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

12467…170

Comments

  • #152
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    TylerIE wrote: »

    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 the 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.
    What's worse is that these people in financial trouble are usually desperate to find any way of extricating themselves of their problems, and are easily bought into this freemanism, which by all accounts can only have the ramification of making their dilemmas worse, especially if they decline to engage constructively with their counterparties and the courts service.


  • #153
    TylerIE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,635 ✭✭✭TylerIE


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

    What's that about?

    I meant to ask you - are you sorry you asked now? :P
    later10 wrote: »
    What's worse is that these people in financial trouble are usually desperate to find any way of extricating themselves of their problems, and are easily bought into this freemanism, which by all accounts can only have the ramification of making their dilemmas worse, especially if they decline to engage constructively with their counterparties and the courts service.

    I agree - thats really what I mean by desperation, hence why I find it so worrying that their "meetings" are being advertised as safe debt management seminars....


  • #154
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    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

    I didnt bother looking at it.

    But I have long since concluded that what you are proffering is utter crap.


  • #155
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    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

    Just to tease this out a bit, if Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton calls himself johnnyskeleton to get education, health or social welfare systems, can he go back to Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton when it suits him not to pay taxes, have his home repossessed or not be subject to the rule of laws which don't suit him? Can one be a human and a person? Is this what that are we human or are we dancin' song was about?

    If johnnyskeleton is a corporation and not a person, can he pay corporation tax instead of personal income tax? Can he write off losses on claret and fine dining because some human consumed them, contrary to the corporations interests?


  • #156
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,071 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    derry wrote: »
    There are some schools of thought that say the Name such as MR JOE BLOGGS or similar is a commercial Incorporated name .
    .........
    Derry


    Derry, do we a favour. Pop over to www.tnsradio.ning.com and ask the guys who run that site one simple question.

    'Where's your proof lads that FMOTL works?'

    See how long you last.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Joshua Jones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭Joshua Jones


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

    The fact that Law itself is nothing more than a belief system may be lost in here. Because the majority believe that law is good and just and follow it does not mean it is any more concrete than the moral codes of religion. Times change with all belief systems and change is scary for some.

    Crime rates increase, for the most part, year on year, so has anyone ever asked themselves if law really works?. Is it a deterant in anyway?. IMO it is a means of control for the middle of the population. Those at the top use their contacts/money to skirt around it eg Berlisconi caught commiting fraud, changes the law lol. Those at the bottom dont care/believe in it.

    Law is no more than a set of moral codes set down by "society" which if disobeyed will send you to hell/prison. That someone is a christian who then attacks a Buddhist for his beliefs because they believe them wrong is foolish and myopic. Mob rule.


  • #158
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Just to tease this out a bit, if Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton calls himself johnnyskeleton to get education, health or social welfare systems, can he go back to Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton when it suits him not to pay taxes, have his home repossessed or not be subject to the rule of laws which don't suit him? Can one be a human and a person? Is this what that are we human or are we dancin' song was about?

    If johnnyskeleton is a corporation and not a person, can he pay corporation tax instead of personal income tax? Can he write off losses on claret and fine dining because some human consumed them, contrary to the corporations interests?
    This Skeleton chap can't be one of these fleshy humans.


  • #159
    Hoffmans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Hoffmans


    seemingly that waterford case was adjourned till 22nd of this month, strange seen the case was heard already back in may and a fine issued, didnt know state could re-enter a case just because they didnt collect the original fine...


  • #160
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,071 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    Hoffmans wrote: »
    seemingly that waterford case was adjourned till 22nd of this month, strange seen the case was heard already back in may and a fine issued, didnt know state could re-enter a case just because they didnt collect the original fine...

    Do you know what he was brought up over?


  • #161
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Hoffmans wrote: »
    seemingly that waterford case was adjourned till 22nd of this month, strange seen the case was heard already back in may and a fine issued, didnt know state could re-enter a case just because they didnt collect the original fine...

    He was brought before the District Court last month on a warrant, there was a question as to his identity the judge remanded him in custody. With the assistance of a solicitor and 2 barristers he brought a special summons to the high court, the state agreed not to contest that matter in the high court and he was released to return to the district court to have the matter heard.

    When you are given a fine in the district court it will state the amount of the fine say 500 the time to pay say 6 months and the time in prison in default of paying say 7 days. So if a fine is not paid in the time warrant issues for you to be put in custody.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,071 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    He was brought before the District Court last month on a warrant, there was a question as to his identity the judge remanded him in custody. With the assistance of a solicitor and 2 barristers he brought a special summons to the high court, the state agreed not to contest that matter in the high court and he was released to return to the district court to have the matter heard.

    When you are given a fine in the district court it will state the amount of the fine say 500 the time to pay say 6 months and the time in prison in default of paying say 7 days. So if a fine is not paid in the time warrant issues for you to be put in custody.


    Correct me if I'm wrong but are you getting the Waterford and Wexford cases mixed up?


