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

Freeman Megamerge

Options
1…1718202223…283

Comments

  • Options
    #572
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    I must add something - playing devil's advocate - just as I have noticed curious things about freemanism, I have also not been able to fail to notice that this freeman thing has stirred the legal profession and those involved in it.

    I always take note when a group starts exhibiting signs of being threatened as it makes me wonder that if there was no real threat why are they going on the offensive?

    I mean that as no disrespect to the legal profession nor am I giving any legitimacy to the freemen, it's just as a neutral observer I find it interesting in terms of group behaviour.


  • Options
    #573
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    @snow ghost
    The big problem is that many cases of debt never see the inside of courts so the idea of day in court is rather thin on the ground .
    Most freeman strategy is to avoid going to court and so enough letter rebuffed in various ways ensures the debt collection machinery get gummed up and they don´t go to court.
    Again because a man of flesh and blood should not be in commercial court if he knows his onions.
    Once a freeman explains to the court that he is man of flesh of blood and shouldn't be there the case hits brick wall.The Judge can only judge a two corporations . So the judge will try various means to convert the man to to corpertion.If he doesn't succeed in this strategy many judges often kick for touch and send the case to another date .Often the next judge does the same .So rarely does the freeman win outright getting a case dismissed.
    However often freemen sorta win as the legal system seems to lose them between the cracks in the floor boards. There fore those in the legal system would say they rarely win if ever .The freemen would say they often don't seem to lose. If the freemen does lose often it is because the judge is better trained and finds a way to convert the man into a corporation and therefore he can judge him. One freeman I heard of lost a few cases but for example on his 9th case he walked from the court in 45 seconds even though the court had figured his case would last three hours and booked a three hour slot for it .

    Derry


  • Options
    #574
    berrypendel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 365 ✭✭berrypendel


    derry wrote: »
    @snow ghost
    The big problem is that many cases of debt never see the inside of courts so the idea of day in court is rather thin on the ground .
    Most freeman strategy is to avoid going to court and so enough letter rebuffed in various ways ensures the debt collection machinery get gummed up and they don´t go to court.
    Again because a man of flesh and blood should not be in commercial court if he knows his onions.
    Once a freeman explains to the court that he is man of flesh of blood and shouldn't be there the case hits brick wall.The Judge can only judge a two corporations . So the judge will try various means to convert the man to to corpertion.If he doesn't succeed in this strategy many judges often kick for touch and send the case to another date .Often the next judge does the same .So rarely does the freeman win outright getting a case dismissed.
    However often freemen sorta win as the legal system seems to lose them between the cracks in the floor boards. There fore those in the legal system would say they rarely win if ever .The freemen would say they often don't seem to lose. If the freemen does lose often it is because the judge is better trained and finds a way to convert the man into a corporation and therefore he can judge him. One freeman I heard of lost a few cases but for example on his 9th case he walked from the court in 45 seconds even though the court had figured his case would last three hours and booked a three hour slot for it .

    Derry
    who was that, can you link the report?


  • Options
    #575
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    derry wrote: »
    @snow ghost
    The big problem is that many cases of debt never see the inside of courts so the idea of day in court is rather thin on the ground .
    Most freeman strategy is to avoid going to court and so enough letter rebuffed in various ways ensures the debt collection machinery get gummed up and they don´t go to court.
    Again because a man of flesh and blood should not be in commercial court if he knows his onions.
    Once a freeman explains to the court that he is man of flesh of blood and shouldn't be there the case hits brick wall.The Judge can only judge a two corporations . So the judge will try various means to convert the man to to corpertion.If he doesn't succeed in this strategy many judges often kick for touch and send the case to another date .Often the next judge does the same .So rarely does the freeman win outright getting a case dismissed.
    However often freemen sorta win as the legal system seems to lose them between the cracks in the floor boards. There fore those in the legal system would say they rarely win if ever .The freemen would say they often don't seem to lose. If the freemen does lose often it is because the judge is better trained and finds a way to convert the man into a corporation and therefore he can judge him. One freeman I heard of lost a few cases but for example on his 9th case he walked from the court in 45 seconds even though the court had figured his case would last three hours and booked a three hour slot for it .

    Derry

    Derry

    Can you direct me to any court hearings where this has happened?

    I just don't believe this flesh and blood person legal fiction thing would cut the mustard with many judges in their court. It sounds plausable - to an extent - but I just don't believe it would work in reality. So I'm just not buying it until I see a freeman's legal fiction thing over-ruled and that he has challenged it in a higher court and won.


