Freeman Megamerge

Mr. Incognito

Anyway, There were 47 seven family homes coming under the hammer, I sat there and watched the proceedings, I watched the barristers communicate with the Registrar through secret hand signals (a ploy used in all courts to make sure the barristers get what they want) to manipulate the defendants into unwinnable positions.

Mod first sentence of post deleted.

I feel sorry for any person duped by this pseudo legal jargon. By the time they find out these guys are talking out their holes their good will with the banks are gone and they are out on the streets, ironically self fulfilling the prophesy from these muppets.

whippet

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Mod first sentence of post deleted.

I feel sorry for any person duped by this pseudo legal jargon. By the time they find out these guys are talking out their holes their good will with the banks are gone and they are out on the streets, ironically self fulfilling the prophesy from these muppets.

I've given up on feeling sorry for people dupped by these types of people; everyone I know uses 'google' before engaging with a new service provider or company. Those that don't can't complain.

Although seemingly intelligent people still are getting roped in by pyramid marketing and network selling.

There are two people who i'd be acquaintances with on facebook, who I would consider intelligent and right-minded who I've had to block due to the incessant pyramid selling they are doing. They spend about 90% of their time touting for new sales associates rather than actually selling the product. A quick google of these companies would tell you all you need to know ... yet these seemingly smart people are believing and hoping in the dream

For Forks Sake

whippet wrote: »

I've given up on feeling sorry for people dupped by these types of people; everyone I know uses 'google' before engaging with a new service provider or company. Those that don't can't complain.

Although seemingly intelligent people still are getting roped in by pyramid marketing and network selling.

There are two people who i'd be acquaintances with on facebook, who I would consider intelligent and right-minded who I've had to block due to the incessant pyramid selling they are doing. They spend about 90% of their time touting for new sales associates rather than actually selling the product. A quick google of these companies would tell you all you need to know ... yet these seemingly smart people are believing and hoping in the dream

Our model is the trapezoid....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuVh36vQkSI

Serjeant Buzfuz

It's rumoured that two freemen were sent to prison in Longford District Court this afternoon for Contempt of Court, one name would be well known in the west

Serjeant Buzfuz

Social media full of outrage, it is being alleged that they abused the beak when he was walking back to Court after lunch and he had them arrested and offered legal representation and ultimately sentenced two of them to 7 days in prison and let the third one who apologised off.
He has power to do this under the Petty Sessions Act.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Losty Dublin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

More illegal victimisation again?

Serjeant Buzfuz

Losty Dublin wrote: »

More illegal victimisation again?

Yes the Judge failed to recognise the divine right of freemen to abuse whoever they want

For Forks Sake

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Yes the Judge failed to recognise the divine right of freemen to abuse whoever they want

Class action against Cloverhill is long overdue. Another friend, a gentleman, good man, guilty only of seeking political asylum in the land of his ancestors, was locked up in Cloverhill for 3 weeks - during which he was subjected to acoustical torture as in the TV being kept on LOUD 24 hours per day. God knows i am no fan of the UN, but under their definitions and guidelines that constitutes TORTURE.

nuac

Mod
Careful now, people
There was a time when lawyers and those interested in the law just discussed the exceptions to the exceptions to the rule in Shelley's Case.
Eheu fugaces and all that

Serjeant Buzfuz

nuac wrote: »

Mod
Careful now, people
There was a time when lawyers and those interested in the law just discussed the exceptions to the exceptions to the rule in Shelley's Case.
Eheu fugaces and all that

Time flies when you're having fun...

Losty Dublin

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Yes the Judge failed to recognise the divine right of freemen to abuse whoever they want

Ah, but it happened outside the court and the DJ hadn't got her wig on so she was fair game

eldamo

This will probably be eclipsed my the current issues of Ireland's sexiest man (that's why they jailed him!)!
But I thought the following from the UK was some good old fashioned freeman fun.

http://m.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/mystery-Legal-Fraud-billboard-Gloucester/story-29365927-detail/story.html#ixzz4Aog7AO4d

Which leads to (brace yourself for important capitalisation)

http://legalnamefraud.com

Serjeant Buzfuz

If we're going to get into the legal discussion topic, what do people think of the contempt of court provisions? District Judges get theirs from the Petty Sessions Act 1851! Should County Registrars get this power? Should filming and recording in District and County Registrars Courts be subject to sanction? It's over 20 years since the Law Reform Commission recommendations on contemptthmatters

Robbo

eldamo wrote: »

This will probably be eclipsed my the current issues of Ireland's sexiest man (that's why they jailed him!)!
But I thought the following from the UK was some good old fashioned freeman fun.

http://m.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/mystery-Legal-Fraud-billboard-Gloucester/story-29365927-detail/story.html#ixzz4Aog7AO4d

Which leads to (brace yourself for important capitalisation)

http://legalnamefraud.com

I saw one of those billboards on the way into Murrayfield stadium in Edinburgh recently. Not a cheap campaign to be running.

Canadel

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

they abused the beak when he was walking back to Court after lunch and he had them arrested.

Abused? That's very vague.

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Yes the Judge failed to recognise the divine right of freemen to abuse whoever they want

Again with the abuse. Since when is the right to speak one's mind simply a delusion reserved for freemen?

