Freeman Megamerge

pirelli

The Mustard wrote: »

Das riet.

No more taxes! Taxes are for serfs and their masters, the Lizard Men!

Huzzah!

As corruptable said the only existence of the Fremanism has been in the 1930's and the present. I have already explained my views on Fremanism and had thought it was more an economical movement than a civil one. It is no coincidence that 1930 and present day both saw a world financial crisis. I would also find it hard to give it credibility that other civil movements have, it is like a very rich man's eccentric pet hobby.

Then again so is the law in Ireland and both groups act like angry cowards. Although some of these movements do stand up for people that would have little recourse in the courts so there must be some good in these little movements all of which sadly fall under the fremanism label.

MagicSean

pirelli wrote: »

Any wrongfully convicted person ever receiving proper compensation and pardon would be an example. The state ever admitting it is wrong.

I was perhaps reckless but not stupid to respond to corruptable's post noting the practitioners of the law find no logic to Fremanism and therefore those opponents to the law are purely arrogant.

I just wanted to be clear on that point so that we are a little closer to determining which group is the most arrogant. I just find that the tone and candour of many of the practitioners and students that corruptable speaks of are the more arrogant and the post's above speak for themselves.

I think Fremanism is a form of civil disobedience or civil resistance. As Martin Luther king said: one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, and Ghandi an advocate of non violent civil disobedience where you may take the fine and serve the sentence but in protest.

It's not so much the lack of logic to Fremanism but essentially whether there is something good behind it all.

It's simply a form of weaseling.

I've yet to hear one of them pledge to return all the items they spent with their imaginary money. "The money the bank gave me wasn't real but when I purchased something with it it was real." That's the basic position they have.

Their stance on criminal law is even more ridiculous and has no other aspects to it other than avoiding prosecutions.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

It's not so much the lack of logic to Fremanism but essentially whether there is something good behind it all.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King both espoused peaceful protest over violent rebellion because they realised that it doesn't just matter what you are fighting for, it matters how you go about the fight.

There can be no merit to Freemanism because it is, without fear of contradiction, a lie. It is an evil not because of that lie but because of the devastation it can cause to people who swallow it. The followers of Russell Porisky, whose methods were described as below by a Canadian judge, all suffered serious criminal penalties for what amounted to tax evasion (something which also happened to early Freemen such as Fuselier in the United States). See: R. v. Klundert [2008] O.J. No. 4522; R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346; R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460; and R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 for examples of what happens when people believe this tripe. It ends in disaster for them.

The Paradigm materials and the teachings of Mr. Porisky have no credibility. In my view, they are nothing more than the proverbial "snake oil salesmen"

The victims here are the people taken in by the Freemen "gurus" who use millenia-old tricks to deceive and indoctrinate people into a form of thinking that does nothing but leave them open to the worst forms of criminal and civil punishments where, had they simply obeyed the law from the outset, they would have been far better off or even completely fine.

Freemanism is evil because it deceives and brings false hope. It pretends to offer the most desperate among us a way out and then when they take to the platform offered by the Freemen they realise that there is no substance to it and they are infinitely worse off than before. The other strand of it, where it has been comical in the past, is its true face: the avoidance of basic legal obligations such as obeying the Road Traffic Acts (Bobby Sludds).

Freemanism isn't a poor mantle on an honourable goal. It is an insidious and objectively dangerous pseudo-cult that offers the promises of hope and the reality of destitution. Any argument in its favour will find scorn not because of the arrogance of the party arguing against it, but because the concepts of Freemanism are simultaneously so laughable and so utterly counter-productive to the goals it purports to follow that no rational person could possibly justify them.

benway

pirelli wrote: »

I think Fremanism is a form of civil disobedience or civil resistance. As Martin Luther king said: one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, and Ghandi an advocate of non violent civil disobedience where you may take the fine and serve the sentence but in protest.

It's not so much the lack of logic to Fremanism but essentially whether there is something good behind it all.

Sorry mods, I can't let this go...but I will keep it brief. Fremenism isn't about disobeying unjust laws, it's about make believing unjust laws, as you see them, out of existence.

Honestly, comparing the firemen to MLK and Ghandi? My whole point all along had been that the true rebels fought the system as it exists, not some fantasy. And they never lied to their followers about the extent of the risks or the challenge.

