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

Biggins wrote: »

More lies!

Please show ANY charges Ben has made charging €400.
I shall be notifying him in the morning about these allegations - I'm sure the law will be used to refute them.
don't be surprised if you hear from his legal team.
All the best.

That's what I got told. If Ben wants to take me to court ... well, tell him I don't consent

.

Ben's legal team

oppenheimer1

Biggins wrote: »

Rubbish!
So what if Ben thinks he knows the law!
Its his right to be wrong.
Its every persons human right in this country to be wrong - if they want to be on purpose or by lack of further knowledge.

I'm defending his right to privacy - sorry if that gets up your nose!
He don't shove any 'unusual' ideas down my throat - why the crap should I shove my interrogating questions down his about what he might be thinking in his own home!

Jeasus! Some people are just fcuking unreal and obnoxious!

You said originally that he knows the law very well, not that he thinks he knows the law.

What do you think of that notice on the door? Do you think it has any legal standing?

Biggins, I would really like if you could give me your thoughts on this.

KyussBishop

Biggins wrote: »

More lies!

Please show ANY charges Ben has made charging €400.
I shall be notifying him in the morning about these allegations - I'm sure the law will be used to refute them.
don't be surprised if you hear from his legal team.
All the best.

I'm not stating any opinion on the charges or whatever, but you've skipped over some posts about what looks like 'freeman' type leanings from Ben Gilroy?

What do you make of that; do you think he believes the stuff, and why (if that site is accurate) do you think he was advising use of such strange notices?

Even if we say he doesn't believe it, then (if that site is accurate), is it not morally dubious (at best) to be promoting use of such strange notices, which can cause people trouble in court?

I understand you know the guy personally and all, and that this is affecting your views on this topic, but it certainly looks like a lot of what is said about Ben's views, hold up to scrutiny.

[Deleted User]

The Clash - I fought the law

Song's in my head now, I'll never get to sleep!

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Biggins, I would really like if you could give me your thoughts on this.

As to the sections of the law that is referred to, I am no position to say if they are valid or not.
Thats simply down to lack of education on my part on not knowing that section of the law.

Its there is something to it and some is able to educate me - cool.
If its a load of hooey, right now, I cannot tell.

It's a load of hooey and a well known Freeman ploy. Seriously.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm not stating any opinion on the charges or whatever, but you've skipped over some posts about what looks like 'freeman' type leanings from Ben Gilroy?

What do you make of that; do you think he believes the stuff, and why (if that site is accurate) do you think he was advising use of such strange notices?

Even if we say he doesn't believe it, then (if that site is accurate), is it not morally dubious (at best) to be promoting use of such strange notices, which can cause people trouble in court?

I understand you know the guy personally and all, and that this is affecting your views on this topic, but it certainly looks like a lot of what is said about Ben's views, hold up to scrutiny.

I previously mentioned that sometimes some peoples ideas might also run in parallel (in conjunction) with others.
If thats the case here, so be it. I simply do not know.
Bens notice thats on his door has never come up as a topic from him. Its never been introduced to any DDI meetings, offices or to its people that I know of - and I have been around a LOT!

I believe that if Ben is thinking some stuff in his head and then writes about it on a page on his door, he must think has some validity.
As I know not about the section of the law he quotes, I'm simply not able to say if its valid or not.

benway wrote: »

It's a load of hooey and a well known Freeman ploy. Seriously.

Fair enough -that your opinion.
Its also a load of hooey that the nutters from the CSP are connected or have anything to do with DDI.
...And I can state that as a member of DDI.

To re-quote myself from elsewhere:

I’m not a religious nutter – I’m actually an atheist – nor do I know any religious nutters. I know for a fact that there is none so far in Direct Democracy Ireland – which by the way have NO one sided biased religious agendas WHATSOEVER!

Direct Democracy Ireland and I have NO connections to any religious organisations except as far as I suspect, some might be decent quiet members of the Roman Catholic Church on Sundays – and if they are, fair enough! They are as welcome as any other religious, spiritual and non-religious people. Everyone has a democratic say – and rightly so.

