Freeman Megamerge

Robbo

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I think you mean:

Ben of the ancient clan Giolla Rua authorised agent for BEN GILROY

You've got to be careful, these details are important. I for one only sign things in blue ink as that means I can't be bound by it as blue is the colour of the sea and thus can only be held up in commercial law which of course is the law of the sea which only applies to companies and I only recognise the law of the land. Or something like that.

Yo ho ho, it's a pirate's life for you?

cml387

Robbo wrote: »

Ben (TM), is not a Freeman and doesn't use their methods. By reading this post, you have contracted to pay me a €400 per day appearance fee, invoice in the post, all rights reserved, your investment may go up as well as side-to-side.

Never believe anything until it's been officially denied.

Robbo

A somewhat philosophical take on the Freemen and what might make them tick.

Grolschevik

Robbo wrote: »

A somewhat philosophical take on the Freemen and what might make them tick.

Hmmm...

"Refus­ing to address the phe­nomenon of Free­man­ism as a vivid symp­tom of a deep polit­ical prob­lem, but merely as cause for deri­sion and ridicule, is only going to make things worse."

johnnyskeleton

Grolschevik wrote: »

Hmmm...

"Refus­ing to address the phe­nomenon of Free­man­ism as a vivid symp­tom of a deep polit­ical prob­lem, but merely as cause for deri­sion and ridicule, is only going to make things worse."

I agree with this, and the desire to state ones case publically is an admirable one. The problem arises not from the freemen people themselves, but from the fact that people are not educated about the state and legal system and feel alienated from it. Granted, we only ever see the heavily indebted / parking ticket type person making these arguments in court, but there must be a significant number of people out there who feel so detached / disillusioned with the courts system that the idea that it is all a sham is quite appealing to them.

Plus, I think that large amounts of media attention of the lawyers vs freemen kind only serves to legitimise their beliefs. The non organised lay litigants who come up with crazy ideas are not made the subject of newspaper articles, yet they are probably more likely to have a successful outcome to their cases.

Javan

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I agree with this, and the desire to state ones case publically is an admirable one. The problem arises not from the freemen people themselves, but from the fact that people are not educated about the state and legal system and feel alienated from it. Granted, we only ever see the heavily indebted / parking ticket type person making these arguments in court, but there must be a significant number of people out there who feel so detached / disillusioned with the courts system that the idea that it is all a sham is quite appealing to them.

Plus, I think that large amounts of media attention of the lawyers vs freemen kind only serves to legitimise their beliefs. The non organised lay litigants who come up with crazy ideas are not made the subject of newspaper articles, yet they are probably more likely to have a successful outcome to their cases.

Except that it is not just the 'heavily indebted / parking ticket type person' (whatever that means) that is attracted to this way of thinking. Do you remember the letter that went around concerning the household charge and pretending to be from McCann FitzGerald in Dublin? That was also playing on this 'consent of the governed' falsehood and was very widely distributed.

I think the point is well made. This is a symptom of the dis-affected, and that is a class that is growing rapidly.

Pat Mustard

Vintage Derry here, with more Freeman type carry-on.

Apparently, the Irish government control the IDF who wear a harp with eight strings; the eighth string being that which permits lethal force.

The reactions of the guys on the Military forum are priceless!

Quotes:

That is the biggest load of crap I've ever read on the Internet.

Ah Derry, I see you're back, any chance you could go away again, and don't forget to take your freeman bullsh1t with you when you leave.

Oddly, there's nothing in the the forum charter that I can recall prohibiting being a complete incompetent.

kind of funny to read, in a sadistic sort of way, like a window into a maniac's soul or lifting a manhole cover and staring into Dantes inferno...

I reckon derry should get a weekly slot.. keep the troops entertained and all that..

NoQuarter

I'll be honest, I HATE seeing new posts in this thread because I know a rage in about to ensue.

Grolschevik

The Mustard wrote: »

Vintage Derry here, with more Freeman type carry-on.

Apparently, the Irish government control the IDF who wear a harp with eight strings; the eighth string being that which permits lethal force.

The reactions of the guys on the Military forum are priceless!

Quotes:

Good. Jesus.

Seriously, I think there must be psychiatric issues.

So under the Irish Constitution if I was in my dwelling which cannot be breached except onto natural law ( eg I committed a common law crime ) and the Sheriff ( a function that doesn't show up anywhere in the constitution ) arrives outside escorted by Garda and UNLAWFULLY breaks down my door to eject me from my dwelling onto the street and I called the Irish defense force to come protect me with lethal force from these UNLAWFUL intruders what would you do to protect me ...

