Freeman Megamerge

ohnonotgmail · 06-04-2016 3:59pm

Torakx wrote: »

How about some red chocolate

That's perfectly fine.
What other phrase should i use for a human being in the eyes of the law?
I am happy to adjust my phrasing if it helps.

i very much doubt that it would.

GM228 · 06-04-2016 4:13pm

Torakx wrote: »

Possibly. It is a large topic in philosophy for example.

So (in terms of philosophy) your passing off "fact" as your knowledge that you think you have a high degree of confidence in about some possible truth as being indisputably (not absolutely, but to a high degree) true as opposed to actual fact?

Pro Hoc Vice · 06-04-2016 4:20pm

Torakx wrote: »

I'm a little confused on the use of the term "serious".
Can you distinguish the differences in legal terms? I can then research those terms in the law dictionary.
I am open to suggestions for using a common dictionary as reference here, for a better meeting of minds.

Is commerical law a myth?
I don't understand the basis for each courts function otherwise.

It's my understanding that there is a society called "The law Society"
Here is one I just found.
https://www.lawsociety.ie/

I am lead to think that this body, represents, educates and regulates those who practice law in this country.
There may be other related societies I don't know about.

O God, commercial law is simply a term for the body of law the revolves around commerce, you can not use a dictionary to perform any serious legal research.

The Law Society of Irelan is the Statutory body, that is given power by the Statie to train and regulate solicitors, while in number they make up the largest number of lawyers in the country, they are not the only lawyers. The Law Library and the Society of Kings Inns deal with the Barristers.

If you want to put forward a new system of regulating this country you need first to show the current system does not work, and secondly put forward a viable alternative.

You said people should be able to use researchers and people of knowledge to help in running cases. Well funny that but that is where we got lawyers from.

Serjeant Buzfuz · 06-04-2016 4:58pm

Torakx wrote: »

haha nice response
I know what you mean to an extent. But would like to delve into that in detail.
This reminds me of fishing by a lake on a sunny day. You have to watch how you cast your shadows.

Torakx's cave?

cobhguy28 · 06-04-2016 8:11pm

Torakx wrote: »

The first point I made was relating to the state being a juristic person.
This was needed in order for a person to sue the state.
I'm surprised it took all the way to 1973 for this to come about.

I'll presume we all agree that the state is indeed a juristic person.
If a fictional entity is a juristic person.
Is a juristic person a fictional entity?

The reason that you could not sue the state before 1973 was because it was incorrectly though that the state as successor to the Crown had inheritance it's royal immunity. The supreme Court said it did not and so could be sued.

cobhguy28 · 06-04-2016 8:22pm

Torakx wrote: »

@ cobhguy28
I did hear something about courts closing down around the country.
I am unsure what type of courts though and still do not have enough information on how the courts are structured.
For instance are they district courts? Does that mean they use commercial law only?
Do counties have their own higher courts for common law?
?

The courts service of ireland runs all the courts in Ireland. They receive money from the state to run the courts. It does not make a profit in fact it costs the state about 50 million a year on top of the Courts income. There are local courts for minor cases. Circuit courts for more serious cases then high court, appeals court, supreme Court and commercial court for case worth more than 1 million euros. What makes a court is its judges. So there are a certain amount of District judges circuit judges high court judge ect. So where ever a judge sits it becomes their court.

Torakx · 07-04-2016 1:00am

GM228 wrote: »

So (in terms of philosophy) your passing off "fact" as your knowledge that you think you have a high degree of confidence in about some possible truth as being indisputably (not absolutely, but to a high degree) true as opposed to actual fact?

This line of thought could go in many directions.
Like existentialism.

In the case of my interpretation of facts given to me, say on certain things being the case in law or legal terms. This fact is based on agreed opinion(this means this, that means that, because we agreed, although I didn't get to agree lol), which is based on a scenario leading from the inception of law and state bodies.
What is then fact, is an opinion based on an agreement, but still fact nonetheless from this perspective.
I'm not sure which is opinion and fact, because I have no frame of reference. It seems to be buried somewhere.
In general I agree with anything you can show me clearly in writing, from the people that make the rules for this particular system.
I understand that the rules are made and that this is then considered fact.
Outside of the system might be a different story though.

