Freeman Megamerge

later12

TylerIE wrote: »

Unfortunately I have heard of some of them having public meetings under the guise of "Debt Management Advice" recently. To me its dangerous as it can result in people acting in an outrageous manner, out of sheer desperation perhaps, but believing that they are within the law.

In this case, a supermarket owner placed the someone acting on behalf of AIB under "citizens arrest" for trespassing (she was taking over his premises on behalf of the Reciever). He was doing so while "live on the air" with that TNS radio crowd.

What's worse is that these people in financial trouble are usually desperate to find any way of extricating themselves of their problems, and are easily bought into this freemanism, which by all accounts can only have the ramification of making their dilemmas worse, especially if they decline to engage constructively with their counterparties and the courts service.

TylerIE

later10 wrote: »

Is there an actual reason why they use that "Freeman Aaron of the Milne family" expression?

What's that about?

I meant to ask you - are you sorry you asked now? :P

later10 wrote: »

What's worse is that these people in financial trouble are usually desperate to find any way of extricating themselves of their problems, and are easily bought into this freemanism, which by all accounts can only have the ramification of making their dilemmas worse, especially if they decline to engage constructively with their counterparties and the courts service.

I agree - thats really what I mean by desperation, hence why I find it so worrying that their "meetings" are being advertised as safe debt management seminars....

Het-Field

derry wrote: »

There are some schools of thought that say the Name such as MR JOE BLOGGS or similar is a commercial Incorporated name .
That leads to the idea that using the name Joe of the family Bloggs or similar will remove the commercial incorporated link from the name .
This comes from the fact that when a baby is born there is a birth certificate issued which registers the birth of the baby JOE BLOGGS
The parents sign the birth certificate and as result hand over ownership of the baby to the state similar to when a ship is registered the registered ship is now owned by the state .The baby is then licensed by the state to be brought up by the parents if they remain suitable .If the parents err don't educate the child by sending it to school or abuse it the the state will take the the child away ( seeing as they own the baby they can take it away. It often why the state would rarely interfere in traveller families in the past as they did not own those kids as they didn't take out birth certificates)
Because the baby is owned by the state the state have insured that the child has got a commercial Incorporated title attached to it . This incorporated title is the name of the baby in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS or MISS JANE BLOGGS. ( Check your driving licence it in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS )
As the court system is commercial court contract law corporation A has dispute with corporation B the judge can only be a judge when he has two corporations in dispute to judge
Humans cant be normally in commercial courts only corporations unless the human is stupid and say yes I am MR JOE BLOGGS.
If the Human say yes my name is MR JOPE BLOGGS he turns himself from a human into a person . A corporation can be classed as person so therefore a person can be a corporation. Anyway the way all the dim wits fall into the trap going into courts is saying my name is MR. JOE BLOGGS etc. .
So the trick is not to say your name in court and therefore there isn't two corporations in the court room so the case cant continue.
However it is as best as more expert people in TNS ( tir na soir ,land of the free ) www.tnsradio.ning.com) that admitting to any name such as JOE of the Family BLOGGS will allow them to conjoin the name to make JOE BLOGGS and convert the person into a corporation
As a result TNS cant recommend that solution . However other freeman movements suggest different .
Hope that helps you but if not look at TNS and see the info and decide for yourself.Derry

I didnt bother looking at it.

But I have long since concluded that what you are proffering is utter crap.

johnnyskeleton

derry wrote: »