Biggins wrote: »

As I know not about the section of the law he quotes, I'm simply not able to say if its valid or not.

It's not a section of the law, it's a piece of Freeman woo, pure and simple.

This is not my opinion, this is legal fact. I am qualified to comment on this.

Do you really think we're all just making this stuff up to have a go at him?

oppenheimer1

Biggins wrote: »

As to the sections of the law that is referred to, I am no position to say if they are valid or not.
Thats simply down to lack of education on my part on not knowing that section of the law.

Its there is something to it and some is able to educate me - cool.
If its a load of hooey, right now, I cannot tell.

What he is saying is that he is Soverign and is removing the right of access to his land by state officials, whether they have a warrant or not.

Anyone with sense should be able to see that its rubbish, you do not need to be called to the bar to understand that. So given that the sign is BS, what do you make of it now? Do you think it is responsible to be advising perhaps gullible and desperate people to be using these tactics?

Also DDI and abortion, where do they stand btw?

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What he is saying is that he is Soverign and is removing the right of access to his land by state officials, whether they have a warrant or not.

Anyone with sense should be able to see that its rubbish, you do not need to be called to the bar to understand that. So given that the sign is BS, what do you make of it now? Do you think it is responsible to be advising perhaps gullible and desperate people to be using these tactics?

The times I have seen Ben in action regarding the law (and its to to with financial matters, nothing else), he mentions to people other areas of the law that he suggests their solicitor should look at and possibly take further.
...And thats it.

He goes on about no 'freeman' stuff whatsoever to us.

Maybe its is rubbish, maybe not.
Till we learn with legal clarity in education, its all opinion and subject to individual interpretive reading.
I'm simply not skilled enough to know if its valid or not.
If you know better and its your opinion as such, absolutely fair enough!

O' and as for the abortion issue, thats currently under serious review at the present.
Every member has a say, an opinion and each one is valid.
What the outcome of that will be, I think will be known shorty as a democratic decision taken.
There are NO whips in our org so NO ONE individual opinion is forced upon others and no one is forced to vote in any one direction, unlike the present parties.

benway wrote: »

It's not a section of the law, it's a piece of Freeman woo, pure and simple.

This is not my opinion, this is legal fact. I am qualified to comment on this.

Do you really think we're all just making this stuff up to have a go at him?

Sir, you can't even understand the aspects of selling URLs and then others buying them later from a complete separate org - selling them to another complete separate org, one based in a separate county, and run by a complete separate people - and you want us all to believe that you know the law inside and out?

Hell,, your even crazy enough to post defamation lies about Ben supposedly charging €400 and even worse, offer no evidence to back this crap up.

Forgive me if I don't take you serious.
I don't!

Just in case there were any doubt, Ben's notice follows this form:

www.ngwb.co.uk/resources/NOTICE%20OF%20CONTRACT.docx‎

sourced from this site:

http://www.ngwb.co.uk/

which peddles every single piece of Freeman woo that I'm aware of, from birth certificate bonds to Notice of intent / Claim of Right, to maritime law, it's all there.

Even the sign off, "without ill-will, vexation or frivolity" is classic Freeman, used on many of their supposedly legal/lawful documents, and apparently attributable to well-known Freeman guru Veronica: of the Chapman Family.

oppenheimer1

Biggins wrote: »

He goes on about no 'freeman' stuff whatsoever to us.

Maybe its is rubbish, maybe not.
Till we learn with legal clarity in education, its all opinion and subject to individual interpretive reading.
I'm simply not skilled enough to know if its valid or not.
If you know better and its your opinion as such, absolutely fair enough!

Just for clarity, you actually think there is a possibility that the notice posted on this thread earlier might be valid, and would prevent agents of the state from entering property, whether they had a valid and legitimate reason or not? Really Biggins? Really??

