Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Freeman Megamerge

13567279

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭ MapForJ


    Hoffmans wrote: »
    i dont think this episode is over yet ! next wednesday the case has been switched to wexford court big media interest im hearing
    was it not at wexford court last time

    A JUDGE was challenged by a defendant yesterday to produce his oath of office before proceeding with a case being heard at Wexford District Court.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭ Finnbar01


    Hoffmans wrote: »
    i dont think this episode is over yet ! next wednesday the case has been switched to wexford court big media interest im hearing
    'Mr Justice Roderick Murphy directed Mr Sludds be released. The court was also told the matter had been settled and costs had been agreed between Mr Sludds and the State.

    Costs???
    A date was NOT given for Mr Sludds' next appearance back at District Court level to face the motoring charges.

    My highlight.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/man-in-standoff-with-judge-over-constitution-is-released-2847358.html


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,382 derry


    McCrack wrote: »
    Derry do you have a job or are you still on the "scratch" you referred to in previous posts on a different topic that I took the liberty of checking to see what kind of person you are. Your previous posts are also odd to say the least.

    You also stated you had 3 unregistered mobiles so the authorities can't track you.

    It's all very tinfoil hat stuff and I respectfully suggest you consult with your G.P. who might refer you to a Consultant Psychiatrist for assessment.

    I'm not joking.


    Nice to see I have a shadow wanna be Copper for the state tracking me

    Your serious reseach into my life style impresses me .Does my life help enhace your life

    Anyway points of fact I am electronic in my training . I know if I register my mobile phone the cops will have no trouble to track me and its non of thier buisness to do that unless they have probable cause .
    Once the cops have probable cause to track a person anyone in Eire they only have to get a sample of the voice. Then it doesnt matter what phone you use in the Irish telephone or mobile network they can get a heads up in real time where you are what number you use and so forth . The desire for the state to make peoplke register is aproblem of they want to show in your face the plebs down there how much power they have .

    So in the mean time so long as I am not on the Probale cause list the power to be can shag off

    My working status or not working status is non of your buisness but to humour you I can tell you I have been on contrat working outside the state since March so you can update your data center and contact your tracking agents abroad :pac:

    I have been lucky to spread the word further afield in the planet earth that peoples of the earth are all freemen and make contact with other Freeman movements worldwide


    Yes some people will lose thier court cases in Ireland and other places in the planet earth
    However as the peoples get better at taking on the corrupt court systems of Ireland and other countries legal systems will have to adapt to the new reality
    The new message is that people are not fair game to support the great fraud of the legal systems which tranfer all fines to the banksters who defraud the state and peoples every day

    Oh and its very sunny where I am heard it freezing in Eire glad i skipped town ahead of the posse and caught the sun
    Derry


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,511 ✭✭✭✭ FreudianSlippers


    Wow... just wow.

    I think on that note it's safe to say that this thread should probably end. Any objections?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,671 Wolfe Tone


    Leave it open for the lols I say... I wanna hear what happens when the guy is back in court


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,511 ✭✭✭✭ FreudianSlippers


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Leave it open for the lols I say... I wanna hear what happens when the guy is back in court
    Same here... I think it can stay open with the general caveat: "don't feed the trolls!"


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Paulw


    derry wrote: »
    I have been lucky to spread the word further afield in the planet earth that peoples of the earth are all freemen and make contact with other Freeman movements worldwide

    Yes some people will lose thier court cases in Ireland and other places in the planet earth

    Just wondering ... what other planet are you on? ;)

    Of course people will not win their court cases based on your information, most likely due to the fact it's all rubbish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭ MapForJ


    I say leave it open to for when the court case comes up


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,382 derry


    Wow... just wow.

    I think on that note it's safe to say that this thread should probably end. Any objections?

    I would have thought that the other thread was the one to keep open
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056355353

    However that thread is closed
    So if this thread is closed then somebody will have to open a new thread afte the next court case goes through

    However all these legal threads break down into those who fear change and want the Government with British law to reign supreme ,and those who want the government to take a hike and go annoy and fine corperations who have the cash to pay these fines and are the real intended target of the statues laws .
    When the argument cant be won then its attack the messengers every time.
    Its sorta how the real world legal system works , the truth is only what is precieved as the truth and the real truth has nothing to do with the argument:pac:

    Derry


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,635 TylerIE


    Wow... just wow.

    I think on that note it's safe to say that this thread should probably end. Any objections?
    Same here... I think it can stay open with the general caveat: "don't feed the trolls!"

