Freemen of the land

Com1186

Just a quick question for other members of the Emergency Services, moreso gardai,

has anyone have dealings with a "freeman of the land", they are of the belief that they dont have to interact with gardai, courts, goverment unless they consent to. a lot of stuff on youtube and websites such as http://freemanireland.ning.com/

it is starting to grow especally in dublin and border counties.

i have only dealt with person(s) known to me in the job and when i speak to them they refuse to interact with me and keep shouting "i am not a person i am a human being! i am not contracting to converse with you !".

Mycroft H

I have no idea how they think they can get away with. They're mad.

This nutter for example. He also questioned the judges authority :rolleyes:


http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/outspoken-sludds-facing-time-in-jail-2891027.html

pa990

They are dealt with the same way as anyone else... well anyone that is obstructing a peace officer.

These freemen are all talk, and are usually quietened when they appear in court spouting their shíte, and píssing off the judge who in turn isn't as lenient as he would be with someone who cooperates with the court instead of wasting its time with utter nonsense

irishrgr

Yeah, we've had a couple of those nutters over here too. Same concept, " I am a free man and I refuse to contract to speak with you" OK, well feel free to not contract to talk with my cuffs and the back seat of the patrol car. Courts have thrown them out and typcially it never goes well to question the judge as to whether or not he has jurisdiction over them. These cases tend to come to ahead when the county moves in to seize property for non payment of taxes, it never goes well. Nutters all.

Sulla Felix

I find the idea, and its adherents interesting in a trainwreck kind of way.

Guy:Incognito

Presumably if they were mangled in a car crash and needed cutting out, they wouldnt be happy with the lads on the fire truck standing aroung having a smoke and a chat, granting them their wish not to be engaged with by state employees?

Com1186

what i find the funniest is that the same people who try this on also collect the dole and have no problem recognizing the state and government when they get their weekly beer tokens then refuse to recognize the gardai when they are caught making a nuisance of themselves!

da_hambo

Aye met a few. Sometimes they can walk themselves into arrests eg, public order incident, fails to give name as thet are freemen etc, arrested before ya know it for failing to give a name. Obligation not to talk kicks in after caution usually after arrest.

Dumbasses.

pa990

[QUOTE=da_hambo;80495770

Dumbasses.[/QUOTE]

+1

Potential-Monke

They may think themselves freemen, but guess what? Same laws still apply while in Eire! Whether you agree to them or not.

shampon

I love when gougers try to be cultured.

Eru

They do not need to recognise the authority of Gardai, Judges and courts. We still recognise our ability to arrest them, bring em to court and the Judges ability to send them to jail.

If such ****e worked sure why would anyone not be a freeman? Didn't work for the IRA and does not work for these lads. if you watch the videos, theres always some excuse from another freeman as to why the sod in the video still got arrested and put in jail.

_pure_mule_

Potential-Monke wrote: »

They may think themselves freemen, but guess what? Same laws still apply while in Eire! Whether you agree to them or not.

Freemen obey laws, they generally speaking do not obey acts passed through parliament which they are lawfully entitled to do.

Potential-Monke

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Freemen obey laws, they generally speaking do not obey acts passed through parliament which they are lawfully entitled to do.

Anyone is entitled to not obey an act or law or whatever, but it still applies. I actually love watching these lads in court, the facial expressions and comments by the judges and other well trained solicitors/barristers is comedic gold! I know one solicitor who was finished in court before lunch, but stayed on just to see what a certain "freeman" was going to say. He said it was one of the best hours he spent in court.

goldie fish

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Freemen obey laws, they generally speaking do not obey acts passed through parliament which they are lawfully entitled to do.

poppycock.

civdef

Freemen obey laws, they generally speaking do not obey acts passed through parliament which they are lawfully entitled to do.

So which laws do they obey so?
Common law?
Religious Law (of whatever persuasion)
Some ancient law (e.g. Brehon?)
Whateveryourhavingyourself law?

Paulzx

civdef wrote: »

So which laws do they obey so?
Common law?
Religious Law (of whatever persuasion)
Some ancient law (e.g. Brehon?)
Whateveryourhavingyourself law?

The mother in law...........

