Freeman Megamerge

chopser · 06-09-2013 2:59pm

Marve wrote: »

Johnny Squires was 'Given' 45 days in Clover Hill Prison - breaking FB news, 12 mins ago

Comment under the status:
'Ben raising funds to get Johnny released. €800 Euros needed before tonight or Johnny gets locked up'.

update from:
https://www.facebook.com/tnsradio.admin

E-Begging status for the €800 to 'buy him back':
https://www.facebook.com/dermot54/posts/10201295351039270

"Its not for bail.Its to buy johnny out" ... "98,000 owed by shatter and rising"

Of course by "buy him back" they mean pay the fine and thus admit defeat.
all you will hear about the next day however is how they got him released through their superior knowledge of the law. Some people are such idiots to actually believe this was a victory.

Oryx · 06-09-2013 3:01pm

Goes to show that you can ignore the law but the law won't ignore you.

hardCopy · 06-09-2013 3:02pm

chopser wrote: »

"Its not for bail.Its to buy johnny out" ... "98,000 owed by shatter and rising"

Of course by "buy him back" they mean pay the fine and thus admit defeat.
all you will hear about the next day however is how they got him released through their superior knowledge of the law. Some people are such idiots to actually believe this was a victory.

I can just imagine the drama that's going to land on some clerk in the prison when they show up to get him out and refuse to sign any documents.

Robbo · 06-09-2013 8:05pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

What fascinates me most about Ben Gilroy is that he ran for election for the legislature yet he doesn't believe in statutes. The mind boggles!

As per his Youtube law lecture in Meath there, he "ran FOR election" that means that he must be exchanged now that the election has taken place. Ben should forfeit himself to the State.

The absolute full house of Freeman bull**** was run in that video. Signatures, oaths, natural law, translating the Constitution back and forth till you get a version that suits your end, corporate courts, civil or criminal jurisdiction, sending enormous bills and then some. But, of course, Ben's not a Freeman.

Marve · 06-09-2013 8:12pm

hardCopy wrote: »

I can just imagine the drama that's going to land on some clerk in the prison when they show up to get him out and refuse to sign any documents.

They will probably demand to see the jails license to accept money!! lol

Fred Swanson · 06-09-2013 8:26pm

This post has been deleted.

ezra_pound · 06-09-2013 10:03pm

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/03/14/florida-sovereign-citizen-killed-after-allegedly-threatening-police/

ezra_pound · 06-09-2013 10:08pm

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/september-2011/sovereign-citizens#disablemobile

The FBI perspective

jd · 07-09-2013 8:33am

From
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/property-trust-event-may-be-last-signing-in-242235.html

Dozens of people attended a small hotel in Wicklow yesterday for what they were told may be the last signing-in session for a controversial and quasi-spiritual, property trust.
..
At yesterday’s Bel Air signing-in session, additional publicans, hoteliers, families, and syndicates put their properties into the Rodolphus Allen Private Family Trust.
..
The trust deeds cited an affiliation with the Universal Community Trusts, a loose international organisation that is linked to the freeman of the land philosophy and does not fully recognise nation states.

Irish Freeman woo site has a link to a video about "Universal Community Trusts"
http://freemanireland.ning.com/video/universal-community-trust

Not even 9am and my head hurts!

joela · 07-09-2013 9:02am

Oh gawd, now the Freeman guff is being used by turf cutters https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=594880920554908&id=535418793167788

jd · 07-09-2013 9:38am

Tom McMcEnaney is talking about the occasional need for civil disobedience at 1pm on Newstalk, Freeman woo may come up (ie there is no magic formula to evade the consequences).

Peppa Pig · 07-09-2013 12:17pm

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/property-trust-event-may-be-last-signing-in-242235.html

at least 50 people had been given forms ............ were told to have ... €525 per property on hand - although the forms available on the day looked for €350 per folio.

Does that mean that someone made 50 x €175?

So €8,750 profit. They can buy your man back from Cloverhill and build him a big fence around his house.

Robbo · 07-09-2013 12:39pm

It's nice to see that the Examiner are taking a long term interest in this horse****.

Turns out I vaguely know a chap who's put his lot in with the trust, despite having consulted his regular solicitor and being told not to. His rationale was that it was only a couple of hundred euro, so even if it doesn't work, he's not out by much. Seems from the Examiner article there's a fair few like this who aren't quite in a bad situation yet but regard this as volcano insurance.

beeftotheheels · 07-09-2013 12:45pm

Robbo wrote: »

It's nice to see that the Examiner are taking a long term interest in this horse****.

