Freemen unlawfully arrested is released UNCONDITIONNALY today in the Forecourts

kryo

official statement of the family sludds

Bobby was released unconditionaly and the case was un-contested by the DPP who was acting on behalf of the state.

He's not obliged to show up to court on wednesday, but we will be there anyway to bring forward the facts pertaining to the case, which will point out before a packed court room that he was unlawfully detained.
It will also point out the fact that the david anderson failed to operate under his oath and is liable to be tried for treason, as are the guards who acted upon anderson's order.


see: Judge challenged to produce oath
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...302232246.html

GerardKeating

kryo wrote: »

official statement of the family sludds

Bobby was released unconditionaly and the case was un-contested by the DPP who was acting on behalf of the state.

He's not obliged to show up to court on wednesday, but we will be there anyway to bring forward the facts pertaining to the case, which will point out before a packed court room that he was unlawfully detained.
It will also point out the fact that the david anderson failed to operate under his oath and is liable to be tried for treason, as are the guards who acted upon anderson's order.


see: Judge challenged to produce oath
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...302232246.html

But that's not what the Irish time article you quoted states, it quote the Judge

“I can’t accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can’t be verified,” he said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.

mcmoustache

kryo wrote: »

official statement of the family sludds

Any proof of this? Freemen tend to be liars and somewhat detached from reality so I'll hang on to my skepticism for now.

kryo

tv3 news just aired it

MagicSean

Where'd you get treason from?

kryo

he could/would not produce his oath of office when requested.

drkpower

Eh, he was remanded in custody.....:rolleyes:

Another overwhleming victory for the freemen!:D

MagicSean

kryo wrote: »

he could/would not produce his oath of office when requested.

I see nothing in the constitution requiring a judge to produce an oath before a member of the public. Nor do I know how exactly you could "produce" your oath as it is not a physical object.

Het-Field

kryo wrote: »

he could/would not produce his oath of office when requested.

And the legislative/Constitutional imperative to do so can be found where????

Monty Burnz

'A number of motoring offences' - so this clown was possibly drink-driving, or driving uninsured, and he reckons he can get away with it with this Freemen stuff.

If there is any loophole, I hope they close it to prevent this type of nonsense. If he didn't want to be in court, he shouldn't have committed the offences.

h2005

He was being held in a petrol station?

mcmoustache

If he got off due to a problem with the original warrant, would that not be a victory for the regular justice system. I mean, it would hardly have been the freeman defence that got him off.

MagicSean

Just as a bit of clarification, he was given bail in the high court and is due back in court on Wednesday. Gardaí did not object to bail.

January

mcmoustache wrote: »

If he got off due to a problem with the original warrant, would that not be a victory for the regular justice system. I mean, it would hardly have been the freeman defence that got him off.

Yes, but the freemen will see it as a victory for themselves.

mcmoustache

link

12/08/2011 - 17:59:05
A Co Wexford man remanded in custody amid confusion over his "true identity" was released from prison today.

Oliver Sludds, who was before Wexford District court in connection with driving offences, was remanded in custody to Cloverhill Prison by District Judge David Anderson on Wednesday because there was some confusion over his identity.

Mr Sludds (aged 29) had also claimed during those proceedings that Judge Anderson had no jurisdiction to deal with the case unless he first produced his oath.

At the High Court on Friday Mr Justice Roderick Murphy directed that Mr Sludds be released from custody after he was informed the State "did not intend to seek to justify" his continued detention.

The Judge was informed the matter had been settled and costs had been agreed between the parties.

After his release Mr Sludds was greeted and embraced by members of his family.

Mr Sludds' lawyers sought an inquiry, under Article 40 of the constitution, into the legality of his detention on grounds including that Judge Anderson had erred by remanding Mr Sludds in custody when gardaí, who had no issue in relation to his identity, had not objected to bail being granted.

Colman Fitzgerald SC, appearing with Keith Spencer Bl, for Mr Sludds said his client's detention was unlawful because the gardaí had "no issue in regards to Mr Sludds' identity". Judge Anderson, counsel said, was wrong not to grant him bail.

Counsel said the gardaí at the District Court had not objected to Mr Sludds being given bail, nor had they voiced a concern that Mr Sludds would fail to turn up at a subsequent hearing of the court.

Counsel also argued the motoring offences against Mr Sludds are not ones which that would attract a custodial sentence.

Counsel added that Mr Sludds now accepted that his initial argument to Judge Anderson to produce his oath was "misconceived as a matter of law".

Last Wednesday Mr Sludds, with an address at Tineshin, Kilmuckridge, Co Wexford and formerly of Ballagh Cove, Enniscorthy appeared before Judge Anderson in connection with a number of road traffic charges dating back to April 2010.

Mr Sludds disputed the validity of the summons on foot of which he was before the District Court. He said the summons was for a "Bobby Oliver Sludds" and did not refer to him. He also handed up a copy of his birth certificate to the court.

