Freeman Megamerge

benway

There's a definite element of fremenism to this guy. But it looks to me like the sherriff and the cops made a tactical decision to get out of there rather than have things get really ugly, no doubt they'll be back in force.

The talky guy is blowing it out his a$$, none of that stuff will be any use to him if 20 cops and a paddy wagon turn up and haul him in. Still absolute nonsense.

That constitutional challenge is real though, and sane, but it doesn't operate as a stay on all possession orders from the Circuit Court, in so far as I'm aware, more's the pity.

Would be fully in favour of wilful civil disobedience against sherriffs and the banks, but saying it's all down to the Fremen's superior knowledge of the law ... and the fact that "the law of the sea" doesn't apply will only lead to trouble in the long run.

johnnyskeleton

Executive Steve wrote: »

Has anyone seen this yet?

Would anyone more legally literate than me be able to shed light on matters raised here?

Is this a freeman defence, or is it something on more solid grounds?

The usual odd distinctions of common / constitutional / statute law are all being mentioned, and all the usual freeman quackery seems to be getting raised, but it looks like it ends in a win for the locals?

Confused here.

Maybe he has a point about the county registrar also acting as sherriff. But, instead of raising that point in a court, which is the normal place to do so, he argues with a poor official who probably has never had to deal with this kind of thing before and was bamboozled by someone speaking legal sounding words in a confident tone of voice.

The actual mechanisms for repossession are somewhat complex and, without looking into it further, they are not entirely clear. So it is easy to see how the system can break down when someone opposes them.

Without knowing the specifics of the case it is impossible to know whether there is any substantive merit to his claims or not.

The commercial/common law stuff and the oaths are dealt with earlier in the thread.

johnnyskeleton

Executive Steve wrote: »

Has anyone seen this yet?

Would anyone more legally literate than me be able to shed light on matters raised here?

Is this a freeman defence, or is it something on more solid grounds?

The usual odd distinctions of common / constitutional / statute law are all being mentioned, and all the usual freeman quackery seems to be getting raised, but it looks like it ends in a win for the locals?

Confused here.

Maybe he has a point about the county registrar also acting as sherriff. But, instead of raising that point in a court, which is the normal place to do so, he argues with a poor official who probably has never had to deal with this kind of thing before and was bamboozled by someone speaking legal sounding words in a confident tone of voice.

The actual mechanisms for repossession are somewhat complex and, without looking into it further, they are not entirely clear. So it is easy to see how the system can break down when someone opposes them.

Without knowing the specifics of the case it is impossible to know whether there is any substantive merit to his claims or not.

The commercial/common law stuff and the oaths are dealt with earlier in the thread.

MungBean

He may have a point if he was saying it was unfair or a conflict of interests for the county registrar to act as sheriff but he said it was unlawful which it isnt.

It most definitely is freeman crap and the reason it ended in a "victory" which one can also describe and the unlawful refusal to vacate a premises which they have no right to be on is because the Gardai had no warrant to forcefully remove them.

The next time someone comes with an order to seize the premises they will be accompanied by Gardai with an order to remove the occupants.

An Udaras

I wonder if I was renting a property off one the effected FREEMEN in the video would they be so gracious if I decided to ignore their request for payment of rent and would their party of home Defence come to defend me when the landlord came a knocking?

So they may have saved him a view days, I feel for people in trouble but I'm afraid if their was no law and order in country and ever effected person decided on this course of action of ignoring the sheriff where would we be?

snow ghost

Simple couple of questions, that hopefully someone of a legal back ground may be able to answer:

Have any of these 'freeman of the land' common law legal claims ever been challenged in any courts?

Are there precedents that we can look at to show that their claims are insubstantial and specious and do not hold up?

Corruptable

Hmm...it seems this happened not too far from my homeplace, I'll mention it next time I'm down that way, it'll be interesting to see how the Freeman angle in it plays out.

Watched the movie J. Edgar the other night, this freeman scourge reminds me of the struggle against the radicals in that movie. Their infiltration of the anti-property and water tax campaigns, and now repossessions is increasing their spread. A local paper down the country published their promotion of a "lawful" way to avoid the septic tank tax.

I suppose it serves the legal establishment right for it's development of "legalese", since this poseurs now found a way to use it against that establishment when creating their pseudo legal woo.

More coverage: http://www.thejournal.ie/i-stopped-the-sheriff-activists-prevent-eviction-of-man-from-laois-home-362020-Feb2012/

benway

Corruptable wrote: »

I suppose it serves the legal establishment right for it's development of "legalese", since this poseurs now found a way to use it against that establishment when creating their pseudo legal woo.

