Gardai, Government, Privately owned Corporations. Enslavement

K-9

Hootanany wrote: »

What does the Judge do then

In non jury cases, he weighs up the evidence and decides whether to convict or not.

The prosecution in local courts is often the local Superintendent in the Guards.

In jury cases, the jury decides.

squod

What I said.......

squod wrote: »

Oh god, enlighten us all so.

What you said........

drkpower wrote: »

And while you are at it, try and explain 'common law' to us and why we arent 'using it' enough......

So to sumarize, I asked you to enlighten us. You haven't. The most likely reason is because you can not. You'd rather troll on through the thread and contribute nothing. I don't see why you posted here at all.

phantom_lord

Any chance you could answer my question Squod? I've asked you a couple of times.

phantom_lord wrote: »

how can we "use common law more often?" and why would lead to a higher success rate?

Torakx

I appreciate a decent response thanks robtri
Was reading the pdf guide from that site you linked.

Heres some things i copy pasted out of it.

The DPP prosecutes all serious crimes and sometimes less
serious crimes

So he doesnt prosecute all crimes.If i go to court from breaking the law(traffic violation) am i being accused of a crime?

7. Are there different types of criminal offence?
There are two types of criminal offence – summary offences
and indictable offences.

Summary offences:
• are less serious crimes;
• are heard by a judge without a jury in the District
Court;
• cannot carry a prison sentence of more than 12
months for one offence (but for more than one
offence a judge can impose a maximum prison
sentence of 2 years in some cases).

Indictable offences:
• are more serious crimes;
• are heard by a judge and jury in the Circuit Court
or the Central Criminal Court;
• are sometimes dealt with in the Special Criminal
Court by three judges without a jury;
• carry more serious penalties, including life
imprisonment for some crimes.

So here its saying if im a criminal il be prosecuted by the dpp.
But sometimes the dpp prosecutes on less serious crimes.
So when the dpp doesnt in the case of less serious crimes who is prosecuting?
I would presume its the judge on behalf of the people of Ireland(and the dpp too?)
Why is there an inconsistancy there? Surely if the dpp is the prosecuter and the law has been broken he will have a representative in the courts to hear about my traffic violation and said representative will be prosecuting me if i am found guilty.
Also in the district courts isnt it the judge that passes sentence and decides IF you are guilty based on the evidence provided in the court on that day?
If you call a judge on his oath i think it might have something to do with being a person of the land and i think the sheriff would be involved also to some extent.Im not up on that part as i am just passing on what i had heard was possible,not what i would try myself.


Since writing the post there has been some posts.
Is it the Bailiff that prosecute a person over a traffic violation(crime?)?
If so maybe that is the key to disabling the judges ability to biased.Tbh watching the anti terrorist video may have the answer i probably just forgot lol

thecommander

Any chance of showing where this has worked in court? Like a real case?

A few examples might put this thing to bed. Anyone?

phantom_lord

thecommander wrote: »

Any chance of showing where this has worked in court? Like a real case?

A few examples might put this thing to bed. Anyone?

Yeah I asked the same question a bunch of times and no one came up with anything.

thecommander

phantom_lord wrote: »

Yeah I asked the same question a bunch of times and no one came up with anything.

Its the fifth time I've asked over 54 pages. Thought it mightn't have been seen.

Torakx

Well you have examples via video.I dont have a court case to show you because i havent tried it myself.Not many have because people are regularly abused by the legal system and gardai when standing up for themselves.The ones that do stand up for themselves sometimes get caught out with play of words or just steamrolled and man handled.
there are other cases if you research the english ones that might bring better results.
Theres one guy cant remember his name now but he was doign alot of protesting and being very vocal.Has been abducted and not charged many times by the police.Most times he was arrested he was thrown in a cell for a day or so and then released because they cvouldnt charge him with anything.It appears they just want to cause him trouble in return for speaking out.Theres youtube vids of him also.To be honest i have too much on my plate atm.But research lead me to that info and i believe it may do the same for anyone else that is genuinely interested.
I agree with you guys that we should have solid evidence,i dont have any myself and thats why i wont be doing this in a court any time soon(if i ever end up in one again at all).I do however think somethign is definetly up.Why are people being literally grabbed off the streets manhandled,put in cells and then released the next day?
For walking down the wrong street sometimes seems all the police in england need in some areas.It isnt much better over here i can assure you.
I have a friend who was assaulted by a garda for being in an industrial estate with 2 other friends.Was taken down on the ground with a torch to the knee after the garda ran at him with torch held high.Then from what i remember him telling me he was askign the garda why are you doing this? and the garda kept hitting him as he was on his back.
Now its a bit of a story to be telling but my point is the system is corrupt.And there are alot of people utterly sick of it.So i dont blame anyone for looking for ways to counter this corruption.
It isnt about getting off your credit card debt(which i think is an unlawfull contract anyway) its about being able to walk down the damn street minding your own business without being hassled by people apparently workign for us the people of Ireland or whatever country.

robtri

Torakx wrote: »

I appreciate a decent response thanks robtri
Was reading the pdf guide from that site you linked.

Heres some things i copy pasted out of it.

So he doesnt prosecute all crimes.If i go to court from breaking the law(traffic violation) am i being accused of a crime?


