Freeman Megamerge

johnnyskeleton · 22-09-2011 1:49am

Jo King wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Well there is no DOCK in Irish law, so you can rest assured that Irish courts are not using Admiralty law. There is an admiral of the four courts who is permitted to birch unsuspecting English tourists who visit Dublin from time to time, but that more because of a misguided sense of nationalism than any retention of British Admiralty law.

There is no Admiral of the Four Courts. The position was abolished when the last one retired about three years ago.

That's the only thing you find objectionable in that quote

Reloc8 · 22-09-2011 2:08am

Jaysus people.

When you argue with an idiot an innocent bystander gets confused as to who is who.

Step away from the bull****.

jd · 22-09-2011 9:46am

bath handle wrote: »

A judge has no power to direct treatment of anyone in custody. Treatment in custody is a matter for the executive, not the judiciary. When is the High Court case?

The direction was to Sutton, not the Prison Service.

Milk & Honey · 22-09-2011 9:51am

jd wrote: »

The direction was to Sutton, not the Prison Service.

Only the Prison service can provide the treatment. How can he have given a direction to Sutton?

shaneybaby · 22-09-2011 11:05am

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Only the Prison service can provide the treatment. How can he have given a direction to Sutton?

That he (sutton) should go seek it?

jd · 22-09-2011 11:13am

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Only the Prison service can provide the treatment. How can he have given a direction to Sutton?

I'm just going by what was reported in the newspaper

In handing down sentence, Judge Zaidan said he would direct Mr Sutton to get “psychiatric treatment as appropriate” while in prison.

Milk & Honey · 22-09-2011 11:15am

shaneybaby wrote: »

That he (sutton) should go seek it?

The order was that Sutton receive treatment , not that he seek it. The committal order is addressed to the governor of the prison, not the accused. Once the accused is in the hands of the Governor any treatment he gets is a matter for the Governor. The only thing a judge can do is note that he thinks a person has a condition and recommend that they receive treatment.

Grolschevik · 22-09-2011 11:24am

derry wrote: »

Admiralty law is clearly the major theme in the British law which Ireland follows .The victim is in the DOCK which isbehind the rails which is where the ships rails are and the judge is captian of that ship .The victim has been dragged of the high seas (from his house usualy ) and as wayward ship who did something wrong like park on double yellow lines ( he is kept in the dock ) until the restitution is delivered (eg he pays the fine or the time in prision ) The time in prision is classed as the safest place for salvage (the victim is merely salvage from the high seas ) and the cell (battery cell ) extracts energy from the victim( the energy is classed as haviing value in luie of inabilty to pay the fines or replacement of damage the Judge believes has been done )

I love this bit!

derry wrote: »

However the judges can start cases in ireland under local BAR(British accredited Registery ) ... They donmt call the Brits devious for nmothing and ensuring Ireland kept the British legal ssytem meant we are still effectivly part of England except we just fly a different flag but the Irish Judges are only awnserable to the BAR or the QUEEN of England

And this bit!

Milk & Honey · 22-09-2011 11:45am

jd wrote: »

I'm just going by what was reported in the newspaper

Never a wise thing to do.
There are almost inevitably inaccuracies in any newspaper account of court proceedings. Most are trivial and most reports give a good account of what happened but some of the finer detail gets lost. The reporters in court sometimes don't hear fully, and often don't understand fully, what is going on. After the report is typed it is often edited by a sub-editor to fit it into a page.

ResearchWill · 22-09-2011 12:43pm

derry wrote: »

If your in front of judge in Ireland he only becomes a judge for commercial courts when there is two commercial entities who have a dispute for which they need a judge to sort out the problem.Until tit is established there is two commercial entities or they trick you to become a commercial entity the case cannot procceed

If a case is common law eg murder ,injury ,theft,damage to property the Judge is the judge automatically and all he has to do is reply criminal.

