Freeman Megamerge

johnnyskeleton · 26-02-2012 6:01pm

snow ghost wrote: »

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.

There are two strands to fremenism, one the conspiracy theory that statutes do not apply unless you consent, that judges trick you into a contract, all that stuff. The other is a questionning of the fundamental source of our laws.

The first is the more popular part, because people see it as a way to escape their obligations. Other than solicitors who have to deal with these nonsensical arguments on a daily basis, they are well below the radar and if they appear to be disproportionately discussed on boards.ie it is because this is where people occasionally look for answers to these dubious claims. The responses on this forum should therefore not be taken as indicating that the legal industry as a whole cares or even knows about fremenism.

The second strand is however very interesting and I'm facinated to see how such a world would work. There would be no laws against prostitution, drugs, weapons (unless you injured someone with the weapon), there would be no taxes, no rules of the road and no means of enforcing debts. It's akin to the tea party / libertarian folks in the USA and to be honest it's an interesting theory. However, it is undemocratic because it would mean that there is no wayto change or adapt the law to suit a changed society. The funny thing is that despite fremenism and libertariansim being very similar if not identical in theory, the supporters of each group hate being associated with the other group.

Finnbar01 · 26-02-2012 7:46pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The second strand is however very interesting and I'm facinated to see how such a world would work. There would be no laws against prostitution, drugs, weapons (unless you injured someone with the weapon), there would be no taxes, no rules of the road and no means of enforcing debts. It's akin to the tea party / libertarian folks in the USA and to be honest it's an interesting theory. However, it is undemocratic because it would mean that there is no wayto change or adapt the law to suit a changed society. The funny thing is that despite fremenism and libertariansim being very similar if not identical in theory, the supporters of each group hate being associated with the other group.

I wouldn't consider libertarianism with freemanism. If anything freemanism is more akin to anarchism with the slight slant that someone else picks up the tab.

Liberatrians certainly believe in paying their own way but would rather see more choice on offer and more privatisation.

johnnyskeleton · 26-02-2012 9:01pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

I wouldn't consider libertarianism with freemanism. If anything freemanism is more akin to anarchism with the slight slant that someone else picks up the tab.

Liberatrians certainly believe in paying their own way but would rather see more choice on offer and more privatisation.

Both theories are based on the belief that the power of government to pass and enforce laws should be limited to preventing those acts which cause harm to others and the enforcement of contracts. Everything else, according to both theories, is giving too much power to the State and is an unfair restriction of liberty and freedom.

Of course, the reality of both is different. Fremen basically want to get free stuff and the theory underpinning their beliefs is merely a whitewash. Similarly, most of the people who describe themselves as libertarians are not real libertarians but as you describe simply want to see more privatization and lower taxes.

But there are other similarities too - a strange belief in the gold standard, a belief that the laws followed by the founding fathers of the USA should be followed today, that crime doesn't exist unless there is an injured party, the obsession with contracts and contract law and the refusal to engage when flaws with the theory are pointed out and the way that they seem to have a massive internet following that is disproportionate to their real world following.

benway · 27-02-2012 1:32pm

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.

Case in point:

why are the so called legal proffesion so pig ignorant,i have walked into univeristys and spoken to so called proffersers of law to ask these questions and all i got was a blank look,it is without a doubt that the only way to join the so called law proffesion is that you have there point of view or you cant join .it was more than blank looks they didnt even want to answer,just sat there without saying a word.didnt even try an argument.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=185001&page=3

Our man in Havana · 27-02-2012 5:08pm

A freeman forum? Sweet Jebus!

snow ghost · 27-02-2012 6:07pm

I have been watching a few youtube freeman videos, I particularly enjoy their use of language - they seem to have created some type of ye olde English cum psudeo-legal-jargon type of language of their own that they think gives them credibility.

benway · 27-02-2012 6:57pm

A Freeman sub forum on David Icke's site, to be exact. A nice relaxing interlude when the talk of 17 foot, human blood drinking lizards ruling the world gets too much. Expect wild delusions, BLOCK CAPITALS and senior infant grade spelling from the start.