So here its saying if im a criminal il be prosecuted by the dpp.
But sometimes the dpp prosecutes on less serious crimes.
So when the dpp doesnt in the case of less serious crimes who is prosecuting?
I would presume its the judge on behalf of the people of Ireland(and the dpp too?)
Why is there an inconsistancy there? Surely if the dpp is the prosecuter and the law has been broken he will have a representative in the courts to hear about my traffic violation and said representative will be prosecuting me if i am found guilty.
Also in the district courts isnt it the judge that passes sentence and decides IF you are guilty based on the evidence provided in the court on that day?
If you call a judge on his oath i think it might have something to do with being a person of the land and i think the sheriff would be involved also to some extent.Im not up on that part as i am just passing on what i had heard was possible,not what i would try myself.


Since writing the post there has been some posts.
Is it the Bailiff that prosecute a person over a traffic violation(crime?)?
If so maybe that is the key to disabling the judges ability to biased.Tbh watching the anti terrorist video may have the answer i probably just forgot lol

In cases of less serious crimes and offences, the judge still does not prosecute, in those cases a superintent will act on behalf of the dpp and be the prosecutor.

Have u actually been in a courtroom before and wathced how the system works??????
i used to be in court quite a lot(work, not myself in trouble), the jusge is exactly that a judge.. he does not prosecute, the prosecutor(i.e. the DPP or local garda) present the case for the prosecution and the defendant does his cae...
jury or judge then decides on guilt or not and judge then passes sentance...


on the oath, please tell me how it refers to common law only... it says LAW not common or maritime or comercial, just LAW...
which would encompass common and legistive law

drkpower

squod wrote: »

So to sumarize, I asked you to enlighten us. You haven't. The most likely reason is because you can not. You'd rather troll on through the thread and contribute nothing. I don't see why you posted here at all.

You are the one who said we dont use commmon law enough, or something to that effect, yet when asked a number of times to explain what that means, you run away.....:D:D:D

Ill start: Common law is one of a number of sources of law.

Now your turn. And please tell us why we dont use it enough; i'd say ive used it about 7 times already today.

At least try Squod, otherwise it looks like you dont have much of a clue....

squod

From the top then.

So to sumarize, I asked you to enlighten us. You haven't. The most likely reason is because you can not. You'd rather troll on through the thread and contribute nothing. I don't see why you posted here at all.

drkpower wrote: »

You are the one who said we dont use commmon law enough, or something to that effect, yet when asked a number of times to explain what that means, you run away.....:D:D:D

As I said, I asked you!

drkpower wrote: »

Ill start: Common law is one of a number of sources of law.

Now your turn. And please tell us why we dont use it enough; i'd say ive used it about 7 times already today.

Proves my point for me, you would rather troll on this thread and contribute nothing.

drkpower wrote: »

At least try Squod, otherwise it looks like you dont have much of a clue....

Another example of a poster who would rather turn a discussion into a slagging match. Very little will be achieve by continuing with you. I'd suggest you should print this post, roll it up into a ball and stick it where the sun don't shine.

drkpower

No answer then.....?:D:D:D

squod

drkpower wrote: »

No answer then.....?:D:D:D

squod wrote: »

I asked you!

Try concentrate here.

drkpower

squod wrote: »

Try concentrate here.

I asked you first sweetie.
And I gave you an answer - its one of a number of sources of law - and then asked you to contribute.

Then you ran away.

phantom_lord

squod wrote: »

Another example of a poster who would rather turn a discussion into a slagging match. Very little will be achieve by continuing with you. I'd suggest you should print this post, roll it up into a ball and stick it where the sun don't shine.

he's only following up from the question that i asked you a bunch of times that you still haven't answered.

Torakx

robtri wrote: »

In cases of less serious crimes and offences, the judge still does not prosecute, in those cases a superintent will act on behalf of the dpp and be the prosecutor.

Have u actually been in a courtroom before and wathced how the system works??????
i used to be in court quite a lot(work, not myself in trouble), the jusge is exactly that a judge.. he does not prosecute, the prosecutor(i.e. the DPP or local garda) present the case for the prosecution and the defendant does his cae...
jury or judge then decides on guilt or not and judge then passes sentance...


on the oath, please tell me how it refers to common law only... it says LAW not common or maritime or comercial, just LAW...
which would encompass common and legistive law

Finally man, why dont you engage me like this more often!

This is exaclty what ive been trying to figure out.While being attacked from a couple of people for just getitng the info out there and trying to figure out why these people are not being prosecuted.
Why does a person have to contract to be under jurisdiction?
If a crime is done then the sheriff surely has given jurisdiction to the dpp and judge to prosecute people committing crimes like resisting arrest or refusal to be searched.
Now afaik if a garda wants to search you on the street without valid reason you do not have to obey him.he works for you.
So in alot of cases guys are being arrested for not wanting to be searched..except they arent officially arrested(in cases where they do not contract) they are held in a cell for 24 hrs if they do not identify themselves and let out the next day.
This gives me reason to question why cant that garda arrest the person? as appose to just giving up after 24 hrs and letting them go?
These kind of things make me suspect the whole common law or something is iffy.I just know it isnt how ive been lead to believe.Ive seen enough videos to at least get an idea that they cannot just search you without warrant or good reason.