Fair enough that you're taking the anti-establishment line, but don't let that blind you to the fact that the fremen's methods, worse than just being a joke, are unconscionable and will almost certainly be counter productive in the long run.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

Gandhi and Martin Luther King both espoused peaceful protest over violent rebellion because they realised that it doesn't just matter what you are fighting for, it matters how you go about the fight.

There can be no merit to Freemanism because it is, without fear of contradiction, a lie. It is an evil not because of that lie but because of the devastation it can cause to people who swallow it. The followers of Russell Porisky, whose methods were described as below by a Canadian judge, all suffered serious criminal penalties for what amounted to tax evasion (something which also happened to early Freemen such as Fuselier in the United States). See: R. v. Klundert [2008] O.J. No. 4522; R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346; R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460; and R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 for examples of what happens when people believe this tripe. It ends in disaster for them.



The victims here are the people taken in by the Freemen "gurus" who use millenia-old tricks to deceive and indoctrinate people into a form of thinking that does nothing but leave them open to the worst forms of criminal and civil punishments where, had they simply obeyed the law from the outset, they would have been far better off or even completely fine.

Freemanism is evil because it deceives and brings false hope. It pretends to offer the most desperate among us a way out and then when they take to the platform offered by the Freemen they realise that there is no substance to it and they are infinitely worse off than before. The other strand of it, where it has been comical in the past, is its true face: the avoidance of basic legal obligations such as obeying the Road Traffic Acts (Bobby Sludds).

Freemanism isn't a poor mantle on an honourable goal. It is an insidious and objectively dangerous pseudo-cult that offers the promises of hope and the reality of destitution. Any argument in its favour will find scorn not because of the arrogance of the party arguing against it, but because the concepts of Freemanism are simultaneously so laughable and so utterly counter-productive to the goals it purports to follow that no rational person could possibly justify them.

I took corruptables post out of context..to make an off topic remark, that doesn't make me a believer in Freeman Kayroo nor does it make me stupid just a little naive of the passion you chaps have for this topic.

You can stop bashing me with the legal bible.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

I took corruptables post out of context..to make an off topic remark, that doesn't make me a believer in Freeman Kayroo nor does it make me stupid just a little naive of the passion you chaps have for this topic.

You can stop bashing me with the legal bible.

I never said you believed nor did I accuse you of stupidity although you clearly have a problem with reading what people have actually written.

Finally; I haven't bashed you but, as you can see if you look at my post again, I only refer to the Freemen and don't make it about you at all unlike your post in response to me.

pirelli

benway wrote: »

Sorry mods, I can't let this go...but I will keep it brief. Fremenism isn't about disobeying unjust laws, it's about make believing unjust laws, as you see them, out of existence.

Honestly, comparing the firemen to MLK and Ghandi? My whole point all along had been that the true rebels fought the system as it exists, not some fantasy. And they never lied to their followers about the extent of the risks or the challenge.

Fair enough that you're taking the anti-establishment line, but don't let that blind you to the fact that the fremen's methods, worse than just being a joke, are unconscionable and will almost certainly be counter productive in the long run.

Why are u apologising to the Mod's...I think they have agreed to keep this thread going.

I never compared Mlk or Ghandi and if you read my post just above you will see that. Maybe Freeman believe there is a conspiracy of some king involving some kind of world order and this is their way of being disobedient to it. Freeman was always suspicious if not fearful of the banking system and whenever the banking system fails they appear. Freeman do not believe in the way the economy is being run and this is their way of protesting. It is a civil resistance and i am surprised at the reaction of some people on this thread to something as harmless as Freemanism.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

It is a civil resistance and i am surprised at the reaction of some people on this thread to something as harmless as Freemanism.

Is it harmless when 300 Freemen surround a magistrates Court and attempt to arrest a judge?

Is it harmless when $1.6 million Canadian dollars is defrauded from the Canadian Govt in a tax evasion scheme?

Is it harmless when there is an 80-day armed standoff with Federal Officers in Montana within weeks of the Waco incident?

Is it harmless when, owing to Freemen teachings, ordinary people are defrauded out of over one million dollars through fraudulently produced cheques?

All of these incidents have happened already. Harmless.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said you believed nor did I accuse you of stupidity although you clearly have a problem with reading what people have actually written.

Finally; I haven't bashed you but, as you can see if you look at my post again, I only refer to the Freemen and don't make it about you at all unlike your post in response to me.