So it is the right of a victim in front of a court to request the judge clarify which it is civil or criminal the court he is in
If the judge says criminal then the case must be common law and not commercail law
If the judge says civil then the human isnt sopposed to be in that court unless he makes himself with the contract system a commesial entity so the judge is not his judge until the Judge can make him a commersial entity
Freemen will then often chose methods so as to not to be allowed to be converted into a person and then into a commesail entity

The Judges will try every trick possible not to say civil
Sorry the Hybrid trick wont wash is my info and shows hows desperate the Judges in ireland running a British legal system are to keep the curtian closed on the magic man behind the curtian in the yellow brick road

Admiralty law is clearly the major theme in the British law which Ireland follows .The victim is in the DOCK which isbehind the rails which is where the ships rails are and the judge is captian of that ship .The victim has been dragged of the high seas (from his house usualy ) and as wayward ship who did something wrong like park on double yellow lines ( he is kept in the dock ) until the restitution is delivered (eg he pays the fine or the time in prision ) The time in prision is classed as the safest place for salvage (the victim is merely salvage from the high seas ) and the cell (battery cell ) extracts energy from the victim( the energy is classed as haviing value in luie of inabilty to pay the fines or replacement of damage the Judge believes has been done )

The original laws were common law and for the high seas Admiralty law.Then they said well ships dont just use docks on the coast they use docks inland using canals . Admiralty law got spread inland along these routes .Then they said the docks in the city were with warehouses all over the city so the city must be Admiralty law.Eventulay all in the land roads houses the lot became Admiralty law.
However the judges can start cases in ireland under local BAR(British accredited Registery ) bye laws if they want and they often do .At any time they can switch to Admiralty law if the case is commercail or to common law if the case is criminal
The abuse of BAR Bye laws allow Judges to steer a way where they can make the case say its criminal be judged under Admiralty law civil laws rules where they can deliver weird and wonderful results they cant so easily do if the case is common law .
Under Admiralty law the victim is essentialy quity until he proves himself not guilty .Under common law the victim is innocent until proved guilty .The judges tend to prefer Admiralty law as they have the victim over a barrel . So judges can at any time swich between the Admiralty law BAR bye laws and common law without saying they have and change the goal posts whoile the game is in progress so to speak .They donmt call the Brits devious for nmothing and ensuring Ireland kept the British legal ssytem meant we are still effectivly part of England except we just fly a different flag but the Irish Judges are only awnserable to the BAR or the QUEEN of England

Ralf

Even a slim understanding of History and Language, would show up the above as being just wrong.

The Bar comes from the fact in times past the judge sat behind a rail, something like the rail in front of an altar. Lots of the trappings of court come from the time that church courts where as powerful as lay courts. So when a persons wanted his case heard he was called to the bar to address the judge. Over time lawyers began to act for persons hence the term called to the bar.

The training of Barristers in Ireland and the UK are done in Inns, the reason for this is that an older barrister in the past offered his wisdom to younger men who wished to practice law, in guess where an inn. Over time as the profession grew the tradition was kept in the names, and customs.

The word Dock, it is believed comes from the Dutch word Dok, which means cage, as the accused would have been in custody when he was in the dock.

The constant use of the term admiralty law, shows a total lack of any knowledge of the facts. In the 1870's with the passing of the Judicature Acts, which fused the disparate legal systems, including Admiralty in to one single legal system, while for example Equity and Admiralty remained in the legal principles in practice there was only one unified legal system.

The biggest problem with the Freeman stuff is that their historical view of the law is factually incorrect.

Marcusm · 22-09-2011 2:00pm

Given that there appears to be a little element of nationalism (or anti Englishness) with some of this, isn't it amusing that the Freemen if they truly aspire to that approach do not seek to eschew the common law system imposed by the English in the 17th century and revert to Brehon law?

bath handle · 22-09-2011 2:53pm

Marcusm wrote: »

Given that there appears to be a little element of nationalism (or anti Englishness) with some of this, isn't it amusing that the Freemen if they truly aspire to that approach do not seek to eschew the common law system imposed by the English in the 17th century and revert to Brehon law?

