Freeman Megamerge

johnnyskeleton

snow ghost wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The legal profession isn't "threatened" by Freemanism.

It seems, to an extent, that freemanism has created some stirring of activity and reaction, not unlike a beehive being poked at.

There are two strands to fremenism, one the conspiracy theory that statutes do not apply unless you consent, that judges trick you into a contract, all that stuff. The other is a questionning of the fundamental source of our laws.

The first is the more popular part, because people see it as a way to escape their obligations. Other than solicitors who have to deal with these nonsensical arguments on a daily basis, they are well below the radar and if they appear to be disproportionately discussed on boards.ie it is because this is where people occasionally look for answers to these dubious claims. The responses on this forum should therefore not be taken as indicating that the legal industry as a whole cares or even knows about fremenism.

The second strand is however very interesting and I'm facinated to see how such a world would work. There would be no laws against prostitution, drugs, weapons (unless you injured someone with the weapon), there would be no taxes, no rules of the road and no means of enforcing debts. It's akin to the tea party / libertarian folks in the USA and to be honest it's an interesting theory. However, it is undemocratic because it would mean that there is no wayto change or adapt the law to suit a changed society. The funny thing is that despite fremenism and libertariansim being very similar if not identical in theory, the supporters of each group hate being associated with the other group.

Finnbar01

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The second strand is however very interesting and I'm facinated to see how such a world would work. There would be no laws against prostitution, drugs, weapons (unless you injured someone with the weapon), there would be no taxes, no rules of the road and no means of enforcing debts. It's akin to the tea party / libertarian folks in the USA and to be honest it's an interesting theory. However, it is undemocratic because it would mean that there is no wayto change or adapt the law to suit a changed society. The funny thing is that despite fremenism and libertariansim being very similar if not identical in theory, the supporters of each group hate being associated with the other group.

I wouldn't consider libertarianism with freemanism. If anything freemanism is more akin to anarchism with the slight slant that someone else picks up the tab.

Liberatrians certainly believe in paying their own way but would rather see more choice on offer and more privatisation.

johnnyskeleton

Finnbar01 wrote: »

I wouldn't consider libertarianism with freemanism. If anything freemanism is more akin to anarchism with the slight slant that someone else picks up the tab.

Liberatrians certainly believe in paying their own way but would rather see more choice on offer and more privatisation.

Both theories are based on the belief that the power of government to pass and enforce laws should be limited to preventing those acts which cause harm to others and the enforcement of contracts. Everything else, according to both theories, is giving too much power to the State and is an unfair restriction of liberty and freedom.

Of course, the reality of both is different. Fremen basically want to get free stuff and the theory underpinning their beliefs is merely a whitewash. Similarly, most of the people who describe themselves as libertarians are not real libertarians but as you describe simply want to see more privatization and lower taxes.

But there are other similarities too - a strange belief in the gold standard, a belief that the laws followed by the founding fathers of the USA should be followed today, that crime doesn't exist unless there is an injured party, the obsession with contracts and contract law and the refusal to engage when flaws with the theory are pointed out and the way that they seem to have a massive internet following that is disproportionate to their real world following.

benway

Corruptable wrote: »

To answer you snow_ghost, I think the main reason why those who have some level of legal education (it's not hard to get these days) have little or no patience is because of the arrogance of those who espouse it that we must open our eyes, that we need to "get educated". Some of those who post here have spent years of their lives practicing, studying and even enforcing the law, yet these people somehow think we need to be educated after studying precedent from time immemorial and finding no evidence of this freeman logic even having been deployed anywhere except in 1930s America and here in the present.

Case in point:

why are the so called legal proffesion so pig ignorant,i have walked into univeristys and spoken to so called proffersers of law to ask these questions and all i got was a blank look,it is without a doubt that the only way to join the so called law proffesion is that you have there point of view or you cant join .it was more than blank looks they didnt even want to answer,just sat there without saying a word.didnt even try an argument.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=185001&page=3

Our man in Havana

A freeman forum? Sweet Jebus!

snow ghost

I have been watching a few youtube freeman videos, I particularly enjoy their use of language - they seem to have created some type of ye olde English cum psudeo-legal-jargon type of language of their own that they think gives them credibility.

benway

A Freeman sub forum on David Icke's site, to be exact. A nice relaxing interlude when the talk of 17 foot, human blood drinking lizards ruling the world gets too much. Expect wild delusions, BLOCK CAPITALS and senior infant grade spelling from the start.