    Its So hard not to comment/feed... My head is frazzled with the lunacy of it all!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 Het-Field


    derry wrote: »
    I would have thought that the other thread was the one to keep open
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056355353

    However that thread is closed
    So if this thread is closed then somebody will have to open a new thread afte the next court case goes through

    However all these legal threads break down into those who fear change and want the Government with British law to reign supreme ,and those who want the government to take a hike and go annoy and fine corperations who have the cash to pay these fines and are the real intended target of the statues laws .
    When the argument cant be won then its attack the messengers every time.
    Its sorta how the real world legal system works , the truth is only what is precieved as the truth and the real truth has nothing to do with the argument:pac:

    Derry

    Derry,

    Would you please explain the concept of "Common Law" to me?

    Thanks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭ Joshua Jones


    Well after reading this thread the only person who has put forward a tangable post or shown common decency, right or wrong, is Derry. And he's the crazy one lol.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭ MapForJ


    derry wrote: »

    Once the cops have probable cause to track a person anyone in Eire they only have to get a sample of the voice. Then it doesnt matter what phone you use in the Irish telephone or mobile network they can get a heads up in real time where you are what number you use and so forth .
    then what is the point of having three unregd phones


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,401 passive


    Well after reading this thread the only person who has put forward a tangable post or shown common decency, right or wrong, is Derry. And he's the crazy one lol.

    lol indeed...


  • Registered Users Posts: 476 ✭✭ jblack


    Well after reading this thread the only person who has put forward a tangable post or shown common decency, right or wrong, is Derry. And he's the crazy one lol.

    Tangable = deliberate stupidity to stir debate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,183 ✭✭✭ Kayroo


    Essentially the Freeman position is flawed on three fronts. I will ignore many of their more absurd claims such as the capital letters issue. Sorry if this ends up being a little prolix.

    Misinterpretation
    First their entire argument is based on a conscious and, I can only assume, intentional misinterpretation of certain legal terms and concepts. Het-Field has very aptly asked here for Derry to explain what he considers "common law" to be. Although thus far no explanation has been forthcoming it can be reasonably assumed that Derry follows the same general position that many other Freemen do with regard to this issue:
      Statutes / Legislation
      [*]• A Statute is a Legislative Act of a Society
      [*]• Formal written agreement which
      [*]governs a Country, State etc.Which has the ‘Force of Law’ or Colour of Law
      [*]• Almost always comes with a monetary ‘Charge’
      [*]• These Laws are on Man and restrict freedoms
      That which is legal:-
      [*]• Commercial Law
      [*]• Admiralty Maritime Law
      [*]• Law of Trade
      [*]• Law of The Sea
      [*]• Victimless Crime
        Common Law
        [*]• The unwritten Law of the Common man.
        [*]• Comes directly from higher self/conscience/intuition.
        [*]• Religious codes of conduct i.e.The Ten Commandments.
        [*]• Summed up as ‘Harm None’
        [*]• These Laws are for Man and protect
        That which is Lawful:-
        [*]• Law of the Land
        [*]• Almost universal Worldwide
        [*]• Protects those whose Rights have been infringed upon.
        [*]• Murder,Theft etc
        [*]• Crime with a Victim


        My source for the above is, as much of what I will discuss here is, the Freeman's Handbook. I am quoting their own words and, unlike the Freemen strategy I will discuss below, I will not misquote them to make my point.

        The definition of common law given above by the Freemen is deceptive in that it is a perfect mix of falsity and misinterpretation. Common law is, to put it in the most basic terms imaginable, a system of law whereby the previous decisions of Courts are a source of law to which we give the authority of precedent. The concept of "reasonable doubt" and the burden on the prosecution in murder trials (Woolmington -v- DPP [1935]1 UKHL) is an example that seems to fit the Freeman form and is, undoubtedly, a common law rule. However the common law also states that any creditor who wishes to have s.251 of the Companies Act 1963 applied in their favour must show that it will give them a tangible benefit (Airscape -v- Powertech Logistics[2007] IEHC 43 ). Both of these decisions are undoubtedly common law decisions. In the latter case the statutory element is unimportant as the decision of Laffoy J was not based on the statute but on the decision of a number of other Courts. There was, in truth, as much discussion of statute law in Woolmington as there was in Airscape.

        This form of common law does not sit within the Freeman position (see, in particular, the last 5 parts of the definition given above) although it is, without fear of contravention, common law. I used common law as an example of a purposeful misinterpretation within the Freeman argument as it is a fundamental element of their position to construct common law in this manner to make it appear as if one form of law applies to corporate entities and another to "human" entities. This is entirely false. I chose the Airscape case as an example as it is the perfect confluence of the personal and the corporate. The person and the company are both bound by the common law decision. A creditor can be both an individual and a corporate body and both are bound by the common law decision of Laffoy J. Under the Freeman position as they define it Common Law is the law of man and Statute Law is the law of corporations. However theft, fraud, assault, etc are all statutory offences and not common law offences, another minor error in the overall theoretical position.