There are some schools of thought that say the Name such as MR JOE BLOGGS or similar is a commercial Incorporated name .
That leads to the idea that using the name Joe of the family Bloggs or similar will remove the commercial incorporated link from the name .
This comes from the fact that when a baby is born there is a birth certificate issued which registers the birth of the baby JOE BLOGGS
The parents sign the birth certificate and as result hand over ownership of the baby to the state similar to when a ship is registered the registered ship is now owned by the state .The baby is then licensed by the state to be brought up by the parents if they remain suitable .If the parents err don't educate the child by sending it to school or abuse it the the state will take the the child away ( seeing as they own the baby they can take it away. It often why the state would rarely interfere in traveller families in the past as they did not own those kids as they didn't take out birth certificates)
Because the baby is owned by the state the state have insured that the child has got a commercial Incorporated title attached to it . This incorporated title is the name of the baby in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS or MISS JANE BLOGGS. ( Check your driving licence it in capitals MR JOE BLOGGS )
As the court system is commercial court contract law corporation A has dispute with corporation B the judge can only be a judge when he has two corporations in dispute to judge
Humans cant be normally in commercial courts only corporations unless the human is stupid and say yes I am MR JOE BLOGGS.
If the Human say yes my name is MR JOPE BLOGGS he turns himself from a human into a person . A corporation can be classed as person so therefore a person can be a corporation. Anyway the way all the dim wits fall into the trap going into courts is saying my name is MR. JOE BLOGGS etc. .
So the trick is not to say your name in court and therefore there isn't two corporations in the court room so the case cant continue.
However it is as best as more expert people in TNS ( tir na soir ,land of the free ) www.tnsradio.ning.com) that admitting to any name such as JOE of the Family BLOGGS will allow them to conjoin the name to make JOE BLOGGS and convert the person into a corporation
As a result TNS cant recommend that solution . However other freeman movements suggest different .
Hope that helps you but if not look at TNS and see the info and decide for yourself.

Derry

Just to tease this out a bit, if Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton calls himself johnnyskeleton to get education, health or social welfare systems, can he go back to Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton when it suits him not to pay taxes, have his home repossessed or not be subject to the rule of laws which don't suit him? Can one be a human and a person? Is this what that are we human or are we dancin' song was about?

If johnnyskeleton is a corporation and not a person, can he pay corporation tax instead of personal income tax? Can he write off losses on claret and fine dining because some human consumed them, contrary to the corporations interests?

Finnbar01

derry wrote: »

There are some schools of thought that say the Name such as MR JOE BLOGGS or similar is a commercial Incorporated name .
.........
Derry

Derry, do we a favour. Pop over to www.tnsradio.ning.com and ask the guys who run that site one simple question.

'Where's your proof lads that FMOTL works?'

See how long you last.

Joshua Jones

ResearchWill wrote: »

Do people really believe that stuff!!!!!!!!!

The fact that Law itself is nothing more than a belief system may be lost in here. Because the majority believe that law is good and just and follow it does not mean it is any more concrete than the moral codes of religion. Times change with all belief systems and change is scary for some.

Crime rates increase, for the most part, year on year, so has anyone ever asked themselves if law really works?. Is it a deterant in anyway?. IMO it is a means of control for the middle of the population. Those at the top use their contacts/money to skirt around it eg Berlisconi caught commiting fraud, changes the law lol. Those at the bottom dont care/believe in it.

Law is no more than a set of moral codes set down by "society" which if disobeyed will send you to hell/prison. That someone is a christian who then attacks a Buddhist for his beliefs because they believe them wrong is foolish and myopic. Mob rule.

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just to tease this out a bit, if Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton calls himself johnnyskeleton to get education, health or social welfare systems, can he go back to Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton when it suits him not to pay taxes, have his home repossessed or not be subject to the rule of laws which don't suit him? Can one be a human and a person? Is this what that are we human or are we dancin' song was about?

If johnnyskeleton is a corporation and not a person, can he pay corporation tax instead of personal income tax? Can he write off losses on claret and fine dining because some human consumed them, contrary to the corporations interests?

This Skeleton chap can't be one of these fleshy humans.

Hoffmans

seemingly that waterford case was adjourned till 22nd of this month, strange seen the case was heard already back in may and a fine issued, didnt know state could re-enter a case just because they didnt collect the original fine...

Finnbar01

Hoffmans wrote: »

seemingly that waterford case was adjourned till 22nd of this month, strange seen the case was heard already back in may and a fine issued, didnt know state could re-enter a case just because they didnt collect the original fine...

Do you know what he was brought up over?