_pure_mule_

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Anyone is entitled to not obey an act or law or whatever, but it still applies. I actually love watching these lads in court, the facial expressions and comments by the judges and other well trained solicitors/barristers is comedic gold! I know one solicitor who was finished in court before lunch, but stayed on just to see what a certain "freeman" was going to say. He said it was one of the best hours he spent in court.

An act dosent apply if you dont consent to it.

_pure_mule_

civdef wrote: »

So which laws do they obey so?
Common law?
Religious Law (of whatever persuasion)
Some ancient law (e.g. Brehon?)
Whateveryourhavingyourself law?

They obey all laws which they are lawfully obliged to obey.

civdef

Ah, that clarifies everything. Thanks.

They are quick to recognise their Social Welfare entitlements.

bravestar

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

An act dosent apply if you dont consent to it.

Ah right so if I don't consent to the road traffic act, as amended, I can just go and take your car? Thanks man, I need some new wheels

_pure_mule_

bravestar wrote: »

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

An act dosent apply if you dont consent to it.

Ah right so if I don't consent to the road traffic act, as amended, I can just go and take your car? Thanks man, I need some new wheels

Theft has absolutely nothing to do with the road traffic act!

audidiesel

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Theft has absolutely nothing to do with the road traffic act!

no its covered under section four of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

i dont recognise this, so im going to steal you car...:rolleyes:

goldie fish

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Theft has absolutely nothing to do with the road traffic act!

Unauthorised taking of one does though.

jd83

foreign wrote: »

They are quick to recognise their Social Welfare entitlements.

There is a good youtube video of one these muppets house being searched. He is spouting all the usual crap about not recognizing the powers of the government. Then the sergeant in the video elegantly points out that he make a special compensation when collecting his dole payment each week. Ill try find it.

Potential-Monke

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

An act dosent apply if you dont consent to it.

I'll think you'll find it does. Strange how the law works like that. I'm beginning to think you might be a freeman...

_pure_mule_

audidiesel wrote: »

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Theft has absolutely nothing to do with the road traffic act!

no its covered under section four of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

i dont recognise this, so im going to steal you car...:rolleyes:

Sorry I should have been more specific, note the way I said they "generally" do not obey acts. Well theft is also covered under common law making theft un-lawful, hence you can't lawfully steal a vehicle. There is statutes/legislations which are legal and then there is common law which is lawful.

_pure_mule_

Potential-Monke wrote: »

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

An act dosent apply if you dont consent to it.

I'll think you'll find it does. Strange how the law works like that. I'm beginning to think you might be a freeman...

Ill think you find it dosent. Maybe I am, maybe not. Who knows?

civdef

So you're OK with common law?

Nonoperational

I read some of the forums before. Don't know whether to laugh or cry. I wonder if theres some sort of other issues going on, the general tone doesn't come across to me as a group that are fully of sound mind... It's quite sad and deluded really if you look at it.

Sulla Felix

After looking into it a little further, I'm much amused by the history of the Common Law. The one or two so-called freemen I'm acquainted with are also of a particularly braindead nationalistic streak. Can't wait to tell them that the entire concept was imported en masse from England as part of the destruction of traditional culture.

bravestar

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

bravestar wrote: »

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

An act dosent apply if you dont consent to it.

Ah right so if I don't consent to the road traffic act, as amended, I can just go and take your car? Thanks man, I need some new wheels

Theft has absolutely nothing to do with the road traffic act!

You might want to go back to freeman school and ask for a refund. It's not theft, it's an offence contrary to section 112 of the road traffic act, if I meant theft, I would of cited the theft and fraud offences act.

But for the hell of it, I also don't consent to the theft and fraud offences act, in particular section 4 of it, so where's your car keys or do I need to get a flat bed to tow it away?

_pure_mule_

bravestar wrote: »

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

bravestar wrote: »

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

An act dosent apply if you dont consent to it.

Ah right so if I don't consent to the road traffic act, as amended, I can just go and take your car? Thanks man, I need some new wheels

Theft has absolutely nothing to do with the road traffic act!

You might want to go back to freeman school and ask for a refund. It's not theft, it's an offence contrary to section 112 of the road traffic act, if I meant theft, I would of cited the theft and fraud offences act.

But for the hell of it, I also don't consent to the theft and fraud offences act, in particular section 4 of it, so where's your car keys or do I need to get a flat bed to tow it away?