Turns out I vaguely know a chap who's put his lot in with the trust, despite having consulted his regular solicitor and being told not to. His rationale was that it was only a couple of hundred euro, so even if it doesn't work, he's not out by much. Seems from the Examiner article there's a fair few like this who aren't quite in a bad situation yet but regard this as volcano insurance.

But at the risk of annoying their banks and potentially triggering tax charges which no one is advising them could be triggered if there really is a transfer of an asset into a trust?

Not to mention the fact that it's not clear if there's one trust or many trusts - all the talk was of the Rodulphus Allen Trust, not the McDermott Trust so if the trust is valid, which I know we doubt, then have you created a risk to your assets???

Really, some people need to think through these things a little more.

Oryx · 07-09-2013 1:31pm

I know this is all woo, and I can barely follow the logic, but can someone please clarify if I have this right:

The bank want your property because you are in default.
You sign the property to the trust so you no longer own it, and the bank can't take it.
As I see it, two things could happen here, neither are good.

So, if the trust thing is bunk (which we all know is the case), you still lose your property, you just add an extra layer of nonsense to the procedure.

But if the trust thing is not bunk, youve just paid to give them your property, which you no longer own? So a year down the line, your trust could turn out not very trustworthy and kick you out?

johnnyskeleton · 07-09-2013 2:12pm

jd wrote: »

Tom McMcEnaney is talking about the occasional need for civil disobedience at 1pm on Newstalk, Freeman woo may come up (ie there is no magic formula to evade the consequences).

The problem is that they take some fairly sound political thinking and twist it. I don't think anyone would disagree with civil disobedience against a clear tyrant who, for example, is killing his own people. But you can't just decide you don't want to play democracy anymore.

Robbo · 07-09-2013 2:18pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The problem is that they take some fairly sound political thinking and twist it. I don't think anyone would disagree with civil disobedience against a clear tyrant who, for example, is killing his own people. But you can't just decide you don't want to play democracy anymore.

They do tend to pick absolutely terrible corners to fight. Johnny Squires and his motor tax, McDermott and his 550 acre/8 million stud farm, Redacted/Peter Anthony Keegan and his half dozen investment properties, Bobby Sludds and his homemade number plates...

Acutally, I'm calling "Bobby Sludds & The Homemade Number Plates" as a band name now.

johnnyskeleton · 07-09-2013 2:20pm

Oryx wrote: »

I know this is all woo, and I can barely follow the logic, but can someone please clarify if I have this right:

Pretty much.

The bank want your property because you are in default.
You sign the property to the trust so you no longer own it, and the bank can't take it.

You can no more alienate your land by putting it ini a trust than you can by selling it to a randomer without the mortgage. The property is either sold to the trust fully encumbered with the loan or the transfer to the trust is invalid because of the mortgage. This depends on the individual terms of the mortgage and the 2009 act, but basically they would usually need the banks consent for such a move, failing which the trust is invalid.

So, if the trust thing is bunk (which we all know is the case), you still lose your property, you just add an extra layer of nonsense to the procedure.

Yep, it will be ignored by the bank as invalid and after a bit of messing in court will be ignored by the courts too.

But if the trust thing is not bunk, youve just paid to give them your property, which you no longer own? So a year down the line, your trust could turn out not very trustworthy and kick you out?

If it were a normal trust, there would usually be words in the document preventing someone being removed from their property or the property being sold. In the absence of same they could kick you out, but would need to account to you for the proceeds of rent or sale.

Of course that presupposes that anything in this whole saga is actually being done in accordance with law.

johnnyskeleton · 07-09-2013 2:23pm

Robbo wrote: »

They do tend to pick absolutely terrible corners to fight. Johnny Squires and his motor tax, McDermott and his 550 acre/8 million stud farm, Redacted/Peter Anthony Keegan and his half dozen investment properties, Bobby Sludds and his homemade number plates...

Acutally, I'm calling "Bobby Sludds & The Homemade Number Plates" as a band name now.

