Another "Freeman on the Land" Conspiracy Loon gets locked up for contempt of court

Foxhound38

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/bankrupt-businessman-sent-to-mountjoy-for-another-six-months-1.1394553

It seems another one of these Ben Gilroy types has been locked up for acting like a lunatic in Court. Looks like he's not such a Freeman anymore, having been given 6 months in Mountjoy for his trouble. Why do these lads keep doing this pseudo-legal bollixology? Has it EVER gotten any of them off the hook?

4zn76tysfajdxp

The judge said, given Mr Cullen’s attitude, she had no option but to jail him. Mr Cullen, and a number of his supporters, told the judge she had no jurisdiction to jail him without his consent.

I'm surprised that one didn't work, to be honest.

Biggins

Aaa... this stupidity again about Ben Gilroy somehow been a Freeman!
I wish people would actually bother their arse to go prove these things and stop talking slanderous schite!

discus

Biggins, have you seen his posts and stuff on the freeman forums?

Foxhound38

Biggins wrote: »

Aaa... this stupidity again about Ben Gilroy somehow been a Freeman!
I wish people would actually bother their arse to go prove these things and stop talking slanderous schite!

He's not a Freeman in the same way that Sean Gallagher isn't a FFer. Look at the Freeman forums

Biggins

discus wrote: »

Biggins, have you seen his posts and stuff on the freeman forums?

I've seen a lot of things but if I post on a Nazi forum - that that automatically make me one?
I might also be trying to correct them, educate them and even oppose them.

...But no, just because I post on one - jesus, that must make me a fully fledged member!

4zn76tysfajdxp

Anyone care to PM me a link to these Freeman forums? I could do with a laugh.

Biggins wrote: »

I've seen a lot of things but if I post on a Nazi forum - that that automatically make me one?
I might also be trying to correct them, educate them and even oppose them.

Oppose nazis? Perish the thought.

the_syco

I'm of the opinion that as he refuses to answer to the court under his name, he should not be given free legal aid, or any social welfare.

If he has his estate under one name, and doesn't want to be called that name, is he giving up his right on his estate, and thus give his brother complete control of the liquidation of the estate, but still be liable to any money he still owes after the estate has been sold off?

minidazzler

On one hand I agree with him, in that I never signed anything to agree to the laws of man, I didn't choose to, so why should I.

On the other hand, I'm betting he didn't give a fook about this stuff until such time as he thought it might help him.

The threat of and jailing of someone for not agreeing with a court is inherently wrong. Because that's all this is, a man not agreeing with a judge, no crime is committed and he has hurt no body. To think you can be jailed for that is fcuking ludicrous.

Sergeant

Biggins wrote: »

Aaa... this stupidity again about Ben Gilroy somehow been a Freeman!
I wish people would actually bother their arse to go prove these things and stop talking slanderous schite!

You have visited the DDI website I presume? What's that video of Ben spouting legalise bollocks about the sheriff having no authority? They also have that extremely impartial video where they ask a 'random' selection of Norwegians questions about how they feel about the potential oil and gas fields off Ireland.

They took down the Alex Jones video though. Might be becoming more moderate.

squod

Taken by force to jail OP. Can happen to anyone in fairness. (Have no sympathy though).

pablomakaveli

I take it a "Freeman" is someone who doesn't recognize the authority of the state or does it mean something else?

Foxhound38

minidazzler wrote: »

On one hand I agree with him, in that I never signed anything to agree to the laws of man, I didn't choose to, so why should I.

On the other hand, I'm betting he didn't give a fook about this stuff until such time as he thought it might help him.

The threat of and jailing of someone for not agreeing with a court is inherently wrong. Because that's all this is, a man not agreeing with a judge, no crime is committed and he has hurt no body. To think you can be jailed for that is fcuking ludicrous.

You live under the protection of "the laws of man" by virtue of being here, it doesn't particularly matter whether you consent to it, and it definately doesn't matter how you choose to interpret it (given that the supreme court is the only body with the power to do that) - if you live here, you are governed by the law and that's it.

endacl

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I take it a "Freeman" is someone who doesn't recognize the authority of the state or does it mean something else?

I'm open to correction, but as far as I can make out, a freeman is somebody who wants the state to follow a particular interpretation of 'the rules' when it suits the freeman. And who likewise, when it suits them, doesn't want to follow 'the rules'.

Imagine an adult toddler if it helps to clarify...

Stroke Politics

If the only law they recognise is common law, what does a Freeman do if their car is stolen, or they need a judicial separation? Loons....

Foxhound38

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I take it a "Freeman" is someone who doesn't recognize the authority of the state or does it mean something else?

A group that uses pseudo-legal shyte involving the laws of the land, and the laws of the sea (look it up, it really is nuts) to argue that the State is illegitimate and the laws of the land don't apply to them because they didn't consent to by governed by it. They also think that some secret combination of magic words in Court will get them off the hook and force the judge to admit that the entire legal system is a massive conspiracy...

tl;dr: it's a load of bollocks

Nonoperational

Great to see. Of all the groups of complete spasticks that one finds on the internet, these crowd are very close to the top of the list of being the most infuriating. Got a bill you don't want to pay? "No contract return to sender", right ya, go **** yourself.

Biggins

Sergeant wrote: »

You have visited the DDI website I presume? What's that video of Ben spouting legalise bollocks about the sheriff having no authority? .

He was right.

The man (sheriff) that turned up had only the ability to enforce the law up and to a certain financial amount.
Another court officer has to come out to covey a higher court orders once they go over set figures that is stated in legal law.

