Gardai, Government, Privately owned Corporations. Enslavement

Di0genes

Torakx wrote: »

They turned off the road....I didnt say reveresed suspiciously or even reversed.
He told me they took a turn off the road and they got pulled out of the van.

It still could look suspicious. The Garda have a duty and right to stop and inspect tax and insurance.

Also somebody asked did he start it by trying to speak Irish?
No because he hasnt a clue how to speak Irish and i think thats what the garda was relying on a "prod" instead of a catholic would be exactly what he would be loking for it appears.Not that he is prodestant but when a garda hears a northy accent and suddenly reverts into Irish when speaking to just that man i must presume he isnt trying to communicate but something else.

Okay Im not calling you a liar, but this story is just too incredulous to be believed.

Im not blowing anything out of proportion,it happened im sure as i was told and while it was'nt "omg terrible" i think its another good example of why this lawfull rebbelion stuff is popular now.

Its really not. I'm sure more people voted for Jedward than subscribe to this Taor Na Saoire nonsense.

IrelandSpirit

I don't get it, if the freeman perspective is even more nonsensical than voting for Jedward, then why all this fuss? It's nonsense, end of story!

Thing is though, the freeman perspective not nonsense and that's why so many people who profit from the current legal system are scared. That's why they vehemently attack the very notion of 'freemen', just the idea that people might realise they are indeed free, sovereign individuals has them quaking in their bank accounts.

Di0genes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I don't get it, if the freeman perspective is even more nonsensical than voting for Jedward, then why all this fuss? It's nonsense, end of story!

This isn't fuss it's a storm in a teacup.

Thing is though, the freeman perspective not nonsense

And yet we're sixty one pages in and no one has offered a case where this garbage worked in court.

and that's why so many people who profit from the current legal system are scared. That's why they vehemently attack the very notion of 'freemen', just the idea that people might realise they are indeed free, sovereign individuals has them quaking in their bank accounts.

Pats head. Course it is.

IrelandSpirit

Di0genes wrote: »

This isn't fuss it's a storm in a teacup.

LOL! Thanks Diogenes, you've just proved the point

Di0genes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

LOL! Thanks Diogenes, you've just proved the point

You know the difference between laughing at you and laughing with you, don't you?

Torakx

thecommander wrote: »

No its not. A few keyboard warriors doesn't make a popular rebelion.

I didnt say an adequate rebellion.I ment the act of lawfull rebellion or the idea.Its not like there is a group trying to take down the whole country and its governemnt.

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

I ment the act of lawfull rebellion or the idea

But the thing is they're not. They're just making it more complicated for themselves.

alastair

Torakx wrote: »

I didnt say an adequate rebellion.I ment the act of lawfull rebellion or the idea.Its not like there is a group trying to take down the whole country and its governemnt.

Lawful rebellion would imply some actual knowledge of the law, where this whole FMOTL business fails miserably. The only people who pay any attention to this nonsense are not the government, but those who are duped into giving it credence, and those who are bemused that anyone could be duped.

Torakx

Missing my point still but nevermind im sure others got it.

alastair

Torakx wrote: »

Missing my point still but nevermind im sure others got it.

i think its another good example of why this lawfull rebbelion stuff is popular now..

I think I got your point clearly enough - I'm just pointing out that self-indulgent fantasy is no substitute for actual 'lawful rebellion'.

Oh, and I don't believe your 'gaelgoir Gard in the back of the van' tale was remotely plausible as presented. But nevermind.

Torakx

alastair wrote: »

i think its another good example of why this lawfull rebbelion stuff is popular now..

I think I got your point clearly enough - I'm just pointing out that self-indulgent fantasy is no substitute for actual 'lawful rebellion'.

Oh, and I don't believe your 'gaelgoir Gard in the back of the van' tale was remotely plausible as presented. But nevermind.

Well if it isnt then one of the most honest guys i know was telling lies.
I dont need you personally to believe anything.Its just an incident i thought was a good example of what can go on in this country despite the potests of people here that only a small few of the gardai are like this.Im seeing and hearing more of this type of attitude occuring amongst them and from different areas of the country.
Im glad you at least got my point.
Wether its effective is debateable as we can see.

