Freeman Megamerge

JohnnyFlash

eldamo wrote: »

its interesting what high regard he is held in in these circles....

MacHolst was also involved in Jeff Rudd’s UnitedPeople for a period of time. Very interesting character, and I’m sure MacHolst is as well.....

blueythebear

GM228 wrote: »

So where do I sign up to the BenG School of Law?

Need to get a proper legal education

Wonder would it be positive or natural move to enroll?

I wouldn't bother enrolling.... barrister friend of mine tells me that he's in big trouble over the stuff in the video, as in contempt of court

whippet

He really does believe himself ... it’s scary

Losty Dublin

whippet wrote: »

... he really is a man ahead of his time; why is everyone else so stupid apart from him ? are we drinking too much fluoride; sucking in too many chemtrails or been vaxxed out of our minds that we are too blind to see his 20/20 vision?

Can't blame it no more

http://www.thejournal.ie/fluoride-ir...86366-Apr2018/

whippet

So the couple saw sense and apologised and get to maintain their freedom .. and so now for Ben .. an appearance before the court on Thursday to explain some of his fairly outlandish claims on the video.

No doubt he will grovel and apologise as he has done previously to save his own bacon and somehow manage to claim the whole thing as a victory !!!

fxotoole

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Should be fun on the Freetard pages after this one.

http://www.thejournal.ie/fluoride-irish-safety-3986366-Apr2018/

Government propaganda, obvs.

hullaballoo

Hardly. This government isn't capable of that level of subtlety. Sure they pretty much called their propaganda unit "the this isn't a propaganda unit unit".

humberklog

Sorry for asking...I've tried looking Online but can't get to it.. what did Mr. and Mrs. Smith do wrong?

GM228

humberklog wrote: »

Sorry for asking...I've tried looking Online but can't get to it.. what did Mr. and Mrs. Smith do wrong?

To start with they listened to Ben!

Other than that, contempt of court for failure to abide by the court order to vacate their home, oops sorry I mean dwelling

whippet

It’s seems bens tactic is for the defaulters to ignore all correspondence and not to challenge anything until the day of reckoning when the Sherriff arrives and then hope to god that some bit of freeman constitution wizardry will get them off the hook.
So far a 100% failure rate on that strategy

JohnnyFlash

whippet wrote: »

It’s seems bens tactic is for the defaulters to ignore all correspondence and not to challenge anything until the day of reckoning when the Sherriff arrives and then hope to god that some bit of freeman constitution wizardry will get them off the hook.
So far a 100% failure rate on that strategy

How does this charlatan continue to fool people? He's ruining peoples lives with his self-promoting crusade. He's a disgrace.

GM228

whippet wrote: »

It’s seems bens tactic is for the defaulters to ignore all correspondence and not to challenge anything until the day of reckoning when the Sherriff arrives and then hope to god that some bit of freeman constitution wizardry will get them off the hook.
So far a 100% failure rate on that strategy

Ah but there's no such thing as failure, day 1 Freeman stuff don't you know, Ben and Co. seem to have adopted Thomas Edison's approach , “I haven’t failed, I have just found 10,000 ways that don’t work”.

Peregrinus

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

How does this charlatan continue to fool people? He's ruining peoples lives with his self-promoting crusade. He's a disgrace.

When people are desperate, they will clutch at anything, however unlikely or improbable, that appears as if it might offer rescue. Ben is exploiting people's fear and desperation.

Stonedpilot

Peregrinus wrote: »

When people are desperate, they will clutch at anything, however unlikely or improbable, that appears as if it might offer rescue. Ben is exploiting people's fear and desperation.

How. He doesnt take a single cent and doesnt promise anything?.

Hes just offering advice and knowledge gathered. What people do with it up to them. They are adults now!.

Peregrinus

Stonedpilot wrote: »

How. He doesnt take a single cent and doesnt promise anything?.

I don't know whether Ben gets money out of this, or whether his reward is gratification for his ego, or the satisfaction of causing inconvenience and expense to the banks. Or all of these things.

It doesn't matter. Whatever he is getting out of this, he is getting by exploiting vulnerable people.

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Hes just offering advice and knowledge gathered. What people do with it up to them. They are adults now!.

When you're offering bad advice and misrepresented knowledge, it's not much of a vindication to say that the people you are offering to to are adults. You're an adult yourself, Ben; you should act like one and not treat other people like this.

Stroke Politics

Stonedpilot wrote: »

How. He doesnt take a single cent and doesnt promise anything?.

Hes just offering advice and knowledge gathered. What people do with it up to them. They are adults now!.

Ben loves Florida.....

Stonedpilot

Stonedpilot wrote: »

How. He doesnt take a single cent and doesnt promise anything?.