I can see how the legal system operates to alienate the layman, was probably designed that way ... it is kinda funny how a reasonably convincing facsimile can throw people.

What's killing me is that I'd really like to wholeheartedly support the protesters ... it's just ... this Freeman stuff. Maybe they're right, of course, and I'm being naive about preferring overt civil disobedience, and overt confrontation with the state. Could be that they're only playing crazy ... I kinda doubt it, though.

Snow Ghost wrote:

Have any of these 'freeman of the land' common law legal claims ever been challenged in any courts?

The tale of Bobby of the Family Sludds is the nearest I've come upon

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2878029.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0811/1224302232246.html
http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/wexford-man-remanded-in-custody-over-confusion-about-his-identity-released-from-prison-516356.html
http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/lifestyle/uninsured-driver-2991063.html

Having heard repeated denials that he was the man named, the judge said he had no choice but to remand Mr Sludds in custody because there was some confusion about his true identity.

“I can’t accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can’t be verified,” he said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.

“You can’t do this. This isn’t over. You can expect a bill,” Mr Sludds shouted as he was led away.

Corruptable

benway wrote: »

I can see how the legal system operates to alienate the layman, was probably designed that way ... it is kinda funny how a reasonably convincing facsimile can throw people.

What's killing me is that I'd really like to wholeheartedly support the protesters ... it's just ... this Freeman stuff. Maybe they're right, of course, and I'm being naive about preferring overt civil disobedience, and overt confrontation with the state. Could be that they're only playing crazy ... I kinda doubt it, though.l

For once I'd say we're in agreement (probably as long as we stay away from the issue of criminal law)

It's exactly as I predicted, they freemen are involving themselves in civil disobedience campaigns but are clearly using their involvement for their own agenda which is the spread of their deluded misinformation on the legal process. That's what will drag serious debate and political action out of the anti-repossession campaigns.

From the video, you can already hear them spouting about something being "legal" but now "lawful" and the Deputy Sheriff being a "private company" and operating under the "law of the sea" rather than the "law of the land".

snow ghost

Thanks for the links benway.

I have to admit that I find those Bobby of the Family Sludds articles some of the funniest I have read in a long time.

I find some of this freeman 'law' intriguing, At the same time I believe that some of it bamboozles those it is directed at which leads to so-called freeman victories.

I would want to see legal precedents though before I could be satisfied that the freeman stuff has no basis in law.

snow ghost

Is this law of the sea and law of the land factual or absolute hogwash?

Is there any basis for this claim by them?

Corruptable

snow ghost wrote: »

Is this law of the sea and law of the land factual or absolute hogwash?

Is there any basis for this claim by them?

Hogwash. The law we know is admiralty law, and statutes aren't binding on people unless they consent individually to them.

It's an import from the sovereign citizen movement in the United States, which was basically renamed the freeman on the land movement for use in the UK and here.

American version here:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement

benway

snow ghost wrote: »

I would want to see legal precedents though before I could be satisfied that the freeman stuff has no basis in law.

This fremenism stuff is relatively new here, and seeing as Bobby of the family didn't want to be a martyr and go through the High Court for a definitive determination that it's all, in fact, nonsense, I don't think there's any judgment that we can point to. But, I can confidently tell you that there would be lots more of:

Counsel added that Mr Sludds now accepted that his initial argument to Judge Anderson to produce his oath was "misconceived as a matter of law".

To be honest, I'll be looking for my money back from UCD if there is any truth to it, because they never taught us any of this crap. I know the lady who was Admiralty Registrar in the High Court for the past twenty years quite well, must ask her if anyone's decided not to consent to that court's jurisdiction. Although, I think I know the answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPH5ikNKaVE

Even Alex Jones thinks they're crazy.

WARNING!!! Sound Level May Be High.

blueythebear

Executive Steve wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpUjl4LvQM8

Has anyone seen this yet?

Would anyone more legally literate than me be able to shed light on matters raised here?

Is this a freeman defence, or is it something on more solid grounds?

The usual odd distinctions of common / constitutional / statute law are all being mentioned, and all the usual freeman quackery seems to be getting raised, but it looks like it ends in a win for the locals?

Confused here.

There is a point to be made about Sheriffs being the County Registrars and the fact that the Sheriff gets commissions. It may not necessarily be fair and there may be a conflict of interest but it is not "unlawful" and the "separation of powers" has got nothing to with it although I might have been impressed had he used the phrase "nemo iudex in sua causa" rather than "separation of powers".