IrelandSpirit

Di0genes wrote: »

You know the difference between laughing at you and laughing with you, don't you?

yes I do, but you've convinced me that you do not! All I see from you is attempts to engage any poster you don't agree with in petty bickering.

This isn't fuss it's a storm in a teacup.

Then why are you so vehement in attacking people, why make such a fuss about it?

And yet we're sixty one pages in and no one has offered a case where this garbage worked in court.

There's many been posted but you haven't even bothered to take a look!

Pats head. Course it is.

What's that in aid of? You trying to be condescending? Alright then, how about ... bites off hand that pats head and eats it in front of you with curry sauce.

Christ ...

Point is, you, like others here are demonstrating that you're only here because you are worried that there's some truth in the freeman perspective, otherwise you'd say your piece and be done, go off and do something more constructive, rather than waste your time with a thread that's even more 'nonsensical than Jedward', as you claim.

We're over 900 posts now, and by your input in this 'nonsensical' discussion I am personally becoming more convinced than ever that the freeman perspective is valid and worth sober investigation. I encourage everybody to do the same.

thecommander

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I am personally becoming more convinced than ever that the freeman perspective is valid and worth sober investigation. I encourage everybody to do the same.

How can you be convinced after the 61 pages on the subject and noone can show it working as they claim. Are you looking elsewhere?

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

i think its another good example of why this lawfull rebbelion stuff is popular now..

I think I got your point clearly enough - I'm just pointing out that self-indulgent fantasy is no substitute for actual 'lawful rebellion'.

By lawful rebellion, if you take it to mean article 61 of the magna carta, then i would agree with you - it wouldn't work here though Richard Harris and others in the UK have served their queen affidavits invoking said article; revoking their consent to be governed until such a time as their grievances are addressed.

But lawful rebellion (IMO) appears to have now become a kind of umbrella term, i.e when someone actively draws the freeman perspective into all aspects of their lives, they enter a state of lawful rebellion.

In both cases though, as far as I know, it's got nothing to do with 'rebellion' as we generally understand the word, no militias storming parliaments or violence of any kind, but rather a form of peaceful non-compliance - similar perhaps to Gandhi's movement but focussed more on the individual, and decentralised. At least that's how I understand it for now.

Oh, and I don't believe your 'gaelgoir Gard in the back of the van' tale was remotely plausible as presented. But nevermind.

Ok, so you're saying Torakx is lying to us all, or is it his friends and family who are lying to Torakx?

Personally I take it on faith (and on my own, and others', direct experience of similar situations) that Torakx is telling the truth and the events happened as he describes. 'Innocent until proven guilty,' I think it's called.;)

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

There's many been posted but you haven't even bothered to take a look!

I've paid pretty close attention to this thread, and there's not a single link that does anything but confirm the absolute uselessness of FMOTL 'theory'.

And if pointing out that fact is fuel to your 'convinced by an opposing view' position, then knock yourself out. Sometimes black just isn't white.

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

By lawful rebellion, if you take it to mean article 61 of the magna carta.

Not at all. I'm referring in general terms to the use of the law to oppose injustice. FMOTL simply bypasses any legal frame by constructing a fictional notion of how the law works. It's (evident and quantifiable) failure is assured from that point onwards. They would be just as usefully employed at bringing Harry Potter wands into court and (respectfully) incanting spells, for all the good it does. It's 100% hokum.

drkpower

alastair wrote: »

I've paid pretty close attention to this thread, and there's not a single link that does anything but confirm the absolute uselessness of FMOTL 'theory'.

And if pointing out that fact is fuel to your 'convinced by an opposing view' position, then knock yourself out. Sometimes black just isn't white.

+1

I dont know which is more hilarious; the fact that Ireland Spirit & Co believe this stuff has any merit or the fact that they think that somewhere in this thread there is evidence of some kind that it works.....!!

Of course, they wont specify what in this thread actually shows this......

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

I've paid pretty close attention to this thread, and there's not a single link that does anything but confirm the absolute uselessness of FMOTL 'theory'.