  • #163
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Finnbar01 wrote: »
    Correct me if you are wrong but are you getting the Waterford and Wexford cases mixed up?

    Sorry my mistake.


  • #164
    passive
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,403 ✭✭✭passive


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Sorry my mistake.

    Looks like someone needs to do their research...

    :cool: (YEAAAHHH!)


  • #165
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,571 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Just to tease this out a bit, if Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton calls himself johnnyskeleton to get education, health or social welfare systems, can he go back to Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton when it suits him not to pay taxes, have his home repossessed or not be subject to the rule of laws which don't suit him? Can one be a human and a person? Is this what that are we human or are we dancin' song was about?

    If johnnyskeleton is a corporation and not a person, can he pay corporation tax instead of personal income tax? Can he write off losses on claret and fine dining because some human consumed them, contrary to the corporations interests?
    johnnyskeleton the corporation would also sure enjoy perpetual succession and the ability to float oneself on the stock market. A handy way to profit and immortality, surely?

    Actually, there was a chap on a thread over on Conspiracy Theories who believes that your capitalised birth cert is traded by the Government on some kind of ghoulish international denizen stock exchange.


  • #166
    mazzy maz
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭mazzy maz


    Robbo wrote: »
    Actually, there was a chap on a thread over on Conspiracy Theories who believes that your capitalised birth cert is traded by the Government on some kind of ghoulish international denizen stock exchange.

    Yeah a friend of mine that's trying the freeman stuff on his mortgage believes that. Unreal. What do you say to something like that?

    Some of these freeman types literally just make stuff up and pass it off as fact. There are a few freeman facebook groups that I've been following for the laugh. Deluded isn't the word. I challenged the Waterford supporters of this Sludds chap to produce the constitutional article they believe requires a judge to produce his oath upon request. They gave me this:
    5. 1°

    Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution
    shall make and subscribe the following declaration:
    "In the presence of Almighty God I, , do
    solemnly and sincerely promise and declare
    that I will duly and faithfully and to the best
    of my knowledge and power execute the
    office of Chief Justice (or as the case may
    be) without fear or favour, affection or illwill towards any man, and that I will uphold
    the Constitution and the laws. May God
    direct and sustain me."

    2°

    This declaration shall be made and subscribed by the
    Chief Justice in the presence of the President, and by
    each of the other judges of the Supreme Court, the
    judges of the High Court and the judges of every other
    Court in the presence of the Chief Justice or the senior
    available judge of the Supreme Court in open court.

    3°

    The declaration shall be made and subscribed by
    every judge before entering upon his duties as such
    judge, and in any case not later than ten days after the
    date of his appointment or such later date as may be
    determined by the President.

    4°

    Any judge who declines or neglects to make such
    declaration as aforesaid shall be deemed to have
    vacated his office.

    It clearly and unambiguously states that a judge is required to make the relevant declaration once and within 10 days of their initial appointment as a judge. When I pointed out that this was the case to the freeman nuts they carried on as if nothing had happened and continued to claim that Judge Anderson was in breach of the constitution. They're basically conspiracy theorists that refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their essentially faith-based beliefs. Nutters.


  • #167
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    mazzy maz wrote: »
    Yeah a friend of mine that's trying the freeman stuff on his mortgage believes that. Unreal. What do you say to something like that?

    Some of these freeman types literally just make stuff up and pass it off as fact. There are a few freeman facebook groups that I've been following for the laugh. Deluded isn't the word. I challenged the Waterford supporters of this Sludds chap to produce the constitutional article they believe requires a judge to produce his oath upon request. They gave me this:



    It clearly and unambiguously states that a judge is required to make the relevant declaration once and within 10 days of their initial appointment as a judge. When I pointed out that this was the case to the freeman nuts they carried on as if nothing had happened and continued to claim that Judge Anderson was in breach of the constitution. They're basically conspiracy theorists that refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their essentially faith-based beliefs. Nutters.

    Is your friend intending to return the house to the seller? If the bank didn't provide him any real money then he didn't pay with any real money. I'm curious as to wether they have some excuse as to why their digital money is some how more real than the banks.


  • #168
    MapForJ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭MapForJ


    mazzy maz wrote: »
    They're basically conspiracy theorists that refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their essentially faith-based beliefs. Nutters.
    cult based beliefs is more like it imo


  • #169
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,071 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    mazzy maz wrote: »
    Yeah a friend of mine that's trying the freeman stuff on his mortgage believes that. Unreal. What do you say to something like that?

    Some of these freeman types literally just make stuff up and pass it off as fact. There are a few freeman facebook groups that I've been following for the laugh. Deluded isn't the word. I challenged the Waterford supporters of this Sludds chap to produce the constitutional article they believe requires a judge to produce his oath upon request. They gave me this:

    It clearly and unambiguously states that a judge is required to make the relevant declaration once and within 10 days of their initial appointment as a judge. When I pointed out that this was the case to the freeman nuts they carried on as if nothing had happened and continued to claim that Judge Anderson was in breach of the constitution. They're basically conspiracy theorists that refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their essentially faith-based beliefs. Nutters.

