Freeman Megamerge

GeorgeOrwell

Promotion of Freeman/Soverign soilers and other crusaders who can't back up, or base their claims will be dealt with

OK, I'm with you on that.

But I do think that there's merit in letting them post their nonsense in a public forum so that it can be critiqued, laughed at, picked apart and shown for the nonsense it really is by those who are real experts in the law.

The Freeman are very good at using pseudo-law to bamboozle people into believing them. That sort of thing doesn't work here, and I think it should be exposed.

That *brilliant* Canadian Supreme Court judgment was a classic in pulling apart their tactics.

Who knows: maybe if the Freemen were subject to some detailed criticism on here they might become less keen on flyposting Dublin with their nonsense.

hullaballoo

The Charter has been updated and the readers of this thread will be particularly interested in some of the changes.

hju6

Snip

LowKeyReturn

So we're allowed to flame now?

That sounds dangerously like a battle of wits to me. Think I'll avoid that :P

Ken.

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

So we're allowed to flame now?

That sounds dangerously like a battle of wits to me. Think I'll avoid that :P

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

GeorgeOrwell

GeorgeOrwell wrote: »

OK, I'm with you on that.

But I do think that there's merit in letting them post their nonsense in a public forum so that it can be critiqued, laughed at, picked apart and shown for the nonsense it really is by those who are real experts in the law.

The Freeman are very good at using pseudo-law to bamboozle people into believing them. That sort of thing doesn't work here, and I think it should be exposed.

That *brilliant* Canadian Supreme Court judgment was a classic in pulling apart their tactics.

Who knows: maybe if the Freemen were subject to some detailed criticism on here they might become less keen on flyposting Dublin with their nonsense.

I'm sorry but you think they're going to turn around and think:

"You know, that guy on the internet has a point. Maybe this is all just nonsense after all"

Once they've drunk the Kool Aid they are never going to come back.

Technoprisoner

well there must be some truth to the claims if the judge decided it should go forward for trial...it will be interesting to see the argument and the subsequent judgment. Is this the first time a freeman type case has gone to a full trial ?

ResearchWill

Technoprisoner wrote: »

well there must be some truth to the claims if the judge decided it should go forward for trial...it will be interesting to see the argument and the subsequent judgment. Is this the first time a freeman type case has gone to a full trial ?

All the freeman arguments have been thrown out, one issue has gone to hearing. Which if my understanding of the argument is correct is a solid argument based on normal legal principles, I am not saying it will win but its an argument worth making.

Technoprisoner

ResearchWill wrote: »

All the freeman arguments have been thrown out, one issue has gone to hearing. Which if my understanding of the argument is correct is a solid argument based on normal legal principles, I am not saying it will win but its an argument worth making.

and what would the ramifications of this have on the banks? i seen a similar case going on in South Africa where they say the Judges decision meant that criminal charges could be brought against the banks

GeorgeOrwell

Deleted User

The Freemen themselves are beyond rescue, but a bit of intensive criticism might stop some desperate people falling for their nonsense.

ResearchWill

Technoprisoner wrote: »

and what would the ramifications of this have on the banks? i seen a similar case going on in South Africa where they say the Judges decision meant that criminal charges could be brought against the banks

I would doubt the securitisation is a criminal offence. But no one knows the impact untill the judge rules at full hearing. I would not be holding my breath that the argument will win, even if it does I could see the court using a principle like unjust enrichment to defeat the claim. In other words the court would not like a legal argument allow someone to get free property and or money. While the court may say the mortgage is not legal it will more than likely say the money is due and owing so then the bank may have to get a judgement and a judgement mortgage and enforce that.

hju6

Snipped.

Reason: I'm going to talk about a settled case, that I'm not supposed to talk about.

theholyghost

I'm embarrased to be asking this question but was there any 1926 Act passed as to the nature of the Oireachtas either in Dublin or in London?