Btw i have been to court once over some tax and insurance tickets that were unpaid.I didnt meet the dpp or anyone that was prosecuting me.
just met the judge and the garda who was a bit pissed when he couldnt pin an insurance fine to me.
I guess prosecution isnt done in the courtroom but later on paper?

Drumpot

Just read bits of this thread . .

Seriously its very very simple . . There is no conspiracy in relation to this kind of thread . . Its actually quite simple and its there for us all to see. .

A conspiracy implies that something is being hidden from us . . Hmm . . Right . . In any western democracy its very very simple and theres not really a proper attempt to hide the truth from us (its just general media is spoonfed hype that it idiotically believes are facts!) . .

If you have money, chances are you have power . . Not just buying power, but also leverage against people in positions of power . .

Now, of course FF have reason to "protect" certain individuals I hear some say . . Well, actually, no they dont, they have reason to worry about other things because the electorate dont really give two sh*ts about "accountability", its more about what sounds nice . .

Irish Law currently protects those who are really the main perpetrators in the disaster that has befallen us. . The old saying is that the weels turn very slowly in Irish politics, but more importantly political will is swayed by the electorate. . While we bitch and moan about what has happened, the Irish People dont really want change, they just dont want FF . .

How many of you people here have been outside Leinster House picketing about the whole debacle? I dont question you are as Fked off as most people are with the situation , but what have you actually done to get justice served?

It never ceases to amaze me how angry people get in Ireland, but how little they are prepared to do to actually act on their own beliefs . .

This should not be in the conspiracy thread . . In truth, a government will do Fk all if thats really what its people want . . Is anybody really that deluded/stupid to think that a labour/FG led government will clean out Irish politics . . :rolleyes:

There is NO CONSPIRACY , only laziness on behalf of the original OP and other moaners on this thread . . You get what you demand in a democracy . . . .

robtri

Torakx wrote: »

Finally man, why dont you engage me like this more often!

This is exaclty what ive been trying to figure out.While being attacked from a couple of people for just getitng the info out there and trying to figure out why these people are not being prosecuted.

they are been prosecuted, thats why they end up in jail

Torakx wrote: »

Why does a person have to contract to be under jurisdiction?

they dont have to contract, the law is the law, whether common law or legislative law.....you dont have options to opt out of the law...
I do assume u understand the difference between what common law is and legislative law???
actually if you dont mind could you tell me what u actually believe each one is??

Torakx wrote: »

If a crime is done then the sheriff surely has given jurisdiction to the dpp and judge to prosecute people committing crimes like resisting arrest or refusal to be searched.

the sherriff? whos that then???

Torakx wrote: »

Now afaik if a garda wants to search you on the street without valid reason you do not have to obey him.he works for you.

afaik yes they need a valid reason, otherwise u dont have to agree and also they cannot arrest or detain you for that.... thats the law nothing to do with him working for you... cause they dont work FOR you, they work for the state.

Torakx wrote: »

So in alot of cases guys are being arrested for not wanting to be searched..except they arent officially arrested(in cases where they do not contract) they are held in a cell for 24 hrs if they do not identify themselves and let out the next day.

who is being arrested for not wanting to be searched??????? first i have heard of this, can you elaborate??

Torakx wrote: »

This gives me reason to question why cant that garda arrest the person? as appose to just giving up after 24 hrs and letting them go?

hun???? not sure what u mean

Torakx wrote: »

These kind of things make me suspect the whole common law or something is iffy.I just know it isnt how ive been lead to believe.Ive seen enough videos to at least get an idea that they cannot just search you without warrant or good reason.

you are correct they cannot search you without reason, thats the law ( mind you they are plenty of laws/acts that have stop and search stuff in them, if the garda suspect anything, which is as close as u can get to they can stop and search you when they feel like it and detain u if you dont co-operate see http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939/en/act/pub/0013/sec0030.html
)

Torakx wrote: »

Btw i have been to court once over some tax and insurance tickets that were unpaid.I didnt meet the dpp or anyone that was prosecuting me.
just met the judge and the garda who was a bit pissed when he couldnt pin an insurance fine to me.
I guess prosecution isnt done in the courtroom but later on paper?

In that case it was the Garda who was acting for the prosecution....
no the prosecution is done in courtroom,
garda had his chance for the state to prove his case against u, he failed (by the sounds of it) so the judge didnt prosecute you for any offences.
If you where found guilty, the judge would have given you orally your fine and/or prison sentance. Obviously paperwork and records to be filed later. but the judges hands sentenace in court

Torakx

they are been prosecuted, thats why they end up in jail

Im talking about the people who do not end up in jail or prosecuted in a court.just forced into a car and then a cell until i presume the Gardai have no choice but to release them.More info on that too if you have any would be great.

they dont have to contract, the law is the law, whether common law or legislative law.....you dont have options to opt out of the law...
I do assume u understand the difference between what common law is and legislative law???
actually if you dont mind could you tell me what u actually believe each one is??

Il give it a try!
Afaik legislative law is written up and becomes law when inacted.The common law as i was lead to believe is more based on the constitution.Yes acts are supposed as law but obviously there is something im missing.As i have read the constitution and i didnt see anything about resisting arrest.

the sherriff? whos that then???