    They're also quite fond of asking Gardaí for their oaths when stopped say at a checkpoint. Why? What difference does it make whether a garda has his oath with him or not... I'm guessing none of course.

    Innk colour is important to them (red and blue ink are to be used for different purposes) even paper ( robin egg blue) also has significance.

    Finally, they've mentioned that if a garda asks you to sign something, underneath where you signature goes, sign 'under duress'???

    It's strange altogether.


  • #170
    MapForJ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭MapForJ


    update"He said he was not Bobby Oliver Sludds - whom he described as 'a fictional entity' - and preferred to be known as Bobby of the family Sludds. Judge William Early accepted this and marked the charges 'also known as Bobby of the family Sludds' before using this form of address throughout the rest of the proceedings."


  • #171
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    My favourite part:
    Sludds said he was not working. He dismissed the State as a fictional entity. He asked: 'Have I offended anyone here?', prompting a chorus of 'No' from his supporters.

    ' The people have spoken,' he concluded.

    The judge concluded otherwise, imposing €670 in fines for the lack of driving licence, motor tax and NCT.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    MapForJ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭MapForJ


    Deleted User wrote: »
    My favourite part:
    wonder does he get dole from thenfictional entity and if so is it fictional dole


  • #173
    TylerIE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,635 ✭✭✭TylerIE


    Deleted User wrote: »
    My favourite part:

    I also equally like
    Sludds said he was not working.

    as I wonder is he claiming benefits... from the fictional state....


  • #174
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    It's pretty clear that if the dole was for Bobby Sludds, then it isn't his. He should give it all back or have it sent to Bobby of the family Sludds.

    This story, along with this one made my day.


  • #175
    MapForJ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭MapForJ


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    It's pretty clear that if the dole was for Bobby Sludds, then it isn't his. He should give it all back or have it sent to Bobby of the family Sludds.

    This story, along with this one made my day.
    In handing down sentence, Judge Zaidan said he would direct Mr Sutton to get “psychiatric treatment as appropriate” while in prison


  • #176
    bath handle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 370 ✭✭bath handle


    A judge has no power to direct treatment of anyone in custody. Treatment in custody is a matter for the executive, not the judiciary. When is the High Court case?


  • #177
    Scealta_saol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 191 ✭✭Scealta_saol


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    This story, along with this one made my day.

    Judge Zaidan is a legend! :) He has an excellent no nonsense approach and has no time for time wasters like this...

    What exactly did Mr Sutton mean by "Mr. Sutton said he referred to Article 41 of the Irish Constitution, but the Gaelic version of it, not the blue book “masquerading” as the “true text” in all outlets.The document described the fixed penalty system as a “money exchanging facility” and questioned under which authority the District Court was operating, asking if it was under “maritime admiralty” or “common law” jurisdiction."


    Is this another part of the Freeman thing? That the english version of the constitution doesn't count or something? Were there no Irish speakers in the court? Surely the document doesn't say that it's a money exchanging facility? Or if it does, not in the context of a "money making scheme"?


  • #178
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Scealta_saol wrote: »
    Judge Zaidan is a legend! :) He has an excellent no nonsense approach and has no time for time wasters like this...

    What exactly did Mr Sutton mean by "Mr. Sutton said he referred to Article 41 of the Irish Constitution, but the Gaelic version of it, not the blue book “masquerading” as the “true text” in all outlets.The document described the fixed penalty system as a “money exchanging facility” and questioned under which authority the District Court was operating, asking if it was under “maritime admiralty” or “common law” jurisdiction."


    Is this another part of the Freeman thing? That the english version of the constitution doesn't count or something? Were there no Irish speakers in the court? Surely the document doesn't say that it's a money exchanging facility? Or if it does, not in the context of a "money making scheme"?

    They believe the translation is wrong and that the Irish one is worded less oppressively.


  • #179
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,571 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Scealta_saol wrote: »
    Judge Zaidan is a legend! :) He has an excellent no nonsense approach and has no time for time wasters like this...

    What exactly did Mr Sutton mean by "Mr. Sutton said he referred to Article 41 of the Irish Constitution, but the Gaelic version of it, not the blue book “masquerading” as the “true text” in all outlets.The document described the fixed penalty system as a “money exchanging facility” and questioned under which authority the District Court was operating, asking if it was under “maritime admiralty” or “common law” jurisdiction."


    Is this another part of the Freeman thing? That the english version of the constitution doesn't count or something? Were there no Irish speakers in the court? Surely the document doesn't say that it's a money exchanging facility? Or if it does, not in the context of a "money making scheme"?
    And if they can't fall back on the "mistranslated" Constitution, they also like to go on about the number of strings on the harps used on various documents. Seems legit to me...


