Gardai, Government, Privately owned Corporations. Enslavement

K-9

Hootanany wrote: »

I do not consent

So you pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you like?

drkpower

alastair wrote: »

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?

+1.
Wouldnt it be hilariious to see the reaction of the regulars on this site if Ivor, Seanie, Bertie & Co started quoting FMOTL and refused to consent to the authority of the law.:rolleyes:

Torakx

I guess they have made their contracts through the years

Esel

Hootanany wrote: »

I do not consent

The proper form of words is: "I refuse to recognise the court." Say this and you will have loads of mates inside.

Hootanany

alastair wrote: »

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?

I have done nothing wrong they have, I just do not consent to this extraction of my hard earned money and buy the way why are you so dead set against this type of thinking

alastair

Hootanany wrote: »

I have done nothing wrong they have, I just do not consent to this extraction of my hard earned money and buy the way why are you so dead set against this type of thinking

Well - from what you say, you want to illegally opt out of paying what you owe to the state - and how is that different to Callely? Why should anyone else have to support the burden of your taxes - that's taking the money out of their pockets? He could just as easily (and erroneously) play the 'do not consent' game. You're both in the wrong. The only difference is he's a partially successful self-serving freeloader, and you'll be a failed one if you try the FMOTL route.

I'm dead set against 'this type of thinking' because it's a crock. Pretty simple really.

Hootanany

alastair wrote: »

Well - from what you say, you want to illegally opt out of paying what you owe to the state - and how is that different to Callely? Why should anyone else have to support the burden of your taxes - that's taking the money out of their pockets? He could just as easily (and erroneously) play the 'do not consent' game. You're both in the wrong. The only difference is he's a partially successful self-serving freeloader, and you'll be a failed one if you try the FMOTL route.

I'm dead set against 'this type of thinking' because it's a crock. Pretty simple really.

why is it

robtri

esel wrote: »

The proper form of words is: "I refuse to recognise the court." Say this and you will have loads of mates inside.

that reminds me of what the IRA members used to say to the Northern judges.....

Even the ones just up on charges for being a member of the group..


They refused to recognise the court, would make one statement to that effect and refuse to take part in the court proceedings.....

( exactly what people here are preposing is how the FMOTL works)

and yet all these IRA members where sent to jail..... when seemingly they should have got off scott free.......... interesting that

Undergod

robtri wrote: »

and yet all these IRA members where sent to jail..... when seemingly they should have got off scott free.......... interesting that

Cause that's a real crime, and tax evasion is only a breach of civil law, I would imagine is the reply you'll get.

Hootanany

alastair wrote: »

Well - from what you say, you want to illegally opt out of paying what you owe to the state - and how is that different to Callely? Why should anyone else have to support the burden of your taxes - that's taking the money out of their pockets? He could just as easily (and erroneously) play the 'do not consent' game. You're both in the wrong. The only difference is he's a partially successful self-serving freeloader, and you'll be a failed one if you try the FMOTL route.

I'm dead set against 'this type of thinking' because it's a crock. Pretty simple really.

I pay what i owe i just think this stuff is interesting and i abide buy the law as well

robtri

Undergod wrote: »

Cause that's a real crime, and tax evasion is only a breach of civil law, I would imagine is the reply you'll get.

Possibly, but is just being a member ( not being active) of a certain group a real crime?? i dont think so, so this freeman stuff should have worked.

alastair

Hootanany wrote: »

I pay what i owe

So, you do consent to their authority. Why claim otherwise then?

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

So, you do consent to their authority. Why claim otherwise then?

At last we find common ground! I agree, consent is prime and foremost for establishing authority. All are equal before the law. Anything else is tyranny.

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

At last we find common ground! I agree, consent is prime and foremost for establishing authority. All are equal before the law. Anything else is tyranny.

As a citizen of this state, you acknowledge the authority granted the government and state bodies in the constitution. That's the mechanism of consent - there's no opt out unless you bugger off to another jurisdiction and comply with their authority. That doesn't undermine the notion of equality under the law - it's quite clear that the full set of laws, whether common or statutory apply to all, regardless of whether you like them or not. The only legitimate route to modifying the specifics of law within this state is through the democratic legislative process. If you believe that FMOTL has anything to offer the realities above, then you're mistaken.