I dont know there names.Try google might show up some answers.
Or god forbid you use tir na saor where you will surely find the answer hehe

afaik yes they need a valid reason, otherwise u dont have to agree and also they cannot arrest or detain you for that.... thats the law nothing to do with him working for you... cause they dont work FOR you, they work for the state.

The state is in place and has its power by the will of the people of Ireland i had thought.Is it a rogue state now? O.o

who is being arrested for not wanting to be searched??????? first i have heard of this, can you elaborate??

Really?? I find that hard to believe.Or have i really taken my research for granted ^^
Have you ever looked into any of this stuff? its honestly quite easy to find a video of someone being abducted for refusing to be searched for no reason.
Was a good one might of been youtube where the guy was dragged into a police car in england by two officers.Then when they tried to get him in to the cop shop he was able to talk his way out because he knew more than them about his rights it seemed.Anyway lots of cases which you can find while looking into police arrests.try searchign around youtube with different key words.

hun???? not sure what u mean

this is what i said "This gives me reason to question why cant that garda arrest the person? as appose to just giving up after 24 hrs and letting them go?"

you are correct they cannot search you without reason, thats the law ( mind you they are plenty of laws/acts that have stop and search stuff in them, if the garda suspect anything, which is as close as u can get to they can stop and search you when they feel like it and detain u if you dont co-operate see http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939/en/act/pub/0013/sec0030.html
)

This doesnt hold up for me yet.Did you see the video(probably on first page of this thread) were the irish lad had a camera in his car when the garda pulled him.eventually there were two gardai and one of them threatened that he could take the car or arrest him..Yet he carried on as he was going and they didnt arrest him.
I dont put that down to gardai being nice guys as theywere still trying after that to get jurisdiction.

In that case it was the Garda who was acting for the prosecution....
no the prosecution is done in courtroom,
garda had his chance for the state to prove his case against u, he failed (by the sounds of it) so the judge didnt prosecute you for any offences.
If you where found guilty, the judge would have given you orally your fine and/or prison sentance. Obviously paperwork and records to be filed later. but the judges hands sentenace in court

That sounds like thats how it might work alright.

drkpower

Torakx wrote: »

Il give it a try!
Afaik legislative law is written up and becomes law when inacted.The common law as i was lead to believe is more based on the constitution.Yes acts are supposed as law but obviously there is something im missing.As i have read the constitution and i didnt see anything about resisting arrest.

Good grief.
About 3 minutes of googling would provide you with a better understanding of what common law is than you have right now.

Embarrassing.

robtri

Torakx wrote: »

Im talking about the people who do not end up in jail or prosecuted in a court.just forced into a car and then a cell until i presume the Gardai have no choice but to release them.More info on that too if you have any would be great.

The gardai have the power to detain people if they suspect them of doing wrong, they just have to suspect it, once they sort out the details, they can let them go with or without prosecution, not every detainee will be prosecuted.. Unless u have a specific case in mind, i really cant answer this question, it is far to generalised.

Torakx wrote: »

Il give it a try!
Afaik legislative law is written up and becomes law when inacted.The common law as i was lead to believe is more based on the constitution.Yes acts are supposed as law but obviously there is something im missing.As i have read the constitution and i didnt see anything about resisting arrest.

Actually Common law is defines as laws that come into being as judged declared laws, here's Wiki answers, they can explain it better than i am trying too
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (also called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[3] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts.


Common law is not based on our consitutuion ... so u wont find any help there... the consituion is our statment of rights, it does not encompass all legal laws nor is it intended to.

Torakx wrote: »

I dont know there names.Try google might show up some answers.
Or god forbid you use tir na saor where you will surely find the answer hehe

thank you i wont use tir na saor...
without being funny you raised the name sherrif as an being someone who gives jurisdicition .... and yet you have no idea who or what the sherrif is??
why give that answer when you cant explain it??? or know nothing about the sherrif or what his roles are in Irish society

Torakx wrote: »

The state is in place and has its power by the will of the people of Ireland i had thought.Is it a rogue state now? O.o

correct, but that doesnt mean the Gardai work for YOU....

Torakx wrote: »

Really?? I find that hard to believe.Or have i really taken my research for granted ^^
Have you ever looked into any of this stuff? its honestly quite easy to find a video of someone being abducted for refusing to be searched for no reason.

well if it so easy can you show me a video with all the events leading up to someone being abducted by the gardai with no reason. if it that easy that shouldnt be an issue then.

Torakx wrote: »

Was a good one might of been youtube where the guy was dragged into a police car in england by two officers.Then when they tried to get him in to the cop shop he was able to talk his way out because he knew more than them about his rights it seemed.Anyway lots of cases which you can find while looking into police arrests.try searchign around youtube with different key words.

this is ireland not the UK... last time i looked thats what this thread is about. Ireland. you say they are so easy to find so please show me i am wrong.

