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

MadsL

squod wrote: »

Judges play dress up and demand out of this world salaries for basically sitting around all day. People accept the status quo so easily. This freeman stuff isn't half as crazy as our legal system it seems to me.

The problem, as with advertising, is figuring out which half.

Care to have a stab at it?

Biggins has posted some fairly freeman-esque unique takes on the household charge.

http://bigginsblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/the-household-charge-property-tax-scam-exposed-bedroom-tax-and-all-yes-im-serious/

For Forks Sake

MadsL wrote: »

Biggins has posted some fairly freeman-esque unique takes on the household charge.

http://bigginsblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/the-household-charge-property-tax-scam-exposed-bedroom-tax-and-all-yes-im-serious/

THAT blog iS PRETTY mUCh uNReAdABBLE. GOT IT?

kippy

In all honesty, I am sorry to see Biggins go. He's been around here a long time and have had plenty interaction with him on this fora over the years.
Didn't realise until this thread where he stood on all of this type of thing.

(doesnt excuse breaking the charter etc but genuinely sorry to see he is gone)

blatantrereg

hooradiation wrote: »

It's also how the state of California is run and it currently has a debt of $265 billion, basically direct democracy is mob rule in the truest sense, and a shitty idea in general.

The fact that DDI et al hide behind simplistic "MOAR DEMOCRACY FOR THE PPL, Y DON'T YOU LIEK DEMOCRACY?" rhetoric as opposed to demonstrating how things might be improved under their proposed system alludes to that.
It's hard to argue the merits of an idea that has none.

Interesting. I'd read that a number of American states implements some level of direct democracy, but haven't seen the details. I also read that the founders of the USA were very much opposed to it, pretty much for the same reason you indicate. They were concerned that it would lead to unfair treatment of minorities, and felt elected representatives were certainly the way to overcome this.

The Swiss model has at least some level of dealing with that potential issue, since national decisions have to be passed by a double majority - both an overall majority of voters, and a majority of cantons as well (each canton representing a different region).

Whether or not direct democracy would be a good idea is a discussion for a different thread though. Here it should only be considered in terms of its relationship and comparison with the Freeman movement. They are different kettles of fish really. One is an actual form of government, the other is a sham.

_________

I know someone who's involved in both the Freeman movement and DD, as well as the occupy movement. He's not a chancer, not looking for ways to dodge taxes or personal responsibilities. He buys into it in a genuine manner, recognising that people who want to claim sovereignty when it suits them but are happy to claim benefits and suchlike are massive hypocrites. From talking to him, he seems representative of a significant number of those involved in the movement.

The appeal of it for him I think is a combination of its [pseudo-]esotericism, the idea of personal empowerment in the face of authority, the idea of independence, and probably a sense of belonging and unity.

I don't present this as apologism for the movement itself, only making the point that some individuals involved in it are the polar opposite from what people popularly associate with it. Really the fact that Freemanism attracts decent honest people makes it considerably more sinister in my view than if it really was just a collection of cynical chancers and spoilt babies.

blatantrereg

kippy wrote: »

In all honesty, I am sorry to see Biggins go. He's been around here a long time and have had plenty interaction with him on this fora over the years.
Didn't realise until this thread where he stood on all of this type of thing.

(doesnt excuse breaking the charter etc but genuinely sorry to see he is gone)

returnNull wrote: »

Christ biggins really went full retard!

What happened..?

I hate it when you see someone banned for something dramatic, and lots of posters saying things like "Wow I can't believe they did that!", but it's all been cut and deleted. :pac:

edit: Oh I see - it was for threats of legal action.... That's not really full retard exactly though - did I miss something?

MadsL

blatantrereg wrote: »

What happened..?

First the Earth cooled....

Sacksian

MadsL wrote: »

The problem, as with advertising, is figuring out which half.

Care to have a stab at it?

Biggins has posted some fairly freeman-esque unique takes on the household charge.

http://bigginsblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/the-household-charge-property-tax-scam-exposed-bedroom-tax-and-all-yes-im-serious/

I'm presuming the final comment on that blog is someone taking the piss.

Either way, it's genius..

Those fat cats like “Innocent Boy” Kenny and “Shifty Eye” Shatter sent me out a letter demanding €840 in household charges. What can DDI do for me? I want to become involved in a new political movement that protects the plain people of Ireland. I eat my dinner in the middle of the day; make love to my wife on a Saturday night after a couple of glasses of Bud and try to teach my children to be model Irish citizens. Sons of Cuchulain and Daughters of Brunker.

Is there anything that DDI can do for me? I’m in frickin tears here as I write this. Big blubbering tears of sadness and remorse. Gilmore is yanking down my slacks and riding me senseless while he takes photographs and sends them to Phil Hogan. We’re the poor people of Ireland.

