Gardai, Government, Privately owned Corporations. Enslavement

IrelandSpirit

drkpower wrote: »

You are dead right; they do. But you know the difference between you and me. I want to see laws brought in to ensure they dont and cant 9or the laws we have enforced). You want a (ridiculous) legal theory recognised which will allow them to continue to evade the law.

No, what I want to know is how they escape the supposed legal framework in the first place. FMOTL is about acknowledging those very principles which protect people from those with criminal intent. Living in a true lawful community they would not escape the law, they would not get away with acting fraudulently or causing harm. So WTF is going on here?

drkpower

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

No, what I want to know is how they escape the supposed legal framework in the first place. FMOTL is about acknowledging those very principles which protect people from those with criminal intent. Living in a true lawful community they would not escape the law, they would not get away with acting fraudulently or causing harm. So WTF is going on here?

Why wouldnt they get away with it? Why would they not be able to invoke FMOTL, as you (believe you should be able to) do?

IrelandSpirit

drkpower wrote: »

Why wouldnt they get away with it? Why would they not be able to invoke FMOTL, as you (believe you should be able to) do?

Oh common, please, because FMOTL does not 'let you get away with' crimes, that's precisely why!

drkpower

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Oh common, please, because FMOTL does not 'let you get away with' crimes, that's precisely why!

You will have to explain that one.
Isnt one of the tenets of FTOML that the court has no jurisdiction over a freeman? If the court has no jurisdiction over you, how can you be convicted by that court?

phantom_lord

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

This is officially the most viewed and replied to thread in the CT forum (bar stickies).

And yet not one supporter of this can provide a single case where it has been used successfully? says a lot imo

Brown Bomber

drkpower wrote: »

You will have to explain that one.
Isnt one of the tenets of FTOML that the court has no jurisdiction over a freeman?

No.

drkpower

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No.

You might explain it then; this is from one of the FMOTL sites:

A Freeman-on-the-Land is a human being in a common law jurisdiction who lawfully revokes or denies consent to be represented and governed and exists completely free of all statutory restraints, obligations and restrictions.

How can you claim that and be subject to the jurisdiction of the court, which is the body which enforces those very statutory restraints, obligations and restrictions.....? Is this another example of your complete misunderstanding of the law?

thecommander

Carra23 wrote: »

I guess the only reason no one can provide hard evidence of this stuff working in an Irish court case is because it's a relatively new theory and is still only catching on here.

So it hasn't been used in court then?

alastair

thecommander wrote: »

So it hasn't been used in court then?

Oh but it has - often and with hilarious consequences.

Esel

Carra23 wrote: »

I guess the only reason no one can provide hard evidence of this stuff working in an Irish court case is because it's a relatively new theory and is still only catching on here.

I think I'm on the fence with it the whole thing , wouldn't be 100% sure the FMOL approach to dealing with court situations would work but there's some good resoning behind it for example the fact that you can be fined for not wearing a seatbelt while driving your car is absolutely ridiculous. If I choose to not wear one while driving my car alone who's safety is at risk ? Why should the Government have the right to financialy penalise me for such a silly thing ? That's only one example of thousands out there

What about the other accident victims who might die because the surgeons were busy operating on you? The post below refers.

drkpower wrote: »

Id he happy to let people opt-out of seatbelt laws if those people opt-out of any entitlement to healthcare whatsoever. If they are so free that the laws of the State do not apply to them, then the benefits of the State shouldnt apply to them.

Agreed?