ResearchWill

Hoffmans wrote: »

seemingly that waterford case was adjourned till 22nd of this month, strange seen the case was heard already back in may and a fine issued, didnt know state could re-enter a case just because they didnt collect the original fine...

He was brought before the District Court last month on a warrant, there was a question as to his identity the judge remanded him in custody. With the assistance of a solicitor and 2 barristers he brought a special summons to the high court, the state agreed not to contest that matter in the high court and he was released to return to the district court to have the matter heard.

When you are given a fine in the district court it will state the amount of the fine say 500 the time to pay say 6 months and the time in prison in default of paying say 7 days. So if a fine is not paid in the time warrant issues for you to be put in custody.

Finnbar01

ResearchWill wrote: »

He was brought before the District Court last month on a warrant, there was a question as to his identity the judge remanded him in custody. With the assistance of a solicitor and 2 barristers he brought a special summons to the high court, the state agreed not to contest that matter in the high court and he was released to return to the district court to have the matter heard.

When you are given a fine in the district court it will state the amount of the fine say 500 the time to pay say 6 months and the time in prison in default of paying say 7 days. So if a fine is not paid in the time warrant issues for you to be put in custody.

Correct me if I'm wrong but are you getting the Waterford and Wexford cases mixed up?

ResearchWill

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Correct me if you are wrong but are you getting the Waterford and Wexford cases mixed up?

Sorry my mistake.

passive

ResearchWill wrote: »

Sorry my mistake.

Looks like someone needs to do their research...

:cool: (YEAAAHHH!)

Robbo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just to tease this out a bit, if Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton calls himself johnnyskeleton to get education, health or social welfare systems, can he go back to Johnny of the aincent clan skeleton when it suits him not to pay taxes, have his home repossessed or not be subject to the rule of laws which don't suit him? Can one be a human and a person? Is this what that are we human or are we dancin' song was about?

If johnnyskeleton is a corporation and not a person, can he pay corporation tax instead of personal income tax? Can he write off losses on claret and fine dining because some human consumed them, contrary to the corporations interests?

johnnyskeleton the corporation would also sure enjoy perpetual succession and the ability to float oneself on the stock market. A handy way to profit and immortality, surely?

Actually, there was a chap on a thread over on Conspiracy Theories who believes that your capitalised birth cert is traded by the Government on some kind of ghoulish international denizen stock exchange.

mazzy maz

Robbo wrote: »

Actually, there was a chap on a thread over on Conspiracy Theories who believes that your capitalised birth cert is traded by the Government on some kind of ghoulish international denizen stock exchange.

Yeah a friend of mine that's trying the freeman stuff on his mortgage believes that. Unreal. What do you say to something like that?

Some of these freeman types literally just make stuff up and pass it off as fact. There are a few freeman facebook groups that I've been following for the laugh. Deluded isn't the word. I challenged the Waterford supporters of this Sludds chap to produce the constitutional article they believe requires a judge to produce his oath upon request. They gave me this:

5. 1°

Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution
shall make and subscribe the following declaration:
"In the presence of Almighty God I, , do
solemnly and sincerely promise and declare
that I will duly and faithfully and to the best
of my knowledge and power execute the
office of Chief Justice (or as the case may
be) without fear or favour, affection or illwill towards any man, and that I will uphold
the Constitution and the laws. May God
direct and sustain me."

2°

This declaration shall be made and subscribed by the
Chief Justice in the presence of the President, and by
each of the other judges of the Supreme Court, the
judges of the High Court and the judges of every other
Court in the presence of the Chief Justice or the senior
available judge of the Supreme Court in open court.

3°

The declaration shall be made and subscribed by
every judge before entering upon his duties as such
judge, and in any case not later than ten days after the
date of his appointment or such later date as may be
determined by the President.

4°

Any judge who declines or neglects to make such
declaration as aforesaid shall be deemed to have
vacated his office.

It clearly and unambiguously states that a judge is required to make the relevant declaration once and within 10 days of their initial appointment as a judge. When I pointed out that this was the case to the freeman nuts they carried on as if nothing had happened and continued to claim that Judge Anderson was in breach of the constitution. They're basically conspiracy theorists that refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their essentially faith-based beliefs. Nutters.