There does seem to be a fair degree of cross-over with other wingnut elements, as illustrated by this fremen charmer:

Does any member of this group care to arrange a meeting with me in MULLINGAR . I have arrived to this area of Ireland desperately in need of finding just ONE Irish Living Soul whom actually gives a **** and have any knowledge of just how Ireland has been sold out and literally thousands of years of Celtic based history will be expected to be wiped out permanently in place for an industrial wasteland. *****, contact me or anyone else at ****@***.*** and I will give my Tel Number. There just seems to be massive groups of Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian Mafia ****ing the local girls to have mixed race babies, cause all the local girls are basically vegetables without a care, what the ****, am I wrong, this is not the Ireland I was expecting. The seriousness of the 1 year future time line before the **** really hits the fan, and everything linked to the Fraud on the name, Unlawful Currency, to the total NWO plan of eugenics and 911 being an inside job is what I want to talk about, we have no time for sensibilities. Please get in touch immediately.

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

For years, Porisky has been promoting his "natural person" theory, which holds that a per-son can arrange his or her business affairs to receive income as a "natural person" rather than as a taxpayer, thereby avoiding income taxes.

The only problem is, the courts have consistently rejected this argument. More than a dozen people, including some of Porisky's former students, have been convicted of tax evasion, and some have been sentenced to jail terms.

....

Paradigm proved to be a very popular and lucrative business. A Canada Revenue Agency investigator testified that a total of $1,843,298 was deposited into Porisky's and Gould's bank accounts during the relevant period. After deducting expenses, he estimated net business income to be $1,127,185, which he allocated evenly between the two accused.

While the profitability of the venture was clear, its underlying logic was not:

"Mr. Porisky's theory not only does not bear any legal logic but it also fails to accord with common sense. It is a failed attempt at word magic and has no validity," Judge Myers wrote in his decision.

He said the "absurdity" of Porisky's distinction between a natural person and a non-natural person was illustrated during the trial when he was asked whether he wanted to give any evidence.

"If I make the decision and I go in that box, which person, in the eyes of the law, am I?" he asked the judge.

"Am I Russell Anthony Porisky in my inherent personality as a natural person, or am I a sovereign-granted personality?"

"You're Mr. Porisky," the judge replied.

"That's fairly misleading because that's not clear enough for me," Porisky responded.

At that point, the judge tried to reduce the question to its simplest form:

"Let's assume you get into the stand and the Crown asks you, 'What did you have for break-fast today?' Would it make a difference as to what capacity you were in?"

"For me, it would, your honour, yes."

The judge also noted that, when Porisky was asked to confirm the identity of a Paradigm educator in the public gallery, he said it depended in what capacity the Crown was asking about.

The judge found that Porisky was well aware of previous court decisions rejecting the natural person theory, and was therefore "wilfully blind" in utilizing and promoting his views to others.

"It is clear to me that Mr. Porisky intended that Paradigm students follow his teachings by arranging their affairs as natural persons and avoid paying income tax."

The judge noted that Paradigm's books and DVDs contained a disclaimer that the information in them "should in no way be construed as either legal or financial advice," and that readers should consult a competent expert to determine its veracity before utilizing it.

But he said these caveats were "lost in a sea of material that [Paradigm] presented with 100-per-cent certainty," and it was clear he was "encouraging the fraud of income tax avoidance."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+Chilliwack+proponent+natural+person+theory+convicted+counselling+fraud/6019051/story.html#ixzz1qKqRrwUT

>Written judgment< - seems there are a few other instances where the "natural person" argument has come a cropper in the Canadian courts as well.

While I'm preaching to the choir, there's also a scatter of fremen related FoI requests in the UK, can be found >here<. Needless to say, there's nothing in the responses to support any fremen theorising, be it on judges' oaths, Council Tax, birth certificates and fiat currency - in most instances, the requests fall way outside of the scope of a FoI request anyway, the Law Society seem to be getting hit with some doozies. Funny reading, though ... just glad I don't have to try sending these guys an earnest response.

Although, they're no doubt being bandied about the fremen internets as examples of the grand conspiracy in action. Pretty bowled over by the cognitive dissonance showing in this response to the Porisky case.

pirelli

Corruptable wrote: »

To answer you snow_ghost, I think the main reason why those who have some level of legal education (it's not hard to get these days) have little or no patience is because of the arrogance of those who espouse it that we must open our eyes, that we need to "get educated". Some of those who post here have spent years of their lives practicing, studying and even enforcing the law, yet these people somehow think we need to be educated after studying precedent from time immemorial and finding no evidence of this freeman logic even having been deployed anywhere except in 1930s America and here in the present.