But at the moment it seems difficult to get a straight answer from anyone on the topic of person in legal terms.
Is there not some widely agreed upon definition and function for the use of the word "person"?
And then another one for the word "state"?
So everyone can see clearly what we mean when we speak to an agent of the law or state.
Don't they update definitions based on case records and judgements?
Can I have a manual or rules of the game please?

I mean to show, that I cannot possibly come to an agreement on something that is not shown to be agreed upon("fact") according to the rules.
I can adopt a similar perspective to the legal society etc and possibly agree to everything. But can I see what the rules are and definitions?
A law dictionary apparently is no use here.
What do I use to continue this discussion as a reference?

Torakx · 07-04-2016 1:19am

Deleted User wrote: »

Might as well clear this logical mess up.

You are creating a false syllogism here. Your basic logic boils down to the following:

An equivalently awful piece of logical fallacy would read thus:

Ignoring the fact for a moment that your posts are overrun with pseudo-legal nonsense, such as the unnecessary distinction between common law and commercial law, you appear to be attempting to form some kind of logical framework for the classic freeman* position of having a legal person and a natural person somehow existing separately within an individual. It is a basic and, in many cases, purposeful misunderstanding of legal terms.

*I use the term "freeman" as shorthand for any pseudo-legal nonsense arguments in much the same way the Canadian courts use OPCA Litigant

I almost missed this post!
A good one too.

I phrased it in such a way that it would be illogical.
Because it doesn't make sense and I want someone to show me how it should.
There are at least two different entities and a third variable to effect both, at play for it to make sense, i think.... I would like those things separated and explained. But I must drag it out of everyone here to find out

I do not know under which circumstances the term "person" is considered a human or a fiction.
If I could see where this has been agreed it would be appreciated.

I agree this is the same argument that is used by Freemen and also referred to as the strawman.
That was my thought years ago when I first heard about it.
I do not accept this logic as fact or true.
However it is the only one version that anyone cared to explain. Many more will follow behind me for that reason.
If the law society cannot clearly explain to the public, their own rules, what chance has the skeptic or trusting them?
I am here playing devils advocate for these questions, but not from a freeman perspective at all.
I need to kknow about unions and states. I am an anarchist, who wants to consolidate statism with anarchist principles.
A contradiction in terms in some fundamental ways you might think.
I don't give up that easy.
This overall thought process for me, is a combination of philosophy,law,politics and economics.
I have only covered a small bit of each,compared to whats out there.
Surely you folks can give me some slack lol

Torakx · 07-04-2016 1:34am

Thanks all for the replies.
I have some reading to do now on courts and general things relating to what we discussed.
I'll come back hopefully after I have a better understanding of the court system in Ireland.
I'll think more on how to approach this question of the state being a person and a person being a person.
And the idea that a human does not enter the terminology, if I understand you all correctly.
It may be just that simple. And I will try to confirm.
There will of course be a testing of the introduction of the birth cert and other arguments I may need to unlearn.

Someone mentioned the thread being a bit philosophical, what is a state, a person etc.
I want to continue with this reasoning with regards the birth certs and the whole foundations of the legitimacy of the state and the courts.

I'm not just questioning the status quo, but also the freemen perspective and any other perspective you care to mention.
Just looking to see how the system really functions and judge for myself if it is worthy of legitimate submission to it.
Or whether it should be scrapped :P Kidding.. I do appreciate some things.
There is good and bad in everything.

I'll be keeping an eye on the thread in the meantime

I'l try not to comment, until I have at least read up on something substantial.

Esel · 07-04-2016 3:20am

I tried to dig a hole under a canal bridge once. It kept filling up with water, so I stopped eventually. Lots of people fell into that 'puddle', but I never went under that bridge again. I just knew it was haunted. That's how it roll 's.

Robbo · 07-04-2016 12:35pm

Another recent case where summary judgment was granted against a lay litigant who brought the whole full court press of bull**** to the party, including a claim for €600,000 in damages.