There does seem to be a fair degree of cross-over with other wingnut elements, as illustrated by this fremen charmer:

Does any member of this group care to arrange a meeting with me in MULLINGAR . I have arrived to this area of Ireland desperately in need of finding just ONE Irish Living Soul whom actually gives a **** and have any knowledge of just how Ireland has been sold out and literally thousands of years of Celtic based history will be expected to be wiped out permanently in place for an industrial wasteland. *****, contact me or anyone else at ****@***.*** and I will give my Tel Number. There just seems to be massive groups of Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian Mafia ****ing the local girls to have mixed race babies, cause all the local girls are basically vegetables without a care, what the ****, am I wrong, this is not the Ireland I was expecting. The seriousness of the 1 year future time line before the **** really hits the fan, and everything linked to the Fraud on the name, Unlawful Currency, to the total NWO plan of eugenics and 911 being an inside job is what I want to talk about, we have no time for sensibilities. Please get in touch immediately.

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

For years, Porisky has been promoting his "natural person" theory, which holds that a per-son can arrange his or her business affairs to receive income as a "natural person" rather than as a taxpayer, thereby avoiding income taxes.

The only problem is, the courts have consistently rejected this argument. More than a dozen people, including some of Porisky's former students, have been convicted of tax evasion, and some have been sentenced to jail terms.

....

Paradigm proved to be a very popular and lucrative business. A Canada Revenue Agency investigator testified that a total of $1,843,298 was deposited into Porisky's and Gould's bank accounts during the relevant period. After deducting expenses, he estimated net business income to be $1,127,185, which he allocated evenly between the two accused.

While the profitability of the venture was clear, its underlying logic was not:

"Mr. Porisky's theory not only does not bear any legal logic but it also fails to accord with common sense. It is a failed attempt at word magic and has no validity," Judge Myers wrote in his decision.

He said the "absurdity" of Porisky's distinction between a natural person and a non-natural person was illustrated during the trial when he was asked whether he wanted to give any evidence.

"If I make the decision and I go in that box, which person, in the eyes of the law, am I?" he asked the judge.

"Am I Russell Anthony Porisky in my inherent personality as a natural person, or am I a sovereign-granted personality?"

"You're Mr. Porisky," the judge replied.

"That's fairly misleading because that's not clear enough for me," Porisky responded.

At that point, the judge tried to reduce the question to its simplest form:

"Let's assume you get into the stand and the Crown asks you, 'What did you have for break-fast today?' Would it make a difference as to what capacity you were in?"

"For me, it would, your honour, yes."

The judge also noted that, when Porisky was asked to confirm the identity of a Paradigm educator in the public gallery, he said it depended in what capacity the Crown was asking about.

The judge found that Porisky was well aware of previous court decisions rejecting the natural person theory, and was therefore "wilfully blind" in utilizing and promoting his views to others.

"It is clear to me that Mr. Porisky intended that Paradigm students follow his teachings by arranging their affairs as natural persons and avoid paying income tax."

The judge noted that Paradigm's books and DVDs contained a disclaimer that the information in them "should in no way be construed as either legal or financial advice," and that readers should consult a competent expert to determine its veracity before utilizing it.

But he said these caveats were "lost in a sea of material that [Paradigm] presented with 100-per-cent certainty," and it was clear he was "encouraging the fraud of income tax avoidance."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+Chilliwack+proponent+natural+person+theory+convicted+counselling+fraud/6019051/story.html#ixzz1qKqRrwUT

>Written judgment< - seems there are a few other instances where the "natural person" argument has come a cropper in the Canadian courts as well.

While I'm preaching to the choir, there's also a scatter of fremen related FoI requests in the UK, can be found >here<. Needless to say, there's nothing in the responses to support any fremen theorising, be it on judges' oaths, Council Tax, birth certificates and fiat currency - in most instances, the requests fall way outside of the scope of a FoI request anyway, the Law Society seem to be getting hit with some doozies. Funny reading, though ... just glad I don't have to try sending these guys an earnest response.

Although, they're no doubt being bandied about the fremen internets as examples of the grand conspiracy in action. Pretty bowled over by the cognitive dissonance showing in this response to the Porisky case.

pirelli · 27-02-2012 7:14pm

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.

While this may veer ever so slightly off topic.. I must say that some of these professionals have spent years enforcing their careers and personal ambitions at the expense of the client. An example might be a senior barrister in criminal law that has his eye on a seat as a judge is involved in case where it becomes possible that there is Garda corruption at a high level, the barrister
will put his career first and shaft his client.

Those selfless ones that risk their career's to upholding justice are never respected in the legal circles unless they win which is usually very hard.