And if pointing out that fact is fuel to your 'convinced by an opposing view' position, then knock yourself out. Sometimes black just isn't white.

Fair enough, you have your view, I have mine. Well tbh mine's not set in stone, it's still pretty much still evolving, growing. What I don't understand is your persistence to troll trawl through over 900 posts of what you deem 'confirmed absolutely useless FMOTL theory' ???

For me, it would be like being forced onto a thread about creationism, or flat earth theory - I don't believe it and have no interest. But thing is, nobody's forcing you to waste hours of your lives discussing a topic you don't believe and have no interest in, and yet here you are. I find that absolutely fascinating and hilarious!

No, seriously. It's not as if you've really done anything much to enlighten us, or me at any rate.

Well, I suppose each to their own, hmmm?

IrelandSpirit

drkpower wrote: »

+1

I dont know which is more hilarious; the fact that Ireland Spirit & Co believe this stuff has any merit or the fact that they think that somewhere in this thread there is evidence of some kind that it works.....!!

Of course, they wont specify what in this thread actually shows this......

Yay! drkpower! I was just thinking about you, about when you'd turn up on this 'absolutely and now confirmed useless thread about a useless theory', good to se ya typing again. What have you got for us now then?

Oh, btw, talking of hilarious, same goes - I don't know which is more hilarious; the fact that you & Co don't believe this stuff has any merit and yet you're here wasting your time with it, or the fact that you think you've presented somewhere in this thread evidence of some kind that it does not work.

Yitzhak Rabin

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I don't know which is more hilarious; the fact that you & Co don't believe this stuff has any merit and yet you're here wasting your time with it, or the fact that you think you've presented somewhere in this thread evidence of some kind that it does not work.

Thats not how it works.

If I make a claim, like:

"Wizards are exempt from road traffic acts, and if you just tell the judge that you are a wizard, and hence not bound by muggle laws, you'll be let off"

Should I expect people to prove me wrong, or would it be more reasonable to expect me to prove my theory, rather than have people try and disprove it. How exactly can it be disproved.

I would say, that there being zero evidence of a judge awarding in favour of a defendant using the harry potter defence as evidence enough that it is baloney.

In much the same way, as the only thing we have seen from the FMOTL side is cases being adjourned because the defendants refuse to present in court, or getting futher fines and criminal offences.

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Fair enough, you have your view, I have mine. Well tbh mine's not set in stone, it's still pretty much still evolving, growing. What I don't understand is your persistence to troll trawl through over 900 posts of what you deem 'confirmed absolutely useless FMOTL theory' ???

For me, it would be like being forced onto a thread about creationism, or flat earth theory - I don't believe it and have no interest. But thing is, nobody's forcing you to waste hours of your lives discussing a topic you don't believe and have no interest in, and yet here you are. I find that absolutely fascinating and hilarious!

No, seriously. It's not as if you've really done anything much to enlighten us, or me at any rate.

Well, I suppose each to their own, hmmm?

I've highlighted the actual outcomes of various FMOTL 'strategies' that prove the 'strategies' provide a pretty reliable route to running foul of the (actual) law. Creationism is a matter/debate of faith in the final analysis, but FMOTL is presented as an application of law (albeit a distortion of law) - and therefore can be assessed on those terms (whereby it quickly becomes apparent that it fails miserably).

And once again - there are no links in this thread which support the notion that FMOTL works - although you continue to make that claim (seemingly because it's your 'view' - which would push it into being an issue of faith , where anything goes?).

Scarab80

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

There's many been posted but you haven't even bothered to take a look!

I haven't seen one successful defense in any of the links provided in this thread.

One of the early videos provided which got this whole ball rolling was this one, which apparently showed a victory in court.

However go to 8.00 in the video, pause it and read the letter received from the courts / council...

The liability order has been awarded and I have enclosed a photocopy of the relevant entry in the list for your information together with the signed summary sheet.

There is currently £308.00 outstanding on your account and as previously stated we will instruct bailiffs to recover the outstanding monies if necessary.......

drkpower

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Yay! drkpower! I was just thinking about you, about when you'd turn up on this 'absolutely and now confirmed useless thread about a useless theory', good to se ya typing again. What have you got for us now then?