The prosecuting garda in the case said when he had stopped the defendant in April 2010 and asked him his name, he had replied “Bobby of the family Sludds”.

Having heard the denials that he was the man named, Judge Anderson said he had no choice but to remand Mr Sludds in custody because there was some confusion about his true identity. The Judge said that he could not accept a bail bond from someone whose signature could not be verified.

Read more: http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/wexford-man-remanded-in-custody-over-confusion-about-his-identity-released-from-prison-516356.html#ixzz1UpvDIiUH

MagicSean

So basically he gave a false name and then tried to rely on that to invalidate the summons?

Paulw

mcmoustache wrote: »

link


Counsel added that Mr Sludds now accepted that his initial argument to Judge Anderson to produce his oath was "misconceived as a matter of law".

I guess that his time behind bars convinced him of the errors of his claims about this freeman crap.

valleyoftheunos

Paulw wrote: »

I guess that his time behind bars convinced him of the errors of his claims about this freeman crap.

Or the SC representing him told him it was a load of nonsense and if he wanted to get out of prison he should knock it off.

Monty Burnz

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Or the SC representing him told him it was a load of nonsense and if he wanted to get out of prison he should knock it off.

Presumably the legal heavyweight was only brought on board after he tried the Freeman Conspiracy Theory nonsense and ended up in the clink?

Cicero

kryo wrote: »

He's not obliged to show up to court on wednesday, but we will be there anyway to bring forward the facts pertaining to the case, which will point out before a packed court room that he was unlawfully detained.

TV3 have reported a somewhat different story- that he quote: "must return to Wexford District court on the 17th of August"

Link below...................

http://www.tv3.ie/news.php?request=&tv3_preview=&video=38887

Monty Burnz

Cicero wrote: »

TV3 have reported a somewhat different story- that he quote: "must return to Wexford District court on the 17th of August"

Link below...................

http://www.tv3.ie/news.php?request=&tv3_preview=&video=38887

I'm willing to bet that the old guy with the white afro at 1:30 was his Freemen lawyer...

MapForJ

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm willing to bet that the old guy with the white afro at 1:30 was his Freemen lawyer...

lol probably:D

Counsel added that Mr Sludds now accepted that his initial argument to Judge Anderson to produce his oath was "misconceived as a matter of law

but the say law does not apply to them;)

MapForJ

kryo wrote: »

He's not obliged to show up to court on wednesday

and if he doesn't will he be arrested?

source

MapForJ wrote: »

and if he doesn't will he be arrested?

If he doesn't, a bench warrant will be issued for his arrest, and he will be brought before the judge at the next court sitting.

MapForJ

source wrote: »

If he doesn't, a bench warrant will be issued for his arrest, and he will be brought before the judge at the next court sitting.

So it is not true as they claim he was unconditionally released and that he does not have to go to the court? Their relationship with reality seems tenuous

kittymiss

from reading articles on this both in the papers and twitter the op title is a little off the mark , theres obviously conditions, his release was found legaly not by any freeman tricks.it was a big price to pay for a few gatso tickets imo, though there may be better ways to challenge these than aggravating the judge..the problem is the preachers in the freeman movement usually dont dirty their hands with this stuff just let the guinea pigs do the work, alas their biggest media coup to date....

kellso81

kittymiss wrote: »

the freeman movement

Excuse my ignorance but what the hell is this? I've never come across it before!

source

MapForJ wrote: »

So it is not true as they claim he was unconditionally released and that he does not have to go to the court? Their relationship with reality seems tenuous

Tenuous would be a massive understatement. They claimed that he was released because the warrant was faulty, he was released on a legal point, as AGS weren't objecting to bail, but the judge did. Then they said he was released unconditionally when he has to re-appear on 17th to face the charges. These people don't seem to occupy the same universe as the rest of us.

I love the fact that when their stupidly held beliefs fail, they're not above going and seeking proper legal counsel. Does this mean that they really don't believe at all in what they're saying, and only trying to use it as a method of getting off criminal charges, interacting with the law when it suits them.

kellso81 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but what the hell is this? I've never come across it before!

If you have any legal knowledge don't even bother reading up on it, it'll just annoy you. If you don't have any legal knowledge then don't take it as legal advice it is all hogwash, and despite what they say on their websites, it doesn't work.

Finnbar01

kittymiss wrote: »

from reading articles on this both in the papers and twitter the op title is a little off the mark , theres obviously conditions, his release was found legaly not by any freeman tricks.it was a big price to pay for a few gatso tickets imo, though there may be better ways to challenge these than aggravating the judge..the problem is the preachers in the freeman movement usually dont dirty their hands with this stuff just let the guinea pigs do the work, alas their biggest media coup to date....

When I asked these preachers of the freeman movement could they show me examples of their successes, they barred me from their sites. That says it all to me.

FreudianSlippers

Freemen unlawfully arrested is released UNCONDITIONNALY today in the Forecourts

Not a single word of that is accurate... I mean, not even the location!