  • #180
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    They believe the translation is wrong and that the Irish one is worded less oppressively.
    It seems that there are some discrepancies between the two, with the Irish version being more flowery and the English version more legalistic.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    Finnbar01 wrote: »

    Finally, they've mentioned that if a garda asks you to sign something, underneath where you signature goes, sign 'under duress'???

    It's strange altogether.

    If you sign the form a garda gives you you basiucally can be interpeted to admit quit even if your not guilty or worse your happy with your stay in thier hotel services commonly known a s the jail.
    They Garda usualy trick you with sign this form to to get your material back such as wallet car keys etc thyey take off you before they lock you up.
    If you were arrested wronly and you sign that form yopu effecdtivly have signed a form to say that your were happy with the copetate servicews the Garda supplied including the escorting with shackels to a jail soyou cant sue them for hurting you breaking your arms etc
    If the Garda bends parts that shouldnt bend and force you to sign then put under durress and that makes the contract null and void

    Simple really the corperate services of the Garda like to cover thier rear ends and trick you intyo signing away your rights

    If a Garda saytodo you understand me and you say yes i understand you then your banjaxed
    What he has said under legalese lingo is do you agree to stand under me .
    If you say yes I understand you you efffetivily agree you will stand under him
    This means because you are the people the highest in the system and the Garda are the servants civil servant s and are under you and have to serve you if you agree to stand under your servant the garda you agree that he or she is now higher than you and they now have full control oveer you destiny eg they can now command you to go to jail.If you dont go tthey can now drag you there legealy as you gave away your rights to object
    SEE SIMPLE THEY TRICKED YOU to give away your rights

    There is more but you probably wouldnt get it its over your head you trust your servants not to shaft you in the darker parts with thier double speak dont you

    Derry


  • #182
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    bath handle wrote: »
    A judge has no power to direct treatment of anyone in custody. Treatment in custody is a matter for the executive, not the judiciary. When is the High Court case?


    Yes correct but there is nothing to stop a judge speaking this kinda crap if he wants .
    Juges can spout all sorts of non legal crap there is nobody out there to
    pull them up.
    So often they wing it invent law on the fly and often invent absolute rubbish law but if the people are not there to point it out and record the event and get them questioned on the ruling they get away with this type of skull duggery .

    Also I dont think this type case can go to the high court unless there is some new legal system issue to address.

    This guy didnt do the correct things the majority freeman movement advised him to do so this Judge was easily able to eat him for breakfast

    However there are freeman movemnets in Eire that if he follows thier solutions he can probaly exit the jail in few days or probaly at worst a few weeks

    But thats up to him he has to decide to contact them

    Derry


  • #183
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    Scealta_saol wrote: »
    Judge Zaidan is a legend! :) He has an excellent no nonsense approach and has no time for time wasters like this...

    What exactly did Mr Sutton mean by "Mr. Sutton said he referred to Article 41 of the Irish Constitution, but the Gaelic version of it, not the blue book “masquerading” as the “true text” in all outlets.The document described the fixed penalty system as a “money exchanging facility” and questioned under which authority the District Court was operating, asking if it was under “maritime admiralty” or “common law” jurisdiction."


    Is this another part of the Freeman thing? That the english version of the constitution doesn't count or something? Were there no Irish speakers in the court? Surely the document doesn't say that it's a money exchanging facility? Or if it does, not in the context of a "money making scheme"?


    The English Freeman movement attempt this type of question“maritime admiralty” or “common law” jurisdiction."and the legal system for the UK it can be very effective
    In the UK there as there is the magna charter to refer back to for legal issues

    However in the case of Ireland most freeman movements would not suggest this approch as the system in Eire tends to operate under a mix of “BAR (British Accredited Registery )legal counsil bye laws first with some maritime admiralty and common law” mixxed into the mix .

    This means the Irish Judges can operate all three legal systems together at the same time and switch in and out of any of these at any time .
    The result is its irrelant which reply the Judge gives gives .

    If the judge says common law juristriction the judge can lie and can a few seconds later change to maritime admiralty law without to telling you .

    Many Irish freeman movements would probably not suggest to use these English solutions as the local Irish legal Bye Laws systems dont need to respond to that type of English Freeman Logic and as this case shows as they predicted before hand that it probaly wouldnt work so well in the local version of British run legal system we have in EIRE

    Derry


  • #184
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    Victor wrote: »
    It seems that there are some discrepancies between the two, with the Irish version being more flowery and the English version more legalistic.


    Here is small example of the difference between english and Irish versions taken from front page of the www.tnsradio.ning.com home page


    ARTICLE 41.1.1

    THE FAMILY

    LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

    The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary group-unit of/for society according to nature, aARTICLE 41.1.1

    THE FAMILY

    LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

    The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable invincible rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute.