Torakx wrote: »

This doesnt hold up for me yet.Did you see the video(probably on first page of this thread) were the irish lad had a camera in his car when the garda pulled him.eventually there were two gardai and one of them threatened that he could take the car or arrest him..Yet he carried on as he was going and they didnt arrest him.
I dont put that down to gardai being nice guys as theywere still trying after that to get jurisdiction.

that video proves nothing, still doesnt, he was speeding, refused to give his name, as the gardai said they COULD arrest him if the wanted too, but it is not mandatory that they do arrest him.
The had the name and address of the vehicle owner, and u can be sure a fine was sent in the post to the owner of the vehicle, as he the owner is ultimately responsible for decalring to the garda who was driving and who will get the points on the licence and the fine.



That sounds like thats how it might work alright.[/QUOTE]

Torakx

drkpower wrote: »

Good grief.
About 3 minutes of googling would provide you with a better understanding of what common law is than you have right now.

Embarrassing.

Please dont stop there ^^ by all means explain it better.
Funnily enough i googled it now and looks ok to me considering i was going from the top of my head.
But hell would you stick your neck out like that..doubtful.You probably would copy paste it from google somewhere.At least i make an effort and speak MY mind.
But seriously post what it really is and how it really works at least you will have contributed one post to the forum that i could remember you by.
Or i can remember you like i do some other people whos posts i do not see anymore.No skin off my nose honestly.You can treat other people respectfully or let them see you for who you are but respectful can sometimes bring better results unless you purposefully look for arguements online for some reason.

Edit: robtri got in before me lol
I actualy remember that now about the common laws and previous judgements i had looked it up but forgotten.
I would think the constitution is the foundation of all laws no?the first commonly known laws put down on paper for the republic of Ireland.
Maybe im wrong again.Im extremely tired lol
not alot of recorded cases yet in ireland unfortunatly.Its not anywhere as bad as england yet.

ps talk to you guys later i am hitting the hay for an hour or so.Niece chatting..mostly

drkpower

Torakx wrote: »

I would think the constitution is the foundation of all laws no?the first commonly known laws put down on paper for the republic of Ireland.
Maybe im wrong again.Im extremely tired lol
not alot of recorded cases yet in ireland unfortunatly.Its not anywhere as bad as england yet.

Yes, you are wrong again. Well done. We had two constitutions before we were a Republic.

No, not a lot of recorded cases in ireland yet....... :rolleyes::D Please tell me there is some context to that statement. It kind of got dropped in the middle of your stream of conciousness so its hard to tell if you mean that there are not many recorded case at all in ireland or just on this ridiculous 'freeman' nonsense you keep rabbitting on about. If its the former, that is funny; if its the latter, there are no recorded cases in England either (other than cases dismissing the idea).

Seriously, do you not find it a little embarassing to post on topics about which you have no idea whatsoever?

K-9

Torakx wrote: »

Please dont stop there ^^ by all means explain it better.
Funnily enough i googled it now and looks ok to me considering i was going from the top of my head.
But hell would you stick your neck out like that..doubtful.You probably would copy paste it from google somewhere.At least i make an effort and speak MY mind.
But seriously post what it really is and how it really works at least you will have contributed one post to the forum that i could remember you by.
Or i can remember you like i do some other people whos posts i do not see anymore.No skin off my nose honestly.You can treat other people respectfully or let them see you for who you are but respectful can sometimes bring better results unless you purposefully look for arguements online for some reason.

Edit: robtri got in before me lol
I actualy remember that now about the common laws and previous judgements i had looked it up but forgotten.
I would think the constitution is the foundation of all laws no?the first commonly known laws put down on paper for the republic of Ireland.
Maybe im wrong again.Im extremely tired lol
not alot of recorded cases yet in ireland unfortunatly.Its not anywhere as bad as england yet.

ps talk to you guys later i am hitting the hay for an hour or so.Niece chatting..mostly

Common law would go as far back as the British system, indeed some old British laws are still on our statute book.

I suppose if a judge used common law that you felt contravened the Constitution, you could appeal it.

Torakx

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, you are wrong again. Well done. We had two constitutions before we were a Republic.

No, not a lot of recorded cases in ireland yet....... :rolleyes::D Please tell me there is some context to that statement. It kind of got dropped in the middle of your stream of conciousness so its hard to tell if you mean that there are not many recorded case at all in ireland or just on this ridiculous 'freeman' nonsense you keep rabbitting on about. If its the former, that is funny; if its the latter, there are no recorded cases in England either (other than cases dismissing the idea).

Seriously, do you not find it a little embarassing to post on topics about which you have no idea whatsoever?

Last time i post for your egos sake after that im not going to bother listening to you at all.You are just to full of yourself to be funny even.
I dont pretend to know it all and if i ever said that or anything even remotely close please link it here now.
What you have been doing is taking a label and pinning it on people or by being agressive force others to return that favour and bring them down to ur level.
If you cant be polite and have a disussion then dont bother postign directly to me as i may not even see it soon.It would be nice if your attitude changed and you didnt have to try push peoples buttons.But i totally understand this is just you probably being you.Since i cant change you and i dont car to try i will say that you may be right in what you say i have always held that belief about this whole idea.Just because i am open minded does not make me gullible.Ive been there already and dont intent to go back to it.
The problem is some people consider this to be a strong belief of mine.so strong that i would act on it....
I speak my mind ofc but it does not mean i have proof and believe it with all my heart.
If i did do you think i would be here informing people like you?
I would be out doing it instead.
This forum can be quite educational as well as ficticious.A fool would ignore the wealth of info that has been posted here from both "sides" of the "discussion".so i have good reason to play devils advocate as much as possible to pull info out of nay sayers and get to the bottom of it.