Esel

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

This is officially the most viewed and replied to thread in the CT forum (bar stickies). I wonder why it has gained so much interest

A big pile of dung attracts a swarm of flies. Many of them land on it.

seannash

you didnt choose to enter the world it was made for you.you did not choose to be created someone else decided to have you.

you arent expected to pay to move around but if you want to avail of a service(a road)you should follow there rules.you chose to go that direction,you chose to bring your car onto that road which is property of someone else

ill bet that if you take off in your car and drive around in a field no cop will ask you to wear a seatbelt or slow down.but heres the thing,pretty much all the land is owned by someone.you could walk over fields to get to your destination but that field is owned by a farmer.you need his permission to travel across his land

eh talkiewalkie i answered your statement now please respond to mine,especially the one about the intruder in a house

if you want to travel across the land do it,go climbing through fields and swimming over rivers but if you agree to enter onto a toll bridge that ive paid to build you must pay.

isnt driving your car onto the road entering into a contract.

your saying that a person can walk into my home and claim he is traveling across the land and your home happened to be in the way.

the motorway is a privately owned piece of land and as such you have no right to set foot on it unless you agree to the terms of use much like entering someones home uninvited doesnt work,if it did every burglar who was caught in the home could claim they were just passing through as long as they didnt do any damage to the home whilst entering it(unlocked window or door)
__________________

Carra23

thecommander wrote: »

So it hasn't been used in court then?

I never said it was ! read my post properly, I said I sit on the fence when it comes to this issue because I would neither be a believer/follower or denyer of the FMOTL therioes and beliefs but sometimes feel that there is some good reasoning behind their theories

ferguson

Carra23 wrote: »

I never said it was ! read my post properly, I said I sit on the fence when it comes to this issue because I would neither be a believer/follower or denyer of the FMOTL therioes and beliefs but sometimes feel that there is some good reasoning behind their theories

agree but that is not good until it succeeds in court

Carra23

ferguson wrote: »

agree but that is not good until it succeeds in court

That's exactly why I would never try it

I have an open mind towards everything because one thing I know for sure is that we live in a really unjust corupt world that alot more often than not just doesn't make any sense

ferguson

Carra23 wrote: »

That's exactly why I would never try it

me neither but came close

Finnbar01

Id he happy to let people opt-out of seatbelt laws if those people opt-out of any entitlement to healthcare whatsoever. If they are so free that the laws of the State do not apply to them, then the benefits of the State shouldnt apply to them.

Agreed?

Would those people still be required to pay tax?

Hootanany

What Healthcare i have to pay to go to AE over a €100 opt out Feck yeah

thecommander

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Would those people still be required to pay tax?

If those people could opt out of paying taxes, does that mean they'll repay education costs etc. Also, what about using anything that was paid for by tax money, roads, footpaths, electricity network, hosptials, list goes on. Hard to see how they could.

Mahatma coat

Every time I buy a can of Fanta I pay Tax. I Pay part of my income into a Healthcare fund voluntarily, I pay part of My income into a state social security fund involuntarily.

jay93

if you all just open your eyes and see they are a COMPANY the government is nothing more than a corportation that WE do not have abide by their rules
if you knew anything about irish law their is a loop hole for not having to bow down to a corrupt comapny this whole world is nothing but one big corporation scamming eachother out of it and dragging us all down with them ..
they give all our money to corrupt banks and we think their best interest is for us ha dont think so people have to grow up and stop taking crap from these corporations and take these evil corrupt selfless turds out of them buildings in dublin to be honest the whole lot of ireland has lost its fight for freedom and has been sucked into the illusions that mass media has imprinted into us:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Esel

^ I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Soveriegn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EzJsUExEDE

phantom_lord

lol. what was the actual result?

Hootanany

The Judge abandoned ship

Mahatma coat

phantom_lord wrote: »

lol. what was the actual result?

I'm gonna guess that the court reconvened after Recess and he was tried and convicted inabstentia, but hey, your guess is as good as mine.

Which would annoy me, cos e had em on the back foot but they got him with a sneaky trick, Whats it they say A Lawyer who represents himself has a Fool for a client and Vice Versa

There were a lot of people there, but none of them appeared to be clued up enough to Play that kind of move. twas a reasonably decent play tho

Soveriegn

phantom_lord wrote: »

lol. what was the actual result?