Avatargh · 27-02-2012 9:44pm

pirelli wrote: »

While this may veer ever so slightly off topic.. I must say that some of these professionals have spent years enforcing their careers and personal ambitions at the expense of the client. An example might be a senior barrister in criminal law that has his eye on a seat as a judge is involved in case where it becomes possible that there is Garda corruption at a high level, the barrister will put his career first and shaft his client.

You must say? Why? Why must you? What has this point got to do with anything under discussion? What has anything with respect to duty to the client to do with discussion about why lawyers are tired not of their clients but of their opponents when those opponents happen to have a love for this freeman line of thinking? This is crank posting with no redeeming contribution.

pirelli wrote: »

Those selfless ones that risk their career's to upholding justice are never respected in the legal circles unless they win which is usually very hard.

Absolute rubbish. What is your basis? You're referring to fact here - people are "never respected" "unless they win"? Examples? What are you talking about?

In any event, there is no need to "risk a career" to take on cases for the "little guy". Its perfectly possible to be a high flying well regarded, Senior Counsel who will take human rights / human interest cases. Happens all the time.

27-02-2012 10:15pm

pirelli wrote: »

While this may veer ever so slightly off topic.. I must say that some of these professionals have spent years enforcing their careers and personal ambitions at the expense of the client. An example might be a senior barrister in criminal law that has his eye on a seat as a judge is involved in case where it becomes possible that there is Garda corruption at a high level, the barrister
will put his career first and shaft his client.

Those selfless ones that risk their career's to upholding justice are never respected in the legal circles unless they win which is usually very hard.

To be the possessor of the stupidest post on a Freeman thread is really an achievement. Sensational work.

jargon buster · 27-02-2012 11:27pm

Freeman on the land is dead and buried, even Rob Menard (the only self claimed freeman in existence) is always on warning on David Ickes forum.
He even has his own forum (World Freeman Society) and he very rarely posts on there.

He got on my nerves over two years ago when I asked him a question and I made it my business to expose him and prove he was a mountebank.

Its job done.

berrypendel · 27-02-2012 11:43pm

jargon buster wrote: »

Freeman on the land is dead and buried, even Rob Menard (the only self claimed freeman in existence) is always on warning on David Ickes forum.
He even has his own forum (World Freeman Society) and he very rarely posts on there.

He got on my nerves over two years ago when I asked him a question and I made it my business to expose him and prove he was a mountebank.

Its job done.

you exposed him all on your own?

dats_right · 28-02-2012 1:42am

Why is the thread still going?

It should moved out of legal forum for a start as it is not a legal issue, is there not a pie in the sky forum this could be transferred to?

It the mods won't either lock the thread or move it to a more
appropriate forum them I would urge those sane and right thinking members to desist from engaging in nonesensical debates with a load of nutters.

41 pages seriously? We should be ashamed of ourselves!

benway · 28-02-2012 2:37am

In fairness, I think it's those who are going round letting on that asking the Gardaí whether they are "on their oath" will prevent them from arresting or evicting debtors who really should be ashamed. I don't blame people for being suckered in, given the state the country's in.

Plus, I've added mountebank to my vocabulary, so you can't say this thread isn't educational ... think it's a word that may come in handy over the coming months.

jargon buster · 28-02-2012 7:57am

you exposed him all on your own?

Oh no, I had some help.
If you wish to see Menard destroy himself just Google "Rob Menard Jargon Buster Asky Steven1"

Isnt mountebank a perfect word for cretins like Menard?

Pat Mustard · 28-02-2012 12:44pm

I don't know why people are complaining about the Freemen. They are hilarious.

I loved the concept so much that I decided to become one.

So on the eve of my graduation as a Freeman, I got into my car after 25 pints (having discarded my tax and insurance discs as unneccessary nods to useless statutes). I crashed into a wall on the way home, but hey, no harm done.

The cops arrived and I made sure to ask them if they were on their oath. They told me to breathe into a bag. I declined to contract to this Road Traffic Act nonsense. I did not breathe into the bag.

They asked me for my licence but I didn't give it. They searched me and found my licence - a hangover from previous days as a serf. They asked me about my name and address and I replied - "allegedly".

To cut a long story short, I ended up in court. I asked the judge if I could see his oath. He didn't think an oath was perceptible to the human eye.