    ENGLISH TEXT

    The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

    ENGLISH TEXT

    The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

    In the literal english version which takes precedence of the english version the difference is enormous

    The Irish version says that nothing not the government Garda or anything exceeds the rights of the family unit so for example taking children into care against the family wishes in Ireland is nearly impossible in theory .
    The line " and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable invincible rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute." means the so called laws statute (commercail laws) cannot and do not apply to humans and the human family

    The english version allows the Governemnt to claim they are higher using the statute laws (commersial laws ) than the family unit and they use this english version often in history and presently to destroy and break up Irish families using the birth certifiate a commercail registry ownership of the Irish people humans chattel.
    This use of the english version is also so as to allow peodofile rings who often run the children care system have better accesss to unprotected children both in the past and presently

    So the Irish State does everthing possible in its power to hide the Irish versions of the constitution as the people are higher than the state and they hate that with a vengence as it limits the government back to what it should be servants of the people.


    The most of the Irish Judges also hate the Irish versions of the Irish constitution as it effectivly means they cant use the abuse of the power they use in the past and presently today to wing it and make up crazy ruling and laws on the fly so to speak


    Derry


  • #185
    TylerIE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,635 ✭✭✭TylerIE


    derry wrote: »

    If a Garda saytodo you understand me and you say yes i understand you then your banjaxed
    What he has said under legalese lingo is do you agree to stand under me .
    If you say yes I understand you you efffetivily agree you will stand under him
    This means because you are the people the highest in the system and the Garda are the servants civil servant s and are under you and have to serve you if you agree to stand under your servant the garda you agree that he or she is now higher than you and they now have full control oveer you destiny eg they can now command you to go to jail.If you dont go tthey can now drag you there legealy as you gave away your rights to object
    SEE SIMPLE THEY TRICKED YOU to give away your rights

    There is more but you probably wouldnt get it its over your head you trust your servants not to shaft you in the darker parts with thier double speak dont you

    Derry

    Derry,

    I dont UNDER-STAND you or your ideology (or idiotiology), and thankfully very few people do believe in such codology.

    Then again its just over my head, living in the real world and all that.

    At least we are privileged to have such expertise in our midst...

    --
    oh wait [without prejudice / subject to the terms of the Idiots Guide to legalese/ changing daily strawman practice/beliefs/whatever suits me today/ way to pick and choose laws and benefits]


  • #186
    source
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,288 ✭✭✭source


    derry wrote: »
    Finnbar01 wrote: »

    Finally, they've mentioned that if a garda asks you to sign something, underneath where you signature goes, sign 'under duress'???

    It's strange altogether.

    If you sign the form a garda gives you you basiucally can be interpeted to admit quit even if your not guilty or worse your happy with your stay in thier hotel services commonly known a s the jail.
    They Garda usualy trick you with sign this form to to get your material back such as wallet car keys etc thyey take off you before they lock you up.
    If you were arrested wronly and you sign that form yopu effecdtivly have signed a form to say that your were happy with the copetate servicews the Garda supplied including the escorting with shackels to a jail soyou cant sue them for hurting you breaking your arms etc
    If the Garda bends parts that shouldnt bend and force you to sign then put under durress and that makes the contract null and void

    Simple really the corperate services of the Garda like to cover thier rear ends and trick you intyo signing away your rights

    If a Garda saytodo you understand me and you say yes i understand you then your banjaxed
    What he has said under legalese lingo is do you agree to stand under me .
    If you say yes I understand you you efffetivily agree you will stand under him
    This means because you are the people the highest in the system and the Garda are the servants civil servant s and are under you and have to serve you if you agree to stand under your servant the garda you agree that he or she is now higher than you and they now have full control oveer you destiny eg they can now command you to go to jail.If you dont go tthey can now drag you there legealy as you gave away your rights to object
    SEE SIMPLE THEY TRICKED YOU to give away your rights

    There is more but you probably wouldnt get it its over your head you trust your servants not to shaft you in the darker parts with thier double speak dont you

    Derry

    Dude, seriously, seek help. You need to see a psychiatrist about these paranoid delusions you're having.

    That is the only logical explaination i can come to, to explain these paranoid babblings.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Contra Proferentem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 135 ✭✭Contra Proferentem


    Classic.

    They are quiet a scary bunch, and to those who have said that they don't think they are dangerous, you should look at how far they've taken their false theories in the United States, with at least three well known incidents involving their hardcore believers ending in violence against law enforcement.


    I'm actually shocked that it seems to be gaining a foothold in this country mainly among young people who don't see any hope at present and don't/won't take the time to understand the justice system. Granted some of them are looking for a way to get away with crimes such as driving without tax, insurance or NCT, and using illegal drugs but some of them seem to be genuinely disconnected from society.


  • #188
    not even wrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭not even wrong


    derry wrote: »
    Juges can spout all sorts of non legal crap there is nobody out there to
    pull them up.
    So often they wing it invent law on the fly and often invent absolute rubbish law
    oh the irony.


  • #189
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    Contra Proferentem wrote: »
    violence against law enforcement.


    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement

    Thanks for posting the link to the Southern Poverty Law Center. It's an excellent summary of the origins/bases of these beliefs.