They do claim Brehon law is the law of Ireland. At least one of them on this forum did, a couple of years ago. Before he was banned.

jd · 22-09-2011 4:21pm

jd wrote:

I'm just going by what was reported in the newspaper
.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Never a wise thing to do.
.

True enough

mcmoustache · 22-09-2011 5:23pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

The biggest problem with the Freeman stuff is that their historical view of the law is factually incorrect.

Since when has that ever stopped an internet movement?

I have a friend who believes all this nonsense. He's into the zeitgeist movies and lots of other CT stuff as well but I suppose that if you can believe one daft theory, you can believe many daft theories. No amount of reason can convince him of how wrong he is. He just repeats lines from these websites despite them being shown to be wrong.

I can't understand it, really. It's like a religious belief or something. He has made up his mind that some crusties with an aversion to paying fines know more about the legal system than the legal profession itself. I sent him the details of the Sludds and Sutton cases and his reaction was that judges don't like to be corrected. So now it's a giant conspiracy to stop fine-dodgers from exercising their rights under the "True Legal System" which only crusties seem to know about.

The mind boggles.

Off-Topic but how does one go about having a person committed to one of our lovely mental institutions?

22-09-2011 5:35pm

The part of the whole thing that I find most amusing is that the Freemen assume that there is a large scale conspiracy specifically designed to take away your rights but, in order to do it, the Government and others are using a system that still technically abides by the real rules, they just trick you into accepting their own "legal fictions".

If a Government really wanted to conduct a conspiracy on this scale why would they still obey rules they are clearly trying to ignore? It's such a baffling belief system on so many levels.

@Mcmoustache: It is a religious movement. It really is.

Monty Burnz · 22-09-2011 5:36pm

derry wrote: »

The time in prision is classed as the safest place for salvage (the victim is merely salvage from the high seas ) and the cell (battery cell ) extracts energy from the victim( the energy is classed as haviing value in luie of inabilty to pay the fines or replacement of damage the Judge believes has been done )

That bit is hilarious. The combined wilful ignorance of etymology and scientific history - you couldn't make it up.

Reloc8 · 22-09-2011 5:50pm

I am a shape-changing lizard and I and my reptilian brethren run this country from my chambers.

Woops sorry Alan too soon ?

My office I meant. Yeah. Just an office.

Hisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

Scealta_saol · 22-09-2011 10:08pm

I think it's mostly about delusions... The Freeman folk tend to use this stuff for fine dodging. It'd be a lot easier if they just realised they got caught and they probably should've just paid up before it went to court.... That's my 2 cents anyway!

TylerIE · 22-09-2011 10:20pm

Scealta_saol wrote: »

I think it's mostly about delusions... The Freeman folk tend to use this stuff for fine dodging. It'd be a lot easier if they just realised they got caught and they probably should've just paid up before it went to court.... That's my 2 cents anyway!

But shur when your claiming the dole from the fictional state and dont have to take a day off work why wouldnt ya go to court for the laugh!

Ya know when the state is paying you to study the law you may as well demonstrate your knowledge.

Why would you give them their own money (oh sorry its not money - its called "notes" or "fiat currency") back to pay the fine?

But wait if its only fake money, why wouldnt you just give it to them to keep them quiet and save your time? Oh because you want the "fake" money for yourself! So its fake money they give you, its fake money they have, and its real money when they use it for cigs and drink? Ahhhh ookkkk, makes perfect sense!

Milk & Honey · 23-09-2011 10:35am

Freeman leaves court a free man!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/man-freed-after-judge-accepts-his-apology-2885709.html

A MAN who repeatedly challenged a judge to identify himself in court was released from custody last night after being jailed for contempt.

Aaron Milne (36) appeared at Waterford District Court yesterday charged with the possession of an offensive weapon, namely pepper spray, in the city some weeks ago.

When Mr Milne's name was called from the list yesterday morning, he stood up and told Judge David Kennedy that "I am here for that matter".

