did freeman beat parking ticket?

WildOscar

http://tirnasaor.com/forum/topics/conditionally-accepting-an?id=3214356%3ATopic%3A27112&page=2#comments

Can anyone explain why the above seems to have been successful? My understanding is the freeman argument is spurious.

Reloc8

All that happened is that he refused to pay the initial ticket.

They treated it as an appeal against the ticket and rejected it.

He's now sitting around waiting for solicitors correspondence concerning it.

Which is funny because all he'll get is a summons to court.

He hasn't beaten anything.

(edit : he can bang on about it in court as long as he wants. I have an unfortunate feeling someone will fail to hand into court the relevant bye-law - which is a required proof - or something leading to a dismissal and then more of this kind of bollox 'I beat a parking ticket because I'm a freeman now who shall I kill!!'...)

WildOscar

Reloc8 wrote: »

All that happened is that he refused to pay the initial ticket.

They treated it as an appeal against the ticket and rejected it.

He's now sitting around waiting for solicitors correspondence concerning it.

Which is funny because all he'll get is a summons to court.

He hasn't beaten anything.

(edit : he can bang on about it in court as long as he wants. I have an unfortunate feeling someone will fail to hand into court the relevant bye-law - which is a required proof - or something leading to a dismissal and then more of this kind of bollox 'I'm a freeman because I beat a parking ticket!!'...)

he has had solicitors letter but that was a year ago

I have an unfortunate feeling someone will fail to hand into court the relevant bye-law - which is a required proof - or something leading to a dismissal

you mean he will get off but not for the reason he thinks? i wondered did they drop it because they did not want the publicity and have the hassle of other people doing it

Reloc8

WildOscar wrote: »

he has had solicitors letter but that was a year ago

Sorry I read it again and I see that he did get a letter to which he responded.

Well, bear in mind that you're relying on him to be complete and accurate as regards what happened. Would you expect to post back into that site with a message saying 'I've just been done in court the feckers' ?

WildOscar wrote: »

you mean he will get off but not for the reason he thinks? i wondered did they drop it because they did not want the publicity and have the hassle of other people doing it

No that's not what I said I pointed out the possibility of him beating it for technical reasons and attributing this to his freeman stance.

They may not have dropped it at all.

WildOscar

Well, bear in mind that you're relying on him to be complete and accurate as regards what happened. Would you expect to post back into that site with a message saying 'I've just been done in court the feckers' ?

I don't know, should be easy to establish if they followed it up. If they didn't there must be a reason. Would they leave it over a year?

No that's not what I said I pointed out the possibility of him beating it for technical reasons and attributing this to his freeman stance.

that is what i meant I did not put it very well

kaiser sauze

This is just more Tír na Saor nonsense. This is the same crowd that tell you that you can walk away from a mortgage liability and are now annoyed that Wikileaks have stolen their thunder.

WildOscar

kaiser sauze wrote: »

This is just more Tír na Saor nonsense. This is the same crowd that tell you that you can walk away from a mortgage liability and are now annoyed that Wikileaks have stolen their thunder.

in his latest post he is not sure why they did not come back to him think it may have been error in solicitor letter

Our man in Havana

Loons the lot of them.

Wolfe Tone

Ive had some discussions with one of the lads involved with that, smart guy, aint a loon. Have a wander around the site it is quite interesting to say the least.

kaiser sauze

WildOscar wrote: »

in his latest post he is not sure why they did not come back to him think it may have been error in solicitor letter

In other words, another inconclusive claim made on TnS. :rolleyes:

shaneybaby

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ive had some discussions with one of the lads involved with that, smart guy, aint a loon. Have a wander around the site it is quite interesting to say the least.

He may be smart but their grasp of some basic areas of law (the get out of bank of ireland book is stuffed with them, contract not valid cause it's not in blue pen??) is going to be their downfall. Admirably indeed that they actually got up off their asses and are doing something but a few people have posted on their site with some pointers where they are going wrong and they only got shouted down.

seamus

The "Freeman" stuff is all complete nonsense.

They either "get off" because they think they've beaten the system when in reality a more serious hearing is on the way, or because they've spent so long frustrating the system that someone screws up and it's struck out.