  • #190
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    Grolschevik wrote: »
    Thanks for posting the link to the Southern Poverty Law Center. It's an excellent summary of the origins/bases of these beliefs.


    You seriously need to stop drinking so much of the Governments cool aid to think SPLC is a source for any truth
    SPLC purpose is to distort any event be it kids in the playgrounds joking each other to news events in to race hate events and try to bring court cases for minor of the cuff remarks which might have some vague race hate issue.
    SPLC trys hard to say Tea party people are terrorist and the new AL Qaeda (AL-CIA-DA)
    You should check its sponsors straight out of the list of NEOCONS

    Here is one example of how they slant the media

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/splc-report-heavy-on-smear-thin-on-facts.html


    Derry


  • #191
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    not even wrong wrote: »
    oh the irony.

    Well in one recent court case we had one of freemen ask correctly civil or criminal to the Judge when questioned on his specific issue

    The reply came back from the judge hybrid

    Now we know we have the Irish (British gombeen men ) justice system on the run when they know full well that isn't a legal reply of any sort

    Derry


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Paulw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    derry wrote: »
    Now we know we have the Irish (British gombeen men ) justice system on the run when they know full well that isn't a legal reply of any sort

    Yeah, I can see the whole Irish justice system quaking in it's boots now. :rolleyes:

    In any direct ruling, has a freeman ever actually won a case?? Would you have a link to such a case, or is it all still just fantasy and hope?


  • #193
    jblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭jblack


    derry wrote: »
    Well in one recent court case we had one of freemen ask correctly civil or criminal to the Judge when questioned on his specific issue

    The reply came back from the judge hybrid

    Now we know we have the Irish (British gombeen men ) justice system on the run when they know full well that isn't a legal reply of any sort

    Derry

    I have tried hard to and without instance prejudice to see some sort of rationale or intelligence or at least something to make me stroke my chin in the freeman slant. I cannot.

    Is there anyone representing the freeman position who can put across a coherent and logical representation of what they actually stand for (without being guilty of gross hypocrisy)?

    From what I have read so far it is utter nonsense and while the justice system most certainly does have its failings the freeman argument only reinforces the need for it.

    Derry you do realise that not one of those sentences quoted above makes any sense?


  • #194
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    derry wrote: »
    Well in one recent court case we had one of freemen ask correctly civil or criminal to the Judge when questioned on his specific issue

    The reply came back from the judge hybrid

    Now we know we have the Irish (British gombeen men ) justice system on the run when they know full well that isn't a legal reply of any sort

    Derry

    I think what you are saying but please correct me if I am wrong, that a free man asked the judge was the jurisdiction civil or criminal, to which the judge replied hybrid.

    Well there are some matters, which I believe could be called hybrid, for example a baring order granted in a civil family case, may lead to a criminal case where breach of same leads to prison.

    A committal order granted in a court for the non payment of an instalment while civil in nature may lead to a custodial sentence and allows for legal aid, so could be also considered criminal.

    With out the facts it seems to me maybe the judge was trying to explain a concept.

    Also why was a freeman asking civil or criminal, I thought they believed the courts only operated a sort of admiralty law.


  • #195
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    I think what you are saying but please correct me if I am wrong, that a free man asked the judge was the jurisdiction civil or criminal, to which the judge replied hybrid.

    Well there are some matters, which I believe could be called hybrid, for example a baring order granted in a civil family case, may lead to a criminal case where breach of same leads to prison.

    A committal order granted in a court for the non payment of an instalment while civil in nature may lead to a custodial sentence and allows for legal aid, so could be also considered criminal.

    With out the facts it seems to me maybe the judge was trying to explain a concept.

    Also why was a freeman asking civil or criminal, I thought they believed the courts only operated a sort of admiralty law.


    If your in front of judge in Ireland he only becomes a judge for commercial courts when there is two commercial entities who have a dispute for which they need a judge to sort out the problem.Until tit is established there is two commercial entities or they trick you to become a commercial entity the case cannot procceed

    If a case is common law eg murder ,injury ,theft,damage to property the Judge is the judge automatically and all he has to do is reply criminal.

    So it is the right of a victim in front of a court to request the judge clarify which it is civil or criminal the court he is in
    If the judge says criminal then the case must be common law and not commercail law
    If the judge says civil then the human isnt sopposed to be in that court unless he makes himself with the contract system a commesial entity so the judge is not his judge until the Judge can make him a commersial entity
    Freemen will then often chose methods so as to not to be allowed to be converted into a person and then into a commesail entity

    The Judges will try every trick possible not to say civil
    Sorry the Hybrid trick wont wash is my info and shows hows desperate the Judges in ireland running a British legal system are to keep the curtian closed on the magic man behind the curtian in the yellow brick road