While this may veer ever so slightly off topic.. I must say that some of these professionals have spent years enforcing their careers and personal ambitions at the expense of the client. An example might be a senior barrister in criminal law that has his eye on a seat as a judge is involved in case where it becomes possible that there is Garda corruption at a high level, the barrister
will put his career first and shaft his client.

Those selfless ones that risk their career's to upholding justice are never respected in the legal circles unless they win which is usually very hard.

Avatargh

pirelli wrote: »

While this may veer ever so slightly off topic.. I must say that some of these professionals have spent years enforcing their careers and personal ambitions at the expense of the client. An example might be a senior barrister in criminal law that has his eye on a seat as a judge is involved in case where it becomes possible that there is Garda corruption at a high level, the barrister will put his career first and shaft his client.

You must say? Why? Why must you? What has this point got to do with anything under discussion? What has anything with respect to duty to the client to do with discussion about why lawyers are tired not of their clients but of their opponents when those opponents happen to have a love for this freeman line of thinking? This is crank posting with no redeeming contribution.

pirelli wrote: »

Those selfless ones that risk their career's to upholding justice are never respected in the legal circles unless they win which is usually very hard.

Absolute rubbish. What is your basis? You're referring to fact here - people are "never respected" "unless they win"? Examples? What are you talking about?

In any event, there is no need to "risk a career" to take on cases for the "little guy". Its perfectly possible to be a high flying well regarded, Senior Counsel who will take human rights / human interest cases. Happens all the time.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

While this may veer ever so slightly off topic.. I must say that some of these professionals have spent years enforcing their careers and personal ambitions at the expense of the client. An example might be a senior barrister in criminal law that has his eye on a seat as a judge is involved in case where it becomes possible that there is Garda corruption at a high level, the barrister
will put his career first and shaft his client.

Those selfless ones that risk their career's to upholding justice are never respected in the legal circles unless they win which is usually very hard.

To be the possessor of the stupidest post on a Freeman thread is really an achievement. Sensational work.

jargon buster

Freeman on the land is dead and buried, even Rob Menard (the only self claimed freeman in existence) is always on warning on David Ickes forum.
He even has his own forum (World Freeman Society) and he very rarely posts on there.

He got on my nerves over two years ago when I asked him a question and I made it my business to expose him and prove he was a mountebank.

Its job done.

berrypendel

jargon buster wrote: »

Freeman on the land is dead and buried, even Rob Menard (the only self claimed freeman in existence) is always on warning on David Ickes forum.
He even has his own forum (World Freeman Society) and he very rarely posts on there.

He got on my nerves over two years ago when I asked him a question and I made it my business to expose him and prove he was a mountebank.

Its job done.

you exposed him all on your own?

dats_right

Why is the thread still going?

It should moved out of legal forum for a start as it is not a legal issue, is there not a pie in the sky forum this could be transferred to?

It the mods won't either lock the thread or move it to a more
appropriate forum them I would urge those sane and right thinking members to desist from engaging in nonesensical debates with a load of nutters.

41 pages seriously? We should be ashamed of ourselves!

benway

In fairness, I think it's those who are going round letting on that asking the Gardaí whether they are "on their oath" will prevent them from arresting or evicting debtors who really should be ashamed. I don't blame people for being suckered in, given the state the country's in.

Plus, I've added mountebank to my vocabulary, so you can't say this thread isn't educational ... think it's a word that may come in handy over the coming months.

jargon buster

you exposed him all on your own?

Oh no, I had some help.
If you wish to see Menard destroy himself just Google "Rob Menard Jargon Buster Asky Steven1"

Isnt mountebank a perfect word for cretins like Menard?

Pat Mustard

I don't know why people are complaining about the Freemen. They are hilarious.

I loved the concept so much that I decided to become one.

So on the eve of my graduation as a Freeman, I got into my car after 25 pints (having discarded my tax and insurance discs as unneccessary nods to useless statutes). I crashed into a wall on the way home, but hey, no harm done.

The cops arrived and I made sure to ask them if they were on their oath. They told me to breathe into a bag. I declined to contract to this Road Traffic Act nonsense. I did not breathe into the bag.

They asked me for my licence but I didn't give it. They searched me and found my licence - a hangover from previous days as a serf. They asked me about my name and address and I replied - "allegedly".

To cut a long story short, I ended up in court. I asked the judge if I could see his oath. He didn't think an oath was perceptible to the human eye.