With their latest hit singles "Get your oath of office out for the lads" and "Come sail away with me (on my ship of justice)"

jd · 07-09-2013 2:27pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

With their latest hit singles "Get your oath of office out for the lads" and "Come sail away with me (on my ship of justice)"

Course you know Johnny Squires was guitarist for The Stoned Roses

I'll get my coat

beeftotheheels · 07-09-2013 2:30pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

With their latest hit singles "Get your oath of office out for the lads" and "Come sail away with me (on my ship of justice)"

Along with a cover version of Spectrum (Say my name tm)

Robbo · 07-09-2013 2:31pm

jd wrote: »

Course you know Johnny Squires was guitarist for The Stoned Roses

I'll get my coat

I'm sure Ben has "I Am The Resurrection" queued up to play upon his release.

The full version, mind, not the neutered one.

johnnyskeleton · 07-09-2013 2:44pm

Robbo wrote: »

I'm sure Ben has "I Am The Resurrection" queued up to play upon his release.

The full version, mind, not the neutered one.

Hey people, set my benny free:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JoT_S0ASTjw

Losty Dublin · 07-09-2013 5:50pm

Oryx wrote: »

I know this is all woo, and I can barely follow the logic, but can someone please clarify if I have this right:

The bank want your property because you are in default.
You sign the property to the trust so you no longer own it, and the bank can't take it.
As I see it, two things could happen here, neither are good.

So, if the trust thing is bunk (which we all know is the case), you still lose your property, you just add an extra layer of nonsense to the procedure.

But if the trust thing is not bunk, youve just paid to give them your property, which you no longer own? So a year down the line, your trust could turn out not very trustworthy and kick you out?

Ah but that's only if you sign your name onto the form with blue ink. Anything else and it's no deal.

joela · 07-09-2013 6:05pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Ah but that's only if you sign your name onto the form with blue ink. Anything else and it's no deal.

Note to self : Throw out all blue pens in house

Losty Dublin · 07-09-2013 9:31pm

joela wrote: »

Note to self : Throw out all blue pens in house

And blue stamps. Ben Gilroy said so.

Iwannahurl · 08-09-2013 9:31pm

Whether we know it or not, we are all of us, all the time, oppressed by the kind of power exercised, ostensibly at least, in the name of organising society and holding it together. When I think about “power” in this sense – of a vaguely oppressive force bearing down upon me – it’s easy to ignore its encroachment, or to brush any such nagging feelings aside and decide that my unease is a collateral price for other freedoms. This is lethal to the human person.

Oppression of this kind is not something distant, but ever-present in my psyche and body.

Much of it may well seem necessary, but sometimes it crosses a line. And the experiencing of that intrusion may in each of us arise differently: for one, in a “big” thing; for another, in a “small” thing. It’s always personal. Freedom is not necessarily epic. Only in the “I” – the absolute subjectivity which is my only accurate apparatus of judgment – can this be decided. No one else can make this decision for me.

There are no small freedoms, but one great freedom, spread over the totality of a life in reality.

In the West, the idea that administrative unreason is part of the price of democratic freedom is just one way in which people are manipulated and demoralised.

Gradually, the idea of economic and administrative coherence seems to become more important than this or that freedom of the individual – each time a small price to be paid, allegedly in the greater good.
Eventually these instalments add up to something intolerable because it is no longer life. Totalitarianism of this “subtler” kind becomes not something imposed on one group by another, but on everyone by everyone.

Those who conform to the increasingly senseless diktats of the regime become, as Havel says, “both victims of the system and its instruments”. By fitting in with the dominant mentality, the person contrives to no longer exist.

But the “I” can stand against such power as no other power can.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/the-meaning-of-my-wheatfield-experience-is-that-sometimes-we-must-just-say-no-1.1517638?page=1

Marcusm · 08-09-2013 9:58pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Whether we know it or not, we are all of us, all the time, oppressed by the kind of power exercised, ostensibly at least, in the name of organising society and holding it together. When I think about “power” in this sense – of a vaguely oppressive force bearing down upon me – it’s easy to ignore its encroachment, or to brush any such nagging feelings aside and decide that my unease is a collateral price for other freedoms. This is lethal to the human person.

Oppression of this kind is not something distant, but ever-present in my psyche and body.

Much of it may well seem necessary, but sometimes it crosses a line. And the experiencing of that intrusion may in each of us arise differently: for one, in a “big” thing; for another, in a “small” thing. It’s always personal. Freedom is not necessarily epic. Only in the “I” – the absolute subjectivity which is my only accurate apparatus of judgment – can this be decided. No one else can make this decision for me.