    Admiralty law is clearly the major theme in the British law which Ireland follows .The victim is in the DOCK which isbehind the rails which is where the ships rails are and the judge is captian of that ship .The victim has been dragged of the high seas (from his house usualy ) and as wayward ship who did something wrong like park on double yellow lines ( he is kept in the dock ) until the restitution is delivered (eg he pays the fine or the time in prision ) The time in prision is classed as the safest place for salvage (the victim is merely salvage from the high seas ) and the cell (battery cell ) extracts energy from the victim( the energy is classed as haviing value in luie of inabilty to pay the fines or replacement of damage the Judge believes has been done )

    The original laws were common law and for the high seas Admiralty law.Then they said well ships dont just use docks on the coast they use docks inland using canals . Admiralty law got spread inland along these routes .Then they said the docks in the city were with warehouses all over the city so the city must be Admiralty law.Eventulay all in the land roads houses the lot became Admiralty law.
    However the judges can start cases in ireland under local BAR(British accredited Registery ) bye laws if they want and they often do .At any time they can switch to Admiralty law if the case is commercail or to common law if the case is criminal
    The abuse of BAR Bye laws allow Judges to steer a way where they can make the case say its criminal be judged under Admiralty law civil laws rules where they can deliver weird and wonderful results they cant so easily do if the case is common law .
    Under Admiralty law the victim is essentialy quity until he proves himself not guilty .Under common law the victim is innocent until proved guilty .The judges tend to prefer Admiralty law as they have the victim over a barrel . So judges can at any time swich between the Admiralty law BAR bye laws and common law without saying they have and change the goal posts whoile the game is in progress so to speak .They donmt call the Brits devious for nmothing and ensuring Ireland kept the British legal ssytem meant we are still effectivly part of England except we just fly a different flag but the Irish Judges are only awnserable to the BAR or the QUEEN of England


    Ralf


  • #196
    blueythebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    derry wrote: »
    If your in front of judge in Ireland he only becomes a judge for commercial courts when there is two commercial entities who have a dispute for which they need a judge to sort out the problem.Until tit is established there is two commercial enmtitites or they trick you to become a commercial entity the case cannot procceed

    If a case is common law eg murder ,injury ,theft,damage to property the Judge is the judge automatically .

    So it is the right of a victim in front of a court to request the judge clarifywhich it is civil or criminal
    If the judge says criminal then the case must be common law and not commercail law
    If the judge says civil then the human isnt sopposed to be in that court unless he makes himself with the contract system a commesial entity so the judge is not his judge until the Judge can make him a commersial entity
    Freemen will then often chose methods so as to not to be allowed to be converted into a person and then into a commesail entity

    The Judges will try every trick possible not to say civil
    Sorry the Hybrid trick wont wash is my info and shows hows desperate the Judges in ireland running a British legal system are to keep the curtian closed on the magic man behind the curtian in the yellow brick road



    Ralf

    I have a few questions on your post:

    You stress a delineation between common law and commercial law. Can you please define both as you understand the terms?

    You state it is the right of a victim to ask if a case is civil or criminal. Can you please define "victim"? The victim of a crime has no place in a criminal trial other than to give evidence as to the events surrounding the alleged crime. Why would a victim be asking the judge about jurisdiction?

    If you say that you cannot contract until you transform from the person to a commercial entity, then how do you form a contract to buy a bar of chocolate in a shop? How can you enter such a contract without becoming a commercial entity? In that scenario, how do you let the shopkeep know that you are entering the contract?

    Who is this magic man behind the curtain that you refer to?

    I'll reiterate the question posed previously also.....

    Can you point to ANY example of where a Freeman SUCCESSFULLY challenged ANY charge in an Irish court? Frustrating the court so that the matter is put back to another date is not a successful outcome.


  • #197
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,071 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    blueythebear wrote: »
    Can you point to ANY example of where a Freeman SUCCESSFULLY challenged ANY charge in an Irish court? Frustrating the court so that the matter is put back to another date is not a successful outcome.

    When a freeman goes to court regardless of the outcome, he will see it as a victory. If he gets locked up for instance, he will convince himself that he was right all along and the authorities had to lock him up to silence him.

    It's bizzare. Also, as I said in a previous post, evidence provided by the freeman gurus is very thin on the ground.


  • #198
    jblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭jblack


    derry wrote: »

    If a case is common law eg murder ,injury ,theft,damage to property the Judge is the judge automatically and all he has to do is reply criminal.




    Ralf

    Your example of what common law is illustrates a complete lack of understanding.


  • #199
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    derry wrote: »
    If your in front of judge in Ireland he only becomes a judge for commercial courts when there is two commercial entities who have a dispute for which they need a judge to sort out the problem.Until tit is established there is two commercial entities or they trick you to become a commercial entity the case cannot procceed

    Are you saying that a human person cannot enter into a commercial agreement? For example, if I agree to sell you my shoes for €5 is that not, on a basic level a commercial agreement?

    Or is it that I can be the human jonathon of the clan skeleton, but I can also be a commercial entity also known as johnnyskeleton at the same time depending on the circumstances? If the latter, how do you know which I am at any given time? Can I offer you my shoes and you accept thinking it is jonathon of the clan skeleton selling his shoes, but when you hand over the money I say "Ha, fooled you, I did not accept commercial jurisdiction, if you want some shoes for your fiver take it up with johnnyskeleton who, by the way, doesn't exist and if he ever did he is bankrupt"?