I didn't plead guilty, so the judge entered a plea of not guilty on my behalf. I didn't consent to that and I reserved the full rights of common law and the Constitution. I made sure to stay in the public gallery though, to avoid straying into the maritime jurisdiction of Naas District Court.

So the judge tells me he's sending me to prison, for refusing to give a sample and other previous 'offences'.

Jail sentence eh? Let's see what the Magna Carta has to say about that!

Freemen abú!

seamus

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't know why people are complaining about the Freemen. They are hilarious.

Because they're now going as far as fraud to try to push their belief into the general population by issuing fake notices from reputable law firms attached to their nonsense.

I just had to tell my sister-in-law via facebook that the memo was false (thankfully she had asked a solicitor friend to verify it rather than take it at face value). The problem is that many people see the law as difficult and inaccessible, and therefore when they see something written in what appears to be plain english and the speaker declaring with authority (false or deluded) that it's correct, people tend to take it at face value.

It's exactly the same trick that conmen and religious institutions use. It's dangerous because it can land otherwise honest and decent people in hot water because they're a little too naive.

MagicSean

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't know why people are complaining about the Freemen. They are hilarious.

I loved the concept so much that I decided to become one.

So on the eve of my graduation as a Freeman, I got into my car after 25 pints (having discarded my tax and insurance discs as unneccessary nods to useless statutes). I crashed into a wall on the way home, but hey, no harm done.

The cops arrived and I made sure to ask them if they were on their oath. They told me to breathe into a bag. I declined to contract to this Road Traffic Act nonsense. I did not breathe into the bag.

They asked me for my licence but I didn't give it. They searched me and found my licence - a hangover from previous days as a serf. They asked me about my name and address and I replied - "allegedly".

To cut a long story short, I ended up in court. I asked the judge if I could see his oath. He didn't think an oath was perceptible to the human eye.

I didn't plead guilty, so the judge entered a plea of not guilty on my behalf. I didn't consent to that and I reserved the full rights of common law and the Constitution. I made sure to stay in the public gallery though, to avoid straying into the maritime jurisdiction of Naas District Court.

So the judge tells me he's sending me to prison, for refusing to give a sample and other previous 'offences'.

Jail sentence eh? Let's see what the Magna Carta has to say about that!

Freemen abú!

If people follow their advice they will end up in prison eventually and will also have no money or assets to their name.

jargon buster

Menard posted that memo/e-mail as proof over on Ickes

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=201670

It got him a warning/suspension after the law firm initiated an investigation.
Menard is already prohibited from giving legal advice in certain provinces of Canada.
Theres a very long thread over on James Randis about Menard and his idiocy, its two years old and has 5,230 replies although there is not one scrap of evidence provided by Menard that his theories actually work.
There is on the other hand many,many case histories and evidence that prove hes a liar and a mountebank.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

Pat Mustard

seamus wrote: »

Because they're now going as far as fraud to try to push their belief into the general population by issuing fake notices from reputable law firms attached to their nonsense.

I've seen one of those fake notices. This is what our useless statutes have to say about that kind of carry on. (The fine has increased btw). http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1954/en/act/pub/0036/sec0056.html#sec56

seamus wrote: »

It's exactly the same trick that conmen and religious institutions use. It's dangerous because it can land otherwise honest and decent people in hot water because they're a little too naive.

I think it's time that I and my Freemen buddies went on the Vinnie Browne show and showed the world what we're made of.

benway

seamus wrote: »

It's exactly the same trick that conmen and religious institutions use. It's dangerous because it can land otherwise honest and decent people in hot water because they're a little too naive.

Nail:head. Especially when there are so many people desperately looking for a way out of crisis-level personal debt. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, and the fremen's looney tunes sideshow will only serve to provide an easy straw-man for the banks and their cheerleaders to beat on if and when such measures are proposed.

I note that the heads of the Personal Insolvency Bill were presented to the Dáil recently. Despite the fact that, in my view, it doesn't go nearly far enough, even at this stage, the banks are not pleased with this development.

Finnbar01

jargon buster wrote: »

Menard posted that memo/e-mail as proof over on Ickes

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=201670

It got him a warning/suspension after the law firm initiated an investigation.
Menard is already prohibited from giving legal advice in certain provinces of Canada.
Theres a very long thread over on James Randis about Menard and his idiocy, its two years old and has 5,230 replies although there is not one scrap of evidence provided by Menard that his theories actually work.
There is on the other hand many,many case histories and evidence that prove hes a liar and a mountebank.

