Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Freeman Megamerge

13567…170

Comments

  • #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #103
    MapForJ
    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


  • #104
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,571 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    They now believe in defamation as well...


  • #105
    Panrich
    Registered Users Posts: 3,840 ✭✭✭Panrich


    The title of this thread is a contradiction.


  • #106
    MapForJ
    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


  • #107
    MagicSean
    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?


  • #108
    source
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,287 ✭✭✭source


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

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


  • #109
    MapForJ
    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


  • #110
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Joshua Jones wrote: »
    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.


  • #111
    ResearchWill
    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
  • #112
    Paulw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #113
    MapForJ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭MapForJ


    Paulw wrote: »
    http://www.facebook.com/ken.ofthefamily.sludds?sk=wall
    currently unavailable? i


  • #114
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,473 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


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


  • #115
    MapForJ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭MapForJ


    How do they get away with the cameras in court?


  • #116
    later12
    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...


  • #117
    MagicSean
    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.


  • #118
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,473 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    That is contempt of court.


  • #119
    johnciall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭johnciall


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


  • #120
    Hoffmans
    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
  • #121
    MagicSean
    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?


  • #122
    littlemac1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,073 ✭✭✭littlemac1980


    I don't understand the argument being made about the Oath, it seems to only focus on the final section of the Article, and ignores the preceding paragraphs, which make it clear, at least in my mind, that the Oath must be made within 10 days of taking office, i.e. at the date (or within 10 days) of appointment, and not upon request.

    The poor fella also seems to be entirely unaware that most, if not all, of what are considered our natural rights - which I believe from previous posts he may be referring to as common law, in the sense that they are common to us as man, and not the actual common law - derived from Judicial Decisions, and it is by virtue of the Courts recognition of such rights that such have the force of Law within our society.

    Its common knowledge that natural rights exist independent of positive law, but 'knowledge of' and 'enforcement of' are entirely different concepts. I can't see what it is hoped to achieve by declaring the obvious (i.e. I am a man) as a defence to Society's obligation/right to protect the natural rights of all members of society.

    It might serve his interests more to have a read of Hobbes 'Leviathan'.


  • #123
    Triangla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Triangla


    All of this because a guy wants to get off a speeding fine.


  • #124
    Miguel_Sanchez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,417 ✭✭✭Miguel_Sanchez


    These Freeman lads just make me laugh. They're entirely clueless.


  • #125
    Hoffmans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Hoffmans


    not entirely clueless . misguided? yes
    seeing the 300% increase in incaracarations for petty matters and debts since 2007 somone has to make a stand before the private prisons arrive
    and it trebles again imo.....

    sb1 that was an "Abuse of discretion" i was referring to...


  • #126
    Miguel_Sanchez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,417 ✭✭✭Miguel_Sanchez


    Hoffmans wrote: »
    not entirely clueless . misguided? yes
    seeing the 300% increase in incaracarations for petty matters and debts since 2007 somone has to make a stand before the private prisons arrive
    and it trebles again imo.....

    sb1 that was an "Abuse of discretion" i was referring to...

    This guy wasn't taking a stand. He was trying to get out of a speeding fine with some nonsense that he read on the internet most likely.

    I have no time for these messers. And why do they talk like that? "Bobby of the family Sludds" - do they want to be in Lord of the Rings?

    Anyway he had to admit he was wrong before they let him go. I know he probably thinks he 'beat the system' now but really he just looks like a bit of a fool. Perhaps he'll be able to brag about it on his Bebo page with his other Free Man friends later but I'd say he'll still wind up paying the fine.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Hoffmans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Hoffmans


    who knows? , i think they should stick to their GIY projects , but the media would have no interest in that :rolleyes:......


  • #128
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    There's a thread in conspiracy theories on the freeman stuff

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056176197&page=56
    its quite simple really, you seem to believe that Freemen want to live in a world without ANY Laws, thats simply not the case, as you have pointed out a Freeman is bound by the LAWS of the country he resides in, in this Case BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN

    however thats All a Freeman is bound by, now can you show me where it says in the Constitution that the Long Mile Road is a 40K zone??