You're doing yourself and your argument no favours here.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Just for clarity, you actually think there is a possibility that the notice posted on this thread earlier might be valid, and would prevent agents of the state from entering property, whether they had a valid and legitimate reason or not? Really Biggins? Really??

You're doing yourself and your argument no favours here.

I'm doing myself nothing except stating I'm not qualified to comment on something I know nothing about!

If I bluffed and bullschitedted my way to say its right or wrong, I would be an idiot and soon rightly be exposed as one.

As such I'm being totally honest and frank.
If doing that comes back to haunt me and put me in a bad light - so be it.

And just to wrap up, here's an example of a Freeman who put such a "Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access" on his/her door to scare away the bailiffs:

Thursday morning 7am the bailiff at the door again so i informed him he was tresspassing and his implied right of access had been removed he took no notice.
So i went out side and he was clamping my car i again informed him of his breach and tried to give him a copy of the notice which he would not take.
Called the police they told me basicly to get lost and would not do anything about it.

http://forum.fmotl.com/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=9243

It's hooey. Seriously.

MadsL wrote: »

https://peopleforeconomicjustice.com/direct-democracy-ireland/

Freeman s_hite about the Constitution being changed.

Even the tagline "The Dwelling Of Every Citizen Is Inviolable And Shall Not Be Forcibly Entered Save In Accordance With Law." is a classic Freeman clause of the Constitution to quote in bonkers rhetoric about Sheriffs not being legal or some other garbage.

Is this not in the constitution?

darkhorse wrote: »

Is this not in the constitution?

Yep.

5. The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.

Article 40.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20(Eng)Nov2004.htm

I guess the founders are now all Freemen too!

Some here seem to also forget about Section 6 too:

6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

...I guess some people here don't like opinions that opposes than so they try to spin lies, throw much and frankly show stupidity in not knowing a lot of stuff - but refusing to admit as such!

darkhorse wrote: »

Is this not in the constitution?

Yup. It's the "in accordance with law" bit that the Fremen have trouble grasping.

Foxhound38

Biggins wrote: »

More lies!

Please show ANY charges Ben has made charging €400.
I shall be notifying him in the morning about these allegations - I'm sure the law will be used to refute them.
don't be surprised if you hear from his legal team.
All the best.

If Ben of the ancient clan Gilroy(Sovereign)*tm relies on the same "common law" pseudo-legalise bollocksology that yer man in the OP got thrown in the slammer for contempt when he used, I think everyone will be OK :cool:

Deleted User wrote: »

I just love how one of the groups is called "Its Not Our Debt".

So what you are saying, if I read you right, is for us just to lie down and accept fully that it is our debt, just because our government put the debt of others on the heads of the taxpayer? Good logic. But what I don't understand is, because there are people out there that do not even want to protest or resist paying the debts of others, why should a lot of people, including myself, also have to pay, when there are so many people willing to pay it without even questioning it. In other words, "Its Not Our Debt".

Phoebas wrote: »

And then policy 3 is to default on the bailout debt.

Where does it state this?

darkhorse wrote: »

protest or resist.

Here's the point: this Freeman stuff isn't protest and it's more irritation than resistance.

If you want to engage in an act of civil disobedience and, say, drive away a receiver, then have at. But do it in the knowledge that you're likely to end up in jail, and you need to be prepared for that in order to make your point.

The problem with all if this is that people are going in thinking that the likes of Ben Gilroy have taught them the magic spell that can make all of their debt problems go away. Which they most assuredly have not, although I wish I could say otherwise.

What inevitably ends up happening is that they get dragged through the courts, rack up a bunch of costs against them, maybe do a bit if time for contempt before realising that, unfortunately, there is no magic spell.

The worst thing is that many of the debtors seem genuinely shocked when the hocus pocus doesn't come through for them. Pretty tragic, tbh.

I really ought to be asleep. Will be watching with interest for your list of Ben's High Court successes, Biggins. Say it's gonna be a very, very short list.