Freeman Megamerge

jd80

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yes, the state settled the matter,

I take it that means they paid monetary compensation?

ResearchWill

jd80 wrote: »

I take it that means they paid monetary compensation?

The independent says as follows

Last Friday, at the High Court, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy directed Mr Sludds be released after he was informed the State 'did not intend to seek to justify' his continued detention.

The judge was informed the matter had been settled and costs had been agreed between the parties. After his release, Mr Sludds was greeted and embraced by members of his family.

Sounds like a contribution to legal costs, and immediate release. There may have been compensation but if that had been paid I can bet the freemen would have sung it from the rooftops.

Robbo

ResearchWill wrote: »

Sounds like a contribution to legal costs, and immediate release. There may have been compensation but if that had been paid I can bet the freemen would have sung it from the rooftops.

Oh no no, if there was an offer of compensation, they would have stuck to their beliefs and not accepted it from an institution they don't recognise. If it ain't backed by the Gold Standard, the Lizard People will have conjured the money from thin air to enslave you.

Most of the current wave of Freemanism has me thinking that there would be a great PHD in it for someone wanting to examine any correlation between Freemanism and autistic spectrum disorders.

The property tax is really bringing them out and it would appear that some of the Freeman Svengalis are available to operate as your bestest McKenzie friend when the summons arrives. At least until the first wave of jailings...

Benbulnen64

Hello Tom after your clarification yesterday re Noquarter and whack job quotation, I acknowledged wackiness of freeman and sent a mea culpa to Noquarter. The post didn't appear so I'm sending it again...

Tom Young

That's perfect. I wasn't doing anything about it as the quote function didn't work in his post and I believed you'd missed the concluding line. No harm done.

NoQ is a regular contributor

Pat Mustard

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/newrossstandard/news/man-who-had-standoff-with-judge-is-released-27508991.html

' Do you speak English or legalese?' replied Mr Sludds, who had three supporters in court with him, as well as a number of legal resources, including Black's Law Dictionary.

WTF is the Freeman fascination with Black's Law Dictionary? The type of quotes that I have seen have some sort of misrepresentation of the definition of the word 'statute' from which a lot of this Freeman carry-on derives. There is some absolute nonsense about consent being required in order for a statute to have effect.

It's quite hypocritical for people who draw many of their notions from an English Law Dictionary to attempt to cast aspersions on members of the Bar, by labelling them as the British Accredited Registry.

Can anybody get a copy of this Black's Law Dictionary and scan a copy of the page with the definition of the word statute. Because I REALLY doubt that they used the word 'consent' at all in relation to the definition of the word.

What's wrong with Murdoch's Dictionary of Irish Law anyway?

Freemen clowns.

ResearchWill

The Mustard wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/newrossstandard/news/man-who-had-standoff-with-judge-is-released-27508991.html



WTF is the Freeman fascination with Black's Law Dictionary? The type of quotes that I have seen have some sort of misrepresentation of the definition of the word 'statute' from which a lot of this Freeman carry-on derives. There is some absolute nonsense about consent being required in order for a statute to have effect.

It's quite hypocritical for people who draw many of their notions from an English Law Dictionary to attempt to cast aspersions on members of the Bar, by labelling them as the British Accredited Registry.

Can anybody get a copy of this Black's Law Dictionary and scan a copy of the page with the definition of the word statute. Because I REALLY doubt that they used the word 'consent' at all in relation to the definition of the word.

What's wrong with Murdoch's Dictionary of Irish Law anyway?

Freemen clowns.

Don't have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, for one very good reason its a American publication. Also for the freemen out there using a dictionary including a law dictionary in court is a tad silly, also a American reference book would be as much good as fighting a criminal charge using the Polish Penal Code. But I did find this online

"Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Edition) wrote:

STATUTE, v. In old Scotch law. To
ordain, establish, or decree.

STATUTE, n. An act of the legislature;
a particular law enacted and established by
the will of the legislative department of gov-
ernment, expressed with the requisite for-
malities.

In foreign and civil law. Any particular
municipal law or usage, though resting for
its authority on judicial decisions, or the
practice of nations. 2 Kent, Comm. 456.
The whole municipal law of a particular
state, from whatever source arising. Story,
Confl. Laws, § 12.