Oh, btw, talking of hilarious, same goes - I don't know which is more hilarious; the fact that you & Co don't believe this stuff has any merit and yet you're here wasting your time with it, or the fact that you think you've presented somewhere in this thread evidence of some kind that it does not work.

Oh, so thats how it works - you come up with a fanciful legal theory and I have to show that it doesnt work.....!!! Good one:D; how about we go with the usual burden of proof (that's a legal concept; hope you are still folowing me....??!) and let the person proposing the theory prove it - so, you show either (a) how FMOTL could work in this jurisdiction (please reference appropriate law) and/or (b) give one, just one, example of it working in the past.............deafening silence........didnt think so...

Oh and btw, the reason why I enjoy these threads is because they truly baffle me. There are broadly 4 types of people who insist on maintaining ludicrous claims, which have almost no evidence for them:

1. the religous; the reason for their delusion is obvious.
2. Idiots/uneducated; they tend to be fairly obvious and give up easily
3. Those suffering from mental illness; which is obviously tragic
4. Conspiracy theorists; you guys dont tend to be 1, with some notable exceptions, ye dont tend to be 2, and I doubt ye are 3 - yet you still maintain the most ridiculous claims with almost no evidence.

So I am here because you perplex me.

squod

Scarab80 wrote: »

There is currently £308.00 outstanding on your account and as previously stated we will instruct bailiffs to recover the outstanding monies if necessary.......

I don't think anyone is going to argue that the use of force doesn't work. Many baliffs vs one bloke is easy money.

Scarab80

squod wrote: »

I don't think anyone is going to argue that the use of force doesn't work. Many baliffs vs one bloke is easy money.

The point isn't that they are threatening to use baliffs, the point is that the court ruled against the defendant despite the video suggesting otherwise.

squod

Scarab80 wrote: »

The point isn't that they are threatening to use baliffs, the point is that the court ruled against the defendant despite the video suggesting otherwise.

I don't get what you're saying here.

alastair

squod wrote: »

I don't get what you're saying here.

That's handy.


No contract implied or acknowledged.
Fred of the family Flintstone.

Scarab80

squod wrote: »

I don't get what you're saying here.

What don't you get? The court ruled against the freemen despite the video suggesting otherwise.

The liability order has been awarded and I have enclosed a photocopy of the relevant entry in the list for your information together with the signed summary sheet.

squod

Oh dear.

Yitzhak Rabin

squod wrote: »

Oh dear.

What?

robtri

squod wrote: »

Oh dear.

yes oh dear.... freeman nonsense didnt work again......



come on, surely someone has something to show this works from start to finish..... and works properly....

squod

robtri wrote: »

yes oh dear.... freeman nonsense didnt work again......



come on, surely someone has something to show this works from start to finish..... and works properly....

Define ''works properly'' so. The vid (half watched it) shows a letter indicating ''judgement'' was made couple hours before the trial began. Previous poster also points out people resorted to the use of force when all else failed. What kind of success story do you want?

robtri

squod wrote: »

Define ''works properly'' so. The vid (half watched it) shows a letter indicating ''judgement'' was made couple hours before the trial began. Previous poster also points out people resorted to the use of force when all else failed. What kind of success story do you want?

somthing that shows a "freeman" getting off scot free in court and not recieving any fine, prison sentance or re trial.

the vid states it was, but we dont see the letter and dates and times... strange that

squod

What's strange? You're making assumptions because the video doesn't fit with your notions about this stuff.

drkpower

squod wrote: »

What's strange? You're making assumptions because the video doesn't fit with your notions about this stuff.

Lol:D
I think its coz the video fails to show that FMOTL is anything other than a figment of your & other's imaginations.

squod

[QUOTE=lazy and arrogant;67301089]Lol:D
I think its coz the video fails to show that FMOTL is anything other than a figment of your & other's imaginations.[/QUOTE]


I call troll. If that video was so good at supporting your argument why didn't you post it? Every post you make on here is lazy and arrogant.