  • #129
    jargon buster
    Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭jargon buster


    Rob Menard from Canada was up until recently selling idiotic advice, I and others have virtually eliminated him from the internet as his arguments have been destroyed, he just posts on his facebook page now, he sold Lance Thatcher legal advice for $800 dollars which got poor lance in all sorts of trouble
    http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20110708/KAMLOOPS0101/110709833/-1/kamloops/internet-fuelled-freeman-8217-s-beliefs-says-ex-wife#comment-247226104


  • #130
    batistuta9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,253 ✭✭✭batistuta9


    I have some questions on the freeman stuff, could someone answer them?

    So what these freeman websites do is to put up a load of stuff with some true facts in it, then manipulate the content to make it look that these laws can't be applied to the people. Am i getting this right?

    Have they ever won a case in court by using this 'produce your oath' type stuff?

    and do the gardai have to give you some pledge/oath if you ask them to, when they approach you? and do the have to state the reason for their questioning/arrest of a person?


  • #131
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    batistuta9 wrote: »
    So what these freeman websites do is to put up a load of stuff with some true facts in it, then manipulate the content to make it look that these laws can't be applied to the people. Am i getting this right?

    They will say that they're not manipulating you, they are showing you the truth. Unfortunately they are not telling you the truth. What they say is false. I won't call it a lie as that implies that they know they are telling you a falsehood but what they are saying is absolutely incorrect.
    batistuta9 wrote: »
    Have they ever won a case in court by using this 'produce your oath' type stuff?

    No. Never. They will say otherwise but again they are wrong/lying/tell porkies. They will link you to blurry videos of someone trying it but they never show you the actual outcome of the case. Usually it's text telling you how he won to the sound of the Garda/Police Officer removing the freeman from Court and holding him in contempt before the Court deals with him later.
    batistuta9 wrote: »
    and do the gardai have to give you some pledge/oath if you ask them to, when they approach you? and do the have to state the reason for their questioning/arrest of a person?

    The Gardai do not have to give you any oath or pledge. That's complete nonsense. Nor does a judge or anyone else for that matter. Gardai do have to tell you why they are arresting you and under what power but that is a duty wholly unconnected to any false notion of "dealing with honor" that Freemen espouse.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Freemen tend to make sweeping statements without any evidence to support it.
    Not unlike plaintiffs / defendents / lawyers at times. :pac:
    Long Mile Road is a 40K zone
    Actually its a 50 zone, except at school times when its 30km/h. :)


  • #133
    MapForJ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭MapForJ


    http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/sludds-back-at-court-to-take-judge-to-task-2855510.html


  • #134
    Scealta_saol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 191 ✭✭Scealta_saol


    Wile E. Coyote wrote: »
    Just wondering...if this guy has a bank account/passport in the name of Bobby Sludds but still claims that he is not Bobby Sludds could he be done for identity theft or have his bank account frozen until the real Bobby Sludds takes ownership of it? Similarly Derry above. If he is on the dole I assume he is claiming it using the name on his birth cert and not in the form Derry of the family... If he ended up in court and refused to acknowledge the name he was summoned under could he have all his benefits stopped?


    If the car he was in is registered to him and he has it registered as bobby sludds and not bobby of the family sludds then he could potentially be done for giving a false declaration of ownership perhaps?
    just a thought...

    and what exactly happens now? has he been let off?


  • #135
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,071 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    MapForJ wrote: »
    http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/sludds-back-at-court-to-take-judge-to-task-2855510.html

    Mr. Sludds is charged with a number of motoring offences including driving without insurance, licence or NCT and failing to stop his vehicle after being asked to do so by a garda at The Ballagh on April 28, 2010.

    Serious enough charges.... this is going to end in tears, Mr Sludds tears.
    I have some questions on the freeman stuff, could someone answer them?

    So what these freeman websites do is to put up a load of stuff with some true facts in it, then manipulate the content to make it look that these laws can't be applied to the people. Am i getting this right?

    Have they ever won a case in court by using this 'produce your oath' type stuff?

    and do the gardai have to give you some pledge/oath if you ask them to, when they approach you? and do the have to state the reason for their questioning/arrest of a person?

    - No matter which way it goes, freemen will call it a victory.

    - Freeman preachers, rarely practise what they preach and have very little evidence to show that their 'stuff' works.

    - Even if a garda or judge carries his oath around with them I don't see how that could affect the outcomes of their dealings with gardaí or judges.

    - The freeman belief system is a paradox in itself. The very people they complain of having problems with, could easily turn it around and use freeman nonsense against the freeman.


  • #136
    MapForJ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭MapForJ


    Finnbar01 wrote: »



    - No matter which way it goes, freemen will call it a victory.