Not reading people posts!! It worse than that, You were all sizzling with anti Freeman passion and courrutable had just made a great speech...i just thought you all had finished with the topic, my mistake.

This thread remind's me that game Red Code where your in the winning seat with a larger coloured army of tanks and soldier and you surround the other army until the odds are ridiculously in your favour.

Kinda like I unplugged your playstation sorry boy's do continue. Not saying you have won the war on Freeman's but i don't see any opposition on this thread.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it harmless when 300 Freemen surround a magistrates Court and attempt to arrest a judge?

Is it harmless when $1.6 million Canadian dollars is defrauded from the Canadian Govt in a tax evasion scheme?

Is it harmless when there is an 80-day armed standoff with Federal Officers in Montana within weeks of the Waco incident?

Is it harmless when, owing to Freemen teachings, ordinary people are defrauded out of over one million dollars through fraudulently produced cheques?

All of these incidents have happened already. Harmless.

Sorry not harmless.... wrong word.:D

Tom Young

Open tomorrow after 13:00.

jargon buster

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2203936727

Rob Menard on Canadian TV

johnnyskeleton

jargon buster wrote: »

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2203936727

Rob Menard on Canadian TV

Good find.

The chilling thing is the guy who explains how he got caught up in it - repetition, repetition, repetition.

That's how they work. The more varieties of the same theory from different sources reinforces their beliefs.

Robbo

Yesterday morning, Ian Dempsey read out that fake McCann Fitz email on his show. Jesus wept.

johnnyskeleton

Robbo wrote: »

Yesterday morning, Ian Dempsey read out that fake McCann Fitz email on his show. Jesus wept.

Well at least people now know not to believe it.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it harmless when 300 Freemen surround a magistrates Court and attempt to arrest a judge?

Is it harmless when $1.6 million Canadian dollars is defrauded from the Canadian Govt in a tax evasion scheme?

Is it harmless when there is an 80-day armed standoff with Federal Officers in Montana within weeks of the Waco incident?

Is it harmless when, owing to Freemen teachings, ordinary people are defrauded out of over one million dollars through fraudulently produced cheques?

All of these incidents have happened already. Harmless.

Harmless and amusing that you would care about 1.6 million dollars in tax evasion in a foreign country or expect me to care. What Freman are alleging is somewhat true in that there is impropriety in the financial sector which results in huge losses which falls on the tax payer ( who don't exist ha ha )

To focus on such pettiness and turn a blind eye to the impropriety at almost every level of our economy which is costing us hundreds of billions if not upwards of a trillion in losses...

...I am being presumptious and i am sure you do care for the state of our economy and it's perfectly fair to have an opinion on Fremanism and how abrasive it's philosophy is to the senses.

I am not being arrogant nor presumptuous in relation to fremanism either and if you viewed the link below- at the end of the program- in the link they suggest incorporating the Fremanism language and beliefs into an appropriate structure where both the Government official and the Freeman can communicate.

That is an achievement and there may well be something of substance to what they are saying. This thread just dismisses everything they say as nonsense is the same as a Freman dismissing everything lawyers and goverment's say as nonsense. The police, and shoddy lawyers have far too often taken advantage of people naivety, and any form of civil resistance that gives simple people back some dignity and rights is a good thing.

Remember the bush era where everything people were told was a lie. Lie's after Lie's. People need an outlet to vent their frustration. Call them cheap red necks trying to weasel out of paying their contribution's or see them as people who need to vent their fustration.

jargon buster wrote: »

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2203936727

Rob Menard on Canadian TV

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Good find.

The chilling thing is the guy who explains how he got caught up in it - repetition, repetition, repetition.

That's how they work. The more varieties of the same theory from different sources reinforces their beliefs.

I have no idea where I stand on all of this but the killing of those police officers was callous and cruel. The presenter brings our attention to the vehicles licence plate in the video of the killing but to me the car's number plate did look normal on the murder's car though despite them saying it was one of them crazy Freman people number plates you see earlier in the video.

We have for simplistic sake the IRA ( dissidents) as terror group and Spain has ETA and the Germans have the RAF ( red army) and america has it's terror groups also but i am not sure it is fremanism.


Is it, i think we are being slightly misled ?

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Good find.

The chilling thing is the guy who explains how he got caught up in it - repetition, repetition, repetition.

That's how they work. The more varieties of the same theory from different sources reinforces their beliefs.