NoQuarter

squod wrote: »

Judges play dress up and demand out of this world salaries for basically sitting around all day. People accept the status quo so easily. This freeman stuff isn't half as crazy as our legal system it seems to me.

I thought Judges had high salaries until I saw first-hand the amount of work they do. I wouldnt do what they do for their money having seen it, they might sit down while doing it but they work some SERIOUS hours behind the scenes and have huge pressure on them as one party is going to inevitably be unhappy with the result of every decision they make, its a huge burden. Especially if a complex case comes before them. They have to make sure they have a full grasp of the whole case before making any decision on it because there are very very smart people waiting for an answer.

I wouldnt touch the job and its so crystal clear you haven't a clue what it entails either.

Jonny7

squod wrote: »

Judges play dress up and demand out of this world salaries for basically sitting around all day. People accept the status quo so easily. This freeman stuff isn't half as crazy as our legal system it seems to me.

Wow, you made it sound silly and like a doddle...

In other news in cuckoo land airline pilots just sit on their ass all day and wear silly hats. Oh don't get me started on brain surgeons..

benway

NoQuarter wrote: »

I thought Judges had high salaries until I saw first-hand the amount of work they do.

Plus what they could be earning as premier division silks.

I feel a bit bad for Biggins as well, though - if it was the legal threats (and apologies to the mods if this is a massive breach of protocol), I thought they were directed at me personally rather than the site, and tbh I wasn't exactly drafting up my Notice of Intent / Claim of Right over them ... under the circumstances. I don't think threat is even the right word. I'm sure that makes no odds, but I wouldn't feel right not putting it out there.

blatantrereg

NoQuarter wrote: »

I thought Judges had high salaries until I saw first-hand the amount of work they do. I wouldnt do what they do for their money having seen it, they might sit down while doing it but they work some SERIOUS hours behind the scenes and have huge pressure on them as one party is going to inevitably be unhappy with the result of every decision they make, its a huge burden. Especially if a complex case comes before them. They have to make sure they have a full grasp of the whole case before making any decision on it because there are very very smart people waiting for an answer.

I wouldnt touch the job and its so crystal clear you haven't a clue what it entails either.

That's the intrinsic problem with such positions. Douglas Adams describes it in the HHG2TG books.

You'd want someone with a strong sense of responsibility and little desire for power for its own sake. But someone like that doesn't usually want such a position - they are put off by the responsibility entailed, and indifferent to the power.

Instead the positions are sought be people who crave power over others, and have little sense of responsibility. That sort of position is absolutely awesome for someone with that sort of mentality.

I might sound like I think all judges and TDs are psychopaths or something. I don't think that at all. But I think the above is definitely a factor in any high-powered job, and often less-than-ideal people do end up in the roles.

NoQuarter

benway wrote: »

Plus what they could be earning as premier division silks.

I feel a bit bad for Biggins as well, though - if it was the legal threats (and apologies to the mods if this is a massive breach of protocol), I thought they were directed at me personally rather than the site, and tbh I wasn't exactly drafting up my Notice of Intent / Claim of Right over them ... under the circumstances. I'm sure that makes no odds, but I wouldn't feel right not putting it out there.

I was thinking about the silk thing while typing my reply but I've also heard, through second hand information, that a lot of the bench didn't have much of a practice before the call so I decided not to mention it.

Oh and by the way, dont send a notice, dont you know they can just return to sender.

darkhorse

For Forks Sake wrote: »

THAT blog iS PRETTY mUCh uNReAdABBLE. GOT IT?

Why, are you not very good at the reading?

blatantrereg

NoQuarter wrote: »

I thought Judges had high salaries until I saw first-hand the amount of work they do. I wouldnt do what they do for their money having seen it, they might sit down while doing it but they work some SERIOUS hours behind the scenes and have huge pressure on them as one party is going to inevitably be unhappy with the result of every decision they make, its a huge burden. Especially if a complex case comes before them. They have to make sure they have a full grasp of the whole case before making any decision on it because there are very very smart people waiting for an answer.

I wouldnt touch the job and its so crystal clear you haven't a clue what it entails either.

Actually you touch on another important point I think: They shouldn't be up to all that much "behind the scenes" at all surely. Transparency would strike me as being pretty important in the sorts of decisions that they routinely make.

One idea would be to cut their salaries, and correspondingly increase the number of trials that are by jury (instead of by judges only), thus reducing their responsibilities. [Well] over 90% of cases in both the UK and Ireland are heard by judges only, and they can include surprisingly serious cases. Any charge of an indictable offence is supposed to be heard by a jury, but the classification of hybrid offences means that indictable offences can be tried in a summary manner, with the proviso that the possible sentence is capped at five years.