    .
    +1


  • #137
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Scealta_saol wrote: »
    and what exactly happens now? has he been let off?

    No, he still has to appear before the DC on Road Traffic charges. Not sure when/where though.


  • #138
    jargon buster
    Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭jargon buster


    The freeman belief system is a paradox in itself. The very people they complain of having problems with, could easily turn it around and use freeman nonsense against the freeman.
    Exactly, just play them at their own game, create a scenario where they have their very own freeman community and use all their own arguments against them by becoming a freeman in their society.
    Watch them squirm as the realisation occasionaly hits them.


  • #139
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,071 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    Slightly off topic but another freeman is up in court tomorrow.

    Apparently he was arrested by ten gardaí and there is a special sitting in Waterford just for him. Surely he must have committed some serious offences if true???

    http://freemanireland.ning.com/forum/topics/suppprt-freeman-aaron-milne-in-waterford-courthouse-tmro-at-10am


  • #140
    445279.ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,978 ✭✭✭445279.ie


    Finnbar01 wrote: »
    Slightly off topic but another freeman is up in court tomorrow.

    Apparently he was arrested by ten gardaí and there is a special sitting in Waterford just for him. Surely he must have committed some serious offences if true???

    http://freemanireland.ning.com/forum/topics/suppprt-freeman-aaron-milne-in-waterford-courthouse-tmro-at-10am

    That sitting was this morning (Tuesday 30/8) and not tomorrow (Wednesday 31/8) and would have been just the regular vacation sitting at Waterford District Court, so nothing special tbh


  • #141
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Is there an actual reason why they use that "Freeman Aaron of the Milne family" expression?

    What's that about?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    later10 wrote: »
    Is there an actual reason why they use that "Freeman Aaron of the Milne family" expression?

    What's that about?


    There are some schools of thought that say the Name such as MR JOE BLOGGS or similar is a commercial Incorporated name .
    That leads to the idea that using the name Joe of the family Bloggs or similar will remove the commercial incorporated link from the name .
    This comes from the fact that when a baby is born there is a birth certificate issued which registers the birth of the baby JOE BLOGGS
    The parents sign the birth certificate and as result hand over ownership of the baby to the state similar to when a ship is registered the registered ship is now owned by the state .The baby is then licensed by the state to be brought up by the parents if they remain suitable .If the parents err don't educate the child by sending it to school or abuse it the the state will take the the child away ( seeing as they own the baby they can take it away. It often why the state would rarely interfere in traveller families in the past as they did not own those kids as they didn't take out birth certificates)
    Because the baby is owned by the state the state have insured that the child has got a commercial Incorporated title attached to it . This incorporated title is the name of the baby in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS or MISS JANE BLOGGS. ( Check your driving licence it in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS )
    As the court system is commercial court contract law corporation A has dispute with corporation B the judge can only be a judge when he has two corporations in dispute to judge
    Humans cant be normally in commercial courts only corporations unless the human is stupid and say yes I am MR JOE BLOGGS.
    If the Human say yes my name is MR JOPE BLOGGS he turns himself from a human into a person . A corporation can be classed as person so therefore a person can be a corporation. Anyway the way all the dim wits fall into the trap going into courts is saying my name is MR. JOE BLOGGS etc. .
    So the trick is not to say your name in court and therefore there isn't two corporations in the court room so the case cant continue.
    However it is as best as more expert people in TNS ( tir na soir ,land of the free ) www.tnsradio.ning.com) that admitting to any name such as JOE of the Family BLOGGS will allow them to conjoin the name to make JOE BLOGGS and convert the person into a corporation
    As a result TNS cant recommend that solution . However other freeman movements suggest different .
    Hope that helps you but if not look at TNS and see the info and decide for yourself.

    Derry


  • #143
    source
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,287 ✭✭✭source