        False Information
        Constitution of Ireland Article 41.1.1
        “ The State acknowledges that the family is the basic primary sub-group of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable and invincible rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute. ”

        Note:
        This is from the original document of the Constitution translated into literal English. You may be interested by the comparative differences between this and the modern translations.

        Luckily I have a friend who is pretty amazing at Irish and translated this for me. This is the Irish for the above paragraph:
        Admhaíonn an Stát gurb é an teaghlach an bunúsach fo-ghrúpa de / phríomhúil don tsochaí de réir nádúir, agus go bhfuil sé gur foras morálta é a bhfuil cearta doshannta (invincible- I don't think there is a direct word for this in Irish) atá níos ársa agus níos airde ná aon reacht daonna

        Now, let's compare that with the actual Irish wording of the Constitution:
        Admhaíonn an Stát gurb é an Teaghlach is buíon-aonad príomha bunaidh don chomhdhaonnacht de réir nádúir, agus gur foras morálta é a bhfuil cearta doshannta dochloíte is ársa agus is airde ná aon reacht daonna.

        The direct translation of this into English is actually the following:
        The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

        Coincidentally this is the exact wording in the English version of the Constitution. Art. 41 has never been amended and so the Irish version of the text is the same as it was in 1937.

        The above example of Freeman misinformation is under the heading "Rights" and is inserted at the end as if it were somehow instructive. It is clearly an attempt to join together their self-identification as "John of the Family Doe" with an ability to stand above statute law as their misinterpretation of Art. 41.1.1 would seem to justify. Luckily their interpretation is wholly incorrect and actually a complete fabrication. Notwithstanding that the Article actually confers rights on the family as a unit rather than upon the individuals within it their entire application of the Article is a cynical use of legal sounding terms to confuse people. It is one of the most damning elements of the Freeman philosophy that, despite their claims to be "setting people free with the truth" they are actually using people's ignorance to entrap them into their fallacious philosophy.

        Selective Information/Reading

        The discussion that has surrounded Mr. Sludds in recent days on the Freeman side has been marvelously revealing. They claim innumerable examples of how Freemen have overcome the Courts using their methods yet when someone clearly tries it and fails they simply say he did the wrong things. Similarly when asked on another forum by a member here to give examples of their successes that member was banned.

        Many people here have seen the YouTube video of the "successful" man in the Magistrate's Court in England. What most people here also know, Freemen as well as the less Freeman minded among us I suspect, is that the claims of success come in the form of words super-imposed on a black background as the man has been lead from the Court. I apologise for not finding the link, perhaps another poster will oblige me, but I believe it was shown that the man in question was eventually fined and faced the proper scrutiny of the law as was right.

        Regardless, the basic point remains. Freemen tend to make sweeping statements without any evidence to support it. They claim success without showing it. Any success they do show is very quickly shown to be false (an error on a warrant or a Garda failing to appear offering them their successes rather than any victory by argument) and yet they persist with evangelical zeal. Given the overall tenor of their position this is not a surprising level of commitment obviously.


        Like all good lies the Freeman philosophy is sprinkled with truths and like all good cults it uses a special language for its own purposes. The use of legal sounding terms, skewed by misinterpretations and definitions far removed from the truth, allows the Freemen to use people's general and understandable ignorance of the law to draw them in to a pseudo-religious philosophy that places them in serious risk if they were ever crazy enough to actually use the Freeman argument in Court, as has occurred with Mr. Sludds.

        The one element of the Freeman position that we have not heard over the last few days is the moral element. Mr. Sludds has NEVER denied that he was speeding. He was breaking a law specifically designed to save lives and which has seen Ireland reduce it's road deaths by almost 50% over the last 10 years and for all the talk of the rights of man and free to roam the land the Freemen, ultimately, are seeking to justify the actions of a man who, and it is undenied, broke the law. It was not, despite the Freeman argument, his legal fiction that was driving the car.


      • Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭ Joshua Jones


        What is your opinion on corporations paying large sums of money to accountants to avoid paying tax?. Would you consider them similar to Freemen in this regard?.


      • Registered Users Posts: 1,635 TylerIE


        What is your opinion on corporations paying large sums of money to accountants to avoid paying tax?. Would you consider them similar to Freemen in this regard?.

        These corporations are expected to obey taxation law. Tax avoidance is acceptable and legal, tax evasion is not. The corporations pay the accountants to ensure that they pay as little tax as legally possible.

        Should they engage in tax evasion these corporations can expect to find revenue audits, fines and possibly convictions. Unlike "freemen" the corporations then expect to and normally do pay the taxes and fines.

        Would anybody really want to pay more tax then the law dictates?


      • Registered Users Posts: 4,183 ✭✭✭ Kayroo


        What is your opinion on corporations paying large sums of money to accountants to avoid paying tax?. Would you consider them similar to Freemen in this regard?.