MagicSean

mazzy maz wrote: »

Yeah a friend of mine that's trying the freeman stuff on his mortgage believes that. Unreal. What do you say to something like that?

Some of these freeman types literally just make stuff up and pass it off as fact. There are a few freeman facebook groups that I've been following for the laugh. Deluded isn't the word. I challenged the Waterford supporters of this Sludds chap to produce the constitutional article they believe requires a judge to produce his oath upon request. They gave me this:



It clearly and unambiguously states that a judge is required to make the relevant declaration once and within 10 days of their initial appointment as a judge. When I pointed out that this was the case to the freeman nuts they carried on as if nothing had happened and continued to claim that Judge Anderson was in breach of the constitution. They're basically conspiracy theorists that refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their essentially faith-based beliefs. Nutters.

Is your friend intending to return the house to the seller? If the bank didn't provide him any real money then he didn't pay with any real money. I'm curious as to wether they have some excuse as to why their digital money is some how more real than the banks.

MapForJ

mazzy maz wrote: »

They're basically conspiracy theorists that refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their essentially faith-based beliefs. Nutters.

cult based beliefs is more like it imo

Finnbar01

mazzy maz wrote: »

Yeah a friend of mine that's trying the freeman stuff on his mortgage believes that. Unreal. What do you say to something like that?

Some of these freeman types literally just make stuff up and pass it off as fact. There are a few freeman facebook groups that I've been following for the laugh. Deluded isn't the word. I challenged the Waterford supporters of this Sludds chap to produce the constitutional article they believe requires a judge to produce his oath upon request. They gave me this:

It clearly and unambiguously states that a judge is required to make the relevant declaration once and within 10 days of their initial appointment as a judge. When I pointed out that this was the case to the freeman nuts they carried on as if nothing had happened and continued to claim that Judge Anderson was in breach of the constitution. They're basically conspiracy theorists that refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their essentially faith-based beliefs. Nutters.

They're also quite fond of asking Gardaí for their oaths when stopped say at a checkpoint. Why? What difference does it make whether a garda has his oath with him or not... I'm guessing none of course.

Innk colour is important to them (red and blue ink are to be used for different purposes) even paper ( robin egg blue) also has significance.

Finally, they've mentioned that if a garda asks you to sign something, underneath where you signature goes, sign 'under duress'???

It's strange altogether.

MapForJ

update"He said he was not Bobby Oliver Sludds - whom he described as 'a fictional entity' - and preferred to be known as Bobby of the family Sludds. Judge William Early accepted this and marked the charges 'also known as Bobby of the family Sludds' before using this form of address throughout the rest of the proceedings."

My favourite part:

Sludds said he was not working. He dismissed the State as a fictional entity. He asked: 'Have I offended anyone here?', prompting a chorus of 'No' from his supporters.

' The people have spoken,' he concluded.

The judge concluded otherwise, imposing €670 in fines for the lack of driving licence, motor tax and NCT.

MapForJ

Deleted User wrote: »

My favourite part:

wonder does he get dole from thenfictional entity and if so is it fictional dole

TylerIE

Deleted User wrote: »

My favourite part:

I also equally like

Sludds said he was not working.

as I wonder is he claiming benefits... from the fictional state....

mcmoustache

It's pretty clear that if the dole was for Bobby Sludds, then it isn't his. He should give it all back or have it sent to Bobby of the family Sludds.

This story, along with this one made my day.

MapForJ

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's pretty clear that if the dole was for Bobby Sludds, then it isn't his. He should give it all back or have it sent to Bobby of the family Sludds.

This story, along with this one made my day.

In handing down sentence, Judge Zaidan said he would direct Mr Sutton to get “psychiatric treatment as appropriate” while in prison

bath handle

A judge has no power to direct treatment of anyone in custody. Treatment in custody is a matter for the executive, not the judiciary. When is the High Court case?

Scealta_saol

mcmoustache wrote: »

This story, along with this one made my day.