    derry wrote: »
    There are some schools of thought that say the Name such as MR JOE BLOGGS or similar is a commercial Incorporated name .
    That leads to the idea that using the name Joe of the family Bloggs or similar will remove the commercial incorporated link from the name .
    This comes from the fact that when a baby is born there is a birth certificate issued which registers the birth of the baby JOE BLOGGS
    The parents sign the birth certificate and as result hand over ownership of the baby to the state similar to when a ship is registered the registered ship is now owned by the state .The baby is then licensed by the state to be brought up by the parents if they remain suitable .If the parents err don't educate the child by sending it to school or abuse it the the state will take the the child away ( seeing as they own the baby they can take it away. It often why the state would rarely interfere in traveller families in the past as they did not own those kids as they didn't take out birth certificates)
    Because the baby is owned by the state the state have insured that the child has got a commercial Incorporated title attached to it . This incorporated title is the name of the baby in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS or MISS JANE BLOGGS. ( Check your driving licence it in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS )
    As the court system is commercial court contract law corporation A has dispute with corporation B the judge can only be a judge when he has two corporations in dispute to judge
    Humans cant be normally in commercial courts only corporations unless the human is stupid and say yes I am MR JOE BLOGGS.
    If the Human say yes my name is MR JOPE BLOGGS he turns himself from a human into a person . A corporation can be classed as person so therefore a person can be a corporation. Anyway the way all the dim wits fall into the trap going into courts is saying my name is MR. JOE BLOGGS etc. .
    So the trick is not to say your name in court and therefore there isn't two corporations in the court room so the case cant continue.
    However it is as best as more expert people in TNS ( tir na soir ,land of the free ) www.tnsradio.ning.com) that admitting to any name such as JOE of the Family BLOGGS will allow them to conjoin the name to make JOE BLOGGS and convert the person into a corporation
    As a result TNS cant recommend that solution . However other freeman movements suggest different .
    Hope that helps you but if not look at TNS and see the info and decide for yourself.

    Derry

    Hogwash.


  • #144
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    derry wrote: »
    later10 wrote: »
    Is there an actual reason why they use that "Freeman Aaron of the Milne family" expression?

    What's that about?


    There are some schools of thought that say the Name such as MR JOE BLOGGS or similar is a commercial Incorporated name .
    That leads to the idea that using the name Joe of the family Bloggs or similar will remove the commercial incorporated link from the name .
    This comes from the fact that when a baby is born there is a birth certificate issued which registers the birth of the baby JOE BLOGGS
    The parents sign the birth certificate and as result hand over ownership of the baby to the state similar to when a ship is registered the registered ship is now owned by the state .The baby is then licensed by the state to be brought up by the parents if they remain suitable .If the parents err don't educate the child by sending it to school or abuse it the the state will take the the child away ( seeing as they own the baby they can take it away. It often why the state would rarely interfere in traveller families in the past as they did not own those kids as they didn't take out birth certificates)
    Because the baby is owned by the state the state have insured that the child has got a commercial Incorporated title attached to it . This incorporated title is the name of the baby in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS or MISS JANE BLOGGS. ( Check your driving licence it in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS )
    As the court system is commercial court contract law corporation A has dispute with corporation B the judge can only be a judge when he has two corporations in dispute to judge
    Humans cant be normally in commercial courts only corporations unless the human is stupid and say yes I am MR JOE BLOGGS.
    If the Human say yes my name is MR JOPE BLOGGS he turns himself from a human into a person . A corporation can be classed as person so therefore a person can be a corporation. Anyway the way all the dim wits fall into the trap going into courts is saying my name is MR. JOE BLOGGS etc. .
    So the trick is not to say your name in court and therefore there isn't two corporations in the court room so the case cant continue.
    However it is as best as more expert people in TNS ( tir na soir ,land of the free ) www.tnsradio.ning.com) that admitting to any name such as JOE of the Family BLOGGS will allow them to conjoin the name to make JOE BLOGGS and convert the person into a corporation
    As a result TNS cant recommend that solution . However other freeman movements suggest different .
    Hope that helps you but if not look at TNS and see the info and decide for yourself.

    Derry

    Do people really believe that stuff!!!!!!!!!


  • #145
    source
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,287 ✭✭✭source


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Do people really believe that stuff!!!!!!!!!

    Unfortunately yes, people are deluded enough to believe this conspiracy theory claptrap.


  • #146
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    source wrote: »
    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Do people really believe that stuff!!!!!!!!!

    Unfortunately yes, people are deluded enough to believe this conspiracy theory claptrap.

    But that is so beyond even conspiracy theory, you know that the royal family killed Diana is a least a reasonable story, but that name thing is up there with the Easter bunny.


  • #147
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    source wrote: »
    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Do people really believe that stuff!!!!!!!!!

    Unfortunately yes, people are deluded enough to believe this conspiracy theory claptrap.

    But that is so beyond even conspiracy theory, you know that the royal family killed Diana is a least a reasonable story, but that name thing is up there with the Easter bunny.