They also target the vulnerable.

seamus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well at least people now know not to believe it.

You would think so, except Ian Dempsey said, "Is it true? I dunno, maybe someone can check it out. It would be great news if it is true".

And left it at that. ffs.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well at least people now know not to believe it.

You would think so, except Ian Dempsey said, "Is it true? I dunno, maybe someone can check it out. It would be great news if it is true".

And left it at that. ffs.

Exactly. If he said it was untrue, people might start to believe it. As it is, no one will pay any mind.

pirelli

seamus wrote: »

You would think so, except Ian Dempsey said, "Is it true? I dunno, maybe someone can check it out. It would be great news if it is true".

And left it at that. ffs.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Exactly. If he said it was untrue, people might start to believe it. As it is, no one will pay any mind.

Well is it? Just a simple Yes or No. Thank you

benway

pirelli wrote: »

Well is it? Just a simple Yes or No. Thank you

No.

De rien, mon frère.

Corruptable

The fact that the Dept of Environment issued this statement in response to the fake McCann Fitzgerald memo and other woo which is being entertained in local and national media seems to be a victory for the Freemen on the Land:

"The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 provides the legislative basis for the household charge, under this act owners of certain residential properties are in respect of each liability date required to:

(A) make a declaration of liabilty to pay an annual household charge in respect of that property and (B) pay the said charge.

Citizens and residents of the state are bound by the laws of the state which are enacted by the Oireachtas. This is underscored by the Constitution of Ireland. There is no validity in the suggestion put forward that a person can opt of the law of the State by not consenting to it.

As stated above owners of residential property liable to the household charge are, under the foregoing Act, required to make a declaration of liability and to pay the household charge."

The Freemen are calling this a victory because:

1. "The People", who are sovereign are not "residents" or "citizens", they are not bound by the Constitution. The Constitution is a one-way contract with the government which limits it's powers, not ours.
2. When the Department says there is "no validity in the suggestion that a person can opt out of a law of the state", it simply proves that a human person (i.e.: the one other than legal person) can opt out of paying.
3. The trap is in the registration requirement. If you register for the household charge, then you are contracting with them.

People should not be fooled into contracting with the government. They should not listen to people from the government, the Law Society, or the British Accredited Registry (BAR) on these matters.

K-9

Corruptable wrote: »

People should not be fooled into contracting with the government. They should not listen to people from the government, the Law Society, or the British Accredited Registry (BAR) on these matters.

Nor self declare for VAT, Income Tax, Employee tax and social insurance deductions for Welfare entitlements..............................

Paulw

Corruptable wrote: »

People should not be fooled.

Indeed, people shouldn't be fooled by freeman advice.

Finnbar01

Ignore the conspiracy theories – the household charge must be paid

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-ignore-the-conspiracy-theories-the-household-charge-must-be-paid/

FreudianSlippers

Finnbar01 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-ignore-the-conspiracy-theories-the-household-charge-must-be-paid/

**** me... it's like bashing your head repeatedly against the wall reading the comments. Some people have far more patience than I.

MungBean

Will any of the groups spreading the document face legal action ?

Raisins

pirelli wrote: »

This thread just dismisses everything they say as nonsense is the same as a Freman dismissing everything lawyers and goverment's say as nonsense.

That's absolutely untrue and is a fundamental mistake among people especially in relation to entertaining freemanism.

People think (maybe as a legacy from junior certificate English essays or something) that there is always two sides to a story. They then use this thinking when the receive medical and legal advice. You don't balance a doctor's professional opinion as regards treatment with your neighbours. You never balance a legal opinion of a barrister/solicitor with a freeman. If you want a second opinion you must get a professional one.

If a plumber told me he needed to turn off the water supply to the house to do some work I would either agree or ask another plumber. The equivalent to freemanism would be to let someone tell you that because water flows downstream you don't need to turn off the supply. Just rip up the pipes yourself.

Finnbar01

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

**** me... it's like bashing your head repeatedly against the wall reading the comments. Some people have far more patience than I.

Yep, I felt like that too when I was reading the comments.

finty

I have a question; in the famous video of Ben Gilroy and his mates stopping the sheriff seizing the house in Laois Mr Gilroy implies that the sheriff is a "private company" and is profiting from the eviction.......

now this stinks of horsemanure to me.

Can someone clarify whats the truth of this?

cheers