Twas a win for the big balled free thinking gentleman wearing a cap of course

thecommander

Soveriegn wrote: »

Twas a win for the big balled free thinking gentleman wearing a cap of course

How is a judge taking a recess a win?

Soveriegn

Lets not play silly beggers commander

thecommander

Soveriegn wrote: »

Lets not play silly beggers commander

I'm not. I fail to see how a judge taking a recess is taken as a win.

squod

It can be said for any conflict. The ''judge'' (not sworn) decided to withdraw or recess.

Origin:
mid 16th century (in the sense ‘withdrawal, departure’): from Latin recessus, from recedere 'go back' (see recede). The verb dates from the early 19th century

phantom_lord

lol. gonna go down to the four courts during the week and see if i can take over a court myself.

Brown Bomber

Isn't one of the points of the video that their was nothing in the judges power to take effective control of the situation`?

Why wasn't he placed in contempt of court?

ferguson

phantom_lord wrote: »

lol. gonna go down to the four courts during the week and see if i can take over a court myself.

let us know how you get on

squod

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Isn't one of the points of the video that their was nothing in the judges power to take effective control of the situation`?

Why wasn't he placed in contempt of court?

Fella pointed out the bailiffs understood him. There was simply no-one there to use force against him.

Hootanany

phantom_lord wrote: »

lol. gonna go down to the four courts during the week and see if i can take over a court myself.

How did you get on then:D

thecommander

Wonder if the bauld Jim is trying to pull a freeman on this. " it was clear from his conduct he was 'evading service'."

See how it plays out.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0930/corrj.html


ACC Bank has begun legal action against musician Jim Corr and an associate for an alleged debt of €1.3m.

The bank applied to the High Court today for an order relating to the serving of court documents on Jim Corr at his home in Bangor, Co Down.

In a sworn statement, solicitors for ACC Bank said numerous attempts had been made to serve Mr Corr with legal papers but it was clear from his conduct he was 'evading service'.

The court was told that ACC Bank will apply to have the proceedings submitted to the Commercial Court.

ACC Bank is suing Jim Corr of Old Windmill Road, Crawfordsburn, Bangor, Co Down, and Liam Marks of Blackrock, Dundalk, Co Louth, for an alleged debt of €1.3m.

The loan relates to 91 acres of land at Goresbridge, Co Kilkenny.

At the High Court today senior counsel for the bank, Bernard Dunleavy, told the judge that Mr Corr was 'a citizen of Ireland and a well-known musician'.

He secured an order for 'substitute of service'. This will allow the bank to serve notice of the legal proceedings on Mr Corr by post.

Lab_Mouse

Has Jimbo ever gone on about the FMOTL bollox?If he has it could be interesting to see if he puts the money were his mouth is.

Had a quick look at his website abnd didnt see any mention of it

thecommander

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Has Jimbo ever gone on about the FMOTL bollox?If he has it could be interesting to see if he puts the money were his mouth is.

Had a quick look at his website abnd didnt see any mention of it

He hasnt, but he's supported every other CT (if you could call it a CT), so I wouldn't put it past him

phantom_lord

that would be hilarious if he did.

Lab_Mouse

And if he did we could stop pestering Talkie for a case number of a successful case:D

optogirl

bonkey wrote: »

Let me see if I understand the argument here...

The Garda Siochana are a company, because some site on the internet says that it is.
There is no evidence of it being registered anywhere, no share information, no evidence of any of the various things that are legal requirements for companies....

...but a site on the internet says its a company, without explaining how it arrived at that conclusion, so it is a company.

Is that about right?

Firstly the site lists all bodies - limited, non limited, sole traders, co-ops etc so it doesn't mean that they are a company, just a body

Yitzhak Rabin

Given the OP is permabanned, and this thread has been inactive for a couple of months, I'm going to lock it. If people want to discuss the Freeman concept, then a fresh thread would be better.