  • Options
    #576
    berrypendel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 365 ✭✭berrypendel


    snow ghost wrote: »
    Derry

    Can you direct me to any court hearings where this has happened?

    I just don't believe this flesh and blood person legal fiction thing would cut the mustard with many judges in their court. It sounds plausable - to an extent - but I just don't believe it would work in reality. So I'm just not buying it until I see a freeman's legal fiction thing over-ruled and that he has challenged it in a higher court and won.
    neither do I. Looking forward to court hearing report


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #577
    Corruptable
    Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭Corruptable


    In the meantime, to confirm Lockstep's email from McCann Fitzgerald, the Independent published the story today and it's presently on the frontpage of it's website.
    A group of TDs and councillors objecting to the tax has distanced itself from the memo and said it informed the law firm its name was being used illegitimately.

    The Campaign Against the Household Charge, spearheaded by People Before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett, has advised the public to ignore the information in the emails and leaflets, saying it is legally incorrect.

    Spokesman Gregor Kerr said the group contacted McCann Fitzgerald after realising the false information had gone viral.

    "The campaign is very concerned that people are believing this information," said Mr Gregor.

    "It's very important that in standing together we will resist this charge, with mass co-operation in the communities. The information in these emails goes against what the campaign stands for." He said the memo advises people to simply ignore the charge.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/law-firm-launches-probe-into-fake-household-tax-advice-3031167.html


  • Options
    #578
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    derry wrote: »
    @snow ghost
    The big problem is that many cases of debt never see the inside of courts so the idea of day in court is rather thin on the ground .
    Most freeman strategy is to avoid going to court and so enough letter rebuffed in various ways ensures the debt collection machinery get gummed up and they don´t go to court.
    Again because a man of flesh and blood should not be in commercial court if he knows his onions.
    Once a freeman explains to the court that he is man of flesh of blood and shouldn't be there the case hits brick wall.The Judge can only judge a two corporations . So the judge will try various means to convert the man to to corpertion.If he doesn't succeed in this strategy many judges often kick for touch and send the case to another date .Often the next judge does the same .So rarely does the freeman win outright getting a case dismissed.
    However often freemen sorta win as the legal system seems to lose them between the cracks in the floor boards. There fore those in the legal system would say they rarely win if ever .The freemen would say they often don't seem to lose. If the freemen does lose often it is because the judge is better trained and finds a way to convert the man into a corporation and therefore he can judge him. One freeman I heard of lost a few cases but for example on his 9th case he walked from the court in 45 seconds even though the court had figured his case would last three hours and booked a three hour slot for it .

    Derry

    Ah Derry my old friend. Still refusing to properly answer any of the many questions posed of you with a straight answer?

    Keep fighting the bull**** makey-up strawman slippery slope dumb guy fight with that flesh and blood soul of yours.


  • Options
    #579
    berrypendel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 365 ✭✭berrypendel


    Corruptable wrote: »
    In the meantime, to confirm Lockstep's email from McCann Fitzgerald, the Independent published the story today and it's presently on the frontpage of it's website.
    If vthe freemen are right why do they have to lie to the people and involve a law firm in their deceit? Do the people at the top know it is nonsense or do they believe it themselves?


  • Options
    #580
    Corruptable
    Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭Corruptable


    berrypendel wrote: »
    If vthe freemen are right why do they have to lie to the people and involve a law firm in their deceit? Do the people at the top know it is nonsense or do they believe it themselves?
    That's the $65,000,000 question for me.

    http://tnsradio.ning.com/ - they've just finished a great interview with one, George Kavassilas, an divine mother earth supporter of some kind who wants us to awake to our galactic reality :rolleyes: People are actually listening to it and asking questions about it. Sounds like one of those cannabis grow houses to me.


  • Options
    #581
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    berrypendel wrote: »
    If vthe freemen are right why do they have to lie to the people and involve a law firm in their deceit? Do the people at the top know it is nonsense or do they believe it themselves?


    The people at the top don't seem to practise what they preach.

    Oh they'll tell you all about their successes when dealing with the court or gardaí, but strangely enough they have provide no evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #582
    Corruptable
    Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭Corruptable


    Finnbar01 wrote: »
    The people at the top don't seem to practise what they preach.

    Oh they'll tell you all about their successes when dealing with the court or gardaí, but strangely enough they have provide no evidence.