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

As a citizen of this state, you acknowledge the authority granted the government and state bodies in the constitution. That's the mechanism of consent - there's no opt out unless you bugger off to another jurisdiction and comply with their authority. That doesn't undermine the notion of equality under the law - it's quite clear that the full set of laws, whether common or statutory apply to all, regardless of whether you like them or not. The only legitimate route to modifying the specifics of law within this state is through the democratic legislative process. If you believe that FMOTL has anything to offer the realities above, then you're mistaken.

Authority granted by whom? We created the government, the government did not create us (obviously) and it has an obligation, a social contract to promote our interests and protect our rights, receiving loyalty and support in turn: our consent to be governed.

That’s the way round it works, unless you're suggesting the government has the power to coerce everybody into consensual acquiescence, tyranny? Well then, everybody is free to revoke their consent to be governed at any time they wish.

And statutes are legislative rules, given the force of law by the consent of the governed. They are not laws unless you agree they are. That’s basically how understand the FMOTL perspective (thus far), presuming we are not living in slavery and have freedom of choice. So, what legal framework is forcing anybody to consent to a statute if they feel it is unjust?

For instance, (only an example, NOT offering medical advice). Someone close to us has cancer and is undergoing treatment, chemotherapy. Our friend is suffering horrifically from the secondary effects of chemotherapy. The doctor himself advises that the best known treatment for the secondary effects of chemotherapy is cannabis, but unfortunately it is deemed an illegal plant. Would we still say that 'the full set of laws, whether common or statutory apply to all, regardless of whether you like them or not?'

Or would we say, hold on, that's an unjust 'law' our government has put in place, cannabis is a plant with medical properties; and we did not create the government to grant us our rights, we created the government to protect our rights: in this case, our right to provide our friend with the best possible treatment, in the interest of improving their health and easing their suffering.

From what I understand thus far, a FMOTL would not stand by and see their friend suffer over a statute. Would you?

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And statutes are legislative rules, given the force of law by the consent of the governed. They are not laws unless you agree they are.

Statutory law has exactly the same weight and application as common law - which also relies on the social contract that the state implies. Whether you agree with them or not - the laws still apply (to you, just as everyone else here), if you wish to live under the jurisdiction of the state/nation. That's the crux of the constitution of the state - you adhere to the law, or you can renounce your citizenship and bugger off elsewhere. If you want to change a law, then you are provided with democratic mechanisms to lobby for those changes - you don't get to pick and choose on an individual basis.

Joshua Jones

alastair wrote: »

Statutory law has exactly the same weight and application as common law.

You're my wife now.

Undergod

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Authority granted by whom? We created the government, the government did not create us (obviously) and it has an obligation, a social contract to promote our interests and protect our rights, receiving loyalty and support in turn: our consent to be governed.

That’s the way round it works, unless you're suggesting the government has the power to coerce everybody into consensual acquiescence, tyranny? Well then, everybody is free to revoke their consent to be governed at any time they wish.

And statutes are legislative rules, given the force of law by the consent of the governed. They are not laws unless you agree they are. That’s basically how understand the FMOTL perspective (thus far), presuming we are not living in slavery and have freedom of choice. So, what legal framework is forcing anybody to consent to a statute if they feel it is unjust?

For instance, (only an example, NOT offering medical advice). Someone close to us has cancer and is undergoing treatment, chemotherapy. Our friend is suffering horrifically from the secondary effects of chemotherapy. The doctor himself advises that the best known treatment for the secondary effects of chemotherapy is cannabis, but unfortunately it is deemed an illegal plant. Would we still say that 'the full set of laws, whether common or statutory apply to all, regardless of whether you like them or not?'

Or would we say, hold on, that's an unjust 'law' our government has put in place, cannabis is a plant with medical properties; and we did not create the government to grant us our rights, we created the government to protect our rights: in this case, our right to provide our friend with the best possible treatment, in the interest of improving their health and easing their suffering.