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

Last time i post for your egos sake after that im not going to bother listening to you at all.You are just to full of yourself to be funny even.
I dont pretend to know it all and if i ever said that or anything even remotely close please link it here now.
What you have been doing is taking a label and pinning it on people or by being agressive force others to return that favour and bring them down to ur level.
If you cant be polite and have a disussion then dont bother postign directly to me as i may not even see it soon.It would be nice if your attitude changed and you didnt have to try push peoples buttons.But i totally understand this is just you probably being you.Since i cant change you and i dont car to try i will say that you may be right in what you say i have always held that belief about this whole idea.Just because i am open minded does not make me gullible.Ive been there already and dont intent to go back to it.
The problem is some people consider this to be a strong belief of mine.so strong that i would act on it....
I speak my mind ofc but it does not mean i have proof and believe it with all my heart.
If i did do you think i would be here informing people like you?
I would be out doing it instead.

Can you accept the fact that this freeman stuff is nonsense? Your lack of understanding of how the legal system shows that you couldn't be putting up a valid argument for them.

Thats not it a personal insult. It's like me arguing the laws of physics are wrong, when I have no clue about physics in the first place.

drkpower

Torakx wrote: »

I speak my mind ofc but it does not mean i have proof and believe it with all my heart.

Yitzhak Rabin

thecommander wrote: »

Can you accept the fact that this freeman stuff is nonsense? Your lack of understanding of how the legal system shows that you couldn't be putting up a valid argument for them.

Thats not it a personal insult. It's like me arguing the laws of physics are wrong, when I have no clue about physics in the first place.

To be fair to Torakx, I don't think he ever claimed that the Freeman stuff works. From what I can tell he is genuinely interested in it, and is here trying to find out more about it.

This is probably more directed at DrkPower than yourself, but there is no need to be so rude and dismissive of someone who is just genuinely trying to explore an idea and educate themselves

thecommander

yekahs wrote: »

To be fair to Torakx, I don't think he ever claimed that the Freeman stuff works. From what I can tell he is genuinely interested in it, and is here trying to find out more about it.

Riiiiight
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66863261&postcount=379

Yitzhak Rabin

thecommander wrote: »

Riiiiight
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66863261&postcount=379

Torakx

thecommander wrote: »

Riiiiight
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66863261&postcount=379

Yes i have ideas about what could be going on but i know just as much as the next guy because i am not directly working at the top end of the banking industry.All i have to go on is circumstantial evidance and i put it forward how i see it.
At the same time i do that with the freeman stuff yet wont be going into a court just yet to declare my standing etc.
I do think there is something to this like i do think there is something really messed up going on with the banking system and anything else you care to link here.
What your reading in that link is me putting forward the whole idea and CT.
For what its worth i still hold most of that post to be one of several possibilities.So yes i kind of think it is true on some level.I also keep in mind that the people you would be dealing with do not have this perspective at all.
Basically i keep an open mind to both but sit slightly more towards the idea that the system is corrupt beyond saving.
the ins and outs i will throw out there and see what comes back.
Did you see my posts on chemtrails?but ofc one post shoudl clearly show everything about me hehe.
What yekahs wrote is exactly right imo and i think my opinion on that matter tops all unless you happen to be inside my head O.o
I dont really mind if someone thinks im this or that.I have a life outside these forums as strange as that sounds.

from thecommander

Can you accept the fact that this freeman stuff is nonsense? Your lack of understanding of how the legal system shows that you couldn't be putting up a valid argument for them.

No i will not accept its nonsense.I still am nowhere near satisfied yet
If i dont fully understand exactly how this stuff is wrong and why they are getting away with so called crimes and law breaking then i will not be finished talking and reading about it.
I keep alot of things going at the same time so its slow going with each thing i do.So many subjects to look into and question!
My lack of understanding has absolutely nothing to do wth the freeman movement or anyone else.Only my lack of understanding...
The world does not revolve around me so i cant see how this can be so.
I will be keeping an open mind aofc but id like to see more about how the legal system works especially common law and also why people are using common law and it obviously has an effect sometimes intended.

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

If i dont fully understand exactly how this stuff is wrong and why they are getting away with so called crimes and law breaking then i will not be finished talking and reading about it.

They're no committing crimes, they're doing their job.

Torakx

I ment the people being brought to court or held in cells for 24 hrs.
If an arrest is not done properly im sure i read somewhere that the evidence taken there after is inadmissable in court.
Is that maybe why they have no choice but to let them go?
Oh! i just now rememebered that name i had forgotten.It was Darren Polard i think.
He was arrested several times maybe even more than that for various reasons.But afaik never convicted of anything or at least those things i saw like speaking on the streets of london with one of those voice amplifiers(lol somehow ive forgotten what there called).
Anyway i dont know if people here will find that stuff interesting.But its certainly a curiosity for me.