... If the reply is yes then you must be prepared to protect me and my family and my dwelling from UNLAWFULL invasions and eviction and the dwelling of any other Irish people who face presently daily illegal evictions from (British) sheriff office with Garda escorts who evict people onto the street every day for commercial issues In fact no commercial law exists in Ireland that gives the Sheriff with the Garda the power to evict Irish people from their dwelling for commercial laws but they UNLAWFULLY do it any way .

hullaballoo

The Mustard wrote: »

Vintage Derry here, with more Freeman type carry-on.

He's fairly racking up the infractions these days. Can't be long now before he's a goner. Shame.

I've lost the rage function when I see these guys and replaced it with lols.

Robbo

The latest missive from AttackTheTax.

Of note is this admission of imminent failure:

Question 17: Is the case going to be fought and won in the High Court?
Answer A: The short answer is NO.
Answer B: We don’t expect to see any Fairness, Justice or Equity in the High Court. After all, we are suing the State and the Government and they Politically appoint the Judges that sit in the High and the Supreme Courts. In all likelihood, they will seek for the case not to be heard, and that a Motion to Strike out the case be awarded for whatever reason they believe they can persuade a Judge to see things from their side. The State, Revenue and the Government do not want or wish this case to be heard by the People. If we do not win in the High Court, we will immediately appeal the case on to the Supreme Court, and then on into the European Court(s).

It is of course signed in blue ink, by the legal fiction that is so-called Acorn to alleged Oak Communcations.

theholyghost

Ben Gilroy was on Vincent Browne last night and came over very well. He didn't appear to be a lunatic just well-meaning and fuzzy. His only policy seems to be "direct democracy" which I'm not so sure about in a country with a history of nasty, divisive referendums. Anyway, he didn't mention any Freeman stuff.

derry

theholyghost wrote: »

Ben Gilroy was on Vincent Browne last night and came over very well. He didn't appear to be a lunatic just well-meaning and fuzzy. His only policy seems to be "direct democracy" which I'm not so sure about in a country with a history of nasty, divisive referendums. Anyway, he didn't mention any Freeman stuff.

Yes I have met Ben Gilroy and I can tell you he doesn't do freeman .He knows many of the freeman stuff but as you say his agenda is the direct Democracy.

What Ben does do very successfully is look the present law the legal makers claim to make and how it should be practiced . Then he will call foul on the legal systems that don't practice the laws correctly as they claim they should practice it .


Derry

returnNull

theholyghost wrote: »

Anyway, he didn't mention any Freeman stuff.

because he knows its a crock of sh1te.

derry wrote:

Yes I have met Ben Gilroy and I can tell you he doesn't do freeman .He knows many of the freeman stuff but as you say his agenda is the direct Democracy.

What Ben does do very successfully is look the present law the legal makers claim to make and how it should be practiced . Then he will call foul on the legal systems that don't practice the laws correctly as they claim they should practice it .


Derry

no offense but you post rubbish too,so your opinion counts for little

NoQuarter

derry wrote: »

Yes I have met Ben Gilroy and I can tell you he doesn't do freeman .He knows many of the freeman stuff but as you say his agenda is the direct Democracy.

What Ben does do very successfully is look the present law the legal makers claim to make and how it should be practiced . Then he will call foul on the legal systems that don't practice the laws correctly as they claim they should practice it .


Derry

So someone with no legal background, training or education wants to tell lawyers how to use laws in practice?

Umm...

Robbo

NoQuarter wrote: »

So someone with no legal background, training or education wants to tell lawyers how to use laws in practice?

Umm...

There's no provision in the Constitution for Ben Gilroy, therefore his legal opinions are invalid.

Have I just won?

Grolschevik

derry wrote: »

he doesn't do freeman .

What Ben does do very successfully is look the present law the legal makers claim to make and how it should be practiced . Then he will call foul on the legal systems that don't practice the laws correctly as they claim they should practice it .

Derry

If it walks like a duck...

NoQuarter

Robbo wrote: »

There's no provision in the Constitution for Ben Gilroy, therefore his legal opinions are invalid.

Have I just won?

Oh shi....


You just won.

