Freeman Megamerge

ohnonotgmail

Torakx wrote: »

You are welcome to prove me wrong and in some cases I would obviously be wrong there. It was a general statement in my mind. I am sure there are a few who break the mold.

You have this backwards. it is not for anybody else to prove your statements. it is up to you to prove that your assertions are correct.

Torakx wrote: »

On the reverse side, I am seen here as some sort of loonatic and have had my thread merged with another one, that is full of abuse and disrespect for other peoples thoughts and beliefs.

there has not been disrespect of other peoples thoughts and beliefs. there has been justifiable scorn and abuse for the nonsense spouted as fact by freemen and their ilk.

Indricotherium

Torakx wrote: »

Can anyone bring some light on my last open question?
If a fictional entity is a juristic person, is a juristic person a fictional entity?

Possibly, but not necessarily.

Torakx

Indricotherium wrote: »

Possibly, but not necessarily.

haha nice response
I know what you mean to an extent. But would like to delve into that in detail.
This reminds me of fishing by a lake on a sunny day. You have to watch how you cast your shadows.

Torakx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You have this backwards. it is not for anybody else to prove your statements. it is up to you to prove that your assertions are correct.

You are correct I think, although proof can take many forms and even facts could be seen as opinion. I'd prefer then to just discuss with respect to each individual or collective opinion.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there has not been disrespect of other peoples thoughts and beliefs. there has been justifiable scorn and abuse for the nonsense spouted as fact by freemen and their ilk.

Maybe I am just a lot more patient than most.
Scorn for a belief is a sign of disrespect. Despite being correct, it is disrespect.
I'm not offended on their behalf. I was making a point on a previous comment. To show that I might mention things that are disagreeable, but we can still discuss what is written in law.

ohnonotgmail

Torakx wrote: »

You are correct I think, although proof can take many forms and even facts could be seen as opinion. I'd prefer then to just discuss with respect to each individual or collective opinion.

you seem unclear on the nature of a fact.

Torakx wrote: »

Maybe I am just a lot more patient than most.
Scorn for a belief is a sign of disrespect. Despite being correct, it is disrespect.
I'm not offended on their behalf. I was making a point on a previous comment. To show that I might mention things that are disagreeable, but we can still discuss what is written in law.

you didnt read my post.

mrs vimes

Torakx wrote: »

@ cobhguy28
I did hear something about courts closing down around the country.
I am unsure what type of courts though and still do not have enough information on how the courts are structured.
For instance are they district courts? Does that mean they use commercial law only?
Do counties have their own higher courts for common law?
What other type of courts or setups should I be aware of?

This attempt to distinguish between "commercial law" and "Common Law" is what makes you sound like a Freeman.

The district courts generally deal with less "serious" matters and smaller claims and the circuit and high courts deal generally with more serious crimes and larger claims.

All courts also deal with family cases.

Torakx wrote: »

Besides I am not in the law society and have no training or formal education(besides apprenticeship and unrelated college) past junior cert..
Some ignorance should be expected.

Please explain "in the law society", I don't think anyone thought you worked there, and it's not a society in the sense that the local artist appreciation society is

Torakx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you seem unclear on the nature of a fact.

Possibly. It is a large topic in philosophy for example.
I haven't had time to cover it fully.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you didnt read my post.

I believe I interpreted your post correctly.
There was scorn for someones beliefs. Because you say it is not for those beliefs, does not make it so.
But now we are going in circles and I would say slightly off topic. I expected these kind of arguments though.
Forgive me if I fail to reply to similar arguments in future.
I am very interested to discuss law.
Or maybe I am in the wrong forums
Pray tell, which way to the law forum?

hullaballoo

You're in the right forum. It remains to be seen whether or not you are in the right dimension.

ohnonotgmail

Torakx wrote: »

Possibly. It is a large topic in philosophy for example.
I haven't had time to cover it fully.

perhaps try a philosophy forum though. this is a legal discussion forum where a fact is a fact.

Torakx wrote: »

I believe I interpreted your post correctly.
There was scorn for someones beliefs. Because you say it is not for those beliefs, does not make it so.
But now we are going in circles and I would say slightly off topic. I expected these kind of arguments though.
Forgive me if I fail to reply to similar arguments in future.
I am very interested to discuss law.
Or maybe I am in the wrong forums
Pray tell, which way to the law forum?

i cant believe i actually read that nonsense.

whippet

Torakx wrote: »

Possibly. It is a large topic in philosophy for example.
I haven't had time to cover it fully.