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

I ment the people being brought to court or held in cells for 24 hrs.
If an arrest is not done properly im sure i read somewhere that the evidence taken there after is inadmissable in court.
Is that maybe why they have no choice but to let them go?
Oh! i just now rememebered that name i had forgotten.It was Darren Polard i think.
He was arrested several times maybe even more than that for various reasons.But afaik never convicted of anything or at least those things i saw like speaking on the streets of london with one of those voice amplifiers(lol somehow ive forgotten what there called).
Anyway i dont know if people here will find that stuff interesting.But its certainly a curiosity for me.

Detaining someone, and arresting someone are 2 separate things. They can detain you for a period of time to allow them to put a case together. Then can then release you without charge, or arrest you.

robtri

thecommander wrote: »

Detaining someone, and arresting someone are 2 separate things. They can detain you for a period of time to allow them to put a case together. Then can then release you without charge, or arrest you.

or they can release u and u still can be called to court at a stage or re-arrested

thecommander

robtri wrote: »

or they can release u and u still can be called to court at a stage or re-arrested

Correct.

Scarab80

The irony in this thread has been quite delicious.

Everyone arguing about using common law to enable Freeman defences when in fact if someone had ever managed to use a freeman defence successfully in Ireland a defendant would actually be able to use common law (in it's actual application) by going to court and saying "Judge, i refer you to the case of Garda v Freeman where the judge ruled that the defendant was in fact a piece of paper and therefore lacked the manual dexterity and motor functions required to drive a car at the time stated by the Garda" and the judge would be unable to overrule that decision provided he wasn't a higher judge than the one that made the original decision. Of course this has never happened and hence common law can not be used.

Torakx

Thats certainly how it appears on paper when you read through the legal systems publishings for the public.
Ive been trying to puzzle this one out for about a year on and off.
I dont quite trust a government to tell me what my rights are.
And i dont quite trust a layman either.
I guess we have all the rights in the world and none when you think about it.
The rest is just this game we play.Some play it better and on different levels and thats the level im trying to learn with regards my rights whatevers left of them officially with the state as a "person".
It has been an eye opening experience over the last year monitoring the whole scene.Im very glad for it even if it turned out to be a mistake it would only be a mistake according to governments rules or maybe the legal societies.
In the end everyone should have the right to do anything they wish with their body and possesions as long as it does not encroach or disturb the peace of others.alot of the other rules added on are laughable seriously.
They worry about population control but force people to wear seatbelts when they dont want to etc etc.
The responsibility has been taken away from the general population therefore we do not seem to need to be or act responsible because somebody is doing it for us.Maybe this and a combination of materialism and utter rubbish entertainment serving as junkfood for the brain is causing society to go downhill.I heard a myth that people used to leave their doors unlocked in some places in Ireland.
Maybe it was Tir Na Noag

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

Thats certainly how it appears on paper when you read through the legal systems publishings for the public.
Ive been trying to puzzle this one out for about a year on and off.
I dont quite trust a government to tell me what my rights are.
And i dont quite trust a layman either.
I guess we have all the rights in the world and none when you think about it.
The rest is just this game we play.Some play it better and on different levels and thats the level im trying to learn with regards my rights whatevers left of them officially with the state as a "person".
It has been an eye opening experience over the last year monitoring the whole scene.Im very glad for it even if it turned out to be a mistake it would only be a mistake according to governments rules or maybe the legal societies.
In the end everyone should have the right to do anything they wish with their body and possesions as long as it does not encroach or disturb the peace of others.alot of the other rules added on are laughable seriously.
They worry about population control but force people to wear seatbelts when they dont want to etc etc.
The responsibility has been taken away from the general population therefore we do not seem to need to be or act responsible because somebody is doing it for us.Maybe this and a combination of materialism and utter rubbish entertainment serving as junkfood for the brain is causing society to go downhill.I heard a myth that people used to leave their doors unlocked in some places in Ireland.
Maybe it was Tir Na Noag

I understand where you're from about wanting to be certain about it, but if you don't believe the authorities, but you don't want advice from a layman either it fairly narrows it down.

Have you read the thread that was on the legal forum? Do you take their word for it?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055521538

Maybe it was Tir Na Noag

Def wasn't Tir na Saor

Scarab80

Torakx wrote: »

Thats certainly how it appears on paper when you read through the legal systems publishings for the public.
Ive been trying to puzzle this one out for about a year on and off.
I dont quite trust a government to tell me what my rights are.
And i dont quite trust a layman either.
I guess we have all the rights in the world and none when you think about it.
The rest is just this game we play.Some play it better and on different levels and thats the level im trying to learn with regards my rights whatevers left of them officially with the state as a "person".
It has been an eye opening experience over the last year monitoring the whole scene.Im very glad for it even if it turned out to be a mistake it would only be a mistake according to governments rules or maybe the legal societies.
In the end everyone should have the right to do anything they wish with their body and possesions as long as it does not encroach or disturb the peace of others.alot of the other rules added on are laughable seriously.
They worry about population control but force people to wear seatbelts when they dont want to etc etc.
The responsibility has been taken away from the general population therefore we do not seem to need to be or act responsible because somebody is doing it for us.Maybe this and a combination of materialism and utter rubbish entertainment serving as junkfood for the brain is causing society to go downhill.I heard a myth that people used to leave their doors unlocked in some places in Ireland.
Maybe it was Tir Na Noag

I think what you are looking for is a libertarian system of government. However this system must be imposed from the top down by electing a libertarian party to government who will change / dispose of laws and would most likely require a complete rewrite of our constitution and withdrawal from the EU.