In my opinion, juries should be used as a matter of course for criminal charges, especially ones that may result in imprisonment. The only exception I see really is where intimidation of juries is likely, such as gangland cases. [These are ones that are almost always heard by jury the way things are .] For those cases, the idea of a panel of judges hearing the case makes sense.

I'm really starting to derail this thread now, so I should stop.

MadsL

blatantrereg wrote: »

One idea would be to cut their salaries, and correspondingly increase the number of trials that are by jury (instead of by judges only), thus reducing their responsibilities.

Genius, pay someone who already does the job less, and reduce productivity for society as a whole by dragging workers in for jury trials. Regardless of the fact that jury trials still require a judge.

NoQuarter

blatantrereg wrote: »

Actually you touch on another important point I think: They shouldn't be up to all that much "behind the scenes" at all surely. Transparency would strike me as being pretty important in the sorts of decisions that they routinely make.

One idea would be to cut their salaries, and correspondingly increase the number of trials that are by jury (instead of by judges only), thus reducing their responsibilities. [Well] over 90% of cases in both the UK and Ireland are heard by judges only, and they can include surprisingly serious cases. Any charge of an indictable offence is supposed to be heard by a jury, but the classification of hybrid offences means that indictable offences can be tried in a summary manner, with the proviso that the possible sentence is capped at five years.

In my opinion, juries should be used as a matter of course for criminal charges, especially ones that may result in imprisonment. The only exception I see really is where intimidation of juries is likely, such as gangland cases. [These are ones that are almost always heard by jury the way things are .] For those cases, the idea of a panel of judges hearing the case makes sense.

I'm really starting to derail this thread now, so I should stop.

I actually had civil cases in mind when I mentioned "behind the scenes" work which is a necessity to get to grips with some of the complex issues that come up. And when I say "behind the scenes", even in a criminal sense, I mean that the Judge is getting up early or else bringing the papers home and reading them at night and writing their judgments etc.. So even though transparency is important, some tasks by their very nature, will be done out of the eyes of the public.

Also, the hybrid offences, the accused has the right to elect a trial by jury. No point in going through the expense if the accused isn't bothered.

blatantrereg

MadsL wrote: »

Genius, pay someone who already does the job less, and reduce productivity for society as a whole by dragging workers in for jury trials. Regardless of the fact that jury trials still require a judge.

If productivity is the only consideration, then we should just pay one man to make all governmental decisions.

Or do you think that someone should lose their right to fair treatment the moment they are charged with something?

Increasing the number of jury trials is hardly unfeasible. Far more trials are by jury in the USA for example.

This conversation has no immediate relevance to this thread however, so I suggest we leave it off.

darkhorse

Sacksian wrote: »

I'm presuming the final comment on that blog is someone taking the piss.

Either way, it's genius..

I can tell you that he is a genuine poster.

MadsL

blatantrereg wrote: »

Or do you think that someone should lose their right to fair treatment the moment they are charged with something?

You can request a jury trial in many, many cases. But as we are OT open a thread on judges, salaries and jury trials in Legal Discussion. I doubt we will find much agreement of cost reductions.

benway

blatantrereg wrote: »

The appeal of it for him I think is a combination of its [pseudo-]esotericism, the idea of personal empowerment in the face of authority, the idea of independence, and probably a sense of belonging and unity.

I heard off a couple Occupy people that Fremen ideas and their very pushy exponents had pretty much destroyed the whole thing.

I really strongly object to this idea that the Fremen are somehow rugged rebels making a stand against an unjust system.

Either they actually believe this stuff, in which case they should probably take one step back and look at the abject record of failure and ridicule that has met Fremen "knowledge" every time and every where they've been deployed. Even Alex Jones knows it's quackery, ffs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPH5ikNKaVE

If, on the other hand, it is a tactical thing ... if the people who are pushing these ideas know full well that it's a bunch of horsesh!t, but they're trying to amp others up to "fighting the system" or however they want to look at it, doesn't the fact of their deceit make them at least equally corrupt and illegitimate to the system they're supposedly making a bold stand against?

Wouldn't these guys be better off, rather than "educating" themselves and others on a world of make believe, actually studying the law as it actually exists, and the nature of political arrangements as they actually exist?

Really gets my on my t!ts, a generation where the supposed "radicals" are off trying to cash in their birth certs on the bond markets, or wipe away their debts through the judicious use of block capitals.

And anyway, when you look at the kinds of cases where Fremen assert their freedom - road traffic offences, drug possession, debt - it's hardly bleedin' Martin Luther King stuff.

Jesus, the kids these days...

JRant

This freeman stuff is quite entertaining really. It's a bit like watching a real life version of time-team. Incredible to think that people actually beleive some of the stuff they come out with. Citing ancient laws that have been superceded many time since.

One thing I will give them credit for is that they are getting more and more people to actually have a read of the constitution just to rebut their claims. Can only be a good thing IMO.