Taking vehicle without authority.

112.—(1) A person shall not use or take possession of a mechanically propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Definition of theft according to blacks law dictionary = An unlawful felonious taking away of another man’s movable and personal goods against the will of the owner.

If you take an offence contrary to that of section 112 of the road traffic act and look at the definition of theft you will see that taking a car without the owners consent is theft. Not even freemen can steal and how do you know I'm a freeman by the way?

Yes your entitled to not consent to the theft and fraud offences act but you are not above common law so you could not lawfully take my vehicle without consent.

goldie fish

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Taking vehicle without authority.

112.—(1) A person shall not use or take possession of a mechanically propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Definition of theft according to blacks law dictionary = An unlawful felonious taking away of another man’s movable and personal goods against the will of the owner.

If you take an offence contrary to that of section 112 of the road traffic act and look at the definition of theft you will see that taking a car without the owners consent is theft. Not even freemen can steal!

Not soo freemoron. To be guilty of larceny under common law, there has to be the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Taking a car an abandoning it(against a tree) 100 miles away shows no such intent.

ResearchWill

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Taking vehicle without authority.

112.—(1) A person shall not use or take possession of a mechanically propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Definition of theft according to blacks law dictionary = An unlawful felonious taking away of another man’s movable and personal goods against the will of the owner.

If you take an offence contrary to that of section 112 of the road traffic act and look at the definition of theft you will see that taking a car without the owners consent is theft. Not even freemen can steal!

It always amazes me how freemen turn to blacks law dictionary. The reason that there is a seperate RTA offence of taking a vehicle, is that both statute law and common law theft require an intention to deprive the person of the property. The RTA get around any possible defence, I was only borrowing it. Also the theft act allows the defence that the person believed he had or could have had permission.


(a) the person believes that he or she has the owner's consent, or would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of the appropriation of the property and the circumstances in which it was appropriated, or

If relying on theft a friend could borrow (in his mind) your car with the intention of returning it. This is why statute law has being supplementing the common law for hundreds of years.

_pure_mule_

goldie fish wrote: »

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Taking vehicle without authority.

112.—(1) A person shall not use or take possession of a mechanically propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Definition of theft according to blacks law dictionary = An unlawful felonious taking away of another man’s movable and personal goods against the will of the owner.

If you take an offence contrary to that of section 112 of the road traffic act and look at the definition of theft you will see that taking a car without the owners consent is theft. Not even freemen can steal!

Not soo freemoron. To be guilty of larceny under common law, there has to be the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Taking a car an abandoning it(against a tree) 100 miles away shows no such intent.

I don't think there's any need to go calling people morons for a start. I stand corrected, thanks for educating me there, much appreciated:) However under common law you would be guilty of trespassing.

bravestar

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

goldie fish wrote: »

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Taking vehicle without authority.

112.—(1) A person shall not use or take possession of a mechanically propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Definition of theft according to blacks law dictionary = An unlawful felonious taking away of another man’s movable and personal goods against the will of the owner.

If you take an offence contrary to that of section 112 of the road traffic act and look at the definition of theft you will see that taking a car without the owners consent is theft. Not even freemen can steal!

Not soo freemoron. To be guilty of larceny under common law, there has to be the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Taking a car an abandoning it(against a tree) 100 miles away shows no such intent.

I don't think there's any need to go calling people morons for a start. I stand corrected, thanks for educating me there, much appreciated:) However under common law you would be guilty of trespassing.

That's seriously your reply? Trespassing... I'm not even going I bother. Again, ask for a refund.

_pure_mule_

bravestar wrote: »

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

goldie fish wrote: »

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Taking vehicle without authority.

112.—(1) A person shall not use or take possession of a mechanically propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Definition of theft according to blacks law dictionary = An unlawful felonious taking away of another man’s movable and personal goods against the will of the owner.

If you take an offence contrary to that of section 112 of the road traffic act and look at the definition of theft you will see that taking a car without the owners consent is theft. Not even freemen can steal!

Not soo freemoron. To be guilty of larceny under common law, there has to be the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Taking a car an abandoning it(against a tree) 100 miles away shows no such intent.