    Bobby of the family Sludds (formerly one of their partial success stories) finally accepted the system last month before Judge Gerard Haughton:

    http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/lifestyle/uninsured-driver-2991063.html


  • Options
    #583
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    And another bites the dust.

    http://tnsradio.ning.com/forum/topics/man-will-held-unlawfully-by-corrupted-justice-system?id=5354208%3ATopic%3A114804&page=1#comments


  • Options
    #584
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    Corruptable wrote: »
    Bobby of the family Sludds (formerly one of their partial success stories) finally accepted the system last month before Judge Gerard Haughton:

    http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/lifestyle/uninsured-driver-2991063.html

    It looks like it didn't take Bobby of the Family 'All Rights Reserved' Sludds much to cave in there. :pac:

    Why didn't he have the courage of his convictions and maintain his argument that he wasn't his 'legal fiction' name and appeal this judges decision to a higher court? Surely that would have been the thing to do?


  • Options
    #585
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    snow ghost wrote: »
    Why didn't he have the courage of his convictions and maintain his argument that he wasn't his 'legal fiction' name and appeal this judges decision to a higher court? Surely that would have been the thing to do?

    Maybe he finally recognised that his legal fiction was just that - fiction. :D

    Nice to see justice in the end, and for it to be reported. Another case where Freeman ideology is proved false.


  • Options
    #586
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    Finnbar01 wrote: »
    And another bites the dust.

    http://tnsradio.ning.com/forum/topics/man-will-held-unlawfully-by-corrupted-justice-system?id=5354208%3ATopic%3A114804&page=1#comments

    Seems Will - who was held against his will - has had all the charges against him dismissed and Will will now be billing the judge.

    Btw that is the worst formated forum I have ever tried to read - it's a nightmare.


  • Options
    #587
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    Paulw wrote: »
    Maybe he finally recognised that his legal fiction was just that - fiction. :D

    Nice to see justice in the end, and for it to be reported. Another case where Freeman ideology is proved false.

    I'm curious as to why they think judges are sitting there trying to convert them into corporations so that they may contract with them?

    I'm sure the judges are actually just sitting there happily going along with the paradigms of the 'system' of the judiciary and the state that they are blissfully unaware there are any alternative thoughts on.


  • Options
    #588
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    snow ghost wrote: »
    I must add something - playing devil's advocate - just as I have noticed curious things about freemanism, I have also not been able to fail to notice that this freeman thing has stirred the legal profession and those involved in it.

    I always take note when a group starts exhibiting signs of being threatened as it makes me wonder that if there was no real threat why are they going on the offensive?

    I mean that as no disrespect to the legal profession nor am I giving any legitimacy to the freemen, it's just as a neutral observer I find it interesting in terms of group behaviour.
    The legal profession isn't "threatened" by Freemanism.


  • Options
    #589
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    The legal profession isn't "threatened" by Freemanism.

    It seems, to an extent, that freemanism has created some stirring of activity and reaction, not unlike a beehive being poked at.


  • Options
    #590
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    snow ghost wrote: »
    It seems, to an extent, that freemanism has created some stirring of activity and reaction, not unlike a beehive being poked at.
    I, literally, do not have the patience to explain why people reacting to this Freeman nonsense is different than being threatened by it. So I'll either leave it for someone else to say or come back when I don't feel like banging my head against a wall


  • Options
    #591
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I, literally, do not have the patience to explain why people reacting to this Freeman nonsense is different than being threatened by it. So I'll either leave it for someone else to say or come back when I don't feel like banging my head against a wall

    You imply that you have had to repeatedly try and make your point in regard to mine. When in reality you made one point in response to one of my posts and I replied to that, so I see no need for your unwarranted sarcasm.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #592
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    snow ghost wrote: »
    You imply that you have had to repeatedly try and make your point in regard to mine. When in reality you made one point in response to one of my posts and I replied to that, so I see no need for your unwarranted sarcasm.
    If/when you can show me any legitimacy to Freeman thinking then I will accept your point regarding the reaction of the legal profession and explain why they aren't threatened by it.

    Otherwise, it's useless to even start explaining why there is no "threat". There is 15 pages of this garbage now and new threads every day about Freeman "logic", it's not just you... the whole thing is headwrecking.


  • Options
    #593
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    snow ghost wrote: »
    It seems, to an extent, that freemanism has created some stirring of activity and reaction, not unlike a beehive being poked at.
    Challenge accepted, but will have to be somewhat brief. Three points:

    1. Those working in law are best placed to know what a steaming heap of bullsh!t this freemen stuff is;

    2. The arrogance with which those claims are put forward ... the standard retort of "you need to educate yourself" whenever someone pulls them up on their nonsense, tends to get under peoples' skins, especially when they know for a fact that it's bullsh!t. When I see smug fremen claiming victories where clearly none exist, I will admit that I'd love to see them get theirs;

    3. Most importantly for a lefty liberal like myself, they're sending people out to protest of false pretences, as if asking a Garda about his oath will prevent him/her from arresting you, as if the legal fiction argument will prevent judgment being granted. It's bullsh!t. If people are going to resist evictions, they need to know that they risk arrest, fine and prison. And I think that an anti eviction movement would be more effective if it set itself up to take on the state and the banks in a real way, rather than claiming fantasy victories.

