all other Irish institutions are privately owned corporations who trade for profit on the stock exchange.

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

If you recieved a fine on the roadside, you most likely produced your license, meaning you automatically contracted.

Nope it wasnt required at time to produce, so i didnt....

this really makes a laugh of your strawman theory... seriously
as i said i dont know a lot about it...
but you a few others go on about Capital letters and a MR.... needed to contract... nope not needed i have been fined a lot and none of that was used ( i drove a lot of fast cars in my day)

So really does throw out your theory on strawmen and freedom...

robtri

Torakx wrote: »

Just to clarify on some points made earlier as i was reading through the thread.
On the issue of freemen versus crime and acts within the law.
These acts are considered part of law when the "person" consents to represent their company and contract(to do bussiness).
So these traffic offences are not crimes if the man/woman does not consent to contract and substanciates there is no subject juristiction linking them to anything they are discussing(possibly contracting to).
Basically its a crime if you decide to consent to it.Otherwise it isnt lawfully a crime, lawfully aka non bussiness just basic human flesh and blood.
Hope that clears up a little on some of the ideas used today when facing court hearings.Its what you are seeing in these videos.Judges trying to gain the upper hand symbolically like an honour system or whos the boss childish game back and forth to gain subject jurisdiction.

Great can you show me in common law where this is stated??????
or actually in any law where this is stated, cause from what i can see it is BS...

GerardKeating

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It's weird. It turns up a list of corporations or businesses.

So if this listing is "corporations or businesses", then some of those listed are corporations and some are not...

TalkieWalkie

namloc1980 wrote: »

So can you now tell us which stock exchange the Gardai and other Irish public institutions trade on?? Hers's a little reminder of your claim in case you forgot.

Well if I had concrete proof of that, I wouldn't have started this thread in the conspiracy theories forum.
I am still looking into it as im sure others are. Lets see what turns up, it's interesting, so stop whining

IrelandSpirit

If it's true that our birth certificates (not the certified copies we're given) are printed on bond paper, would that be proof enough of the corporate nature of our so-called countries?

digme

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

If it's true that our birth certificates (not the certified copies we're given) are printed on bond paper, would that be proof enough of the corporate nature of our so-called countries?

Is it true though?