Why isn't that clown Menard locked up by now.

Let me guess, he actually doesn't practise what he preaches and when he claims to have, he offers no proof?

jargon buster

correct, he has never put his neck on the line yet has encouraged many others to.
He even took $800 from Lance Thatcher in exchange for a "remedy" that got him locked up.

Thatcher had his first run-in with the law in Kamloops in 2007, which cost him four days in jail, she said. After that, he had a conversation with well-known freeman Robert Menard, who sold him an $800 document that indicated how he could fight the law more effectively.

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20110708/KAMLOOPS0101/110709833/-1/kamloops/internet-fuelled-freeman-8217-s-beliefs-says-ex-wife

Our man in Havana

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU7G6XIMt2Q

crystalmice

Highly cringe-worthy, and I feel truely sorry for anyone taken in by it, but it really is comedy gold;

'The magistrates sit on the bench...speechless!'
'The Clerk leaves to retrieve the magistrates from their hiding place!'
'Wait a minute! I thought THEY were the legal department of this corporation!'
And my personal favorite; 'Remember this is an admiralty court...a SHIP!'

:rolleyes:

Tom Young

Behave! (all of you)

Tom Young

I'm just going to say this once more. Stop!

pirelli

Avatargh wrote: »

You must say? Why? Why must you? What has this point got to do with anything under discussion? What has anything with respect to duty to the client to do with discussion about why lawyers are tired not of their clients but of their opponents when those opponents happen to have a love for this freeman line of thinking? This is crank posting with no redeeming contribution.

Absolute rubbish. What is your basis? You're referring to fact here - people are "never respected" "unless they win"? Examples? What are you talking about?

In any event, there is no need to "risk a career" to take on cases for the "little guy". Its perfectly possible to be a high flying well regarded, Senior Counsel who will take human rights / human interest cases. Happens all the time.

Any wrongfully convicted person ever receiving proper compensation and pardon would be an example. The state ever admitting it is wrong.

Corruptable wrote: »

To answer you snow_ghost, I think the main reason why those who have some level of legal education (it's not hard to get these days) have little or no patience is because of the arrogance of those who espouse it that we must open our eyes, that we need to "get educated". Some of those who post here have spent years of their lives practicing, studying and even enforcing the law, yet these people somehow think we need to be educated after studying precedent from time immemorial and finding no evidence of this freeman logic even having been deployed anywhere except in 1930s America and here in the present.

pirelli wrote: »

While this may veer ever so slightly off topic.. I must say that some of these professionals have spent years enforcing their careers and personal ambitions at the expense of the client. An example might be a senior barrister in criminal law that has his eye on a seat as a judge is involved in case where it becomes possible that there is Garda corruption at a high level, the barrister
will put his career first and shaft his client.

Those selfless ones that risk their career's to upholding justice are never respected in the legal circles unless they win which is usually very hard.

Deleted User wrote: »

To be the possessor of the stupidest post on a Freeman thread is really an achievement. Sensational work.

I was perhaps reckless but not stupid to respond to corruptable's post noting the practitioners of the law find no logic to Fremanism and therefore those opponents to the law are purely arrogant.

I just wanted to be clear on that point so that we are a little closer to determining which group is the most arrogant. I just find that the tone and candour of many of the practitioners and students that corruptable speaks of are the more arrogant and the post's above speak for themselves.

I think Fremanism is a form of civil disobedience or civil resistance. As Martin Luther king said: one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, and Ghandi an advocate of non violent civil disobedience where you may take the fine and serve the sentence but in protest.

It's not so much the lack of logic to Fremanism but essentially whether there is something good behind it all.

Tom Young

Pirelli: your deletion of posts is quite testing. Please give us a break.

The deterministic features of civil disobedience, protesting against unjust laws in the past was rationality and logical construction.

Freeman movement contains neither

Pat Mustard

pirelli wrote: »

I think Fremanism is a form of civil disobedience or civil resistance. As Martin Luther king said: one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, and Ghandi an advocate of non violent civil disobedience where you may take the fine and serve the sentence but in protest.

Das riet.

No more taxes! Taxes are for serfs and their masters, the Lizard Men!

Huzzah!

pirelli

The Mustard wrote: »

Das riet.

No more taxes! Taxes are for serfs and their masters, the Lizard Men!

Huzzah!

As corruptable said the only existence of the Fremanism has been in the 1930's and the present. I have already explained my views on Fremanism and had thought it was more an economical movement than a civil one. It is no coincidence that 1930 and present day both saw a world financial crisis. I would also find it hard to give it credibility that other civil movements have, it is like a very rich man's eccentric pet hobby.