They've never won a case on the basis of their belief.

phantom_lord

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ive had some discussions with one of the lads involved with that, smart guy, aint a loon. Have a wander around the site it is quite interesting to say the least.

Seriously no. It's just nonsense for conspiracy theorists. Has absolutely no basis.

MagicSean

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ive had some discussions with one of the lads involved with that, smart guy, aint a loon. Have a wander around the site it is quite interesting to say the least.

There's a big difference btween being smart and being sane.

Wolfe Tone

He never struck me as being insane :L

phantom_lord

It's a reasonable assumption to make about anyone that seriously espouses freeman theory.

Wolfe Tone

phantom_lord wrote: »

It's a reasonable assumption to make about anyone that seriously espouses freeman theory.

I would disagree. Just have a different viewpoint is all.

I don't subscribe to it myself though.

drkpower

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I would disagree. Just have a different viewpoint is all.

I don't subscribe to it myself though.

.....eh no..... it isnt a 'different viewpoint'. Unless you consider my belief that i can refuse to pay a shopkeeper for a mars bar is a 'viewpoint' rather than just plain wrong.

These freeman loons are asserting a specific legal argument; it either flies in the language of law or it doesnt. And it doesnt. It is incredibly simple.

phantom_lord

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I would disagree. Just have a different viewpoint is all.

I don't subscribe to it myself though.

Careful now, I might end up calling you delusional if you keep this up!

Wolfe Tone

Haha! Fair enough! I just wouldn't call then insane though, thats a bit insulting.

MagicSean

I don't read too much of their stuff but my understanding of their ethos is that the law can't apply to you if you don't agree to let it. they refer to this agreement as a contract. They always remind me of another theory i once heard. If you hide your head under the blanket the boogeyman can't get you.

WildOscar

k_mac wrote: »

I don't read too much of their stuff but my understanding of their ethos is that the law can't apply to you if you don't agree to let it. they refer to this agreement as a contract. They always remind me of another theory i once heard. If you hide your head under the blanket the boogeyman can't get you.

lol very good. but seriously is there anything to this claim about the bill of rights and it being illegal to fine you if you have not been to court. I do not understand it very well

Amazotheamazing

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Haha! Fair enough! I just wouldn't call then insane though, thats a bit insulting.

I don't think it's insulting if it's a pretty fair assessment of them.

WildOscar

WildOscar wrote: »

lol very good. but seriously is there anything to this claim about the bill of rights and it being illegal to fine you if you have not been to court. I do not understand it very well

The Bill of Rights, if it did apply here, would not have survived the 1937 Constitution. It only allows Protestants to carry arms, it prevents a standing army being kept outside of wartime, it only allows landowners to be jurors etc.

None of these would withstand Constitutional examination and the Bill would fall.

Besides that technical point the whole thing is thoroughly silly.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

The "Freeman" stuff is all complete nonsense.

They either "get off" because they think they've beaten the system when in reality a more serious hearing is on the way, or because they've spent so long frustrating the system that someone screws up and it's struck out.

They've never won a case on the basis of their belief.

This is a good one:

http://tirnasaor.com/forum/topics/breach-of-the-peace

Guy charged with section 24 of the public order act for failing to give his name. His argument was that the garda identified a breach of section 4 as the basis for the demand to his mate, but not to him.

He kept talking about his various court dates and how he was going to beat the system. His last post is that he was in Swords district court on the 29th November, then nothing further.

I guess Judge Blake is not a fan of the freemen of Ireland?

not even wrong

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is a good one:

http://tirnasaor.com/forum/topics/breach-of-the-peace

Guy charged with section 24 of the public order act for failing to give his name. His argument was that the garda identified a breach of section 4 as the basis for the demand to his mate, but not to him.

He kept talking about his various court dates and how he was going to beat the system. His last post is that he was in Swords district court on the 29th November, then nothing further.

I guess Judge Blake is not a fan of the freemen of Ireland?

With this I was arrested under section 24 of the 1994 public order act no relevant provisions and taking to Balbriggan GARDA station.

When I arrived in Balbriggan GARDA station I treated the GARDA in a manor in witch I was received.

Next day I was taking to Swords COURT HOUSE and remanded in custody to Clover Hill prison with 3 more charges added to the warrant, where I spent a week till I got HIGH COURT BAIL.