Canadel

Mod
Post deleted. Possibly defamatory. Pls do not import possibly defamatory Face Book entries into Boards.ie

Serjeant Buzfuz

"And if any person shall wilfully insult any justice or justices so sitting in any such court or place, or shall commit any other contempt of any such court, it shall be lawful for such justice or justices by any verbal order either to direct such person to be removed from such court or place, or to be taken into custody, and at any time before the rising of such court by warrant to commit such person to gaol for any period not exceeding seven days"

This power is required for the proper administration of Justice, a cause in which every citizen has an equal interest.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Canadel wrote: »

Abused? That's very vague.

Again with the abuse. Since when is the right to speak one's mind simply a delusion reserved for freemen?

Absolute freedom of speech does not exist.
I don't have freedom to have a laugh and shout "fire" in a crowded theatre and lead to people being injured or killed in the panic, I can't call a neighbour a paedophile and see him being shunned and abused. I can't make a false Police report and have somebody arrested in the wrong. I can't call a judge corrupt. I don't know where you get this ludicrous notion that everybody can say anything they want....

Canadel

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Absolute freedom of speech does not exist.
I don't have freedom to have a laugh and shout "fire" in a crowded theatre and lead to people being injured or killed in the panic, I can't call a neighbour a paedophile and see him being shunned and abused. I can't make a false Police report and have somebody arrested in the wrong. I can't call a judge corrupt. I don't know where you get this ludicrous notion that everybody can say anything they want....

That's quite a leap from being allowed to speak one's mind to absolute freedom of speech. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre doesn't lead to people being injured or killed in the panic. And it was an absolutely ridiculous ruling. You can't publish it due to libel laws but you can say it to your neighbour or someone else. Again, reporting to the police would be similar to publishing. Yes you can call a judge corrupt if it is in the street as alleged in this case. I don't know where you get this ludicrous notion that everybody can't say anything they want...

/Mod.
Last sentence of post deleted. Possible defamation.

Unrealistic

I don't know where you got the idea that defamation is only actionable if it is published rather than spoken but you absolutely incorrect.

Up until recently there used to be two separate offences; libel (published) and slander (spoken); but both were actionable. Now they have been combined under the heading of 'defamation' but that most definitely covers verbal statements as well as those published.

/Candela post deleted. Possibly defamatory

Canadel

Unrealistic wrote: »

I don't know where you got the idea that defamation is only actionable if it is published rather than spoken but you absolutely incorrect.

Up until recently there used to be two separate offences; libel (published) and slander (spoken); but both were actionable. Now they have been combined under the heading of 'defamation' but that most definitely covers verbal statements as well as those published.

Published refers to spoken on a platform too (e.g. radio, tv etc.)

Speaking on a public street is an absolute right and that is what I was referring to. I can walk down my town's main street today and shout whatever I like about anyone to my heart's content. It's an important right. A right that a lot of the legal experts here don't seem to understand or value sadly. Though not surprisingly.

Graham

Unrealistic wrote: »

I don't know where you got the idea that defamation is only actionable if it is published rather than spoken but you absolutely incorrect.

Freeman handbook, page 23784 written in taupe crayon in all capital letters as transposed from the big book from the Maritime Law library of Atlantis.

Little CuChulainn

Canadel wrote: »

Published refers to spoken on a platform too (e.g. radio, tv etc.)

Speaking on a public street is an absolute right and that is what I was referring to. I can walk down my town's main street today and shout whatever I like about anyone to my heart's content. It's an important right. A right that a lot of the legal experts here don't seem to understand or value sadly. Though not surprisingly.

You can indeed do that. You'd obviously be subject to the laws on public order and liable for any defamatory statements you make.

Canadel

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You can indeed do that. You'd obviously be subject to the laws on public order and liable for any defamatory statements you make.

Public order maybe. Defamatory statements not so sure. And definitely should not be the case. But that's law.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Canadel wrote: »

Published refers to spoken on a platform too (e.g. radio, tv etc.)

Speaking on a public street is an absolute right and that is what I was referring to. I can walk down my town's main street today and shout whatever I like about anyone to my heart's content. It's an important right. A right that a lot of the legal experts here don't seem to understand or value sadly. Though not surprisingly.

Are you taking the proverbial? What a load of codswallop....

whippet

Canadel wrote: »

Public order maybe. Defamatory statements not so sure. And definitely should not be the case. But that's law.

And there for the person making the defamatory statements should be dealt with in accordance with the law.

Having a load of mates with you who believe you and have the same opinion as you is not a defence for defamation.

Canadel

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Are you taking the proverbial? What a load of codswallop....

Constructive argument.

whippet wrote: »

And there for the person making the defamatory statements should be dealt with in accordance with the law.

Having a load of mates with you who believe you and have the same opinion as you is not a defence for defamation.

Defamation should not apply to spekaing your mind in a public place when not on a platform like an organised event or radio etc.

According to a lot of posters here, if a person walking along a street is speaking aloud about how awful such and such company is, or what a dick such and such a person is, they are possibly at risk of being sued for defamation. It's as ludicrous an argument as any freeman would make.

Graham

Canadel wrote: »

Defamation should not apply to spekaing your mind in a public place when not on a platform like an organised event or radio etc.

So you'd be ok if a couple of lads stood outside a school speaking their mind about how you might be fiddling with children? How about if they sat at the bar in your local chatting about you taking drugs or started hanging around your place of work discussing you stealing the petty cash?

According to your earlier posts even though any of that isn't true it should be permitted without consequence as freedom of speech?

nuac

/Candadel
imho you are posting nonsense about defamation and the publication.thereof
Suggest you take some legal advice and meanwhile suggest you stop posting here on that topic