He references the laws of the "shire-reeve" and ridicules the deputy sheriff for attempting to use archaic English laws in Ireland. In the next breath refers to what he believes is the Common law which he says is based on "natural law" that has been around since the dawn of time. Clearly has not got a clue what "common law" is.

He references "Sections" in the Constitution and repeatedly tells the Deputy Sheriff to read the Constitution. If he had a read of it himself, he would realise that Bunreacht na hEireann is comprised of Articles, not Sections, but I'm just nitpicking there.

I have a real problem with the wholly incorrect interpretation of inviolability of a dwelling, where he says that "save in law" in Article 40.5 means that a law must be broken before the sanctity of a dwelling can be broken. This is wrong wrong wrong. Article 40.5 can be overridden in circumstances that are provided by law including scenarios where a Garda is pursuing a person for the purposes of effecting arrest but no law needs to have been necessarily broken. For example, any search warrant is used to override Article 40.5 in order to investigate if a law has been broken, there's no requirement that a law HAS been broken.

These people are talking out of their backside. There is one reason and one reason only, that the Sheriff left. It was because there was him and two Gardaí facing off against approximately 20 people. This is not a victory for Freemen or whoever that group is. It is once again, delaying the inevitable.

If somebody could think of the name of a group to oppose Freemen, I would volunteer for that. It would be the opposite of Freemen in every way. For example, it's goal would be to provide ACCURATE and USEFUL legal information such as the actual meaning of the phrase "common law" and the fact that maritime law has no relevance when you get arrested for speeding (presuming that you were not speeding in a boat).

snow ghost

snow ghost wrote: »

I would want to see legal precedents though before I could be satisfied that the freeman stuff has no basis in law.

Judgments don't exist on this because, quite obviously, it's not necessary to say that the sky is blue or that water is wet. Nor is it necessary to say that Freemanism is utter tripe.

However, here is a decision from the US 3rd Circuit Court of appeals where an early American version of a Freeman attempted to argue their idiotic position. Mr. Fuselier, the main protagonist in this particular Freeman argument, ended up being convicted for tax fraud to the tune of $9 million. Pesky statute law, if only he could have come up with a way to say that it didn't apply.



http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/1/1251/575488/

johnnyskeleton

snow ghost wrote: »

Simple couple of questions, that hopefully someone of a legal back ground may be able to answer:

Have any of these 'freeman of the land' common law legal claims ever been challenged in any courts?

Are there precedents that we can look at to show that their claims are insubstantial and specious and do not hold up?

there is a decision of mr justice peart a few pages back.

snow ghost

Deleted User wrote: »

Judgments don't exist on this because, quite obviously, it's not necessary to say that the sky is blue or that water is wet. Nor is it necessary to say that Freemanism is utter tripe.

Thanks for the link, but your above argument is a tad frivolous tbh.

I have to admit I find this freeman stuff generally hilarious.

benway

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

there is a decision of mr justice peart a few pages back.

Is this the Article 40? Can't seem to find it otherwise ....

It is kinda funny alright, but I do have one friend who's gotten way into it, I'm kind worried that he's going to get himself jailed.

Also, call me old fashioned, but forms of protest where you correctly identify the thing you're protesting against, rather than attribute some fantasy form to it, still suit me better.

snow ghost

Benway,

But isn't it tempting to use this hilarious '..... of the family sludds, etc' name thing on say a traffic warden or someone else in authority just for the craic?

I intend to, if for no other reason than for them to think 'Oh NO it's one of those freemen of the land nutters'.

It appears that many people are getting interested in it and until we see some actual cases where it is totally dismissed then that may gather pace.

snow ghost

snow ghost wrote: »

Thanks for the link, but your above argument is a tad frivolous tbh.

I have to admit I find this freeman stuff generally hilarious.

My argument is frivolous but you need proof that the High Court disagrees with Freemanism?

snow ghost

Deleted User wrote: »

My argument is frivolous but you need proof that the High Court disagrees with Freemanism?

I would like to see precedents where the so-called legal claims by freemans have been tested, and a decision made one way or the other, yes.

Then we'd be in no doubt.

snow ghost

snow ghost wrote: »

It appears that many people are getting interested in it and until we see some actual cases where it is totally dismissed then that may gather pace.

If the High Court says that Freemanism is nonsense then Freemen will just say he was protecting Admiralty law or the conspiracy or some other nonsense. It's a circular argument on their part.

The High Court won't write decisions on it because they won't hear these arguments as they are so utterly idiotic and never make sense so, like Judge Anderson or Judge Zaidan, the judges just ignore the idiocy of what they say and deal with them on the basis that they refuse to engage properly with the Court.

snow ghost

snow ghost wrote: »

I would like to see precedents where the so-called legal claims by freemans have been tested, and a decision made one way or the other, yes.