He later said to Judge Kennedy: "Are you addressing me?" prompting the judge to give him "more time".

However, when the matter was called again yesterday afternoon, Mr Milne said: "Who is addressing me? Say who you are, I don't know who you are."

Judge Kennedy asked Mr Milne if he was going to continue in such a manner.

Mr Milne then repeated the question three more times.

Judge Kennedy sentenced Mr Milne to seven days in jail for contempt of court.

However, Mr Milne was released yesterday after he returned to court to purge his contempt. He apologised to Judge Kennedy if he caused him any offence. The judge said that he did not take offence.

The matter was adjourned until November 10.

source · 23-09-2011 10:46am

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Freeman leaves court a free man!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/man-freed-after-judge-accepts-his-apology-2885709.html

A MAN who repeatedly challenged a judge to identify himself in court was released from custody last night after being jailed for contempt.

Aaron Milne (36) appeared at Waterford District Court yesterday charged with the possession of an offensive weapon, namely pepper spray, in the city some weeks ago.

When Mr Milne's name was called from the list yesterday morning, he stood up and told Judge David Kennedy that "I am here for that matter".

He later said to Judge Kennedy: "Are you addressing me?" prompting the judge to give him "more time".

However, when the matter was called again yesterday afternoon, Mr Milne said: "Who is addressing me? Say who you are, I don't know who you are."

Judge Kennedy asked Mr Milne if he was going to continue in such a manner.

Mr Milne then repeated the question three more times.

Judge Kennedy sentenced Mr Milne to seven days in jail for contempt of court.

However, Mr Milne was released yesterday after he returned to court to purge his contempt. He apologised to Judge Kennedy if he caused him any offence. The judge said that he did not take offence.

The matter was adjourned until November 10.

So he admitted he was wrong, apologised and was left out of jail, hardly a victory.

seamus · 23-09-2011 10:51am

I'm sensing a little bit of sarcasm in the OP.

source · 23-09-2011 11:01am

seamus wrote: »

I'm sensing a little bit of sarcasm in the OP.

Then maybe a title of Another Freeman "Victory", would have been better suited.

Monty Burnz · 23-09-2011 11:03am

Interesting to see how nonsense ideas spread through the population though, isn't it? Especially if people think there's something in it for them.

Viz. pyramid schemes.

Grolschevik · 23-09-2011 11:16am

Deleted User wrote: »

The part of the whole thing that I find most amusing is that the Freemen assume that there is a large scale conspiracy specifically designed to take away your rights but, in order to do it, the Government and others are using a system that still technically abides by the real rules, they just trick you into accepting their own "legal fictions".

And that the perpetrators of this vast, historic, sinister, sophisticated and complex conspiracy will be stunned, shocked and powerless over you once you point out that they aren't carrying their oath of office around in their back pocket.

Seriously, if there was such a conspiracy, would they not just kill you?:pac:

Robbo · 23-09-2011 2:30pm

Grolschevik wrote: »

And that the perpetrators of this vast, historic, sinister, sophisticated and complex conspiracy will be stunned, shocked and powerless over you once you point out that they aren't carrying their oath of office around in their back pocket.

Seriously, if there was such a conspiracy, would they not just kill you?:pac:

Not having a large medallion like oath on your person at all times is like that one unguarded exhaust port in the Death Star.

Which must make Bobby Sludds the equivalent of Jek Porkins...

FreudianSlippers · 23-09-2011 3:21pm

FreudianSlippers · 23-09-2011 3:22pm

source wrote: »

Then maybe a title of Another Freeman "Victory", would have been better suited.

"Another" "Freeman" "Victory"

Threads merged.

Reloc8 · 24-09-2011 9:17am

Freemans seem to spend a fair amount of time banged up in prison do they not, if you're into irony.

not even wrong · 24-09-2011 11:08am

Reloc8 wrote: »

Freemans seem to spend a fair amount of time banged up in prison do they not, if you're into irony.