"Statute" also sometimes means a kind of
bond or obligation of record, being an ab-
breviation for "statute merchant" or "stat-
ute staple." See infra.

Statutes in derogation of common law
must be strictly construed. Cooley, Const.
Lim. 75, note; Arthurs, Appeal of, 1 Grant
Cas. (Pa.) 57.

Statuta pro publico commodo late in-
terpretantur. Jenk. Cent. 21. Statutes
made for the public good ought to be
liberally construed.

Statuta suo cluduntur territorio, nec
ultra territorium disponunt. Statutes are
confined to their own territory, and have no
extraterritorial effect. Woodworth v. Spring,
4 Allen (Mass.) 324"

Seems a bit different to that quoted by the Freemen.

Benbulnen64

The suggestion that there would have to be consent for a statute to have effect is utter drivel. Once the Act is proclaimed, that is it, end of...

I enjoyed the quip re fighting a criminal charge using the Polish Penal Code!

I guess these freemen don't see themselves as part of Enda Kenny's "Republic of laws, of rights and responsibilities, of proper civic order..."

Pat Mustard

ResearchWill wrote: »

its a American publication.

Oh, I had thought it was English.

There was no reference to consent of the people in the definition you quoted, though.

It seems that the Freeman definition of a statute is completely contrived.

ResearchWill

The Mustard wrote: »

Oh, I had thought it was English. Whoops.

There was no reference to consent of the people in the definition you quoted, though.

It seems that the Freeman definition of a statute is completely contrived.

I think they are misquoting the following bit in bold,

STATUTE, n. An act of the legislature;
a particular law enacted and established by
the will of the legislative department of gov-
ernment, expressed with the requisite for-
malities.

I would say it also comes from a complete misunderstanding of the political theory of "consent of the governed"

Pat Mustard

ResearchWill wrote: »

I think they are misquoting the following bit in bold,

STATUTE, n. An act of the legislature;
a particular law enacted and established by
the will of the legislative department of gov-
ernment, expressed with the requisite for-
malities.

I would say it also comes from a complete misunderstanding of the political theory of "consent of the governed"

What you write is a good rationalisation of the possible source of this carry-on.

However, I distinctly remember reading an online posting of an apparent definition of a statute, purportedly from Black's Law Dictionary, where it expressly stated that the consent of the people was required.

I believe that these guys have concocted their own make-believe version of the definition and then they attempt to build the rest of their horsesh!t upon that.

ResearchWill

The Mustard wrote: »

What you write is a good rationalisation of the possible source of this carry-on.

However, I distinctly remember reading an online posting of an apparent definition of a statute, purportedly from Black's Law Dictionary, where it expressly stated that the consent of the people was required.

I believe that these guys have concocted their own make-believe version of the definition and then they attempt to build the rest of their horsesh!t upon that.

I have read the same statement online, but can not find any verifiable source that agrees. I have almost been tempted to pay $59.99 to get the iPad App. If someone can get a scan of an early version or a good site that has such text then I may believe it.

But even if that was a definition by some legal writer at some time in the past from America so what it has no power to persuade a Judge of today.

jd80

http://laoisoffalysaysno.com/node/47

Pat Mustard

ResearchWill wrote: »

I have read the same statement online, but can not find any verifiable source that agrees. I have almost been tempted to pay $59.99 to get the iPad App. If someone can get a scan of an early version or a good site that has such text then I may believe it.

But even if that was a definition by some legal writer at some time in the past from America so what it has no power to persuade a Judge of today.

I agree with all of the above.

I think that these Freemen guys are deliberately posting fake definitions of laws online in order to support their foolishness. I very much doubt that a respectable legal publication would be so negligent as to define a statute as requiring consent of the people.

A spell in prison would will cure some of these Freemen.

ResearchWill

The Mustard wrote: »

I agree with all of the above.

I think that these Freemen guys are deliberately posting fake definitions of laws online in order to support their foolishness. I very much doubt that a respectable legal publication would be so negligent as to define a statute as requiring consent of the people.

A spell in prison would will cure some of these Freemen.

I have managed to find a PDF of the fourt edition of Blacks Law Dictionary, printed June 1968 and surprise surprise no mention of consent to statute law or other such rubbish.