Hard to say which group advised on this one. Further enquiries associate the lay litigant with both the Hub and Councillor Claire Cullinane (and her group Debtoptions) on this.

It's also interesting to note the timescale involved here. The bank didn't hang around once they realised what they were contending with. So when we get these rare admissions (as previously covered in this thread) from the crank litigant groups that the best they can do is buy time, this has no basis in reality.

Net result is the debtor is about €40k (plus, I'm guessing, some large High Court costs) worse off than if they had just played ball with the bank.

I've also been told recently about some shady goings on in the Land Registry which seem to tally with the "show me the originals!" warcry of the Freemen. Previously, when people were allowed inspect certain paperwork in the PRAI, they were usually let take it to a side desk in order to keep the staff at the counters free to deal with customers. After a few cases of paperwork "mysteriously disappearing" during these inspections, everything has to be conducted at the counter now.

Needless to say, the professionals in there doing their job are over the moon at the extra waiting involved as a layperson ties up the counter staff all day long.

Indricotherium · 07-04-2016 3:20pm

What is the (imagined) significance of the use of lower case I when fremen refer to themselves in correspondence?

cobhguy28 · 07-04-2016 3:48pm

Indricotherium wrote: »

What is the (imagined) significance of the use of lower case I when fremen refer to themselves in correspondence?

The freeman incorrectly believe that lower case names refer to humans, the person while higher case refers to the strawman. There is no basis for this at law anywhere. People use uppercase on letter ect because it makes it easier to read, stands out more nothing else.

Serjeant Buzfuz · 07-04-2016 4:54pm

Indricotherium wrote: »

What is the (imagined) significance of the use of lower case I when fremen refer to themselves in correspondence?

I dune no...

Grolschevik · 07-04-2016 4:58pm

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote:

I dune no...

They Drinks their own Piss!

Indricotherium · 07-04-2016 5:47pm

cobhguy28 wrote: »

The freeman incorrectly believe that lower case names refer to humans, the person while higher case refers to the strawman. There is no basis for this at law anywhere. People use uppercase on letter ect because it makes it easier to read, stands out more nothing else.

It's next to impossible to read I know that.

Cool Mo D · 08-04-2016 11:15pm

Somewhat terrifying recent Freeman-related case from the States...

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/08/police-find-%E2%80%98house-horrors%E2%80%99-arrest-sovereign-citizen

Finnbar01 · 10-04-2016 1:59am

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Somewhat terrifying recent Freeman-related case from the States...

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/08/police-find-%E2%80%98house-horrors%E2%80%99-arrest-sovereign-citizen

Southern poverty law center? They are just as batsh*t crazy as the freeman of the land movement.

whippet · 10-04-2016 8:32pm

Tom Darcy has the begging bowl out again, don't you know constitutional challenges don't pay for themselves? Considering the unmitigated disaster of the book he is now pimping himself out for 1 to 1 sessions on all things legal as he is a fully qualified legal something or other.

Of course all monies will go to rescuing the nation.

esforum · 10-04-2016 8:53pm

cobhguy28 wrote: »

The freeman incorrectly believe that lower case names refer to humans, the person while higher case refers to the strawman. There is no basis for this at law anywhere. People use uppercase on letter ect because it makes it easier to read, stands out more nothing else.

brilliant

Robbo · 11-04-2016 8:40am

whippet wrote: »

Tom Darcy has the begging bowl out again, don't you know constitutional challenges don't pay for themselves? Considering the unmitigated disaster of the book he is now pimping himself out for 1 to 1 sessions on all things legal as he is a fully qualified legal something or other.

Of course all monies will go to rescuing the nation.

Haven't really been keeping tabs on Tom recently but wasn't his case listed for hearing in the Supreme Court on March 15th.

No sign of it in the list now.

whippet · 11-04-2016 8:49am

Robbo wrote: »

Haven't really been keeping tabs on Tom recently but wasn't his case listed for hearing in the Supreme Court on March 15th.

No sign of it in the list now.