Scarab80

squod wrote: »

Define ''works properly'' so. The vid (half watched it) shows a letter indicating ''judgement'' was made couple hours before the trial began. Previous poster also points out people resorted to the use of force when all else failed. What kind of success story do you want?

1) If you look at the part of the video with the letter outlining the judgement it appears that the letter has either been poorly photoshopped or a label has been placed over the letter.

2) The judgement order refers to the case by it's scheduled start time so as to identify the case, this does not mean the order was signed at that time. That's why they put a date beside the signature, it was signed on 21 January 2010, that's all.

3) The video says that the case was dismissed, it clearly was not as an order was issued by the court shown at the end of the video and referred to in the letter at 8.00

4) Your mate turning up with a copy of your birth cert does not constitute a defence or even appearance in court.

5) How is this a freeman victory? The prosecutions case was upheld as the defendant did not show up in court.

6) Bailiffs are an unfortunate neccesity, otherwise people would just ignore liability orders.

Once again, all you need to show is one case that was actually upheld using freeman defences. You can then use that case as your defense and the judge will be unable to overrule you under common law . If this was real don't you think that reference to a successful case would be spread through the FMOTL community so that other freeman could use the decision under common law?

drkpower

squod wrote: »

I call troll. If that video was so good at supporting your argument why didn't you post it? Every post you make on here is lazy and arrogant.

You are the one proposing something; that (a) FMOTL has some merit as a legal concept and (b) it has been accepted as such by a court, any court. I dont have to post anything to support my contention. It is clear from this thread that you have failed to show either (a) or (b).

If you want to prove me wrong, make an argument. But stop crying about people being mean to you and arrogant. Boohoo.

robtri

squod wrote: »

What's strange? You're making assumptions because the video doesn't fit with your notions about this stuff.

no unfortunately u are the one making assumptions based on no evidence, i am saying it strange we dont get a good look at the letter with the times and dates...

the video clearly shows the defence failing as the court ordered payment of the money due or the bailifs would be needed....

So unless u call having the baliffs call on your door and take your property a victory then thats up to you... me i say it a fail sorry

squod

No, still not getting you. Are we watching different videos?

Lab_Mouse

For the love of fukking jaysus will you FMOTL activists post us a fukking case number and not a fecking youtube clip(badly edited I might add) where it has not been struck down by the courts that operate here.Please....

60 odd pages and FMOTL'ers(is that a reall word??) still haven't made us skeptics eat humble pie.


because they can't.

robtri

squod wrote: »

No, still not getting you. Are we watching different videos?

well i am sorry if you cant understand a simple question in english.

but thanks for your valued input

alastair

squod wrote: »

No, still not getting you.

Hard to tell whether this is a case of FMOTL 'standing under' evasion, or just a lack of straightforward comprehension - and which is more worrying?

Hootanany

A lot of unbelievers here or vested interest make your own mind up

K-9

Hootanany wrote: »

A lot of unbelievers here or vested interest make your own mind up

Well if people want to be like that, lots of believers here with little proof.

meglome

Hootanany wrote: »

A lot of unbelievers here or vested interest make your own mind up

If by unbelievers you mean not gullible I'm happy to say I'm not. There are records of all court cases. It really should be simple to show that people have got off using the Freeman defence yet no one can which would make me think that it's nonsense.

Hootanany

Im not saying got off with anything who gave the the judges authority over me i did not consent to there judgement the council government and the guards all i ever get off them is they are trying to extract money from me in every way and i am sick of it

alastair

Hootanany wrote: »

Im not saying got off with anything who gave the the judges authority over me i did not consent to there judgement the council government and the guards all i ever get off them is they are trying to extract money from me in every way and i am sick of it

Ah well. Death and taxes. Suck it up.

Oh, and Article 6 of the constitution gives them authority over you.

Hootanany

alastair wrote: »

Ah well. Death and taxes. Suck it up.

Oh, and Article 6 of the constitution gives them authority over you.

I do not consent

alastair

Hootanany wrote: »

I do not consent

Ah well. Let's see how that works out for you.

I note that you're happy enough for the same authority (in the form of the DPP) to apply to Ivor Callely. Maybe he doesn't want to consent either? Different rules apply to just you then?