  • #148
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    derry wrote: »
    There are some schools of thought that say the Name such as MR JOE BLOGGS or similar is a commercial Incorporated name .
    That leads to the idea that using the name Joe of the family Bloggs or similar will remove the commercial incorporated link from the name .
    ...

    Ok, well I did ask, and you did answer, so thanks for that. I now know why you use it, all I'm left wondering is how on Earth people like yourself can believe this rubbish. But I don't suppose that's a question that you are in a position to answer any more than I am; truly bizarre.


  • #149
    jblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭jblack


    derry wrote: »
    There are some schools of thought that say the Name such as MR JOE BLOGGS or similar is a commercial Incorporated name .
    That leads to the idea that using the name Joe of the family Bloggs or similar will remove the commercial incorporated link from the name .
    This comes from the fact that when a baby is born there is a birth certificate issued which registers the birth of the baby JOE BLOGGS
    The parents sign the birth certificate and as result hand over ownership of the baby to the state similar to when a ship is registered the registered ship is now owned by the state .The baby is then licensed by the state to be brought up by the parents if they remain suitable .If the parents err don't educate the child by sending it to school or abuse it the the state will take the the child away ( seeing as they own the baby they can take it away. It often why the state would rarely interfere in traveller families in the past as they did not own those kids as they didn't take out birth certificates)
    Because the baby is owned by the state the state have insured that the child has got a commercial Incorporated title attached to it . This incorporated title is the name of the baby in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS or MISS JANE BLOGGS. ( Check your driving licence it in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS )
    As the court system is commercial court contract law corporation A has dispute with corporation B the judge can only be a judge when he has two corporations in dispute to judge
    Humans cant be normally in commercial courts only corporations unless the human is stupid and say yes I am MR JOE BLOGGS.
    If the Human say yes my name is MR JOPE BLOGGS he turns himself from a human into a person . A corporation can be classed as person so therefore a person can be a corporation. Anyway the way all the dim wits fall into the trap going into courts is saying my name is MR. JOE BLOGGS etc. .
    So the trick is not to say your name in court and therefore there isn't two corporations in the court room so the case cant continue.
    However it is as best as more expert people in TNS ( tir na soir ,land of the free ) www.tnsradio.ning.com) that admitting to any name such as JOE of the Family BLOGGS will allow them to conjoin the name to make JOE BLOGGS and convert the person into a corporation
    As a result TNS cant recommend that solution . However other freeman movements suggest different .
    Hope that helps you but if not look at TNS and see the info and decide for yourself.

    Derry

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdBn5G7Y2RA


  • #150
    Paulw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Freeman theology is like chinese whispers. It changes daily.

    I did some research on it. Mainly, it seems to come from the US, where it could actually work. The idea behind it is good and valid. The application, in general, falls flat on it's face.

    I watched a Youtube video from someone (according to links) is highly respected in the Freeman world. His take on the name issue - it doesn't matter a damn what you call yourself. Joe Bloggs, Joe of the Family Bloggs, Joe, son of bob, of the family bloggs, etc ... all mean the exact same thing. What you call yourself, is what you call yourself, aside from which, it's actually the name given to you by your own parents. :rolleyes:

    The idea behind freeman is to do no harm and be indebted to no man. By that reasoning, a freeman should not be claiming social welfare, shouldn't be using medical cards, shouldn't accept a state pension, etc.

    While this can certainly work in the US, it's not what the "freeman" group of Ireland take from it. They want social welfare, medical cards, state pensions, etc, but just don't want to abide by the laws they don't agree with.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    TylerIE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,635 ✭✭✭TylerIE


    Paulw wrote: »
    Freeman theology is like chinese whispers. It changes daily.

    I did some research on it. Mainly, it seems to come from the US, where it could actually work. The idea behind it is good and valid. The application, in general, falls flat on it's face.

    Some of them charged for classes in their theology in the States.
    And a few even went so far as to set up a kinda paramilitary operation.

    Unfortunately I have heard of some of them having public meetings under the guise of "Debt Management Advice" recently. To me its dangerous as it can result in people acting in an outrageous manner, out of sheer desperation perhaps, but believing that they are within the law.

    In this case, a supermarket owner placed someone acting on behalf of AIB under "citizens arrest" for trespassing (she was taking over his premises on behalf of the Reciever). He was doing so while "live on the air" with that TNS radio crowd.


Advertisement