From what I understand thus far, a FMOTL would not stand by and see their friend suffer over a statute. Would you?

I do not consent to be governed by the Offences Against the State Act or the Criminal Justice Act.

Whee, murder spree!

TalkieWalkie

Consent, register, give jurisdiction..

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Consent, register, give jurisdiction..

so how do you explain, the members of the IRA and other provo gropus in the north, they specifically state they do not recognise the court or its jurisdiction and refuse to take part in the proceedings.... yet they get locked up....

Joshua Jones

robtri wrote: »

so how do you explain, the members of the IRA and other provo gropus in the north, they specifically state they do not recognise the court or its jurisdiction and refuse to take part in the proceedings.... yet they get locked up....

Internment

Internment is the imprisonment or confinement[1] of people, commonly in large groups, without trial

robtri

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Internment

nope this wasnt internment, this was court proceedings many of them....

TalkieWalkie

robtri wrote: »

so how do you explain, the members of the IRA and other provo gropus in the north, they specifically state they do not recognise the court or its jurisdiction and refuse to take part in the proceedings.... yet they get locked up....

What's so surprising about that ? lol . The government are crooks, they have robbed us, our kids, their kids blind. You don't expect them to play ball do you ?

Also the IRA were treated as terrorists, As far as I know, they treat terrorists different than Freemen/Sovereigns. Not by much though

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

What's so surprising about that ? lol . The government are crooks, they have robbed us, our kids, their kids blind. You don't expect them to play ball do you ?

Also the IRA were treated as terrorists, As far as I know, they treat terrorists different than Freemen/Sovereigns. Not by much though

Yes because you see theres difference between someone convicted of murder and someone convicted of making an idiotic point about trying to avoid a road traffic offence.

I await the freeman H block.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes because you see theres difference between someone convicted of murder and someone convicted of making an idiotic point about trying to avoid a road traffic offence.

I await the freeman H block.

Wow, you spotted it too.. or did you just copy my answer and change a few words ? :rolleyes:

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Consent, register, give jurisdiction..

I have checked with the appropriate department (legal) who provided the
response. They have responded to say:

" I am afraid Torbay have given a careless and legally incorrect answer.
You can confirm:

Your request has been considered by the Managing Principal Lawyer with
responsibility for child protection matters. She confirms that the
implementation of the relevant sections of the Children Act are in no
way conditional upon the child's birth being registered or otherwise,
they are only conditional on evidence of actual significant harm or risk
of significant harm being suffered by the child as described in the Act.
The local authority can therefore lawfully remove children from the care
of their parents in the circumstances prescribed by the Children Act
1989, and where an act is lawful it cannot constitute kidnap."

TalkieWalkie

You can prove that is from Torbay council ?

alastair wrote: »

I have checked with the appropriate department (legal) who provided the
response. They have responded to say:

" I am afraid Torbay have given a careless and legally incorrect answer.
You can confirm:

Your request has been considered by the Managing Principal Lawyer with
responsibility for child protection matters. She confirms that the
implementation of the relevant sections of the Children Act are in no
way conditional upon the child's birth being registered or otherwise,
they are only conditional on evidence of actual significant harm or risk
of significant harm being suffered by the child as described in the Act.
The local authority can therefore lawfully remove children from the care
of their parents in the circumstances prescribed by the Children Act
1989, and where an act is lawful it cannot constitute kidnap."

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

You can prove that is from Torbay council ?

Nope - but I'm taking the word of the FMOTL person who queried the initial letter with Torbay Council:

Further to your request received on 26 July 2010, I have liaised with the
department who provided the information for the FOI request you have
quoted and it would appear that there has been some misinterpretation of
the previous FOI request and the information provided.

In the previous request, the following information was requested:

If a parent has not registered a child's birth, does Torbay Council have
any ability/right to forcibly remove that child from the parents' care
without a parent's permission?

Our understanding of the above question was that the information required
related to if a child's birth was not registered would we take them into
care. To which the answer is No.