    I think, personally, that it's obscene for some of the leadership to knowingly set out to mislead people like this. As if the "common people" can't handle the truth? Pr!cks.


  • Options
    #594
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    If/when you can show me any legitimacy to Freeman thinking then I will accept your point regarding the reaction of the legal profession and explain why they aren't threatened by it.

    Otherwise, it's useless to even start explaining why there is no "threat". There is 15 pages of this garbage now and new threads every day about Freeman "logic", it's not just you... the whole thing is headwrecking.

    Why would I be showing anyone freeman leigitimacy, when I don't advocate freemanism and never have?

    "It's not just you" - care to elaborate what is not just me exactly?

    What you find headwrecking is not my responsibility, I was merely involved in a discussion of the topic at hand.


  • Options
    #595
    Corruptable
    Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭Corruptable


    snow ghost wrote: »
    It looks like it didn't take Bobby of the Family 'All Rights Reserved' Sludds much to cave in there. :pac:

    Why didn't he have the courage of his convictions and maintain his argument that he wasn't his 'legal fiction' name and appeal this judges decision to a higher court? Surely that would have been the thing to do?

    He went to the High Court to challenge his detention and admitted into the record that his freeman nonsense was basically a mistake in terms of law, yet almost a year later, he's still continuing with the freeman charade when signing a bond, even after absolutely caving in and contracting with members of the British Accredited Registry (BAR) who got him out.

    Definitely not the brightest.

    To answer you snow_ghost, I think the main reason why those who have some level of legal education (it's not hard to get these days) have little or no patience is because of the arrogance of those who espouse it that we must open our eyes, that we need to "get educated". Some of those who post here have spent years of their lives practicing, studying and even enforcing the law, yet these people somehow think we need to be educated after studying precedent from time immemorial and finding no evidence of this freeman logic even having been deployed anywhere except in 1930s America and here in the present.

    If there was some secret way of exempting yourself from statute law, for instance, do you not think people would be well adept at it from now, statute law having been around since 1200 AD or even before that?


  • Options
    #596
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    Corruptable wrote: »
    To answer you snow_ghost, I think the main reason why those who have some level of legal education (it's not hard to get these days) have little or no patience is because of the arrogance of those who espouse it that we must open our eyes, that we need to "get educated". Some of those who post here have spent years of their lives practicing, studying and even enforcing the law, yet these people somehow think we need to be educated after studying precedent from time immemorial and finding no evidence of this freeman logic even having been deployed anywhere except in 1930s America and here in the present.

    If there was some secret way of exempting yourself from statute law, for instance, do you not think people would be well adept at it from now, statute law having been around since 1200 AD or even before that?

    I don't mean to be pedantic here, but what question of mine do you think you are answering exactly? I never actually posed any such question.

    Interesting point about the 1930's, so the freeman were around then too. I never knew that.

    I would tend to agree with you regarding exempting oneself from statute law, so I'm not sure why you are asking me what I think about it?

    Discussions tend to revolve around people making points and other people actually responding to those points - not imaginary ones that they seem to have created in their own minds.

    This discussion seems to have gone down the imaginary route, so I shall divest from it until the discourse improves to a more credible level again.


  • Options
    #597
    Corruptable
    Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭Corruptable


    snow ghost wrote: »
    I don't mean to be pedantic here, but what question of mine do you think you are answering exactly? I never actually posed any such question.

    Interesting point about the 1930's, so the freeman were around then too. I never knew that.

    I would tend to agree with you regarding exempting oneself from statute law, so I'm not sure why you are asking me what I think about it?

    Discussions tend to revolve around people making points and other people actually responding to those points - not imaginary ones that they seem to have created in their own minds.

    This discussion seems to have gone down the imaginary route, so I shall divest from it until the discourse improves to a more credible level again.

    You, a few pages back in the thread, which Freudian brought up, presumably as no one addressed it at the time:
    snow_ghost wrote:
    I always take note when a group starts exhibiting signs of being threatened as it makes me wonder that if there was no real threat why are they going on the offensive?