Hes just offering advice and knowledge gathered. What people do with it up to them. They are adults now!.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/judge-refers-inconsistencies-in-man-s-income-to-revenue-1.3246934

whippet

So it seems that Mr. Gilroy is re-committing this criminal contempt .. after apologising for it previously

Owryan

So, I know how freemen have a hard on for maritime law, but what is positive law?

whippet

Owryan wrote: »

So, I know how freemen have a hard on for maritime law, but what is positive law?

Apparently you can’t be jailed under positive law ......... what ever that means

Peregrinus

Positive law: rules enacted, formulated or decreed by the will of legislators. The Irish Constitution is positive law (enacted by the people). Statutes are positive law (enacted by the Oireachtas). These rules are laws because a legislature wants them to be.

As contrasted with . . .

Natural law: Rules which arise from the nature of things. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”. "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights." "Women have the right to choose." Etc, etc.

Whether freemen use the term in that sense, of course, I cannot say. It's often difficult to discern any coherent sense from freemanish ramblings.

Losty Dublin

Peregrinus wrote: »

Positive law: rules enacted, formulated or decreed by the will of legislators. The Irish Constitution is positive law (enacted by the people). Statutes are positive law (enacted by the Oireachtas). These rules are laws because a legislature wants them to be.

As contrasted with . . .

Natural law: Rules which arise from the nature of things. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”. "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights." "Women have the right to choose." Etc, etc.

Whether freemen use the term in that sense, of course, I cannot say. It's often difficult to discern any coherent sense from freemanish ramblings.

Is it fair to say that like their interpretation of just about everything else, this too is a load of bollocks?

Peregrinus

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Is it fair to say that like their interpretation of just about everything else, this too is a load of bollocks?

No, not really. The concepts of positive law vs. natural law are pretty old; they are philosophical categories. In a sense we employ them every time we talk about something like the law of gravity, which obviously is a law that arises out fo the nature of things rather than a law that depends on the will of any legislature.

It may well be fair to say that the way Freemen employe the terms is a load of bollocks, though. I couldn't possibly comment.

whippet

So what Mr Gilroy is trying to say that you can’t be jailed due to positive law? So in other words he is of the belief that all enacted legislation etc is useless and we don’t need a legal system.

What a strange man

Robbo

whippet wrote: »

So what Mr Gilroy is trying to say that you can’t be jailed due to positive law? So in other words he is of the belief that all enacted legislation etc is useless and we don’t need a legal system.

What a strange man

Yes but also at the same time the Constitution must be afforded the most narrow, one-eyed interpretation possible that suits his views. It's one piece of positive law that he'll wave around in the air and misrepresent until the cows come home.

For example, he (and many others who distance themselves from Freemanism) like to believe that Article 40.5 confers an absolute protection to a home so that it can never be repossessed. Utter nonsense of course because the Article in itself is heavily qualified and very few (if any) constitutional rights are absolute.

But it sounds impressive when you're blathering on about it to some desperate individual up to their eyes in debt who's spent the last number of years in denial about the situation.

Indricotherium

Peregrinus wrote: »

the law of gravity, which obviously is a law that arises out fo the nature of things rather than a law that depends on the will of any legislature.

Of course people will try; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

Losty Dublin

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, not really. The concepts of positive law vs. natural law are pretty old; they are philosophical categories. In a sense we employ them every time we talk about something like the law of gravity, which obviously is a law that arises out fo the nature of things rather than a law that depends on the will of any legislature.

It may well be fair to say that the way Freemen employe the terms is a load of bollocks, though. I couldn't possibly comment.

This was moreso what I was thinking, to tell the truth.

whippet

Mr. Gilroy has a new video up .. containing a statement from the family.

He is now playing the victim card for himself ... that his freedom of speech and religious views are being attacked!

Just to clarify for the non-legal heads here .. like myself. The accusation of Mr. Gilroy and the Smiths that the gardai 'broke-in' to the house while they were at court was illegal - as the court case was on going. Am I right in the belief that this is nonsense as the possession of the house was already given to the court previously and what was being contested yesterday / last week was purely the contempt issue that the smiths had not complied with the court order ? So this accusation is based upon total nonsense?

Losty Dublin

Just briefly looking here at the Irish Times archive.

Cases involving Benroy have seen at least 4 people jailed for contempt, with a few others almost being pulled up as well. Ben has had at least four personal instances of contempt, this week included. Three of these instances have involved farms and farmlands and properties that are not solely "dwellings".

I am sure that there are cases aplenty involving him that escape media attention but with similar results aplenty, and that's before we explore other similar shyster types not involving him, such as The Hub or the R Allen Trust.

Robbo

I've just seen one of Ben's videos from before this weeks proceedings.

There are some Ben classics here. He refers to all those opposed to him as "agents of the crown" because Queen Liz is deeply involved in all of this.

He also appears to have been taking his legal cues from Arrested Development in that he reckons that a wife cannot give evidence against her husband because that would be "separating what god has brought together".