In the context of law, fact is fact .. no if, buts or maybes.

Again, I will point out to you, as long as you hold on to incorrect fundamentals in your discussion, debate or constructive dialogue goes out the window.

Just think of having a discussion with a three year old child who wants to have a Red bar of White Chocolate.

You explain to the child that White Chocolate is in fact white and can't be Red in colour. The child screams that they want White Chocolate that is colour Red. Again you explain to the child that it is a physically impossibility to have White Chocolate that is coloured Red ... eventually you will leave the room and ignore the child until they calm down and forget what they actually wanted. Why bother ?

Indricotherium

Torakx wrote: »

haha nice response
I know what you mean to an extent.

you obviously do not know what I mean

Torakx

mrs vimes wrote: »

This attempt to distinguish between "commercial law" and "Common Law" is what makes you sound like a Freeman.

The district courts generally deal with less "serious" matters and smaller claims and the circuit and high courts deal generally with more serious crimes and larger claims.

All courts also deal with family cases.



Please explain "in the law society", I don't think anyone thought you worked there, and it's not a society in the sense that the local artist appreciation society is

I'm a little confused on the use of the term "serious".
Can you distinguish the differences in legal terms? I can then research those terms in the law dictionary.
I am open to suggestions for using a common dictionary as reference here, for a better meeting of minds.

Is commerical law a myth?
I don't understand the basis for each courts function otherwise.

It's my understanding that there is a society called "The law Society"
Here is one I just found.
https://www.lawsociety.ie/

The Law Society is the educational, representative and regulatory body of the solicitors' profession in Ireland.

I am lead to think that this body, represents, educates and regulates those who practice law in this country.
There may be other related societies I don't know about.

Torakx

whippet wrote: »

In the context of law, fact is fact .. no if, buts or maybes.

Again, I will point out to you, as long as you hold on to incorrect fundamentals in your discussion, debate or constructive dialogue goes out the window.

Just think of having a discussion with a three year old child who wants to have a Red bar of White Chocolate.

You explain to the child that White Chocolate is in fact white and can't be Red in colour. The child screams that they want White Chocolate that is colour Red. Again you explain to the child that it is a physically impossibility to have White Chocolate that is coloured Red ... eventually you will leave the room and ignore the child until they calm down and forget what they actually wanted. Why bother ?

This whole line of thought stemmed from a question as to why someone would not want to use a solicitor of the law society.
I gave a reason. It should not disqualify me from taking part in a discussion on what has been written in the law societies books.
I am here to find information that otherwise could take me years to find.
What should I do as an imperfect human? Start a new thread and take a more respectful attitude?(although I answered the question with respect) I am happy to!
Should I just leave? I thought I was at least a little entertaining

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

Can anyone bring some light on my last open question?
If a fictional entity is a juristic person, is a juristic person a fictional entity?

Might as well clear this logical mess up.

You are creating a false syllogism here. Your basic logic boils down to the following:

A non-natural entity/legal fiction (such as a company) is a juristic person. I am a juristic person; therefore I am a legal fiction.

An equivalently awful piece of logical fallacy would read thus:

All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs therefore my cat is a dog.

Ignoring the fact for a moment that your posts are overrun with pseudo-legal nonsense, such as the unnecessary distinction between common law and commercial law, you appear to be attempting to form some kind of logical framework for the classic freeman* position of having a legal person and a natural person somehow existing separately within an individual. It is a basic and, in many cases, purposeful misunderstanding of legal terms.


*I use the term "freeman" as shorthand for any pseudo-legal nonsense arguments in much the same way the Canadian courts use OPCA Litigant

Torakx

Indricotherium wrote: »

you obviously do not know what I mean

Let me expand then.
I thought you meant that while a person can be a fictional entity, it can also refer to a natural person.
If this is what you hinted at, I hope to discuss it in more detail.
If not, can you clarify for me please?

whippet

Torakx wrote: »

I don't understand the basis for each courts function otherwise.

It is blindingly obvious that you don't understand. However, if you really want to know .. here is a basic overview that you should be able to read

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/courts.html

whippet

Torakx wrote: »

Let me expand then.
I thought you meant that while a person can be a fictional entity, it can also refer to a natural person.