I have tracked down a freeman site which has the relevant page from blacks 1st and 2nd editions and surprise surprise its the same as the fourt and in what I posted earlier, funny that.

http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/S/s-1121.jpg

http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/S/s1107.jpg

Pat Mustard

ResearchWill wrote: »

I have managed to find a PDF of the fourt edition of Blacks Law Dictionary, printed June 1968 and surprise surprise no mention of consent to statute law or other such rubbish.

I have tracked down a freeman site which has the relevant page from blacks 1st and 2nd editions and surprise surprise its the same as the fourt and in what I posted earlier, funny that.

http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/S/s-1121.jpg

http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/S/s1107.jpg

Can't access either of those links atm.

ResearchWill

The Mustard wrote: »

Can't access either of those links atm.

Try this http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/top.htm

Pat Mustard

Good work.

It mentions the will of the legislature alright, but there is clearly no reference to the will of the people.

These people are space cadets of the highest order.

ResearchWill

The Mustard wrote: »

Good work.

It mentions the will of the legislature alright, but there is clearly no reference to the will of the people.

These people are space cadets of the highest order.

Well I think we would all agree that any Statute enacted without the will of the legislature would not be correctly enacted. Even secondary legislation can only be enacted if primary legislation gives the power and the SI is put before both houses.

ezra_pound

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=SoOVpnun4W8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DSoOVpnun4W8

More educational information.

NoQuarter

That literally hurt my head!

chops018

What a moron.

Indricotherium

"I don't mean the weather owes me money"

Robbo

A receiver being "fired" by what looks like a lay litigant, apparently because their paperwork wasn't in order. Interesting to see if there's a written judgment in this.

johnnyskeleton

Robbo wrote: »

A receiver being "fired" by what looks like a lay litigant, apparently because their paperwork wasn't in order. Interesting to see if there's a written judgment in this.

Not lay litigants. Senior counsel acted for the company. Hence the freemen are stonily silent about it - a legal means of successful resisting a receiver which was made possible with the benefit of professional legal advice is anathema to the freemen.

Robbo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not lay litigants. Senior counsel acted for the company. Hence the freemen are stonily silent about it - a legal means of successful resisting a receiver which was made possible with the benefit of professional legal advice is anathema to the freemen.

Ah, the mist clears. I saw there had been a late change in solicitors for the Foleys, with Sean Foley now listed and feared they'd gone off the reservation.

Grolschevik

From the Attack the Tax movement:

"Despite what the bar-room experts and the so called legal eagles say;
the Household Charge and the Property Tax is Illegal, Unlawful and Unconstutional, and does NOT have to be paid, unless you consciously consent/agree to paying it."

But play the first video here: http://www.attackthetax.com/news.html

It's surreal! It's a crudely computer-animated newscast labelled "Up to date news on why the People don't have to pay the Property Tax."

Bizarrely, they've used a very basic text-to-speech programme for some reason, presumably to hide identities. And inexplicably, they have the female "newsreader" in a bustier...

littlemac1980

Robbo wrote: »

A receiver being "fired" by what looks like a lay litigant, apparently because their paperwork wasn't in order. Interesting to see if there's a written judgment in this.

"Mr Justice Paul Gilligan found that the appointment of the receiver should have been under seal but it was not"

So let me get his straight a receiver must be under a seal when he is appointed - that sounds odd but the law is a peculiar animal at times.

So if freemen begin to believe that receivers depend on seals to enable them be appointed, then... well things could get messy:

Robbo

ezra_pound wrote: »

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=SoOVpnun4W8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DSoOVpnun4W8

More educational information.

Brilliant. That's the first time I've seen our local Freemen invoke the "coloured ink" theories. Obviously all ESB bills are invaild because of free energy being suppressed of course.

I note at the end he refers to "the rights of the people in the R.O.I." so the Republic of Ireland Act must be one statue he stands under.

ViP3r

Robbo wrote: »

Brilliant. That's the first time I've seen our local Freemen invoke the "coloured ink" theories. Obviously all ESB bills are invaild because of free energy being suppressed of course.

I note at the end he refers to "the rights of the people in the R.O.I." so the Republic of Ireland Act must be one statue he stands under.

man what a joke, they're so selective about which laws they recognise