Freeman Megamerge

ohnonotgmail

Robbo wrote: »

It's been a while since we've had a sighting if Freeman Classicus in these parts but as ever, the border counties, provide.

*snip*

Pretty much a full house here:

• Petty motoring offences
• Personal sovereignty
• The law doesn't apply to me
• I'm only answerable to god
• The 1919 Constitution will see me right

you would nearly get nostalgic reading that.

whippet

Ben Gilroy post that to his Facebook page .. Little or no comment on his behalf - since the RTE program Ben tends not to get in to these discussions, but of course Ben wouldn't get in to that nonsense.

godtabh

Robbo wrote: »

It's been a while since we've had a sighting if Freeman Classicus in these parts but as ever, the border counties, provide.



Pretty much a full house here:

• Petty motoring offences
• Personal sovereignty
• The law doesn't apply to me
• I'm only answerable to god
• The 1919 Constitution will see me right

Do people like him fully believe in what they are saying? Is there serious mental health issues here that should be picked up on rather than laugh at the complete idiot of a man?

Graham

godtabh wrote: »

Do people like him fully believe in what they are saying? Is there serious mental health issues here that should be picked up on rather than laugh at the complete idiot of a man?

There's no downside to making such claims, at worst they will be ignored, at best they allow the individual to kick the legal issues down the road for a while by frustrating the legal process.

whippet

Graham wrote: »

There's no downside to making such claims, at worst they will be ignored, at best they allow the individual to kick the legal issues down the road for a while by frustrating the legal process.

not only that .. there are people who get a kick out of being in the local papers and wearing the fools hat in public.

Usually the type of fella hanging on to the end of the bar at closing time on a Tuesday telling everyone how he would run the country; yet can't get out of the bed to do a day's work

For Forks Sake

Robbo wrote: »

It's been a while since we've had a sighting if Freeman Classicus in these parts but as ever, the border counties, provide.



Pretty much a full house here:

• Petty motoring offences
• Personal sovereignty
• The law doesn't apply to me
• I'm only answerable to god
• The 1919 Constitution will see me right

Esel

You couldn't make that crap up!

Grolschevik

Esel wrote:

You couldn't make that crap up!

Or, rather, it's completely made up!

Flange/Flanders

Doocey is spouting his usual bunch of absolute sh1te on facebook this evening......

<Mod snip>

godtabh

That was hard to read.

If I wrote that and sent it to the Commissioner what would the consequences be? A lot of threats, accusations and slander.

jd

Doocey actually gives me the creeps. I'd worry if someone I knew fell out with him.

L1011

Does he want her to resign, then reply; or reply, then resign; or emigrate, then resign? The order he's written his demands in is rather nonsensical to say the least of the rest of the missive.

hullaballoo

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

Doocey is spouting his usual bunch of absolute sh1te on facebook this evening......

<Mod snip>

Sorry, but you just copied and pasted a raft of text and it wasn't clear whether they were your own words or someone else's and, well, I'm sure you wouldn't like them to be attributed to you!

Endaaaagh

Did anything ever come of Gerry Beades threat to take Vincent Browne to court for assault over the incident at Gorse Hill a while back? I remember Beades making some big statement outside the house where he stated he was looking into suing Browne but haven't heard anything since.

whippet

Endaaaagh wrote: »

Did anything ever come of Gerry Beades threat to take Vincent Browne to court for assault over the incident at Gorse Hill a while back? I remember Beades making some big statement outside the house where he stated he was looking into suing Browne but haven't heard anything since.

I don't think it was Jerry who made that threat .. I thought it was the enforcer looking dude with the shades who was knocking around by the gate.

As for the antics of the Mayo lads .. i'd give them a wide berth; you don't want to draw their attention .. from what they talk about online they would be liable to do anything.

ArmaniJeanss

whippet wrote: »

I don't think it was Jerry who made that threat .. I thought it was the enforcer looking dude with the shades who was knocking around by the gate.

As for the antics of the Mayo lads .. i'd give them a wide berth; you don't want to draw their attention .. from what they talk about online they would be liable to do anything.

Yeah, it was John "Joe Pesci" Martin who'd been both physically and mentally assaulted by VB and TV3, and was going to be chasing them under the law of tort.
Nothing ever seemed to come of it, surprisingly enough.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/new-land-league-member-to-make-official-complaint-to-gardai-about-tv3-broadcaster-vincent-browne-31043331.html

Flange/Flanders

hullaballoo wrote: »

Sorry, but you just copied and pasted a raft of text and it wasn't clear whether they were your own words or someone else's and, well, I'm sure you wouldn't like them to be attributed to you!

Screen shot next time so?!!

hullaballoo

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

Screen shot next time so?!!

Accompanied by a link to the original if you're doing it that way.

Thanks.

Torakx

Some questions I thought were best suited here.
Is my body my property?

If no, then why not? Is it seen as property? Or otherwise defined?

If yes, does that mean if a person is being charged in a criminal court, it could pertain to property rights or jurisdiction over property(the body)?

whippet

Torakx wrote: »

Some questions I thought were best suited here.
Is my body my property?

If no, then why not? Is it seen as property? Or otherwise defined?