Judge Zaidan is a legend! He has an excellent no nonsense approach and has no time for time wasters like this...

What exactly did Mr Sutton mean by "Mr. Sutton said he referred to Article 41 of the Irish Constitution, but the Gaelic version of it, not the blue book “masquerading” as the “true text” in all outlets.The document described the fixed penalty system as a “money exchanging facility” and questioned under which authority the District Court was operating, asking if it was under “maritime admiralty” or “common law” jurisdiction."


Is this another part of the Freeman thing? That the english version of the constitution doesn't count or something? Were there no Irish speakers in the court? Surely the document doesn't say that it's a money exchanging facility? Or if it does, not in the context of a "money making scheme"?

MagicSean

Scealta_saol wrote: »

Judge Zaidan is a legend! He has an excellent no nonsense approach and has no time for time wasters like this...

What exactly did Mr Sutton mean by "Mr. Sutton said he referred to Article 41 of the Irish Constitution, but the Gaelic version of it, not the blue book “masquerading” as the “true text” in all outlets.The document described the fixed penalty system as a “money exchanging facility” and questioned under which authority the District Court was operating, asking if it was under “maritime admiralty” or “common law” jurisdiction."


Is this another part of the Freeman thing? That the english version of the constitution doesn't count or something? Were there no Irish speakers in the court? Surely the document doesn't say that it's a money exchanging facility? Or if it does, not in the context of a "money making scheme"?

They believe the translation is wrong and that the Irish one is worded less oppressively.

Robbo

Scealta_saol wrote: »

Judge Zaidan is a legend! He has an excellent no nonsense approach and has no time for time wasters like this...

What exactly did Mr Sutton mean by "Mr. Sutton said he referred to Article 41 of the Irish Constitution, but the Gaelic version of it, not the blue book “masquerading” as the “true text” in all outlets.The document described the fixed penalty system as a “money exchanging facility” and questioned under which authority the District Court was operating, asking if it was under “maritime admiralty” or “common law” jurisdiction."


Is this another part of the Freeman thing? That the english version of the constitution doesn't count or something? Were there no Irish speakers in the court? Surely the document doesn't say that it's a money exchanging facility? Or if it does, not in the context of a "money making scheme"?

And if they can't fall back on the "mistranslated" Constitution, they also like to go on about the number of strings on the harps used on various documents. Seems legit to me...

Victor

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

They believe the translation is wrong and that the Irish one is worded less oppressively.

It seems that there are some discrepancies between the two, with the Irish version being more flowery and the English version more legalistic.

derry

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Finally, they've mentioned that if a garda asks you to sign something, underneath where you signature goes, sign 'under duress'???

It's strange altogether.

If you sign the form a garda gives you you basiucally can be interpeted to admit quit even if your not guilty or worse your happy with your stay in thier hotel services commonly known a s the jail.
They Garda usualy trick you with sign this form to to get your material back such as wallet car keys etc thyey take off you before they lock you up.
If you were arrested wronly and you sign that form yopu effecdtivly have signed a form to say that your were happy with the copetate servicews the Garda supplied including the escorting with shackels to a jail soyou cant sue them for hurting you breaking your arms etc
If the Garda bends parts that shouldnt bend and force you to sign then put under durress and that makes the contract null and void

Simple really the corperate services of the Garda like to cover thier rear ends and trick you intyo signing away your rights

If a Garda saytodo you understand me and you say yes i understand you then your banjaxed
What he has said under legalese lingo is do you agree to stand under me .
If you say yes I understand you you efffetivily agree you will stand under him
This means because you are the people the highest in the system and the Garda are the servants civil servant s and are under you and have to serve you if you agree to stand under your servant the garda you agree that he or she is now higher than you and they now have full control oveer you destiny eg they can now command you to go to jail.If you dont go tthey can now drag you there legealy as you gave away your rights to object
SEE SIMPLE THEY TRICKED YOU to give away your rights

There is more but you probably wouldnt get it its over your head you trust your servants not to shaft you in the darker parts with thier double speak dont you

Derry