Your request states "I notice from a previous FOI request that you said an
unregistered child cannot be taken by Torbay Borough Council into care.
Please can you provide me with the recorded information which evidences
the part that confirms the council only has jurisdiction over registered
children?" Your request, in our opinion is very different to that
requested previously. In respect of starting Care Proceedings there is no
requirement that the child's birth has to be registered and therefore
Torbay Council can make applications to the Court to take children into
care irrespective of whether or not their birth has been registered.

I hope that the above has clarified the Council's position with regard to
the previous request for information and therefore with the above in mind,
I confirm there is no recorded information which evidences that the
council only has jurisdiction over registered children, as this is not the
case.

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

What's so surprising about that ? lol . The government are crooks, they have robbed us, our kids, their kids blind. You don't expect them to play ball do you ?

Well according to your words here, the Freeman stuff will never work then, as the governemnt will not play ball fairly..... so whats the point

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Also the IRA were treated as terrorists, As far as I know, they treat terrorists different than Freemen/Sovereigns. Not by much though

I am not talking about the active members, i am talking about the members of the Provos groups who where inactive, i.e. did not kill or attempt to kill or partake in any wrong doings, with the exception of being a member of an illegal organisation....

again these guys refused to acknowledge the jusrisdiction of the court or take any part in it... exactly what you prepose... and yet it dont work....
And being a member of a terroorist group is illegal under statue law and not common law... therefore according to all your arguments here, it should work...

and yet you still believe it does....

TalkieWalkie

robtri wrote: »

Well according to your words here, the Freeman stuff will never work then, as the governemnt will not play ball fairly..... so whats the point


I am not talking about the active members, i am talking about the members of the Provos groups who where inactive, i.e. did not kill or attempt to kill or partake in any wrong doings, with the exception of being a member of an illegal organisation....

again these guys refused to acknowledge the jusrisdiction of the court or take any part in it... exactly what you prepose... and yet it dont work....
And being a member of a terroorist group is illegal under statue law and not common law... therefore according to all your arguments here, it should work...

and yet you still believe it does....

According to my words, The freeman ideology works many times, it keeps many men out of court. It's when it gets to court one has a problem. Just because something is hard to achieve or even impossible, does not mean one shouldn't bother at all to achieve it, especially when one believes it is right. We have seen several video's of court proceedings on this thread where we see the Judge moving the goalposts to suit himself and oppressing defendants rights, but do these defendants cowar in a corner or just give up ? It's called standing up for your rights or standing up for what's right, standing up for yourself and standing up for folk who don't even know they are being wronged or don't care. It takes BALLS, GUTS, PRIDE Robtri, something obviously you will have a hard time understanding.
You owe people like this, it is the dedication and BALLS of men and wemon like this that we live in a Soveriegn nation and are not governed by crown.
Remember this.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

According to my words, The freeman ideology works many times, it keeps many men out of court. It's when it gets to court one has a problem.

Nice to know it works right up until the point it's tested. I find the same for pixie dust. Sticking with pixiedust line is pretty macho too - and you get to pontificate from a position of absolute futility. Maybe we can get together and form some sort of mutual appreciation society?

Mahatma coat

Nelson Mandella was locked up for over 20 years, was he Wrong?????

TW is right about one thing, The courts, Every parkin ticket I got or infringement notice I ever got gives you the option to take your case to court, now they bank on the theory that a large percentage of those people fined will just 'Cop the fine' shrug their shoulders and move on, when enough people do this they become a 'Majority' and so in a 'Democracy' everyone now has to do it, thats when freemen come to the fore, previously we had just been slightly miffed at a proposed legislation, then wham bam thank ya man they go and make retroactive laws and try to take yer farm or somesuch.