If yes, does that mean if a person is being charged in a criminal court, it could pertain to property rights or jurisdiction over property(the body)?

Would there be gift tax due if you gave your body to science?

Grolschevik

Torakx wrote: »

Some questions I thought were best suited here.
Is my body my property?

If no, then why not? Is it seen as property? Or otherwise defined?

If yes, does that mean if a person is being charged in a criminal court, it could pertain to property rights or jurisdiction over property(the body)?

Not law, but you might find Gerry Cohen's Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality interesting.

http://www.cambridge.org/at/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/political-theory/self-ownership-freedom-and-equality

Torakx

Grolschevik wrote: »

Not law, but you might find Gerry Cohen's Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality interesting.

http://www.cambridge.org/at/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/political-theory/self-ownership-freedom-and-equality

Thanks. It lead me to finding the answer.

Our minds are a part of our bodies, so no "I" can own the body it belongs to.
Another argument against self ownership, is that this thinking of "I" owning a body, could lead to slavery in some form.
I'm not sure how strong an argument that is though.


Here's another random query, if anyone can help.

Marc Stevens uses a philosophical technique in court hearings.
He asks for evidence of juridiction before the case is heard, by asking what evidence there is to show the constitution or any other law applies to the defendant.

I've looked into this and found that one reason given by someone, is that there is no need for evidence and that the opinion of the majority of that land mass, is that the laws apply to anyone on that land mass.
And so it does.

So it appears the judge could over rule any objections to jurisdiction, although from the looks of things they seem to throw it down to a lower court.
Possibly too risky a judgement to make at those levels, with that type of premise.

My question is whether all courts judgements are based on opinion or facts, or maybe both?
If a judgement must be based on facts, does Marc Stevens have a legitimate strategy?
Or should I be asking if jurisdiction is based on opinion or fact?

cobhguy28

Harry Rea has finally come out with a statement on his Facebook page about his loss in his Lisbon treaty case. Turns out through his logic he really has won and everone is congratulating him. What a world. The Hub has shared his victory on their page.

Robbo

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Harry Rea has finally come out with a statement on his Facebook page about his loss in his Lisbon treaty case. Turns out through his logic he really has won and everone is congratulating him. What a world. The Hub has shared his victory on their page.

I saw that. It seems he's trying to tie his own family law situation into it as well.

I'm sure the Hub shared it because it fits entirely within their "a loss is a win" strategy. Worryingly, they're appearing here and there in national media outlets at the moment without any scrutiny of their methods or track record. His Lordship has announced he's ready for all media enquiries and was even invited to the "Royal Oireachtas" recently to talk to some committee.

GavMan

Robbo wrote: »

I saw that. It seems he's trying to tie his own family law situation into it as well.

I'm sure the Hub shared it because it fits entirely within their "a loss is a win" strategy. Worryingly, they're appearing here and there in national media outlets at the moment without any scrutiny of their methods or track record. His Lordship has announced he's ready for all media enquiries and was even invited to the "Royal Oireachtas" recently to talk to some committee.

Committee is a stretch. They attended at the invitation of fellow crank Seamus Healy. They met with Sean Crowe, Eugene Murphy, Pat Buckley, Thomas Pringle, Dara Calleary, Martin Ferris, Sean Flemming, Carol Nolan, Mattie McGrath, Ann Rabbitte, Eoin O'Broin and reps for RBB and Joan Collins.

A rag tag bunch if ever I saw it. Disappointing to see FF engage with this populist muppets. But then it seems to be the avenue they're going down now...

Benevolent Misanthrope

GavMan wrote: »

A rag tag bunch if ever I saw it. Disappointing to see FF engage with this populist muppets. But then it seems to be the avenue they're going down now...

What are Fianna Fáil but populists?

ArmaniJeanss

Another fake Hub page, mildly amusing mostly for the apoplectic reaction of the Hub followers.

Robbo

It's not often you get to invoke Jose Mourinho in this thread but when I heard of his current contractual difficulties, I couldn't help but think that if he'd consulted Ben Gilroy he'd be having a much easier time.

Ben would have "copyrighted" his name for a low-low fee and offered top advice on how to charge people tens of thousands every time they address a letter to you. Or perhaps with their shady money and Bond villain owner, Chelsea have Ben of the Ancient Clan Giolla Rua as their advisor....

Robbo

Gerry Beades is suing all of Europe's financial regulators and all of Europe's Central Banks. Yes, all of them.

Gerry is of course doing this to fight corruption. As he did when he was on the National Executive of Fianna Fail during the Bertie years. In fact his distaste for corruption is so strong that he's in business these days in Qatar, famous for their whiter-than-white bid for the World Cup and excellent treatment of workers.

whippet

Robbo wrote: »

Gerry Beades is suing all of Europe's financial regulators and all of Europe's Central Banks. Yes, all of them.

Gerry is of course doing this to fight corruption. As he did when he was on the National Executive of Fianna Fail during the Bertie years. In fact his distaste for corruption is so strong that he's in business these days in Qatar, famous for their whiter-than-white bid for the World Cup and excellent treatment of workers.

if he tries to run away from debts in Qatar he might get a different reception to what he gets here.