It can not be selected on an individual basis.

Your best bet would be to vote for the most right wing party standing in any elections in your area and hope that the country drifts to the right, a complete change from our current centre left system to a libertarian system is not going to happen overnight.

Torakx

Ye i think your right there.
But i do feel that voting for any political party thats out there at the moment would be foolish.As i still have an inkling in the back of my head that all parties are going to be corrupt with the way politicians get paid and get bonuses and advertising help for elections(Maybe the advertising help doesnt happen in ireland like the states though).
All civil servants should have a decent to moderate wage in my oppinion.If that is what a president etc is.
I dont like they way some of the Irish politicians are getting so much money for ruining our country.I makes them greedy.When you put a big wage and bonuses out for a job your going to get a bunch of greedy people going for that job as well as people who actually want to fix this countries problems.Also i dont think its a good idea to have politicians running any country.these peopleshould be going to college and learnign which ever department they will be working in.
Best example i can think of is minister for health.A fully trained doctor and herbalist should be minister for health who has done training in finance and whatever else.And if the wage was average to good instead of crazyily high maybe we would have people running the country who do not let us fall into disgrace.
So i wont be voting any time soon i think.
But your spot on about the EU i would love to see Ireland leave the EU before its too late if it isnt already.
I dont have all the solutions and maybe a bit naive with my analysis and suggestions but i can clearly see the system at the moment is not working at all.Needs to be changed asap like this year starting with some kind of group or senate with experts in every field of study attending and on equal footing.
Il even volunteer to represent the conspiracy heads

Torakx

thecommander wrote: »

I understand where you're from about wanting to be certain about it, but if you don't believe the authorities, but you don't want advice from a layman either it fairly narrows it down.

Have you read the thread that was on the legal forum? Do you take their word for it?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055521538


Def wasn't Tir na Saor

No i dont think i would trust the regulars in there too much.I would imagine alot of them have vested interests in that area and would have a biased opinion or else just a well trained college opinion.Im sure its not all black and white but i would suspect this on some level and would keep that in mind.
I guess i should have said i dont trust anyone at heart.I like to hear all sides of a story.Im a naturally curious person so sometimes need to know why certain things work the way they do etc.
I use boards instead of conspiracy sites like David Ickes site or prison planet for example because i like to hear from all types of peoplenot just the ones that would agree with me.Otherwise i will learn only a one sided view of reality which is very ignorant imo.
So i would be interested to hear what the guys in the legal forum said.But like i do with everyhting i hold i nthe back of my head all the other stuff i learn and have to cross check all of it and decide or guess for myself which seems most likely with everything considered.

Also i think Tir Na Noag is not the same as Tir Na Saor,the latter mean land of the free and i think former is land of the young related to the Irish myth which was part of the joke hehe

ps thanks for that link, some good posts in there,with more info to absorb

digme

This man here says that in the USA your a security traded on the stock exchange.If this is indeed true for an American could this be the case here?
How do we find out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXdCH--Gjo

this woman here explains what it's like in america.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlab_2oJPok

phantom_lord

digme wrote: »

This man here says that in the USA your a security traded on the stock exchange.If this is indeed true for an American could this be the case here?
How do we find out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXdCH--Gjo

lol @ that guy, how do you come up with stuff like that?

Mahatma coat

That looks like Jordan Maxwell in the First video, What he says is rather interesting and I think most people arguing about the Birth Cert thing are doing it based on at least one of his videos.

Mahatma coat

But anyway, how about adressing the ppoints raised in the video

phantom_lord

well, everything he said about law in the beginning of the video is nonsense, and is easily verifiable.

and same goes for stuff about the birth certificate. seriously, how do people come up with this stuff, and more amazingly how do people swallow it?

digme

phantom_lord wrote: »

well, everything he said about law in the beginning of the video is nonsense, and is easily verifiable.

and same goes for stuff about the birth certificate. seriously, how do people come up with this stuff, and more amazingly how do people swallow it?

I'm all ears

Mahatma coat

phantom_lord wrote: »

well, everything he said about law in the beginning of the video is nonsense, and is easily verifiable.

OK, Verify it then.

and same goes for stuff about the birth certificate. seriously, how do people come up with this stuff, and more amazingly how do people swallow it?

Look, if you wish to dismiss this out of hand and claim it as debunked then fine, show us why you have formed that opinion with something other than high handed dismissal without any real argument.

phantom_lord

Well, first of all he say's all governments are ruled by civil law; that statement doesn't make any sense for a start. But I presume he means to say every country uses civil law. Which is clearly not true. Most old British colonies for a start are common law jurisdictions.

Then he talks about UCC, but that's extremely different to what he's talking about. The is no overall international commercial law.

There is something called UCC, but it only applies to the United States.


As for the birth certificate stuff, that's clearly just nonsense. you can look up all the markets on the nyse, I don't see any market for people? do you? has anyone gone out and looked up their value on it?