So he's already spent a week in jail where someone else would have just been told to move on, yeah sounds like he really beat the system there.

kadman

I dont know whether the freemen are a bunch of loons or not, because I have not studied their beliefs in depth.

But if I believed them to be incorrect in their philosophy, I would go over to the site, and engage them in intelligent debate on the topic in question. Instead of generalising on what I think they are, or are not.

Only a fool would offer an opinion on a subject , that they have never bothered to research. Engage them, it should be easy to prove how mistaken they are. Or will it.

No I am not a professed freeman.:)

kadman

BoredGuy

You people should stop wasting your time enquiring about freemen and the technologies they use.
the government has your best interests at heart; yes to lisbon is yes to jobs. Nama will make a profit. The bankers will be held accountable for what they've done and face the full rigours of the law as the law applies equally to them as it does the common man. people in power would never seek to decieve the common man.
serfdom is the natural state of a contented population and the order of things that your children and grandchildren should follow.
Obviously anything that contradicts the status quo is spurious, there's no real need to examine your situation when you can just go along with what you're told and how everyone else seems to do things.
You're all free; to do what your told. Go back to sleep Ireland, your government is in control. There is no bigger picture than the hum-drum of your daily grind. Go back to sleep Ireland, x-factor is on..

MagicSean

kadman wrote: »

I dont know whether the freemen are a bunch of loons or not, because I have not studied their beliefs in depth.

But if I believed them to be incorrect in their philosophy, I would go over to the site, and engage them in intelligent debate on the topic in question. Instead of generalising on what I think they are, or are not.

Only a fool would offer an opinion on a subject , that they have never bothered to research. Engage them, it should be easy to prove how mistaken they are. Or will it.

No I am not a professed freeman.:)

kadman

Intelligent debate must be two sided. Using their site would be akin to talking to a wall.

BoredGuy wrote: »

You people should stop wasting your time enquiring about freemen and the technologies they use.
the government has your best interests at heart; yes to lisbon is yes to jobs. Nama will make a profit. The bankers will be held accountable for what they've done and face the full rigours of the law as the law applies equally to them as it does the common man. people in power would never seek to decieve the common man.
serfdom is the natural state of a contented population and the order of things that your children and grandchildren should follow.
Obviously anything that contradicts the status quo is spurious, there's no real need to examine your situation when you can just go along with what you're told and how everyone else seems to do things.
You're all free; to do what your told. Go back to sleep Ireland, your government is in control. There is no bigger picture than the hum-drum of your daily grind. Go back to sleep Ireland, x-factor is on..

You're a week too late. It's over.

kadman

k_mac wrote: »

Intelligent debate must be two sided. Using their site would be akin to talking to a wall.

.

Well I suppose the same can be said here. How do you have an intelligent debate on the issues of being a freeman...............without talking to one.

You are prejudging what will happen on their site, with out even engaging in a debate.I dont know how any one can discuss a topic, if you have already formed an opinion on it.

kadman

MagicSean

kadman wrote: »

Well I suppose the same can be said here. How do you have an intelligent debate on the issues of being a freeman...............without talking to one.

You are prejudging what will happen on their site, with out even engaging in a debate.I dont know how any one can discuss a topic, if you have already fomed an opinion on it.

kadman

I've read plenty from their site and seen some of the videos of them in action. I've also often visited their sister site at indymedia where any dissenting comments are promptly deleted.

kadman

k_mac wrote: »

I've read plenty from their site and seen some of the videos of them in action. I've also often visited their sister site at indymedia where any dissenting comments are promptly deleted.

Fair enough. Any chance of a link to that.

kadman

MagicSean

kadman wrote: »

Fair enough. Any chance of a link to that.

kadman

To which?

Amazotheamazing

kadman wrote: »

Well I suppose the same can be said here. How do you have an intelligent debate on the issues of being a freeman...............without talking to one.

You are prejudging what will happen on their site, with out even engaging in a debate.I dont know how any one can discuss a topic, if you have already formed an opinion on it.

kadman

It's the legal equivalent of someone believing in Santa Claus. Why would you bother arguing with someone you know to be mistaken?