If a freeman wins even the most minor point on even the most technical of grounds, it's a glorious and historic victory which once and for all conclusively proves the truth of freeman ideology.

If a freeman loses completely and winds up in jail for contempt, then well it's just more proof of how corrupt the legal system is.

Lab_Mouse · 24-09-2011 12:00pm

not even wrong wrote: »

If a freeman wins even the most minor point on even the most technical of grounds, it's a glorious and historic victory which once and for all conclusively proves the truth of freeman ideology.

If a freeman loses completely and winds up in jail for contempt, then well it's just more proof of how corrupt the legal system is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QKAbuoB24U

shaneybaby · 27-09-2011 10:00pm

in dictrict court today in the south east and this shenanigans was pulled. refused to MAKE the bail application so the judge couldn't even grant him anything. Ridiculous guy poking and prodding him to say stuff, poor fella was just a patsy. if you're reading this guy who was his "buddy" (there's a term for this which i forget, a friend in court who can help you out...) well you're a bloody disgrace who knows nothing about the law or anything sane for that matter. That fella (i took a full note of the thing actually) is back on remand for a full week and you walk around free as a bird.

jd · 27-09-2011 10:29pm

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/outspoken-sludds-facing-time-in-jail-2888387.html

Enniscourthyguardian.ie
Outspoken Sludds facing time in jail
A COUNTY Wexford man who failed to sign a peace bond could face seven months in jail.
..
The defendant – who prefers to be known as Bobby of the family Sludds (he also dismissed 'Bobby Oliver Sludds' as a
'fictional entity') – subsequently failed to sign the bond in the seven days he was given to make up his mind.
It's understood he eventually turned up at Wexford District Court headquarters in Ardcavan to sign it two days after the
deadline.
..
However, he then failed to
appear at Wexford District Court on Monday of last week, where his application was due to be heard.
-

shaneybaby · 27-09-2011 10:33pm

jd wrote: »

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/outspoken-sludds-facing-time-in-jail-2888387.html

"comically" this actually wasn't the case i saw. god help us they're multiplying....

jd · 27-09-2011 10:40pm

shaneybaby wrote: »

"comically" this actually wasn't the case i saw. god help us they're multiplying....

There seems to be a big enough crowd of them in Waterford and Wexford.

Monty Burnz · 27-09-2011 11:21pm

jd wrote: »

There seems to be a big enough crowd of them in Waterford and Wexford.

You're a long way from a university out that way...

28-09-2011 10:32am

shaneybaby wrote: »

(there's a term for this which i forget, a friend in court who can help you out...)

McKenzie Friend.

Finnbar01 · 28-09-2011 10:41am

shaneybaby wrote: »

in dictrict court today in the south east and this shenanigans was pulled. refused to MAKE the bail application so the judge couldn't even grant him anything. Ridiculous guy poking and prodding him to say stuff, poor fella was just a patsy. if you're reading this guy who was his "buddy" (there's a term for this which i forget, a friend in court who can help you out...) well you're a bloody disgrace who knows nothing about the law or anything sane for that matter. That fella (i took a full note of the thing actually) is back on remand for a full week and you walk around free as a bird.

This is what I find distressing as well. When I converse with these freemen, I often point out the fact that the freeman gurus never practise what they preach nor show any evidence of their successes.

Why anyone would go down the freeman route without demanding and reviewing evidence from these gurus astounds me.

mcmoustache · 28-09-2011 11:46am

shaneybaby wrote: »

in dictrict court today in the south east and this shenanigans was pulled. refused to MAKE the bail application so the judge couldn't even grant him anything. Ridiculous guy poking and prodding him to say stuff, poor fella was just a patsy. if you're reading this guy who was his "buddy" (there's a term for this which i forget, a friend in court who can help you out...) well you're a bloody disgrace who knows nothing about the law or anything sane for that matter. That fella (i took a full note of the thing actually) is back on remand for a full week and you walk around free as a bird.

Is there a link to this or is this another of Bobby of the family Sludds's shenanigans in court?