There are no small freedoms, but one great freedom, spread over the totality of a life in reality.

In the West, the idea that administrative unreason is part of the price of democratic freedom is just one way in which people are manipulated and demoralised.

Gradually, the idea of economic and administrative coherence seems to become more important than this or that freedom of the individual – each time a small price to be paid, allegedly in the greater good.
Eventually these instalments add up to something intolerable because it is no longer life. Totalitarianism of this “subtler” kind becomes not something imposed on one group by another, but on everyone by everyone.

Those who conform to the increasingly senseless diktats of the regime become, as Havel says, “both victims of the system and its instruments”. By fitting in with the dominant mentality, the person contrives to no longer exist.

But the “I” can stand against such power as no other power can.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/the-meaning-of-my-wheatfield-experience-is-that-sometimes-we-must-just-say-no-1.1517638?page=1

He is so pathetic; he paid for parking thereby acknowledging some respect for the law. He benefited not ony for the period for which he paid but also the 15 minutes grace before he was ticketed. He has no excuse; had it been Dublin City Council, he would have been clamped and no doubt paid up with many whimpers.

As the penalty is less draconian than DCC, he had the opportunity to create a fuss not available to the general public: he could have written about it and made money to pay the fine and perhaps generated some sympathy for others including the businesses of DL but no, he took another route.

Only in Ireland would the sanction for non payment of a parking ticket be a contempt of court decision and a period in prison. Much better if a bailiff/sheriff had been appointed to exercise distraint over his goods/property. John Waters has served no-one, least of all civil society, by acting in this manner. By comparing himself and his action to Vaclav Havel he has demonstrated himself to be the deluded, self obsessed narcissist one might have previously merely assumed him to be.

Pro Hoc Vice · 08-09-2013 10:04pm

Marcusm wrote: »

He is so pathetic; he paid for parking thereby acknowledging some respect for the law. He benefited not ony for the period for which he paid but also the 15 minutes grace before he was ticketed. He has no excuse; had it been Dublin City Council, he would have been clamped and no doubt paid up with many whimpers.

As the penalty is less draconian than DCC, he had the opportunity to create a fuss not available to the general public: he could have written about it and made money to pay the fine and perhaps generated some sympathy for others including the businesses of DL but no, he took another route.

Only in Ireland would the sanction for non payment of a parking ticket be a contempt of court decision and a period in prison. Much better if a bailiff/sheriff had been appointed to exercise distraint over his goods/property. John Waters has served no-one, least of all civil society, by acting in this manner. By comparing himself and his action to Vaclav Havel he has demonstrated himself to be the deluded, self obsessed narcissist one might have previously merely assumed him to be.

Just one issue the non payment of a fine is not a contempt of court issue. All fines given in court have days to be served if fine not paid. It's a either or pay fine or go to prison for x days.

"The Irish Times writer refused to pay the fine in a case that dates back to May 2011. A judge ordered that he pay the fine or be jailed for a day, and when his period permitted to make the payment expired a warrant was issued for his arrest."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/waters-i-was-weighed-measured-and-put-in-a-cell-with-two-men-1.1515024

http://www.courts.ie/offices.nsf/lookuppagelink/78B10FFDC65FE12680256E78003B513C

All the rest you are 100% correct. It's only an idiot like waters would equate parking policy of a LA with a totalitarian regime.

alyssum · 08-09-2013 10:44pm

infosys wrote: »

Just one issue the non payment of a fine is not a contempt of court issue. All fines given in court have days to be served if fine not paid. It's a either or pay fine or go to prison for x days.

"The Irish Times writer refused to pay the fine in a case that dates back to May 2011. A judge ordered that he pay the fine or be jailed for a day, and when his period permitted to make the payment expired a warrant was issued for his arrest."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/waters-i-was-weighed-measured-and-put-in-a-cell-with-two-men-1.1515024

http://www.courts.ie/offices.nsf/lookuppagelink/78B10FFDC65FE12680256E78003B513C

All the rest you are 100% correct. It's only an idiot like waters would equate parking policy of a LA with a totalitarian regime.

is that what anyone would get for not paying a parking fine - a day in jail?

Edit He was only 45 mins in jail?

Freeman Megamerge

Comments