I actually feel slightly sorry for people who believe in that sort of nonsense. It's not something a rational adult could believe.

shaneybaby

k_mac wrote: »

To which?

the deleted posts i presumed.

See here http://tirnasaor.com/forum/topics/constitution-question?id=3214356%3ATopic%3A148754&page=2#comments the second post refers to one a girl posted giving an alternative view. It doesn't comply so it's shouted down, not trolling not a wum just not what they want to hear.

kadman

k_mac wrote: »

To which?

To the sister site where dissenting comments have been deleted.

kadman

kadman

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

It's the legal equivalent of someone believing in Santa Claus. Why would you bother arguing with someone you know to be mistaken?

I actually feel slightly sorry for people who believe in that sort of nonsense. It's not something a rational adult could believe.

Well I imagine you would have to discuss the topic first , with the person, in order to arrive at that conclusion.

Do you feel equally sorry for people that believed in the view that the government were putting forward for the last 2 years. That everything was hunky dory.

kadman

kadman

shaneybaby wrote: »

the deleted posts i presumed.

See here http://tirnasaor.com/forum/topics/constitution-question?id=3214356%3ATopic%3A148754&page=2#comments the second post refers to one a girl posted giving an alternative view. It doesn't comply so it's shouted down, not trolling not a wum just not what they want to hear.

I assume its the post from Anne Marie, where she suggests that the posters do more research on their subject matter. Good advice in my book. Research will lead to an educated conclusion.

Hopefully I,m not mistaken in my posts. I did not come across any deletd posts in that link. Did I miss something.

thanks

kadman

shaneybaby

kadman wrote: »

I assume its the post from Anne Marie, where she suggests that the posters do more research on their subject matter. Good advice in my book. Research will lead to an educated conclusion.

Hopefully I,m not mistaken in my posts. I did not come across any deletd posts in that link. Did I miss something.

thanks

kadman

Absolutely good advice, But i've had a decent look through the site and the "advice" given by most is appalling, telling people with minor problems with banks or with the gardai to be as obstreperous as possible which in turn turns their minor issues into bigger issues which gets them in more trouble which leads them back to the site and the circle of madness continues until they get chucked in jail and people blame the corrupt judicial system/banks/government etc. ad infinitum.

The point is that it seems most people on the site just blatantly ignore anything but a view that doesn't conform with their own. it's even on their homepage. "Anything that opposes the values outlined in this mission statement naturally belongs somewhere else"

kadman

shaneybaby wrote: »

Absolutely good advice, But i've had a decent look through the site and the "advice" given by most is appalling, telling people with minor problems with banks or with the gardai to be as obstreperous as possible which in turn turns their minor issues into bigger issues which gets them in more trouble which leads them back to the site and the circle of madness continues until they get chucked in jail and people blame the corrupt judicial system/banks/government etc. ad infinitum.

The point is that it seems most people on the site just blatantly ignore anything but a view that doesn't conform with their own. it's even on their homepage. "Anything that opposes the values outlined in this mission statement naturally belongs somewhere else"

I have not spent too much time looking into their site. But I do intend to. I think you can read what you want into their mission statement quote, that you posted.
It could just as well apply here.

The current system is definitely corrupt, and I,d like to think that there will be some momentum from some group, that will help to change it, to be a fairer society for everyone, not just the few. Thanks.

kadman

Turner

They are a serious crowd of wasters on that site, a complete drain on society.

MagicSean

kadman wrote: »

I assume its the post from Anne Marie, where she suggests that the posters do more research on their subject matter. Good advice in my book. Research will lead to an educated conclusion.

Hopefully I,m not mistaken in my posts. I did not come across any deletd posts in that link. Did I miss something.

thanks

kadman

How can you come across a deleted post. The fact that it is deleted means you cannot see it.

kadman wrote: »

Well I imagine you would have to discuss the topic first , with the person, in order to arrive at that conclusion.

Do you feel equally sorry for people that believed in the view that the government were putting forward for the last 2 years. That everything was hunky dory.

kadman

They're opinions are based on lies they were told. The freeman ideals are mostly based on their warped view of how the world should work.

kadman wrote: »

To the sister site where dissenting comments have been deleted.

kadman

I've already named the site. Use google.