    A humourous look at the background of the Freeman on the Land movement, which draws mention to it's roots in the United States:
    he "Freeman on the land" movement inherited various indefensible legal concepts from the older tax protester and sovereign citizen movements in the US such as Posse Comitatus in the 1970s and 1980s and the Montana Freemen in the 1990s.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

    Supported by the intelligence files of the Southern Poverty Law Center in the United States: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement


  • Options
    #598
    Avatargh
    Registered Users Posts: 191 ✭✭Avatargh


    snow ghost wrote: »
    I must add something - playing devil's advocate - just as I have noticed curious things about freemanism, I have also not been able to fail to notice that this freeman thing has stirred the legal profession and those involved in it.

    I always take note when a group starts exhibiting signs of being threatened as it makes me wonder that if there was no real threat why are they going on the offensive?

    I mean that as no disrespect to the legal profession nor am I giving any legitimacy to the freemen, it's just as a neutral observer I find it interesting in terms of group behaviour.

    It is because its annoying and time-wasting.

    Consider being a university lecturer, meeting a student who wants to discuss his grade. He walks in and says "you can't grade me like this, for I consent only to the governance of the law of justice". There is nothing to say to that. Nothing. It makes no sense. It just annoys. That is freemanism in a nutshell when it comes to deployment in law.

    Its incredibly annoying when, say, you have a case which based on the fact that person A owes (and he doesn't dispute it) money to Bank B. Its incredibly annoying when, according to all our laws there is no defence but suddenly "I don't consent to the Bank and law of just men being corrupted" comes up. Its not threatening. Its just annoying and it wastes time and since these guys never, ever win because there is NOTHING correct in what they say whether it be about the magic of judicial oaths, consent or whatever.

    The tragic thing is, there are lot of decent legal points to be made in loan / re-possession cases - see Start Mortgages v Gunne for example.

    A freeman is like a soccer player who keeps picking the ball up with his hands, and lashing out at everyone as "corrupt" when they dare tell him that its not allowed.


  • Options
    #599
    Avatargh
    Registered Users Posts: 191 ✭✭Avatargh


    snow ghost wrote: »
    Discussions tend to revolve around people making points and other people actually responding to those points - not imaginary ones that they seem to have created in their own minds.

    This discussion seems to have gone down the imaginary route, so I shall divest from it until the discourse improves to a more credible level again.

    Interestingly, that's EXACTLY why lawyers are so dismissive of freemanism. Legal arguments / fights / cases are arguments. They centre around a core of rationality. As you say, "discussions tend to revolve around people making points and other people actually responding to those points - not imaginary ones that they seem to have created in their own minds." That's precisely what doesn't happen with this nonsense. Every legal point is responded to with an "imaginary point created" by someone who believes in this nonsense. I suppose you've answered your own question there (and I don't mean that in a dismissive way). It is really down to the fact that the freeman logic doesn't play by the rules which exist and thus renders the discussion irrelevant. It's like you outlined here - you wanted to raise points, and you didn't feel that the responses engaged with same, but simply said other matters irrelevant to point you were enquiring into.

    Q: You're Mr.X aren't you?

    A: No...I'm Mr of the family X. I don't know who Mr. X is...that's not my contract.

    Q: Ok, but your passport says Mr. X...that's you isn't it? And that's your signature?

    A: I do not recognise that.

    Q: Right...so Mr. X signed a loan document...you see this bank statement with Mr. X's name on it...it shows he drew down the funds on the 1.1.11? That's you isn't it...you got this money?

    A: I don't consent to the laws which allow you ask that question

    Q: ........

    That's how it goes. And precisely for the reasons you outline, people are sick of it. Not because its threatening, because its rubbish.


  • Options
    #600
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Look, snow ghost: I apologise for mildly snapping at you - it wasn't you, I'm just frustrated with this Freeman stuff and the idea or even notion that there is some conspiracy where we're all taught there is an alternative freeman law and now that it's out the legal profession are threatened and attempting some cover up is ludicrous.

    It's annoying enough that Freemen exist and actually pull this shít in court, but it's worse when the public starts buying their nonsense and doing it themselves. Avatargh has it spot on here.

    Could you imagine a member of the public who has heard this Freeman nonsense and engages a member of the British Accredited Regency who will have to tell the judge "I'm instructed that statutes do not apply to the Defendant because he did not consent. Oh, and I'm instructed to ask to see your oath" :pac:


    It reminds me of Tim Minchin saying "if you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #601
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    Apology accepted, Freudian of the family Slippers. :)


Advertisement