BINGO .... natural person !!!!!!!!!! what do I win?

Torakx wrote: »

If this is what you hinted at, I hope to discuss it in more detail.
If not, can you clarify for me please?

He made no mention of 'natural person' nor did he even hint at it. But in typical psuedolegal manner you have introduced a nonsense to the discussion.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Torakx

whippet wrote: »

BINGO .... natural person !!!!!!!!!! what do I win?

How about some red chocolate

whippet wrote: »

He made no mention of 'natural person' nor did he even hint at it. But in typical psuedolegal manner you have introduced a nonsense to the discussion.

That's perfectly fine.
What other phrase should i use for a human being in the eyes of the law?
I am happy to adjust my phrasing if it helps.

Torakx

whippet wrote: »

It is blindingly obvious that you don't understand. However, if you really want to know .. here is a basic overview that you should be able to read

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/courts.html

Thanks!
I had forgotten about that site. I will indeed read over it again.
It's been a few years..
and yes, I don''t understand. I am here to learn.

ohnonotgmail

Torakx wrote: »

How about some red chocolate




That's perfectly fine.
What other phrase should i use for a human being in the eyes of the law?
I am happy to adjust my phrasing if it helps.

i very much doubt that it would.

GM228

Torakx wrote: »

Possibly. It is a large topic in philosophy for example.

So (in terms of philosophy) your passing off "fact" as your knowledge that you think you have a high degree of confidence in about some possible truth as being indisputably (not absolutely, but to a high degree) true as opposed to actual fact?

Pro Hoc Vice

Torakx wrote: »

I'm a little confused on the use of the term "serious".
Can you distinguish the differences in legal terms? I can then research those terms in the law dictionary.
I am open to suggestions for using a common dictionary as reference here, for a better meeting of minds.

Is commerical law a myth?
I don't understand the basis for each courts function otherwise.

It's my understanding that there is a society called "The law Society"
Here is one I just found.
https://www.lawsociety.ie/

I am lead to think that this body, represents, educates and regulates those who practice law in this country.
There may be other related societies I don't know about.

O God, commercial law is simply a term for the body of law the revolves around commerce, you can not use a dictionary to perform any serious legal research.

The Law Society of Irelan is the Statutory body, that is given power by the Statie to train and regulate solicitors, while in number they make up the largest number of lawyers in the country, they are not the only lawyers. The Law Library and the Society of Kings Inns deal with the Barristers.

If you want to put forward a new system of regulating this country you need first to show the current system does not work, and secondly put forward a viable alternative.

You said people should be able to use researchers and people of knowledge to help in running cases. Well funny that but that is where we got lawyers from.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Torakx wrote: »

haha nice response
I know what you mean to an extent. But would like to delve into that in detail.
This reminds me of fishing by a lake on a sunny day. You have to watch how you cast your shadows.

Torakx's cave?

cobhguy28

Torakx wrote: »

The first point I made was relating to the state being a juristic person.
This was needed in order for a person to sue the state.
I'm surprised it took all the way to 1973 for this to come about.

I'll presume we all agree that the state is indeed a juristic person.
If a fictional entity is a juristic person.
Is a juristic person a fictional entity?

The reason that you could not sue the state before 1973 was because it was incorrectly though that the state as successor to the Crown had inheritance it's royal immunity. The supreme Court said it did not and so could be sued.

cobhguy28

Torakx wrote: »

@ cobhguy28
I did hear something about courts closing down around the country.
I am unsure what type of courts though and still do not have enough information on how the courts are structured.
For instance are they district courts? Does that mean they use commercial law only?
Do counties have their own higher courts for common law?
?

The courts service of ireland runs all the courts in Ireland. They receive money from the state to run the courts. It does not make a profit in fact it costs the state about 50 million a year on top of the Courts income. There are local courts for minor cases. Circuit courts for more serious cases then high court, appeals court, supreme Court and commercial court for case worth more than 1 million euros. What makes a court is its judges. So there are a certain amount of District judges circuit judges high court judge ect. So where ever a judge sits it becomes their court.

Torakx

GM228 wrote: »

So (in terms of philosophy) your passing off "fact" as your knowledge that you think you have a high degree of confidence in about some possible truth as being indisputably (not absolutely, but to a high degree) true as opposed to actual fact?