Never going to happen. Never. They think that the BAR stands for British Accredited Registry and that all barristers swear secret oaths of fealty to the Queen. You think their ideas are deserving of judicial scrutiny when they refuse to even identify themselves to the Court properly?

The entirety of their belief system (and it is a belief system akin to a religion) is based on the idea that you are a legal fiction created by the Government in some massive conspiracy to trick you into obeying statute law. You really think that needs to be decided upon?

snow ghost

Deleted User wrote: »

Never going to happen. Never. They think that the BAR stands for British Accredited Registry and that all barristers swear secret oaths of fealty to the Queen. You think their ideas are deserving of judicial scrutiny when they refuse to even identify themselves to the Court properly?

The entirety of their belief system (and it is a belief system akin to a religion) is based on the idea that you are a legal fiction created by the Government in some massive conspiracy to trick you into obeying statute law. You really think that needs to be decided upon?

You have a point that if they don't recognise the authority of the courts in the first place.

That said, it would be interesting if they put their reasoning to a court and it was considered regarding their common law, constitution, magna carta, etc, theories.

snow ghost

snow ghost wrote: »

That said, it would be interesting if they put their reasoning to a court and it was considered regarding their common law, constitution, magna carta, etc, theories.

They won't put their "reasoning" to the Court for a number of reasons:

1. They won't put anything to the Court unless the Court agrees to play by their rules. Since that won't happen they'll never get past the first hurdle.

2. They have no logical consistency and their arguments, as has been demonstrated so often in this and other threads, don't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny and would collapse before they ever got to a decision.

3. Even if the Court gave a decision the Freeman would say that it was based in Admiralty law or Statute law and that therefore to protect the conspiracy they were giving the decision on that basis. Therefore nothing that the Court could say would dissuade them and, in a ridiculous way, would actually feed into their delusions.

snow ghost

Kayroo,

I completely see your point.

At the same time, if they are so sure that their common-law, etc arguments are accurate then they surely would have no problem going to court and arguing that for all to see?

For example, regarding this dude in the latest unvioble rights - sherriff video. If what he says is true - regardless of whether he agrees with the court or not, as he would be making a stand for the householder - then he should be willing to stand up in a court, and put his case across as he did to the deputy sherriff and allow a judge to consider whether his arguments regarding the constitution, etc have any validity.

I can't see why that guy representing the person whose house was being repossessed would not be willing to do that, if he was so sure of himself.

I suppose we'll know in a few years because there are people who believe they don't have to pay any debts, etc, based on this freeman stuff, we'll see how many of them are bankcrupt and have had theirs houses and other belongings repossessed.

Sesudra

The office I work in has had the misfortune of dealing with a number of these guys recently - they've been, hands down, the most insulting and agressive people I've ever had dealings with. They'd send us in letters asking to be directed to offices that didn't exist (which they felt should exisit) and when we replied saying they didn't exist and could we help them in any other way, we got letters, emails and eventually phone calls calling us idiots, shills, dealing with issues our intelligence couldn't handle etc etc. I would have thought that went against their ideal of causing no harm or mischief, but obviously not!

Finnbar01

Sesudra wrote: »

The office I work in has had the misfortune of dealing with a number of these guys recently - they've been, hands down, the most insulting and agressive people I've ever had dealings with. They'd send us in letters asking to be directed to offices that didn't exist (which they felt should exisit) and when we replied saying they didn't exist and could we help them in any other way, we got letters, emails and eventually phone calls calling us idiots, shills, dealing with issues our intelligence couldn't handle etc etc. I would have thought that went against their ideal of causing no harm or mischief, but obviously not!

Must be some pain in the backside ok dealing with these delusionists.

Problem is, their numbers are growing.

benway

Sesudra wrote: »

when we replied saying they didn't exist and could we help them in any other way, we got letters, emails and eventually phone calls calling us idiots, shills, dealing with issues our intelligence couldn't handle etc etc. I would have thought that went against their ideal of causing no harm or mischief, but obviously not!

Let me guess, you need to educate yourselves?:rolleyes:

Sesudra

benway wrote: »

Let me guess, you need to educate yourselves?:rolleyes:

How did you know?? I took great offence to being told I was questioning things above my paygrade and ability to comprehend!

As Finbarr says, their numbers are growing and it's only a matter of time before someone in really desperate financial straits gets sucked into their crackpot way of thinking and gets in real trouble.