I didn't plead guilty, so the judge entered a plea of not guilty on my behalf. I didn't consent to that and I reserved the full rights of common law and the Constitution. I made sure to stay in the public gallery though, to avoid straying into the maritime jurisdiction of Naas District Court.

So the judge tells me he's sending me to prison, for refusing to give a sample and other previous 'offences'.

Jail sentence eh? Let's see what the Magna Carta has to say about that!

Freemen abú!

seamus · 28-02-2012 12:54pm

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't know why people are complaining about the Freemen. They are hilarious.

Because they're now going as far as fraud to try to push their belief into the general population by issuing fake notices from reputable law firms attached to their nonsense.

I just had to tell my sister-in-law via facebook that the memo was false (thankfully she had asked a solicitor friend to verify it rather than take it at face value). The problem is that many people see the law as difficult and inaccessible, and therefore when they see something written in what appears to be plain english and the speaker declaring with authority (false or deluded) that it's correct, people tend to take it at face value.

It's exactly the same trick that conmen and religious institutions use. It's dangerous because it can land otherwise honest and decent people in hot water because they're a little too naive.

MagicSean · 28-02-2012 1:26pm

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't know why people are complaining about the Freemen. They are hilarious.

I loved the concept so much that I decided to become one.

So on the eve of my graduation as a Freeman, I got into my car after 25 pints (having discarded my tax and insurance discs as unneccessary nods to useless statutes). I crashed into a wall on the way home, but hey, no harm done.

The cops arrived and I made sure to ask them if they were on their oath. They told me to breathe into a bag. I declined to contract to this Road Traffic Act nonsense. I did not breathe into the bag.

They asked me for my licence but I didn't give it. They searched me and found my licence - a hangover from previous days as a serf. They asked me about my name and address and I replied - "allegedly".

To cut a long story short, I ended up in court. I asked the judge if I could see his oath. He didn't think an oath was perceptible to the human eye.

I didn't plead guilty, so the judge entered a plea of not guilty on my behalf. I didn't consent to that and I reserved the full rights of common law and the Constitution. I made sure to stay in the public gallery though, to avoid straying into the maritime jurisdiction of Naas District Court.

So the judge tells me he's sending me to prison, for refusing to give a sample and other previous 'offences'.

Jail sentence eh? Let's see what the Magna Carta has to say about that!

Freemen abú!

If people follow their advice they will end up in prison eventually and will also have no money or assets to their name.

jargon buster · 28-02-2012 1:31pm

Menard posted that memo/e-mail as proof over on Ickes

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=201670

It got him a warning/suspension after the law firm initiated an investigation.
Menard is already prohibited from giving legal advice in certain provinces of Canada.
Theres a very long thread over on James Randis about Menard and his idiocy, its two years old and has 5,230 replies although there is not one scrap of evidence provided by Menard that his theories actually work.
There is on the other hand many,many case histories and evidence that prove hes a liar and a mountebank.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

Pat Mustard · 28-02-2012 1:36pm

seamus wrote: »

Because they're now going as far as fraud to try to push their belief into the general population by issuing fake notices from reputable law firms attached to their nonsense.

I've seen one of those fake notices. This is what our useless statutes have to say about that kind of carry on. (The fine has increased btw). http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1954/en/act/pub/0036/sec0056.html#sec56

seamus wrote: »

It's exactly the same trick that conmen and religious institutions use. It's dangerous because it can land otherwise honest and decent people in hot water because they're a little too naive.

I think it's time that I and my Freemen buddies went on the Vinnie Browne show and showed the world what we're made of.

benway · 28-02-2012 1:51pm

seamus wrote: »

It's exactly the same trick that conmen and religious institutions use. It's dangerous because it can land otherwise honest and decent people in hot water because they're a little too naive.

Nail:head. Especially when there are so many people desperately looking for a way out of crisis-level personal debt. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, and the fremen's looney tunes sideshow will only serve to provide an easy straw-man for the banks and their cheerleaders to beat on if and when such measures are proposed.

I note that the heads of the Personal Insolvency Bill were presented to the Dáil recently. Despite the fact that, in my view, it doesn't go nearly far enough, even at this stage, the banks are not pleased with this development.