I mean is the 1926 King George Act thing a lunatic corruption of some real Act that regulated Anglo-Irish relations at the time or just pure fantasy plucked from thin air?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

hju6

http://www.irishidentity.com/stories/growingup.htm



The removal of the King from the Constitution and the abolition of the post of Governor-General paved the way for the introduction of the new constitution in 1937. The census of 1936 showed a further decline in the population of the state, down by about 3,500 to 2,968,420 from 1926

Robbo

July 15th is the return date for AttackTheTax -v- Everyone We Don't Like Who Does Mean Things to Us.

johnnyskeleton

Robbo wrote: »

July 15th is the return date for AttackTheTax -v- Everyone We Don't Like Who Does Mean Things to Us.

July 15th? They will call it the new Independence Day

Robbo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

July 15th? They will call it the new Independence Day

I'd imagine they'll be pleading that as it's St Swithin's day, whatever the result is has to stand for 40 days.

NoQuarter

Fantastic, dont forget to remind us that weekend, I cant wait to see that!

Losty Dublin

First visit to this forum after I had googled something and the link led me to to visit. It's taken me 3 solid days to get through this thread and some of the side links; even then I ignored many of them. Some excellent and easy to read posts from many who are well heeled in legalese, it's made it easier to follow and I thank you all.

Mind you, I already knew this Freeman stuff was bunkum but I'm surprised to learn just how linked up some of it has become to far left elements. With another upcoming referendum we can await a mine of misinformation from miscreants like Gilroy et al.

jd

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Mind you, I already knew this Freeman stuff was bunkum but I'm surprised to learn just how linked up some of it has become to far left elements..

I'd disagree that freemen are linked to the far left - they are closer to some of the off beat right wing groups that have appeared in the US over the years.

Losty Dublin

jd wrote: »

I'd disagree that freemen are linked to the far left - they are closer to some of the off beat right wing groups that have appeared in the US over the years.

I was thinking back to posts referring to the likes of RSF and some Worker Party types; they could be from a year ago.

Robbo

Not strictly Freeman, but the proprietors of a money church declared the actions of a receiver "not legal in the name of Jesus".

NoQuarter

That is one old picture of Laffoy! Holy sh1t.

Grolschevik

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I was thinking back to posts referring to the likes of RSF and some Worker Party types; they could be from a year ago.

A lot of left-wing revolutionary types like to throw their hat into the same ring as any apparently populist movement for short-term tactical gain, without necessarily examining the ideology of those apparently populist movements in the first place. And I speak from a left-wing perspective.

[Edit] Although I wouldn't really consider RSF to be left-wing in the relevant sense.

Losty Dublin

Grolschevik wrote: »

A lot of left-wing revolutionary types like to throw their hat into the same ring as any apparently populist movement for short-term tactical gain, without necessarily examining the ideology of those apparently populist movements in the first place. And I speak from a left-wing perspective.

[Edit] Although I wouldn't really consider RSF to be left-wing in the relevant sense.

Thanks for clarifying that, G; it doth make sense. There are times when it's impossible to tell the far left and far right from each other, maybe that's what happened

Robbo

It appears there may actually be a touch of Freeman about the Victory Church goings on. There appeared to have been a McKenzie Superfriend present as well.

johnnyskeleton

Borrowing money at interest is also not legal in the law of Jesus Christ, so I guess there's fault on both sides.

valleyoftheunos

Robbo wrote: »

Not strictly Freeman, but the proprietors of a money church declared the actions of a receiver "not legal in the name of Jesus".

Robbo wrote: »

It appears there may actually be a touch of Freeman about the Victory Church goings on. There appeared to have been a McKenzie Superfriend present as well.

Unsurprisingly once the Trustees were attached for contempt and brought before the court today they agreed not to interfere with the Receiver any further.

hullaballoo

Just in case you guys are missing out!

Absolute whopper from derry there. "Many of the freemen and sovereigns ideas from a few years back which were classed as crazy have now proved to be true and judges are coming around to accepting some of that logic." :pac:


Edit: Also, loving Zaph's response.