Any legal eagles here willing to give a ball park figure to what it would cost to bring a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court - factoring in the fact that Darcy and co. are lay litigants

Robbo · 11-04-2016 9:47am

whippet wrote: »

Any legal eagles here willing to give a ball park figure to what it would cost to bring a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court - factoring in the fact that Darcy and co. are lay litigants

As lay litigants, all you'll be paying is your court stamping fees and photocopying costs.

Tom, however, has enlisted professionals for this adventure. David Langwallner BL has certainly had some input into this. He'd be more noted as an academic but I believe he practices regularly enough.

whippet · 11-04-2016 9:54am

Robbo wrote: »

As lay litigants, all you'll be paying is your court stamping fees and photocopying costs.

Tom, however, has enlisted professionals for this adventure. David Langwallner BL has certainly had some input into this. He'd be more noted as an academic but I believe he practices regularly enough.

I am sure Langwallner is gifting his time on this case due to the importance and a couple of quid on stamp / copy costs surely Tom's book has raised more than enough money at this stage?

ArmaniJeanss · 11-04-2016 10:19am

Jerry Beades and the New Land Leaguers trying to stop the fire-sale of 1000 prize winning cows going ahead in Cork tomorrow.

Just a mere €2.5 Million debt owed by this family, much like in the O'Donnell case Jerry is proving to be the friend of the little guy.

cobhguy28 · 11-04-2016 4:09pm

whippet wrote: »

Tom Darcy has the begging bowl out again, don't you know constitutional challenges don't pay for themselves? Considering the unmitigated disaster of the book he is now pimping himself out for 1 to 1 sessions on all things legal as he is a fully qualified legal something or other.

Of course all monies will go to rescuing the nation.

1 on 1 session with a man who has lost every case he has run, thanks but no thanks.

ohnonotgmail · 11-04-2016 4:11pm

cobhguy28 wrote: »

1 on 1 session with a man who has lost every case he has run, thanks but no thanks.

sometimes it can be just as useful to learn what NOT to do

whippet · 11-04-2016 4:17pm

cobhguy28 wrote: »

1 on 1 session with a man who has lost every case he has run, thanks but no thanks.

not only that he has failed at every business venture he has attempted and always seems to blame everyone else ... coal man, taxi drive, high end property developer and now unofficial legal council

what a guy.....

when he is finished pulping the rest of his books he will be advertising his legal advice on groupon

Robbo · 11-04-2016 4:23pm

whippet wrote: »

not only that he has failed at every business venture he has attempted and always seems to blame everyone else ... coal man, taxi drive, high end property developer and now unofficial legal council

what a guy.....

when he is finished pulping the rest of his books he will be advertising his legal advice on groupon

Ah be fair, he's exploring new options for marketing his book...

PopePalpatine · 11-04-2016 6:38pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Southern poverty law center? They are just as batsh*t crazy as the freeman of the land movement.

Wait, what?

endacl · 11-04-2016 6:45pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Wait, what?

I think this thread is starting to effect people...

For Forks Sake · 11-04-2016 8:02pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Jerry Beades and the New Land Leaguers trying to stop the fire-sale of 1000 prize winning cows going ahead in Cork tomorrow.

Just a mere €2.5 Million debt owed by this family, much like in the O'Donnell case Jerry is proving to be the friend of the little guy.

A bog-standard herd of cattle no doubt :rolleyes:

Robbo · 12-04-2016 10:12am

ESB-gate is raging on with the Hub. They're threatening to sue a Facebook page for defamation for asking them to show the bill in question.

The comment thread is golden with Captain Capslock wading in (amongst others) and this work of art being produced.

whippet · 12-04-2016 10:16am

Robbo wrote: »

The comment thread is golden with Captain Capslock wading in (amongst others) and this work of art being produced.

seems legit .. where can I make a donation?

I can't understand how these legal eagles have been lumped with this bill. Surely their debt dodging legal brains can manage to get out of this one? I am assuming the landlord in question is the scarlet pimpernel Beades?

cobhguy28 · 12-04-2016 10:35am

whippet wrote: »

Tom Darcy has the begging bowl out again, don't you know constitutional challenges don't pay for themselves? Considering the unmitigated disaster of the book he is now pimping himself out for 1 to 1 sessions on all things legal as he is a fully qualified legal something or other.