    Alternatively, if I do say that, can you claim your fiver back from the phsycial person, with force if needs be? After all, if jonathon of the clan skeleton did not enter the commercial agreement then he has effectively stolen your €5 (which in your philosophy is a common law offence, see below)?

    Alternatively, do you just shrug your shoulders and say "aw shucks, I lost my fiver, but I guess that is justice according to my philosophy"?

    Genuinely would like to know the answer to this.
    derry wrote: »
    If a case is common law eg murder ,injury ,theft,damage to property the Judge is the judge automatically and all he has to do is reply criminal.

    Interesting. And by what rules does he proceed to try you? In the district court, for example, does the judge have unlimited jurisdiction to try murders and the most serious of thefts? If not, how can he accept the criminal jurisdiction?

    Also, what about common law contract law? Much older than the rule of positive law and even criminal law (i.e. the state punishing a person for a wrong such as murder), the common law of contracts existed? They is evidence to suggest that contract law existed long before criminal law, see e.g. archiological discoveries of trading vessels that predate any known state.
    derry wrote: »
    So it is the right of a victim in front of a court to request the judge clarify which it is civil or criminal the court he is in
    If the judge says criminal then the case must be common law and not commercail law
    If the judge says civil then the human isnt sopposed to be in that court unless he makes himself with the contract system a commesial entity so the judge is not his judge until the Judge can make him a commersial entity
    Freemen will then often chose methods so as to not to be allowed to be converted into a person and then into a commesail entity

    The Judges will try every trick possible not to say civil
    Sorry the Hybrid trick wont wash is my info and shows hows desperate the Judges in ireland running a British legal system are to keep the curtian closed on the magic man behind the curtian in the yellow brick road

    What is the source of this legal code? If you think about it, why would there be a legal system created where the persons who deal with that system are forced to trick people into it? It would be like inventing a game where the only rule is that there are no rules. The referee then has to trick people into accepting that a foul was committed, otherwise the player is free to ignore the referee's ruling? That is the type of game a child might come up with.

    derry wrote: »
    Admiralty law is clearly the major theme in the British law which Ireland follows .The victim is in the DOCK which isbehind the rails which is where the ships rails are and the judge is captian of that ship .

    Well there is no DOCK in Irish law, so you can rest assured that Irish courts are not using Admiralty law. There is an admiral of the four courts who is permitted to birch unsuspecting English tourists who visit Dublin from time to time, but that more because of a misguided sense of nationalism than any retention of British Admiralty law.
    derry wrote: »
    The victim has been dragged of the high seas (from his house usualy ) and as wayward ship who did something wrong like park on double yellow lines ( he is kept in the dock ) until the restitution is delivered (eg he pays the fine or the time in prision ) The time in prision is classed as the safest place for salvage (the victim is merely salvage from the high seas ) and the cell (battery cell ) extracts energy from the victim( the energy is classed as haviing value in luie of inabilty to pay the fines or replacement of damage the Judge believes has been done )

    Now you're contradicting yourself. If the "victim" (i.e. the accused) is salvage, then they become a commercial tradeable good rather than a commercial entity and they are subject to the civil jurisdiction of the courts. If we did use Admiralty law, fremen would be just as subject to it as "salvage" as they would as a "commerical entity". Either way, the human person is subject to the laws, no?
    derry wrote: »
    The original laws were common law and for the high seas Admiralty law.Then they said well ships dont just use docks on the coast they use docks inland using canals . Admiralty law got spread inland along these routes .Then they said the docks in the city were with warehouses all over the city so the city must be Admiralty law.Eventulay all in the land roads houses the lot became Admiralty law.

    Actually no. The original laws were the dictates of the ruler (king, lord etc) and these were much more like our statute laws than common law. Common law is a modern invention to ameliorate the harshness of the law imposed from above. But both are binding and the hierarchy is common law, statute, constitutional law.
    derry wrote: »
    Under Admiralty law the victim is essentialy quity until he proves himself not guilty .

    I would hate to be quity before proving myself not guilty. I'd probably just give up and plead.


  • #200
    Jo King
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Jo King


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »


    Well there is no DOCK in Irish law, so you can rest assured that Irish courts are not using Admiralty law. There is an admiral of the four courts who is permitted to birch unsuspecting English tourists who visit Dublin from time to time, but that more because of a misguided sense of nationalism than any retention of British Admiralty law.


    There is no Admiral of the Four Courts. The position was abolished when the last one retired about three years ago.


  • #201
    Athlone_Bhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 325 ✭✭Athlone_Bhoy


    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    About time they stamped on this freeman bull****

    Maybe I'm missing something but isn't he free?
    He was however in contempt of court given his back answering to the judge

    Civil or criminal?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement