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

12467279

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭ Joshua Jones


    Lobbyists and clever accountants/lawyers can manipulate law to suit their needs. These things dont come cheap however and something that the average man on the street cannot afford. Now Mr Sludds believes, however naievly, that the law pertaining to these incidents is unfair and unjust and is attempting to stand up for his rights. Weither I believe he is right or wrong is irrelevant, the fact that he is standing up against percieved injustice gets my respect. That fact we can agree that not all laws are just therefore dictates that we should encourage challanging law for their robustness and not just concede that law is law, accept it.


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


    Now Mr Sludds believes, however naievly, that the law pertaining to these incidents is unfair and unjust and is attempting to stand up for his rights.

    His right to speed???? :eek: The law which sets speed limits is there to protect life (as has been shown by statistics).


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,182 ✭✭✭ Kayroo


    Lobbyists and clever accountants/lawyers can manipulate law to suit their needs. These things dont come cheap however and something that the average man on the street cannot afford. Now Mr Sludds believes, however naievly, that the law pertaining to these incidents is unfair and unjust and is attempting to stand up for his rights. Weither I believe he is right or wrong is irrelevant, the fact that he is standing up against percieved injustice gets my respect. That fact we can agree that not all laws are just therefore dictates that we should encourage challanging law for their robustness and not just concede that law is law, accept it.

    This is another tactic of the Freeman argument. They couch blatant self-interest in esoteric rhetoric. Mr. Sludds is not standing up for his rights. He is attempting to get out of a speeding fine. He has no right to break the law.

    You are falling foul of the worst of all rhetorical tricks, the false syllogism. Not all laws are just, there are laws against speeding therefore the laws against speeding are unjust.* It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    *
    Classic example of the false syllogism is the Cat/Dog example: All cats have 4 legs, my dog has 4 legs therefore my dog is a cat.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭ Joshua Jones


    I think people are deliberatly misrepresenting my post and using sensationalism to undermine it. I have never defended his right to speed. All I've defended is his right to challange the law, which I'll reiterate, should be welcomed. If you all believe in the legal system then justice should prevail.

    I know of a Lawyer in England who specialises in getting rich footballers out of speeding fines. He's a lawyer of course, not a lay man.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 Het-Field


    I think people are deliberatly misrepresenting my post and using sensationalism to undermine it. I have never defended his right to speed. All I've defended is his right to challange the law, which I'll reiterate, should be welcomed. If you all believe in the legal system then justice should prevail.

    I know of a Lawyer in England who specialises in getting rich footballers out of speeding fines. He's a lawyer of course, not a lay man.

    But what "justice" was Sludds seeking?

    He was requesting the Judge to "produce his oath", which he is under no Constitutional, or legislative imperative to do. He was not challanging the law, he was acting the maggot.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,182 ✭✭✭ Kayroo


    I think people are deliberatly misrepresenting my post and using sensationalism to undermine it. I have never defended his right to speed. All I've defended is his right to challange the law, which I'll reiterate, should be welcomed. If you all believe in the legal system then justice should prevail.

    I know of a Lawyer in England who specialises in getting rich footballers out of speeding fines. He's a lawyer of course, not a lay man.

    This point cannot be made enough: Mr. Sludds is not challenging the particular section of the Road Traffic Acts under which he is charged. He is not, to the best of my knowledge, challenging any law at all.

    He is instead attempting to use a vacuous form of argument that has no meaning or truth behind it whatsoever to avoid his legal obligations. He is not a small man fighting the system for justice. He is a man attempting to get away with speeding.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,635 TylerIE


    I think people are deliberatly misrepresenting my post and using sensationalism to undermine it. I have never defended his right to speed. All I've defended is his right to challange the law, which I'll reiterate, should be welcomed. If you all believe in the legal system then justice should prevail.

    I know of a Lawyer in England who specialises in getting rich footballers out of speeding fines. He's a lawyer of course, not a lay man.

    Ye he specializes in getting people off, he still obeys the law. He may find loopholes or errors in the processing or way it was handled, but he still obeys the law. Should the case be handled properly (ie in line with the law) by the UK Police, in line with their laws, then the footballer wont get off. The rich footballers just get the solicitor who is familar with speeding.

    I know plenty of country farmers who get a solicitor who specialises in drink driving to get them off.
    Does'nt mean there is no justice in the country, or inequal justice. This same solicitor sometimes has legal aid cases!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,073 littlemac1980


    I think people are deliberatly misrepresenting my post and using sensationalism to undermine it. I have never defended his right to speed. All I've defended is his right to challange the law, which I'll reiterate, should be welcomed. If you all believe in the legal system then justice should prevail.

    I know of a Lawyer in England who specialises in getting rich footballers out of speeding fines. He's a lawyer of course, not a lay man.

    I agree with you.

    The man you talk about is entitled to his day in court, same as everyone else.

    He's also entitled to put forward whatever arguments he may wish in his defence.

    No big controversy really.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭ MapForJ


    Kayroo wrote: »
    This point cannot be made enough: Mr. Sludds is not challenging the particular section of the Road Traffic Acts under which he is charged. He is not, to the best of my knowledge, challenging any law at all.

    He is instead attempting to use a vacuous form of argument that has no meaning or truth behind it whatsoever to avoid his legal obligations. He is not a small man fighting the system for justice. He is a man attempting to get away with speeding.
    have you seen their latest statement from waynes world user


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 Het-Field


    MapForJ wrote: »
    have you seen their latest statement from waynes world user



    "Bob was sitting at the back of the high court, the judge never addressed him.
    The barrister who asked could he handle the case, submitted an affidavit to the judge, and the contents of that affidavit were twisted and turned against bobby by the media. I'v been in contact with the irish independent to inform them of their error in print, and asked them to submit a retraction, as it is classed as defamation
    I'v been handling and advising on the case, and i have a copy of the affidavit that was submitted by the barrister..

    The media also said that he MUST appear in wexford district court on wednesday.
    However, the high court granted unconditional release!!
    Unconditional release means there can be no more said about the charges..
    The reason the high court released him is because Anderson had no lawfullauthority to issue the order demanding his detention, because he had not acknowledged his oath, or gained jurisdiction in the matter.

    This means that Anderson is deemed to have vacated his office, but it turns out he is the residing judge for the case on wednesday...

    Come to wexford on wednesday if you have any doubt about who won, or who will win..

    Siochána agus saoirse"


    Given that there is at least one major traunch of BS in the post, it is possible that there is more.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,182 ✭✭✭ Kayroo


    I'm loathe to get into the Sludd case in particular. For one the man himself doesn't deserve it. If he wants to make this issue then so be it. Either he will fail miserably and justice will be done or he will succeed through more conventional legal methods and claim victory for his philosophy nonetheless. I would rather not put the fate of the entire argument against Freemen in that unpredictable basket.

    That doesn't alter the fundamental arguments that I have made previously. The Freemen have their, frankly preposterous, position and I and those who are convinced by logic and facts have ours. I cannot see any ardent Freemen being persuaded by my points nor shall they persuade me to take up their cause.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭ MapForJ


    Het-Field wrote: »
    "Bob was sitting at the back of the high court, the judge never addressed him.
    The barrister who asked could he handle the case, submitted an affidavit to the judge, and the contents of that affidavit were twisted and turned against bobby by the media. I'v been in contact with the irish independent to inform them of their error in print, and asked them to submit a retraction, as it is classed as defamation
    I'v been handling and advising on the case, and i have a copy of the affidavit that was submitted by the barrister..

    The media also said that he MUST appear in wexford district court on wednesday.
    However, the high court granted unconditional release!!
    Unconditional release means there can be no more said about the charges..
    The reason the high court released him is because Anderson had no lawfullauthority to issue the order demanding his detention, because he had not acknowledged his oath, or gained jurisdiction in the matter.

    This means that Anderson is deemed to have vacated his office, but it turns out he is the residing judge for the case on wednesday...

    Come to wexford on wednesday if you have any doubt about who won, or who will win..

    Siochána agus saoirse"


    Given that there is at least one major traunch of BS in the post, it is possible that there is more.
    i was not sure if i coul post it in full in case they decide the copyright law is a law they believe in:D


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,575 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Robbo


    They now believe in defamation as well...


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭ Panrich


    The title of this thread is a contradiction.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭ MapForJ


    seems to be gthe latest. It is from family facebook
    We arrived to the court, there were about 35 or so with us.
    A guard approached the group to say; "its our understanding that ye are here for protest" we informed him we were here strictly as peace officers, to see justice done.
    Turned out they were expecting us, there was a heavy garda presence there, and we were told on arrival that the case was up for mention in clover hill today, after already being asked to attend wexford court a few days previous.

    So at the moment we're waiting on a date so be set..

    I'd like to thank everyone who traveled to the court today to show their support, especially the guy's who traveled from dublin and galway last night.(you know who you are).
    They're really doing ur a favour by giving us the run around, but im sure they'll figure that out when the court date comes. :)

    Siochána agus saoirse


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭ MagicSean


    Peace officers? What a bunch of idiots.

    EDIT: Do you actually have a link to the Facebook page or did you get the quote off their website?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭ source


    Turned out they were expecting us, there was a heavy garda presence there

    A heavy Garda presence??? In a court house??? Never!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭ MapForJ


    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    Peace officers? What a bunch of idiots.

    EDIT: Do you actually have a link to the Facebook page or did you get the quote off their website?
    off the site there may be a link there i do not have a FB account


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ ResearchWill


    Lobbyists and clever accountants/lawyers can manipulate law to suit their needs. These things dont come cheap however and something that the average man on the street cannot afford. Now Mr Sludds believes, however naievly, that the law pertaining to these incidents is unfair and unjust and is attempting to stand up for his rights. Weither I believe he is right or wrong is irrelevant, the fact that he is standing up against percieved injustice gets my respect. That fact we can agree that not all laws are just therefore dictates that we should encourage challanging law for their robustness and not just concede that law is law, accept it.

    For an ordinary man on the Street Mr. Sludds I assume is such a man. Yet Mr Sludds in the middle of the legal vacation got a solicitor, SC and Barrister to take his case to the High court. So it seems the ordinary man can get the assistance of clever lawyers and 3 of them at that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ ResearchWill


    Het-Field wrote: »
    MapForJ wrote: »
    have you seen their latest statement from waynes world user



    "Bob was sitting at the back of the high court, the judge never addressed him.
    The barrister who asked could he handle the case, submitted an affidavit to the judge, and the contents of that affidavit were twisted and turned against bobby by the media. I'v been in contact with the irish independent to inform them of their error in print, and asked them to submit a retraction, as it is classed as defamation
    I'v been handling and advising on the case, and i have a copy of the affidavit that was submitted by the barrister..

    The media also said that he MUST appear in wexford district court on wednesday.
    However, the high court granted unconditional release!!
    Unconditional release means there can be no more said about the charges..
    The reason the high court released him is because Anderson had no lawfullauthority to issue the order demanding his detention, because he had not acknowledged his oath, or gained jurisdiction in the matter.

    This means that Anderson is deemed to have vacated his office, but it turns out he is the residing judge for the case on wednesday...

    Come to wexford on wednesday if you have any doubt about who won, or who will win..

    Siochána agus saoirse"


    Given that there is at least one major traunch of BS in the post, it is possible that there is more.

    Ther is so so so much cr$p in that post.

    Of course the judge did not address mr Sludds in such actions the matter is on affidavit.

    A barrister offered to take the case, well is this not a contradiction to the usual freeman stuff greedy lawyers only acting for the rich and not the poor downtrodden.

    A newspaper can not defame by reporting what happens in court, if the person really believes that the affidavit has been twisted so much then get a copy of the affidavits sworn and send to paper or any news outlet to show how it is different.

    A unconditional release from high court does not in any way deal with the district court case it just means Mr Sludds is to be released from custody with out any condition on that release he still must answer the DC case, also the case was Robert Sludds v Govenor of Cloverhill Prison not DCJ.

    The High did not say that the DJ was in any way wrong, in relation to his oath of office how could the high court decide that the DJ was not a party to the proceedings.

    These people wonder why no one listens to them it is because they get simple verifiable facts wrong.


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


    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    Do you actually have a link to the Facebook page or did you get the quote off their website?

    http://www.facebook.com/ken.ofthefamily.sludds?sk=wall


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭ MapForJ




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,821 ✭✭✭✭ Our man in Havana


    MapForJ wrote: »
    currently unavailable? i
    Works ok for me!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭ MapForJ


    How do they get away with the cameras in court?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 later12


    MapForJ wrote: »
    currently unavailable? i
    You have to be logged into facebook.



    No idea how they got away with the video in court...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭ MagicSean


    later10 wrote: »
    You have to be logged into facebook.



    No idea how they got away with the video in court...

    Simple answer is they hid it. Not exactly a group known for obeying rules.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,821 ✭✭✭✭ Our man in Havana


    That is contempt of court.


  • Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭ johnciall


    It's also a year old video, Same Defendant, Different judge


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,069 Hoffmans


    great PI team here dont give up the day jobs , my next question is what mr sludds had for breakfast this morning?

    there was obviously some mistake mabey an AOD made by jA in the dc dont think he can preside over mr sludds case again .......


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭ MagicSean


    Hoffmans wrote: »
    there was obviously some mistake mabey an AOD made by jA in the dc dont think he can preside over mr sludds case again .......

    What?


Advertisement