There's a friend of mine who believes this nonsense (as well as other paranoid CT stuff) and I've been sending him links to these hilarious stories. I have this possibly misguided idea that if I show him the results of people trying this nonsense in court and failing that he might finally see the light. Then again, his reasons for believing this rubbish was unlikely to be rational in the first place so I might be wasting my time.

shaneybaby · 28-09-2011 12:18pm

Deleted User wrote: »

McKenzie Friend.

Yes that's it. I had hickory friend in my head for some reason and all i could keep thinking of was that basketball film with Gene Hackman
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoosiers )

anyway i digress.

I'm swamped a bit today but i'll post a full account of what happened when i get a chance, if only to show that this stuff is completely misguided. Once i heard him ask for the "trial" to be digitally recorded i just started taking notes to pass the time. Obviously i have the guys name and the DC it was on in but there was no court reporter there that day. to be fair he seemed genuine but hugely confused and definitely misguided.

Finnbar01 · 28-09-2011 12:31pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is there a link to this or is this another of Bobby of the family Sludds's shenanigans in court?

There's a friend of mine who believes this nonsense (as well as other paranoid CT stuff) and I've been sending him links to these hilarious stories. I have this possibly misguided idea that if I show him the results of people trying this nonsense in court and failing that he might finally see the light. Then again, his reasons for believing this rubbish was unlikely to be rational in the first place so I might be wasting my time.

You're probably wasting your time with your friend. If anything you'll end up re-enforcing his beliefs.

ANSI · 28-09-2011 2:17pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is there a link to this or is this another of Bobby of the family Sludds's shenanigans in court?

This it?

Monty Burnz · 28-09-2011 2:25pm

ANSI wrote: »

This it?

You can imagine the howls of outrage on LaaaaveLaaaaaahn about some poor boy being sent to jail for not having car insurance. He seems determined to do time.

jd · 28-09-2011 2:38pm

This is their website
http://freemanireland.ning.com/

They seem big into pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and assorted woo.

Some comments on this case by them

MagicSean · 28-09-2011 3:02pm

jd wrote: »

This is their website
http://freemanireland.ning.com/

They seem big into pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and assorted woo.

Some comments on this case by them

Hilarious website. The comments on the piece about the freedom bus being stolen were very amusing.

mcmoustache · 28-09-2011 3:09pm

jd wrote: »

This is their website
http://freemanireland.ning.com/

They seem big into pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and assorted woo.

Some comments on this case by them

:eek:

Well, I'm not that surprised. If there is one thing that the internet has taught me over the years, it's that any idiot can make a website spouting the most insane theories known to man. And a corollary to that would be that as time goes by, the dumbest opinions on the internet will only get dumber.

mcmoustache · 28-09-2011 3:16pm

ANSI wrote: »

This it?

Thanks, but that's not it. I'm familiar with little Bobby Sludds. He's the man who inspired this great thread.

Shaneybaby said he'll post more details when he has the time.

mcmoustache · 28-09-2011 3:34pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

You're probably wasting your time with your friend. If anything you'll end up re-enforcing his beliefs.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. On the other hand he wouldn't have the guts to try this stuff in court so at least he's not putting his ideas into practice like the looneys from this thread. He's not driving around without insurance or anything like that. Oddly, he's studying law so that might get some sense into him.

Lab_Mouse · 28-09-2011 7:19pm

jd wrote: »

This is their website
http://freemanireland.ning.com/

They seem big into pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and assorted woo.

Some comments on this case by them

they post regularly over in the CT forum where they spout their own brand of bolloxology.

They only seem to try and get off sh1tty charges like driving without insurance,drink driving and what have you.

Finnbar01 · 29-09-2011 11:01am

Just read this whole thread again. Very interesting and funny reading.

At times like this, I wish I were a garda. I would go out of my way to get one of those freeman gurus into court and show him up for the fool and conman that he is too his supporters.

I would make it my mission!

Freeman Megamerge

Comments