Then again so is the law in Ireland and both groups act like angry cowards. Although some of these movements do stand up for people that would have little recourse in the courts so there must be some good in these little movements all of which sadly fall under the fremanism label.

MagicSean

pirelli wrote: »

Any wrongfully convicted person ever receiving proper compensation and pardon would be an example. The state ever admitting it is wrong.

I was perhaps reckless but not stupid to respond to corruptable's post noting the practitioners of the law find no logic to Fremanism and therefore those opponents to the law are purely arrogant.

I just wanted to be clear on that point so that we are a little closer to determining which group is the most arrogant. I just find that the tone and candour of many of the practitioners and students that corruptable speaks of are the more arrogant and the post's above speak for themselves.

I think Fremanism is a form of civil disobedience or civil resistance. As Martin Luther king said: one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, and Ghandi an advocate of non violent civil disobedience where you may take the fine and serve the sentence but in protest.

It's not so much the lack of logic to Fremanism but essentially whether there is something good behind it all.

It's simply a form of weaseling.

I've yet to hear one of them pledge to return all the items they spent with their imaginary money. "The money the bank gave me wasn't real but when I purchased something with it it was real." That's the basic position they have.

Their stance on criminal law is even more ridiculous and has no other aspects to it other than avoiding prosecutions.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

It's not so much the lack of logic to Fremanism but essentially whether there is something good behind it all.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King both espoused peaceful protest over violent rebellion because they realised that it doesn't just matter what you are fighting for, it matters how you go about the fight.

There can be no merit to Freemanism because it is, without fear of contradiction, a lie. It is an evil not because of that lie but because of the devastation it can cause to people who swallow it. The followers of Russell Porisky, whose methods were described as below by a Canadian judge, all suffered serious criminal penalties for what amounted to tax evasion (something which also happened to early Freemen such as Fuselier in the United States). See: R. v. Klundert [2008] O.J. No. 4522; R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346; R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460; and R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 for examples of what happens when people believe this tripe. It ends in disaster for them.

The Paradigm materials and the teachings of Mr. Porisky have no credibility. In my view, they are nothing more than the proverbial "snake oil salesmen"

The victims here are the people taken in by the Freemen "gurus" who use millenia-old tricks to deceive and indoctrinate people into a form of thinking that does nothing but leave them open to the worst forms of criminal and civil punishments where, had they simply obeyed the law from the outset, they would have been far better off or even completely fine.

Freemanism is evil because it deceives and brings false hope. It pretends to offer the most desperate among us a way out and then when they take to the platform offered by the Freemen they realise that there is no substance to it and they are infinitely worse off than before. The other strand of it, where it has been comical in the past, is its true face: the avoidance of basic legal obligations such as obeying the Road Traffic Acts (Bobby Sludds).

Freemanism isn't a poor mantle on an honourable goal. It is an insidious and objectively dangerous pseudo-cult that offers the promises of hope and the reality of destitution. Any argument in its favour will find scorn not because of the arrogance of the party arguing against it, but because the concepts of Freemanism are simultaneously so laughable and so utterly counter-productive to the goals it purports to follow that no rational person could possibly justify them.

benway

pirelli wrote: »

I think Fremanism is a form of civil disobedience or civil resistance. As Martin Luther king said: one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, and Ghandi an advocate of non violent civil disobedience where you may take the fine and serve the sentence but in protest.

It's not so much the lack of logic to Fremanism but essentially whether there is something good behind it all.

Sorry mods, I can't let this go...but I will keep it brief. Fremenism isn't about disobeying unjust laws, it's about make believing unjust laws, as you see them, out of existence.

Honestly, comparing the firemen to MLK and Ghandi? My whole point all along had been that the true rebels fought the system as it exists, not some fantasy. And they never lied to their followers about the extent of the risks or the challenge.

Fair enough that you're taking the anti-establishment line, but don't let that blind you to the fact that the fremen's methods, worse than just being a joke, are unconscionable and will almost certainly be counter productive in the long run.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

Gandhi and Martin Luther King both espoused peaceful protest over violent rebellion because they realised that it doesn't just matter what you are fighting for, it matters how you go about the fight.

There can be no merit to Freemanism because it is, without fear of contradiction, a lie. It is an evil not because of that lie but because of the devastation it can cause to people who swallow it. The followers of Russell Porisky, whose methods were described as below by a Canadian judge, all suffered serious criminal penalties for what amounted to tax evasion (something which also happened to early Freemen such as Fuselier in the United States). See: R. v. Klundert [2008] O.J. No. 4522; R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346; R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460; and R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 for examples of what happens when people believe this tripe. It ends in disaster for them.