Phoebas

darkhorse wrote: »

I can tell you that he is a genuine poster.

It wasn't you, was it?

benway

Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/people-for-economic-justice-founder-ben-gilroy-has-no-connection-with-freemen-on-the-land-movement-in-ireland-1.1396656

Mr Burns had refused to co-operate with court orders compelling him to hand over keys and give security codes of his property to a bank-appointed receiver. Last month, an order for the arrest and committal to prison of Mr Burns was set aside by Mr Justice George Birmingham after Mr Burns apologised, said he would co-operate with the receiver and would no longer associate with the parties that had advised him.

Mr Gilroy told The Irish Times he does help people in financial difficulty who are going to court, but does not use freemen arguments.

Well, I for one has seen him put a litigant up to Freeman arguments. I have also seen him berating Gardaí in the same court about "upholding [their] oaths". Ben obviously trying to reposition himself as all new, all respectable and all electable.

benway

benway wrote: »

Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/people-for-economic-justice-founder-ben-gilroy-has-no-connection-with-freemen-on-the-land-movement-in-ireland-1.1396656






Well, I for one has seen him put a litigant up to Freeman arguments. I have also seen him berating Gardaí in the same court about "upholding [their] oaths". Ben obviously trying to reposition himself as all new, all respectable and all electable.

He's the kind of tosser who will adapt his beliefs to suit whatever ideology best serves his own agenda.

squod

NoQuarter wrote: »

I thought Judges had high salaries until I saw first-hand the amount of work they do. I wouldnt do what they do for their money having seen it, they might sit down while doing it but they work some SERIOUS hours behind the scenes and have huge pressure on them as one party is going to inevitably be unhappy with the result of every decision they make, its a huge burden. Especially if a complex case comes before them. They have to make sure they have a full grasp of the whole case before making any decision on it because there are very very smart people waiting for an answer.

I wouldnt touch the job and its so you haven't a clue what it entails either.

I have a thing about judges. People playing at dress-up while engaged in serious business in general. Lookat, I'm no freeman. I can't speak for Biggins, DDI, anyone mentioned so far in the thread.

I never said whether I'd take the job, the responsibility or the hours. What I can say is that I wouldn't dress up like a clown while I'm at it.

NoQuarter wrote: »

.... I saw first-hand

Doesn't seem to bother you though.

It wasn't me!

Deleted User wrote: »

He's the kind of tosser who will adapt his beliefs to suit whatever ideology best serves his own agenda.

I will admit, I laughed my ass off while trying to figure out what "toaster" might have been a typo for. Would have made a great insult all on its own really.

blatantrereg

benway wrote: »

I heard off a couple Occupy people that Fremen ideas and their very pushy exponents had pretty much destroyed the whole thing.

I really strongly object to this idea that the Fremen are somehow rugged rebels making a stand against an unjust system.

Either they actually believe this stuff, in which case they should probably take one step back and look at the abject record of failure and ridicule that has met Fremen "knowledge" every time and every where they've been deployed. Even Alex Jones knows it's quackery, ffs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPH5ikNKaVE

If, on the other hand, it is a tactical thing ... if the people who are pushing these ideas know full well that it's a bunch of horsesh!t, but they're trying to amp others up to "fighting the system" or however they want to look at it, doesn't the fact of their deceit make them at least equally corrupt and illegitimate to the system they're supposedly making a bold stand against?

Wouldn't these guys be better off, rather than "educating" themselves and others on a world of make believe, actually studying the law as it actually exists, and the nature of political arrangements as they actually exist?

Really gets my on my t!ts, a generation where the supposed "radicals" are off trying to cash in their birth certs on the bond markets, or wipe away their debts through the judicious use of block capitals.

And anyway, when you look at the kinds of cases where Fremen assert their freedom - road traffic offences, drug possession, debt - it's hardly bleedin' Martin Luther King stuff.

Jesus, the kids these days...

Yes, I fully agree with you. Just to clarify, I don't see them as rugged rebels either, and it is quackery. The part of my post you quoted might give the impression otherwise, without the context of the rest of it. Also not sure if you thought I meant it that way from your response.

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

It wasn't you, was it?

No.

It wasn't me!

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I will admit, I laughed my ass off while trying to figure out what "toaster" might have been a typo for. Would have made a great insult all on its own really.

But a toaster is useful and as such it would be an insult to toasters to compare them to the useless group of people that we are discussing

benway

blatantrereg wrote: »

Yes, I fully agree with you. Just to clarify, I don't see them as rugged rebels either, and it is quackery. The part of my post you quoted might give the impression otherwise, without the context of the rest of it. Also not sure if you thought I meant it that way from your response.

Nah, just a general rant based on experience of the Fremen.

Also, toaster > tosser any day of the week.