Of course all monies will go to rescuing the nation.

The said they had ten thousand raised last July. Now upfront fees for filing affidavits, outlays ect even on a big case would not cost more than one or two thousand at the most. And if you win your case you get your fees so I wounder if it is their council who are looking for upfront fees. It tells you their belief in the case.

Robbo · 12-04-2016 11:57am

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Jerry Beades and the New Land Leaguers trying to stop the fire-sale of 1000 prize winning cows going ahead in Cork tomorrow.

Just a mere €2.5 Million debt owed by this family, much like in the O'Donnell case Jerry is proving to be the friend of the little guy.

An injunction was granted preventing protests and disruptions at the auctions. It seems, according to the receiver, like the debtors really salted the earth to frustrate them.

GavMan · 12-04-2016 12:00pm

cobhguy28 wrote: »

The said they had ten thousand raised last July. Now upfront fees for filing affidavits, outlays ect even on a big case would not cost more than one or two thousand at the most. And if you win your case you get your fees so I wounder if it is their council who are looking for upfront fees. It tells you their belief in the case.

Surely they can tell Tom is a stand up bloke and on his oath and would never walkaway from an outstanding bill or debt he owed.....

GavMan · 12-04-2016 12:04pm

Robbo wrote: »

An injunction was granted preventing protests and disruptions at the auctions. It seems, according to the receiver, like the debtors really salted the earth to frustrate them.

Some folk they are judging by the condition they've left the animals in....

TJJP · 12-04-2016 4:13pm

Meanwhile, down the courts....

"....strike out the plaintiff’s proceedings as against them, ..... , for being frivolous, vexatious, and bound to fail. I further accede to the application of the third named defendant to strike out the plaintiff’s proceedings pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction as they represent an abuse of process"

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/78e68648f437cc0780257f92003b28b5?OpenDocument

and earlier...

http://www.arthurcox.com/publications/lay-litigants-currency-vexing-issue-financial-institutions/

Robbo · 13-04-2016 7:40pm

Jerry Beades' Seanad election leaflet, where he declares himself a sponsor of The Hub.

whippet · 13-04-2016 8:21pm

You'd think he would pay the leccy bill he left them with

Robbo · 13-04-2016 8:49pm

whippet wrote: »

You'd think he would pay the leccy bill he left them with

There's a chance that might have been an invalid electricity bill where wind farms were used in generating the power. Gerry doesn't like wind farms.

Reading between the lines, ESB-gate is more a dispute with "former comrades" who may have pursued a different commercial model.

I've also just realised that the reason LLI moved premises again recently was because Mary Mall was taken over by a receiver. If only there had been access to some top class legal advice...

Robbo · 15-04-2016 1:28pm

Things got a little Blue Peter in the Hub with ESB-gate.

Meanwhile one of their Kerry accolytes was nearly pinched for contempt by the BAR agents of the Statutory Court Corporations. All because of the truth bombs he was dropping. It did end in the most pure of Freeman victories though; an adjournment.

As always, the Hub aren't Freemen because they say so. They just happen to use the same tactics, have many personnel in common and use the language of the Freeman/crank litigant.

hullaballoo · 15-04-2016 1:35pm

Top Comment on Facebook: "Fair Duce to ye"

Fred Swanson · 15-04-2016 1:45pm

This post has been deleted.

Chiorino · 15-04-2016 1:48pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah now, those infra-red lamps draw a fair current and judging by the regular stream of nonsense coming out of the Hub, they're growing a lot.

Graham · 15-04-2016 1:54pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They should switch to using hot-air and methane they could be completely self-sufficient.

Indricotherium · 15-04-2016 2:03pm

Is accusing a Judge of colluding with a plaintiff not a reasonably serious accusation?

What baffles me most, is the number of comments complimenting the clarity of the report!

L1011 · 15-04-2016 2:23pm

If they were tenants allegedly left with a previous tenants bill, why are they paying the "landlord supply" bill?

whippet · 15-04-2016 3:52pm

they keep dodging any questions as to why they are paying the landlord's bill.. i wonder why????

Freeman Megamerge

Comments