The victims here are the people taken in by the Freemen "gurus" who use millenia-old tricks to deceive and indoctrinate people into a form of thinking that does nothing but leave them open to the worst forms of criminal and civil punishments where, had they simply obeyed the law from the outset, they would have been far better off or even completely fine.

Freemanism is evil because it deceives and brings false hope. It pretends to offer the most desperate among us a way out and then when they take to the platform offered by the Freemen they realise that there is no substance to it and they are infinitely worse off than before. The other strand of it, where it has been comical in the past, is its true face: the avoidance of basic legal obligations such as obeying the Road Traffic Acts (Bobby Sludds).

Freemanism isn't a poor mantle on an honourable goal. It is an insidious and objectively dangerous pseudo-cult that offers the promises of hope and the reality of destitution. Any argument in its favour will find scorn not because of the arrogance of the party arguing against it, but because the concepts of Freemanism are simultaneously so laughable and so utterly counter-productive to the goals it purports to follow that no rational person could possibly justify them.

I took corruptables post out of context..to make an off topic remark, that doesn't make me a believer in Freeman Kayroo nor does it make me stupid just a little naive of the passion you chaps have for this topic.

You can stop bashing me with the legal bible.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

I took corruptables post out of context..to make an off topic remark, that doesn't make me a believer in Freeman Kayroo nor does it make me stupid just a little naive of the passion you chaps have for this topic.

You can stop bashing me with the legal bible.

I never said you believed nor did I accuse you of stupidity although you clearly have a problem with reading what people have actually written.

Finally; I haven't bashed you but, as you can see if you look at my post again, I only refer to the Freemen and don't make it about you at all unlike your post in response to me.

pirelli

benway wrote: »

Sorry mods, I can't let this go...but I will keep it brief. Fremenism isn't about disobeying unjust laws, it's about make believing unjust laws, as you see them, out of existence.

Honestly, comparing the firemen to MLK and Ghandi? My whole point all along had been that the true rebels fought the system as it exists, not some fantasy. And they never lied to their followers about the extent of the risks or the challenge.

Fair enough that you're taking the anti-establishment line, but don't let that blind you to the fact that the fremen's methods, worse than just being a joke, are unconscionable and will almost certainly be counter productive in the long run.

Why are u apologising to the Mod's...I think they have agreed to keep this thread going.

I never compared Mlk or Ghandi and if you read my post just above you will see that. Maybe Freeman believe there is a conspiracy of some king involving some kind of world order and this is their way of being disobedient to it. Freeman was always suspicious if not fearful of the banking system and whenever the banking system fails they appear. Freeman do not believe in the way the economy is being run and this is their way of protesting. It is a civil resistance and i am surprised at the reaction of some people on this thread to something as harmless as Freemanism.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

It is a civil resistance and i am surprised at the reaction of some people on this thread to something as harmless as Freemanism.

Is it harmless when 300 Freemen surround a magistrates Court and attempt to arrest a judge?

Is it harmless when $1.6 million Canadian dollars is defrauded from the Canadian Govt in a tax evasion scheme?

Is it harmless when there is an 80-day armed standoff with Federal Officers in Montana within weeks of the Waco incident?

Is it harmless when, owing to Freemen teachings, ordinary people are defrauded out of over one million dollars through fraudulently produced cheques?

All of these incidents have happened already. Harmless.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said you believed nor did I accuse you of stupidity although you clearly have a problem with reading what people have actually written.

Finally; I haven't bashed you but, as you can see if you look at my post again, I only refer to the Freemen and don't make it about you at all unlike your post in response to me.

Not reading people posts!! It worse than that, You were all sizzling with anti Freeman passion and courrutable had just made a great speech...i just thought you all had finished with the topic, my mistake.

This thread remind's me that game Red Code where your in the winning seat with a larger coloured army of tanks and soldier and you surround the other army until the odds are ridiculously in your favour.

Kinda like I unplugged your playstation sorry boy's do continue. Not saying you have won the war on Freeman's but i don't see any opposition on this thread.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it harmless when 300 Freemen surround a magistrates Court and attempt to arrest a judge?

Is it harmless when $1.6 million Canadian dollars is defrauded from the Canadian Govt in a tax evasion scheme?