        So long as the "corporations" (I assume you mean large companies?) obey the law I have no particular issue with them. The accountants pay tax on those large sums of money too by the way. If the corporations try to get out of paying tax either illegally or by simply ignoring certain laws then I would have an issue with it but what I have an issue with is really quite irrelevant. Everyone should obey the law.


      • Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭ MapForJ


        they now claim sludds was paid a fee and withdrew request for oath

        see post from not morrissey


      • Advertisement
      • Registered Users Posts: 476 ✭✭ jblack


        What is your opinion on corporations paying large sums of money to accountants to avoid paying tax?. Would you consider them similar to Freemen in this regard?.

        Tax avoidance (of a legal obligation) is illegal, identifying areas where companies are not obliged to pay tax is good accounting.


      • Registered Users Posts: 4,183 ✭✭✭ Kayroo


        Kayroo wrote: »
        Selective Information/Reading
        Regardless, the basic point remains. Freemen tend to make sweeping statements without any evidence to support it. They claim success without showing it. Any success they do show is very quickly shown to be false (an error on a warrant or a Garda failing to appear offering them their successes rather than any victory by argument) and yet they persist with evangelical zeal. Given the overall tenor of their position this is not a surprising level of commitment obviously.
        MapForJ wrote: »
        they now claim sludds was paid a fee and withdrew request for oath

        see post from not morrissey

        The post from Not Morrissey is a PERFECT example of what I was referring to above. Unattributed and unverifiable but put forward as fact. If I say "I heard Judge Anderson was given a written apology in crayon by Mr. Sludds, three heads of cabbage and an undertaking to perform a traditional Irish ballad each year at Judge Anderson's birthday in order to release him" then it would have precisely the same level of authority as Not Morrissey's post. It would also be equally likely.


      • Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭ MapForJ


        Kayroo wrote: »
        The post from Not Morrissey is a PERFECT example of what I was referring to above. Unattributed and unverifiable but put forward as fact. If I say "I heard Judge Anderson was given a written apology in crayon by Mr. Sludds, three heads of cabbage and an undertaking to perform a traditional Irish ballad each year at Judge Anderson's birthday in order to release him" then it would have precisely the same level of authority as Not Morrissey's post. It would also be equally likely.
        There were references to 'costs' in the media. Do you know what that was about


      • Registered Users Posts: 4,183 ✭✭✭ Kayroo


        MapForJ wrote: »
        There were references to 'costs' in the media. Do you know what that was about

        The costs of his Art. 40 appeal I'd imagine. He had a solicitor, barrister and Senior Counsel. The State didn't contest it and the entire matter was really quite procedural so it would be entirely normal for costs to be agreed between the parties.


      • Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭ Joshua Jones


        I realise this is the Legal discussions board, would I be right in assuming that here you believe legal = just?.



      • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 Het-Field


        I realise this is the Legal discussions board, would I be right in assuming that here you believe legal = just?.


        Another stock Freeman argument.


      • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Paulw


        I realise this is the Legal discussions board, would I be right in assuming that here you believe legal = just?.

        Totally separate discussion from this topic.

        But, no, legal doesn't always mean just. But, the law is the law. If there is a flaw, then it is up to the govt of the country to change the law to make it more just.


      • Registered Users Posts: 4,183 ✭✭✭ Kayroo


        I realise this is the Legal discussions board, would I be right in assuming that here you believe legal = just?

        This is totally irrelevant to the overall point of this thread and if you'd rather discuss it in a new thread so be it. I suppose Google are exploiting transnational tax codes which is an almost inevitable by-product of the global market. Ireland benefits from that by taking in the portion of the tax revenue that is applicable here.

        The law is a little bit behind global markets really. In the internet era in particular globalised business operates almost without boundaries while national governments are loathe to harmonise international tax codes as can be seen by the Government's refusal to increase Ireland's corporation rate. Obviously Ireland benefit from this overall as do Google and their investors. Google also create jobs here and their employees pay income tax and pay for goods and services which feed back into the economy.

        I am sure that eventually, as business is increasingly global (even the smallest Irish companies can sell worldwide through the internet) that a new approach on international taxation will have to be taken. I know that Obama has sought to stop Google from doing precisely what you have referred to and the Irish Government were quite concerned with it at the time.


      • Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭ shaneybaby


        I realise this is the Legal discussions board, would I be right in assuming that here you believe legal = just?.


        I can't see the youtube thingy but you're wrong if you're equating legality with the moral issue of justice.


      • Advertisement
      • Registered Users Posts: 476 ✭✭ jblack


        I realise this is the Legal discussions board, would I be right in assuming that here you believe legal = just?.

        http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Flies-Perigee-William-Golding/dp/0399501487


      Advertisement