I don't think there's any need to go calling people morons for a start. I stand corrected, thanks for educating me there, much appreciated:) However under common law you would be guilty of trespassing.

That's seriously your reply? Trespassing... I'm not even going I bother. Again, ask for a refund.

Please don't get mad that you can't lawfully take my car. I'll give you a spin in it if you like:)

bravestar

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Please don't get mad that you can't lawfully take my car. I'll give you a spin in it if you like:)

Awesome! Out of curiosity, blacks law dictionary, an American legal reference book, why did you use that? This is not America.

goldie fish

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

I don't think there's any need to go calling people morons for a start. I stand corrected, thanks for educating me there, much appreciated:) However under common law you would be guilty of trespassing.

Trespassing on what? Your car was parked on a public highway.

pah

Had one of these freemorons in one night, refusing to give details under public order act after fighting on the street. Refuses for hours. Finally gave it up when told he's be going to court if he didn't. Principles out the window(if there was one) :pac:

ResearchWill

pah wrote: »

Had one of these freemorons in one night, refusing to give details under public order act after fighting on the street. Refuses for hours. Finally gave it up when told he's be going to court if he didn't. Principles out the window(if there was one) :pac:

It's amazing how they all change their tune with a few hours in a cell. I would not mind if any of it had any logic but it's all rubbish.

d3exile

these lads are mental... has it ever actually worked?

like was said earlier on, it's gas when gougers try to act smart or cultured...never works..

Potential-Monke

d3exile wrote: »

these lads are mental... has it ever actually worked?

A certain well know freeman in a certain area which you and i both know was nearly laughed at in court by a certain judge who is now gone from the area, but not before he listened for over an hour to the drivel being spouted and convicted him anyway.

@_pure_mule_: i would like to know if you are a freeman as then i can stop wasting my time responding to you. It doesn't matter if you don't consent to an Act, you're still committing an offence under that Act and you will be prosecuted for it. Fight all you want in court, you won't get anywhere.

I don't consent to the law in Abu Dhabi about drugs, so i'm going to sell some grass in Abu Dhabi and i won't need to worry about being executed over it...

da_hambo

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=rvLVyyvSey0

Freemen of Coolock??? Give me a break, hardly upstanding citizens and as the.polite Gards show, more than one way to skin a cat!

the_syco

_pure_mule_ wrote: »

Please don't get mad that you can't lawfully take my car. I'll give you a spin in it if you like:)

Quoting this so I can take his car. Will see if he reports me. Back soon.

msg11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKIOBG5gBcQ

Fearing for his life...

Same fella in action again, seems to have an act for getting stopped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVSjOaVM0bw&feature=channel&list=UL

pah

msg11 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKIOBG5gBcQ

Fearing for his life...

Same fella in action again, seems to have an act for getting stopped.

what a fupping muppet. he must have a post-it on the dash with instructions -

Freeman of the Land Instruction list on being stopped by AGS ->

1. Shout "Garda Sheenacauna Act 2005 - Section 16" as loudly and agressively as possible
2. Shout "I fear for my life"
3. Shout "You're acting unlawfully"
4. repeat previous steps in varying order and intensity and hope Gardaí will shy away from confrontation

da_hambo

pah wrote: »

what a fupping muppet. he must have a post-it on the dash with instructions -

hes walking into an obstruction under drugs act offence da dumbass ha ha

irishrgr

Those Gardai were remarkably patient in dealing with this git. Looks like it went on for a about 15 minutes or so. At what point could they simply arrest under Irish law. Here (assuming this was a traffic stop) he (based on the video) could have been arrested for :

- failure to provide license & insurance (required to be carried in car)
- failure to follow lawful order of a peace officer (open window)
- you may be able to articulate "williful obstruction of public safety personnel" but hard to say from the video.

Unless I had some pretty good PC, I don't know about searching the van per se. However, once he is arrested, we can lawfully inventory the vehicle and its contents and anything we find incidental to the inventory can be seized.

In response to his question "are you detained", under Irish law are you "detained" in a situation like this. Here, yes, if you are stopped by the law, your status is that of "detained incident to the investigation" and you are not free to leave. You are not arrested as such, but you can't leave until the officer sorts out the situation.

Either way this call was a testament to the patience of the Gardai. maybe they are used to him.

A