Sacksian

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0531/453952-bank-of-scotland-court/

However, the judge said that he was striking out all other grounds of the couples claim, such as the allegation they had been defamed, that the bank was engaged in fraudulent activity, and that it had created money.

Mr Justice Gilligan said he accepted BOS’ arguments that those sections of the claims were bound to fail. Claims such as the "creation of money" argument are coming before the courts in numerous jurisdictions with increasing frequency since the economic and property market collapse.

These arguments, he said, often advanced in court cases by a particular type of vexatious litigant which have been described by the US courts as Organised Pseudo legal Commercial Arguments (OPCA).

The Judge added that he further endorsed the US courts findings that these type of claims are fanciful and devoid of merit.

They are often made by litigants who find themselves in financial pressure, acting under pressure and acting on the instruction of organised groups or individuals who have a vested interest in disrupting court operations and frustrating the legal rights of governments, corporations and individuals.

derry

In general a deafening silence from the loudest camps as they are reeling from shock what there exists other logical legal demands outside their limited scope where the justice system is there to dictate pay up or else
It might take time to see the serpents of the British Justice system still operated by the 1926 Leinster house King George 5th Royal Oireachtas 26 county provisional Irish Government driven out of EIRE but like ST Patrick drove the serpents out in time they will all be driven out .



Derry

GeorgeOrwell

1926 Leinster house King George 5th Royal Oireachtas 26 county provisional Irish Government

Why do you insist in calling it that?

Tom Young

Warning: I'm a moderator here and I don't appreciate the legal system being dragged into contempt or referred to in the way it is above.

Very simple: Borrow money on condition -> pay it back on condition.

Any lawyer would take a clear case free of charge. What's going on here has landed people in jail and it will continue until such time as laws are passed to deal with such abuses.

I will firstly infract and then ban posters who refer to the law of legal system in a manner that is contemptible.

Tom

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ResearchWill

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because in his opinion the issue of securitisation is one that needs to be determined by the court. My understanding which could be wrong and I am open to correction is as follows. Person A borrows money from bank b all ok so far. Bank B adds all of A's loans and other people's loans together and sells them to insurance company C banks D,E,F and G and to investors H,I,J and K.

A defaults on loan to Bank B. Bank B sues A. A says in court he is the wrong person to sue me as I don't owe him any money. On the face of it there is a legal question to be tried and determined.

GeorgeOrwell

I will firstly infract and then ban posters who refer to the law of legal system in a manner that is contemptible.

I don't understand this. Will we be banned for criticising the law? Even the greatest constitutional lawyers are able to point to laws or legal systems which are contemptible.

Tom Young

It's very simple really, you and any other poster who decides to pitch/promote or endorse views that are illogical and contemptuous will be dealt with.

It's not about critiquing the law at all. It's about applying sane and rational principles to the laws which we are to obey.

The Charter will be updated to reflect this intention shortly.

babaracus

GeorgeOrwell wrote: »

Why do you insist in calling it that?

Pseudo-legal woo.

He probably writes it in green ink too.

GeorgeOrwell

Who gets to decide which views are "illogical and contemptuous" and which are
"sane and rational principles to the laws which we are to obey?"

Over the years, the courts have made some fairly illogical and contemptuous decisions which have failed to apply sane and rational principles to the law.

Will referencing those decisions lead people to be banned from this site?

GeorgeOrwell

I'm not a Freeman. They're lunatics whose dangerous tactics are going to get a lot of gullible people into a massive amount of trouble, and I genuinely think the courts should hold them in contempt, but everyone, however well-versed in the law, will admit there are aspects of the law which are in need of reform.

I'm not quite sure why I should be told to "shut up" for questioning the Moderator how he is defining "illogical" or why criticism of the law will lead people to be banned.

Tom Young

GeorgeOrwell wrote: »

I'm not a Freeman. They're lunatics whose dangerous tactics are going to get a lot of gullible people into a massive amount of trouble, and I genuinely think the courts should hold them in contempt, but everyone, however well-versed in the law, will admit there are aspects of the law which are in need of reform.

I'm not quite sure why I should be told to "shut up" for questioning the Moderator how he is defining "illogical" or why criticism of the law will lead people to be banned.

Lets be clear. There are thousands of threads on LD which critique the law - right?

So, I'm not about to get into a rhethorical debate on illogical and it's definitions.

Lets keep it simple: Promotion of Freeman on land movement/s/Soverign soilers and other crusaders who can't back up, or base their claims rationally and logically will be dealt with.

Tom