Wolfe Tone

Their general consensus seems to be that they didnt sign up to the way our society is run, so why should they be subject to it?

They talk a lot about how "natural law" should be the only law.

Our man in Havana

Do these guys vote? If so they have signed up to our laws and customs.

Amazotheamazing

kadman wrote: »

Well I imagine you would have to discuss the topic first , with the person, in order to arrive at that conclusion.

Do you feel equally sorry for people that believed in the view that the government were putting forward for the last 2 years. That everything was hunky dory.

kadman

Two different things.

Santa Claus doesn't exist. I don't need to talk to anyone to know he doesn't exist.

The Irish Government over the last two years did exist. They might have lied to us, but no one could deny they were actually there to lie to us.

What they put forward isn't reality. They may as well say they intend to ignore the laws of physics, or that the tooth fairy has secret stores of money or that rainbows have pots of gold at the end of them.

That site, and that theory, is a refuge for idiots. I wish it weren't so, but it is so.

Amazotheamazing

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Their general consensus seems to be that they didnt sign up to the way our society is run, so why should they be subject to it?

They talk a lot about how "natural law" should be the only law.

Fine in theory, except they are citizens of Ireland. As a citizen you have rights and responsibilities. If you aren't a citizen, do you have any claim to stay within the 26 counties?

Natural law, in this context, means very little, for example, I could brutally murder everyone in their families, bet they'd find someone to complain to if I did though.

Reloc8

kadman wrote: »

Well I suppose the same can be said here. How do you have an intelligent debate on the issues of being a freeman...............without talking to one.

You are prejudging what will happen on their site, with out even engaging in a debate.I dont know how any one can discuss a topic, if you have already formed an opinion on it.

kadman

I don't ask my puppy on his opinion of what tie I should wear. I have to wear one every day but he doesn't even know ties exist. He's probably the happier for all of that.

And if I did ask him his opinion or debate it with me he'd just sort of look dumbly at me, whimper a bit, go cross-eyed with the effort of concentration and then pee on my shoe. What a terrible waste of time ! )

So I prefer to just let him gambol around smelling other dogs arses, trying to catch his own tail because he doesn't realise its attached to him until he's tired and comes looking to me for food :cool:

If he does something bad, like try and eat his own poo I smack him on the nose and say 'BAD puppy BAD puppy' and put him in his puppy cage for a spell.

He hasn't done that in ages though so I hope he's learning. :cool:

BAD Freemen ! BAD Freemen ! :mad:

WildOscar

Haddockman wrote: »

Do these guys vote? If so they have signed up to our laws and customs.

what if they do not vote are they then subject to laws?

WildOscar

Reloc8 wrote: »

I don't ask my puppy on his opinion of what tie I should wear. I have to wear one every day but he doesn't even know ties exist. He's probably the happier for all of that.

And if I did ask him his opinion or debate it with me he'd just sort of look dumbly at me, whimper a bit, go cross-eyed with the effort of concentration and then pee on my shoe. What a terrible waste of time ! )

So I prefer to just let him gambol around smelling other dogs arses, trying to catch his own tail because he doesn't realise its attached to him until he's tired and comes looking to me for food :cool:

If he does something bad, like try and eat his own poo I smack him on the nose and say 'BAD puppy BAD puppy' and put him in his puppy cage for a spell.

He hasn't done that in ages though so I hope he's learning. :cool:

BAD Freemen ! BAD Freemen ! :mad:

that is just silly and does not contribute to the discussion

WildOscar

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Fine in theory, except they are citizens of Ireland. As a citizen you have rights and responsibilities. If you aren't a citizen, do you have any claim to stay within the 26 counties?

Natural law, in this context, means very little, for example, I could brutally murder everyone in their families, bet they'd find someone to complain to if I did though.

in fairness they say murder is against common law

phantom_lord

kadman wrote: »

I have not spent too much time looking into their site. But I do intend to. I think you can read what you want into their mission statement quote, that you posted.
It could just as well apply here.

The current system is definitely corrupt, and I,d like to think that there will be some momentum from some group, that will help to change it, to be a fairer society for everyone, not just the few. Thanks.

kadman

Most of them are just engaged in some delusional persuit of trying to get out of fines/loans or contracts. It's not some principled fight against corruption or whatever else.