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

According to my words, The freeman ideology works many times, it keeps many men out of court. It's when it gets to court one has a problem. Just because something is hard to achieve or even impossible, does not mean one shouldn't bother at all to achieve it, especially when one believes it is right. We have seen several video's of court proceedings on this thread where we see the Judge moving the goalposts to suit himself and oppressing defendants rights, but do these defendants cowar in a corner or just give up ? It's called standing up for your rights or standing up for what's right, standing up for yourself and standing up for folk who don't even know they are being wronged or don't care. It takes BALLS, GUTS, PRIDE Robtri, something obviously you will have a hard time understanding.
You owe people like this, it is the dedication and BALLS of men and wemon like this that we live in a Soveriegn nation and are not governed by crown.
Remember this.

no video shown so far has shown the freeman idealogy to work...
none..

no one said anything about cowaring in a corner, maybe thats what u do but that your own choice....

you owe it to society to take responsibilty for your actions like a man....

it doesnt take balls, guts or pride to do freeman stuff, it takes a complete lack of knowledge of the legal system.

even your last comment shows how little you know or understand...

you are correct we are a sovereign nation which is defined as

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

source - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation

please note the part making, executing and applying laws...... mmmmm
so accordingly as a sovereign nation our government is entitled to make laws and enforce them.....
so they can make a law that governs speed limits or having tax and insurance.... and they can enforce it...

believing otherwise is a deluded dream......

squod

''Act'' doesn't appear in the link. Law does. Simples.

TalkieWalkie

Seems you just discovered we are a Sovereign nation, congratulations.

robtri

squod wrote: »

''Act'' doesn't appear in the link. Law does. Simples.

SIMPLE is right.....

check out definition for ACT... i will give you a clue its number three you should be looking at...... the one that says an act is a LAW

http://www.yourdictionary.com/act

simple is right

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Seems you just discovered we are a Sovereign nation, congratulations.

ans it seems you have no clue what that means..

TalkieWalkie

robtri wrote: »

ans it seems you have no clue what that means..

Like I said, congrats, wonderful discovery at your age.

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Like I said, congrats, wonderful discovery at your age.

so do you agree as a sovereign nation that the government have the right to make laws (and acts as they are laws as well when passed) and enforce them???

for example the Road Traffic ACT

alastair

squod wrote: »

''Act'' doesn't appear in the link. Law does. Simples.

Even simpler - statutory acts take on the force of law once they have been signed off by the president - check article 15 of the constitution.

IrelandSpirit

robtri wrote: »

so do you agree as a sovereign nation that the government have the right to make laws (and acts as they are laws as well when passed) and enforce them???

for example the Road Traffic ACT

By consent.

Statute: A legislative rule of society given the force of Law by consent of the governed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute

I don't understand the problem some people have here with the principle of consent.

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I don't understand the problem some people have here with the principle of consent.

What you don't seem to understand is the constitutional model of governance that applies here - the people of the nation consented to a framework of government laid out in the constitution through the mechanism of a referendum. You have every right to lobby to change the terms of the constiution, but you need a majority in a national referendum to put those changes into effect. Up until that point (or unless you choose to leave this jurisdiction, take up alternate citizenship elsewhere, and relinquish your Irish citizenship) your consent to governance is implicit in your citizenship. You're part of the club and are obliged to follow it's rules until you can covince a majority of members of an amended system.

robtri

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

By consent.

Statute: A legislative rule of society given the force of Law by consent of the governed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute

I don't understand the problem some people have here with the principle of consent.

by living in a sovereign state you are consenting to the rules... if you dont like the rules either move or change the rules by lobbying or get elected and propose changes.

squod

robtri wrote: »

SIMPLE is right.....

check out definition for ACT... i will give you a clue its number three you should be looking at...... the one that says an act is a LAW

http://www.yourdictionary.com/act

simple is right

American dictionary.

squod

alastair wrote: »

Even simpler - statutory acts take on the force of law once they have been signed off by the president - check article 15 of the constitution.

We've been over this.

alastair

squod wrote: »

We've been over this.

...and yet you still refuse to take the facts on board.

squod

alastair wrote: »

...and yet you still refuse to take the facts on board.

Touche

alastair

squod wrote: »

Touche

I guess that's an alternative to trying to defend the indefensible.

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

I guess that's an alternative to trying to defend the indefensible.

Seems like we're falling into two distinct camps: those who want a society centred on freedom. And those who want a dictatorship.

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Seems like we're falling into two distinct camps: those who want a society centred on freedom. And those who want a dictatorship.

The dictatorship spelled out in clear terms in the constitution?:rolleyes: I'll take that over a subscription to delusional FMOTL antics any day of the week.