This is the law - he knew it, the man opposing Ben knew it - and when the court official discovered that that day that others actually knew the law, he had to leave, walk away after been exposed.

Sorry to hear your not up to date with the actual facts of the case.

squod

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I take it a "Freeman" is someone who doesn't recognize the authority of the state or does it mean something else?

Authority based on UKs common law system, your human rights and the constitution of the country you live in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bee_BBwXoI

minidazzler

Foxhound38 wrote: »

You live under the protection of "the laws of man" by virtue of being here, it doesn't particularly matter whether you consent to it, and it definately doesn't matter how you choose to interpret it (given that the supreme court is the only body with the power to do that) - if you live here, you are governed by the law and that's it.

I could get into a good long argument with you about this. But over all, my point is gonna be that it's fundementally wrong for a government to issue a threat of violence against it's citizens for not agreeing with them. And that's exactly what happens.

It's one thing to commit a crime against another person and be jailed. It's quite another to just refuse the order of someone who you don't recognise as an authority.

discus

Biggins wrote: »

Sorry to hear your not up to date with the actual facts of the case.

So he has NEVER been into freemanism?

endacl

minidazzler wrote: »

It's one thing to commit a crime against another person and be jailed. It's quite another to just refuse the order of someone who you don't recognise as an authority.

In other words 'no! I don't wanna!!'

Grown up toddlers does seem to fit.

Biggins

discus wrote: »

So he has NEVER been into freemanism?

The conversation has NEVER come up about it.
He has never mentioned it to me - and we meet very often.
He never mentions it to others around me - and I have checked.
He never even infers some freeman stuff.
...And finally, no freeman material is part or policy of the DDI.

I've heard from a couple of idiots (who have made it their passion to post their crap everywhere regular) across the net on other forums spouting this bollox accusation for a while now and when asked to prove their crap - they can prove nothing. - just talk/post more false schite!

minidazzler

endacl wrote: »

In other words 'no! I don't wanna!!'

Grown up toddlers does seem to fit.

If I came to you, and told you to give me your money under threat of being locked in a room, would you refuse?

When I do it, it's extortion and robbery, when the government do it, it's taxation.

While I'm not saying we don't need government or police and such, I am saying that the threat of violence against citizens who commit no crime against another person is fundementally wrong.

Saying it's childish to think so, makes me think you can count to potato.

MadsL

Biggins wrote: »

Aaa... this stupidity again about Ben Gilroy somehow been a Freeman!
I wish people would actually bother their arse to go prove these things and stop talking slanderous schite!

https://peopleforeconomicjustice.com/direct-democracy-ireland/

Freeman s_hite about the Constitution being changed.

Even the tagline "The Dwelling Of Every Citizen Is Inviolable And Shall Not Be Forcibly Entered Save In Accordance With Law." is a classic Freeman clause of the Constitution to quote in bonkers rhetoric about Sheriffs not being legal or some other garbage.

squod

endacl wrote: »

Grown up toddlers does seem to fit.

Next time you end up in court to dispute something serious with someone dressed up as a bewigged renaissance cross-dresser remember those words.

Ask yourself who the toddler is then.

Biggins

MadsL wrote: »

https://peopleforeconomicjustice.com/direct-democracy-ireland/

Freeman s_hite about the Constitution being changed.

Even the tagline "The Dwelling Of Every Citizen Is Inviolable And Shall Not Be Forcibly Entered Save In Accordance With Law." is a classic Freeman clause of the Constitution to quote in bonkers rhetoric about Sheriffs not being legal or some other garbage.

Well fcuk me!

Someone that actually quotes or refers now to the constitution - is now automatically a Freeman?

Fcuk me - the Dail must be full of them!

...And the fact that you don't know that it wasn't "bonkers rhetoric" that made a sheriff to away with his tail between his legs for being exposed for being there in the wrong but chancing his arm, shows that you very little about the case your actually on about!

O' and P.S.

We are looking to have the constitution changed back to the way it was created in 1921 - the re-inclusion of Articles 24 and 42 as previous to 1938.
You know, some of those lads that fought in 1916 to get you some of the rights you have now.
Are you making out now that they are Freemen too now?

There's a lot of pure schite being talked across the net!

Yitzhak Rabin

Questions for you Biggins:

Have DDI ever mentioned how they plan to implement their policy where someone can be thrown out of office? Couldn't the big parties just get their members together and have the smaller party members thrown out?

Also are we going to have about 20 referendums a year? People barely vote as it is...

Foxhound38

minidazzler wrote: »

If I came to you, and told you to give me your money under threat of being locked in a room, would you refuse?

When I do it, it's extortion and robbery, when the government do it, it's taxation.

While I'm not saying we don't need government or police and such, I am saying that the threat of violence against citizens who commit no crime against another person is fundementally wrong.

Saying it's childish to think so, makes me think you can count to potato.

Your interpretation of what a crime is, legally doesn't matter a jot - the only interpretation that matters at the end of the day is that of the supreme court.

A State that cannot enforce laws might as well have no laws. Laws aren't an al la carte system and they are not optional. Part of being a State means having a monopoly on the use of coercive force. You want to know what it's like when they don't have that? Try looking at Somalia, or Afghanistan.

You don't get to pick and choose which laws you follow, just like you don't get to pick and choose which laws protect you in the event that you need protection.

galwayrush

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I take it a "Freeman" is someone who doesn't recognize the authority of the state or does it mean something else?

Yes, and yes A Twit

MadsL

"Ben of the ancient clan of Giolla Rua" is not a 'freeman' LOL, good one.

https://peopleforeconomicjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/door-notice.jpg