This line of thought could go in many directions.
Like existentialism.

In the case of my interpretation of facts given to me, say on certain things being the case in law or legal terms. This fact is based on agreed opinion(this means this, that means that, because we agreed, although I didn't get to agree lol), which is based on a scenario leading from the inception of law and state bodies.
What is then fact, is an opinion based on an agreement, but still fact nonetheless from this perspective.
I'm not sure which is opinion and fact, because I have no frame of reference. It seems to be buried somewhere.
In general I agree with anything you can show me clearly in writing, from the people that make the rules for this particular system.
I understand that the rules are made and that this is then considered fact.
Outside of the system might be a different story though.

But at the moment it seems difficult to get a straight answer from anyone on the topic of person in legal terms.
Is there not some widely agreed upon definition and function for the use of the word "person"?
And then another one for the word "state"?
So everyone can see clearly what we mean when we speak to an agent of the law or state.
Don't they update definitions based on case records and judgements?
Can I have a manual or rules of the game please?

I mean to show, that I cannot possibly come to an agreement on something that is not shown to be agreed upon("fact") according to the rules.
I can adopt a similar perspective to the legal society etc and possibly agree to everything. But can I see what the rules are and definitions?
A law dictionary apparently is no use here.
What do I use to continue this discussion as a reference?

Torakx

Deleted User wrote: »

Might as well clear this logical mess up.

You are creating a false syllogism here. Your basic logic boils down to the following:



An equivalently awful piece of logical fallacy would read thus:



Ignoring the fact for a moment that your posts are overrun with pseudo-legal nonsense, such as the unnecessary distinction between common law and commercial law, you appear to be attempting to form some kind of logical framework for the classic freeman* position of having a legal person and a natural person somehow existing separately within an individual. It is a basic and, in many cases, purposeful misunderstanding of legal terms.


*I use the term "freeman" as shorthand for any pseudo-legal nonsense arguments in much the same way the Canadian courts use OPCA Litigant

I almost missed this post!
A good one too.

I phrased it in such a way that it would be illogical.
Because it doesn't make sense and I want someone to show me how it should.
There are at least two different entities and a third variable to effect both, at play for it to make sense, i think.... I would like those things separated and explained. But I must drag it out of everyone here to find out
I do not know under which circumstances the term "person" is considered a human or a fiction.
If I could see where this has been agreed it would be appreciated.

I agree this is the same argument that is used by Freemen and also referred to as the strawman.
That was my thought years ago when I first heard about it.
I do not accept this logic as fact or true.
However it is the only one version that anyone cared to explain. Many more will follow behind me for that reason.
If the law society cannot clearly explain to the public, their own rules, what chance has the skeptic or trusting them?
I am here playing devils advocate for these questions, but not from a freeman perspective at all.
I need to kknow about unions and states. I am an anarchist, who wants to consolidate statism with anarchist principles.
A contradiction in terms in some fundamental ways you might think.
I don't give up that easy.
This overall thought process for me, is a combination of philosophy,law,politics and economics.
I have only covered a small bit of each,compared to whats out there.
Surely you folks can give me some slack lol

Torakx

Thanks all for the replies.
I have some reading to do now on courts and general things relating to what we discussed.
I'll come back hopefully after I have a better understanding of the court system in Ireland.
I'll think more on how to approach this question of the state being a person and a person being a person.
And the idea that a human does not enter the terminology, if I understand you all correctly.
It may be just that simple. And I will try to confirm.
There will of course be a testing of the introduction of the birth cert and other arguments I may need to unlearn.

Someone mentioned the thread being a bit philosophical, what is a state, a person etc.
I want to continue with this reasoning with regards the birth certs and the whole foundations of the legitimacy of the state and the courts.

I'm not just questioning the status quo, but also the freemen perspective and any other perspective you care to mention.
Just looking to see how the system really functions and judge for myself if it is worthy of legitimate submission to it.
Or whether it should be scrapped :P Kidding.. I do appreciate some things.
There is good and bad in everything.

I'll be keeping an eye on the thread in the meantime I'l try not to comment, until I have at least read up on something substantial.

Esel

I tried to dig a hole under a canal bridge once. It kept filling up with water, so I stopped eventually. Lots of people fell into that 'puddle', but I never went under that bridge again. I just knew it was haunted. That's how it roll 's.