Is it harmless when there is an 80-day armed standoff with Federal Officers in Montana within weeks of the Waco incident?

Is it harmless when, owing to Freemen teachings, ordinary people are defrauded out of over one million dollars through fraudulently produced cheques?

All of these incidents have happened already. Harmless.

Sorry not harmless.... wrong word.:D

Tom Young

Open tomorrow after 13:00.

jargon buster

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2203936727

Rob Menard on Canadian TV

johnnyskeleton

jargon buster wrote: »

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2203936727

Rob Menard on Canadian TV

Good find.

The chilling thing is the guy who explains how he got caught up in it - repetition, repetition, repetition.

That's how they work. The more varieties of the same theory from different sources reinforces their beliefs.

Robbo

Yesterday morning, Ian Dempsey read out that fake McCann Fitz email on his show. Jesus wept.

johnnyskeleton

Robbo wrote: »

Yesterday morning, Ian Dempsey read out that fake McCann Fitz email on his show. Jesus wept.

Well at least people now know not to believe it.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it harmless when 300 Freemen surround a magistrates Court and attempt to arrest a judge?

Is it harmless when $1.6 million Canadian dollars is defrauded from the Canadian Govt in a tax evasion scheme?

Is it harmless when there is an 80-day armed standoff with Federal Officers in Montana within weeks of the Waco incident?

Is it harmless when, owing to Freemen teachings, ordinary people are defrauded out of over one million dollars through fraudulently produced cheques?

All of these incidents have happened already. Harmless.

Harmless and amusing that you would care about 1.6 million dollars in tax evasion in a foreign country or expect me to care. What Freman are alleging is somewhat true in that there is impropriety in the financial sector which results in huge losses which falls on the tax payer ( who don't exist ha ha )

To focus on such pettiness and turn a blind eye to the impropriety at almost every level of our economy which is costing us hundreds of billions if not upwards of a trillion in losses...

...I am being presumptious and i am sure you do care for the state of our economy and it's perfectly fair to have an opinion on Fremanism and how abrasive it's philosophy is to the senses.

I am not being arrogant nor presumptuous in relation to fremanism either and if you viewed the link below- at the end of the program- in the link they suggest incorporating the Fremanism language and beliefs into an appropriate structure where both the Government official and the Freeman can communicate.

That is an achievement and there may well be something of substance to what they are saying. This thread just dismisses everything they say as nonsense is the same as a Freman dismissing everything lawyers and goverment's say as nonsense. The police, and shoddy lawyers have far too often taken advantage of people naivety, and any form of civil resistance that gives simple people back some dignity and rights is a good thing.

Remember the bush era where everything people were told was a lie. Lie's after Lie's. People need an outlet to vent their frustration. Call them cheap red necks trying to weasel out of paying their contribution's or see them as people who need to vent their fustration.

jargon buster wrote: »

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2203936727

Rob Menard on Canadian TV

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Good find.

The chilling thing is the guy who explains how he got caught up in it - repetition, repetition, repetition.

That's how they work. The more varieties of the same theory from different sources reinforces their beliefs.

I have no idea where I stand on all of this but the killing of those police officers was callous and cruel. The presenter brings our attention to the vehicles licence plate in the video of the killing but to me the car's number plate did look normal on the murder's car though despite them saying it was one of them crazy Freman people number plates you see earlier in the video.

We have for simplistic sake the IRA ( dissidents) as terror group and Spain has ETA and the Germans have the RAF ( red army) and america has it's terror groups also but i am not sure it is fremanism.


Is it, i think we are being slightly misled ?

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Good find.

The chilling thing is the guy who explains how he got caught up in it - repetition, repetition, repetition.

That's how they work. The more varieties of the same theory from different sources reinforces their beliefs.

They also target the vulnerable.

seamus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well at least people now know not to believe it.

You would think so, except Ian Dempsey said, "Is it true? I dunno, maybe someone can check it out. It would be great news if it is true".

And left it at that. ffs.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well at least people now know not to believe it.

You would think so, except Ian Dempsey said, "Is it true? I dunno, maybe someone can check it out. It would be great news if it is true".

And left it at that. ffs.

Exactly. If he said it was untrue, people might start to believe it. As it is, no one will pay any mind.

pirelli

seamus wrote: »

You would think so, except Ian Dempsey said, "Is it true? I dunno, maybe someone can check it out. It would be great news if it is true".

And left it at that. ffs.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Exactly. If he said it was untrue, people might start to believe it. As it is, no one will pay any mind.

Well is it? Just a simple Yes or No. Thank you