Finnbar01 · 28-02-2012 3:40pm

jargon buster wrote: »

Menard posted that memo/e-mail as proof over on Ickes

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=201670

It got him a warning/suspension after the law firm initiated an investigation.
Menard is already prohibited from giving legal advice in certain provinces of Canada.
Theres a very long thread over on James Randis about Menard and his idiocy, its two years old and has 5,230 replies although there is not one scrap of evidence provided by Menard that his theories actually work.
There is on the other hand many,many case histories and evidence that prove hes a liar and a mountebank.

Why isn't that clown Menard locked up by now.

Let me guess, he actually doesn't practise what he preaches and when he claims to have, he offers no proof?

jargon buster · 28-02-2012 4:42pm

correct, he has never put his neck on the line yet has encouraged many others to.
He even took $800 from Lance Thatcher in exchange for a "remedy" that got him locked up.

Thatcher had his first run-in with the law in Kamloops in 2007, which cost him four days in jail, she said. After that, he had a conversation with well-known freeman Robert Menard, who sold him an $800 document that indicated how he could fight the law more effectively.

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20110708/KAMLOOPS0101/110709833/-1/kamloops/internet-fuelled-freeman-8217-s-beliefs-says-ex-wife

Our man in Havana · 28-02-2012 6:02pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU7G6XIMt2Q

crystalmice · 28-02-2012 7:03pm

Highly cringe-worthy, and I feel truely sorry for anyone taken in by it, but it really is comedy gold;

'The magistrates sit on the bench...speechless!'
'The Clerk leaves to retrieve the magistrates from their hiding place!'
'Wait a minute! I thought THEY were the legal department of this corporation!'
And my personal favorite; 'Remember this is an admiralty court...a SHIP!'

:rolleyes:

Tom Young · 28-02-2012 10:49pm

Behave! (all of you)

Tom Young · 28-02-2012 11:15pm

I'm just going to say this once more. Stop!

pirelli · 28-02-2012 11:40pm

Avatargh wrote: »

You must say? Why? Why must you? What has this point got to do with anything under discussion? What has anything with respect to duty to the client to do with discussion about why lawyers are tired not of their clients but of their opponents when those opponents happen to have a love for this freeman line of thinking? This is crank posting with no redeeming contribution.

Absolute rubbish. What is your basis? You're referring to fact here - people are "never respected" "unless they win"? Examples? What are you talking about?

In any event, there is no need to "risk a career" to take on cases for the "little guy". Its perfectly possible to be a high flying well regarded, Senior Counsel who will take human rights / human interest cases. Happens all the time.

Any wrongfully convicted person ever receiving proper compensation and pardon would be an example. The state ever admitting it is wrong.

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.

pirelli wrote: »

While this may veer ever so slightly off topic.. I must say that some of these professionals have spent years enforcing their careers and personal ambitions at the expense of the client. An example might be a senior barrister in criminal law that has his eye on a seat as a judge is involved in case where it becomes possible that there is Garda corruption at a high level, the barrister
will put his career first and shaft his client.

Those selfless ones that risk their career's to upholding justice are never respected in the legal circles unless they win which is usually very hard.

Deleted User wrote: »

To be the possessor of the stupidest post on a Freeman thread is really an achievement. Sensational work.

I was perhaps reckless but not stupid to respond to corruptable's post noting the practitioners of the law find no logic to Fremanism and therefore those opponents to the law are purely arrogant.

I just wanted to be clear on that point so that we are a little closer to determining which group is the most arrogant. I just find that the tone and candour of many of the practitioners and students that corruptable speaks of are the more arrogant and the post's above speak for themselves.

I think Fremanism is a form of civil disobedience or civil resistance. As Martin Luther king said: one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, and Ghandi an advocate of non violent civil disobedience where you may take the fine and serve the sentence but in protest.

It's not so much the lack of logic to Fremanism but essentially whether there is something good behind it all.

Tom Young · 28-02-2012 11:49pm

Pirelli: your deletion of posts is quite testing. Please give us a break.

The deterministic features of civil disobedience, protesting against unjust laws in the past was rationality and logical construction.

Freeman movement contains neither

Pat Mustard · 29-02-2012 12:09am

pirelli wrote: »

I think Fremanism is a form of civil disobedience or civil resistance. As Martin Luther king said: one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, and Ghandi an advocate of non violent civil disobedience where you may take the fine and serve the sentence but in protest.

Das riet.

No more taxes! Taxes are for serfs and their masters, the Lizard Men!

Huzzah!

Freeman Megamerge

Comments