The Freeman Movement and England

[jeffwode]

One to watch here I think:

Almost two months ago I had goods seized on my return to the UK. I wrote a Notice to the UKBA and informed them of my lawful standing and demanded my goods be returned to me immediately. I politely explained that I was in Lawful Rebellion and I sent them copies of several affidavits as evidence. I then left on another trip to West Africa. On my return home yesterday there was a letter waiting for me from UKBA.

It says that I have appealed against the seizure and now they must start Condemnation Proceedings in the Sheriff Court. I should expect a Writ to be served on me by 9th June. It does not say under which statute my goods were taken. For transparency, you should know that the goods taken were duty free cigarettes and cigars. I was also carrying some duty paid goods, which the agent generously permitted me to keep. I saw no point arguing with the agent at the airport, knowing full well that I needed to issue a Notice to his superiors.

As you would expect, my Notice to them dated 23rd April fully explained why statute law is meaningless to me, but they patently do not/cannot understand the written word, so it's off to court we go.

http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-so-to-war.html

What can possibly go wrong? Hope he videos it.

[Hans]

Lawful Rebellion is an entirely different beast.


Is it?

[jeffwode]

Is it?
Not really. There's a bit more emphasis on affidavits (how they love that word). The idea seems to be that instead of being a roaming fool on the land, you transfer your allegiance from the Queen to someone else.

The FOTL in question (http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2011/03/lawful-rebellion-last-piece-of-puzzle.html) has sent Her Madge an affidavit telling her that he's sworn allegiance to the Baron's Committee. This sounds like an impressive organization because it's got the word baron in it and so has the Magna Carta. QED, the FOTL is immune from prosecution.:confused:

One slight drawback is that the Baron's Committee doesn't actually exist. The only source FOTLs give is a ten-year old news story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html) about 4 ex-peers asking the Queen to be more Eurosceptic. Even this didn't refer to them as the Baron's Committee. They might as well pledge allegiance to the Barron Knights.

[brodski]

might as well pledge allegiance to the Barron Knights.
Would that put them Under New Management?

[Aitch]

Breaking news:

The West Country FMotL have broken away and pledged allegiance to the Worzels! :eek:

[Hans]

Not really. There's a bit more emphasis on affidavits (how they love that word). The idea seems to be that instead of being a roaming fool on the land, you transfer your allegiance from the Queen to someone else.

The FOTL in question (http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2011/03/lawful-rebellion-last-piece-of-puzzle.html) has sent Her Madge an affidavit telling her that he's sworn allegiance to the Baron's Committee. This sounds like an impressive organization because it's got the word baron in it and so has the Magna Carta. QED, the FOTL is immune from prosecution.:confused:

One slight drawback is that the Baron's Committee doesn't actually exist. The only source FOTLs give is a ten-year old news story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html) about 4 ex-peers asking the Queen to be more Eurosceptic. Even this didn't refer to them as the Baron's Committee. They might as well pledge allegiance to the Barron Knights.

Thanks for the explanations, I look forward to the magnificent spectacle of looming disaster for the Captain and sad comedy for us all.

[dafydd]

Would that put them Under New Management?

You have a long memory!

[ComfySlippers]

You have a long memory!

Food for Thought

[ComfySlippers]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=162543&page=9

Interesting post from fotheringsmirth , post#88

Longish post, no made-up words. I suspect that thread will go quiet as they sit around scratching their heads.

My favourite bit:

It's been a while since I've been here and I'm amused by how much of this forum is people who have come here to argue that FMOTL is nonsense with people who believe in it. I use the word 'believe' deliberately because it is just that - it's a belief tantamount to believing in elves and wizards and requires a certain amount of faith and incredulity.

[jargon buster]

Im glad I made such an impression :D
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059926368&postcount=1
Yes the bragging of paid shills have won the day.

There are plenty of other boards to go to if you wish to continue to be free and there are plenty of meets happening now regularly up and down the country.

Back to the beginning and all the remedies to the questions posed recently are there.

Alas it appears YouSpy has wiped down many of the videos in the resource section more than likely on the express orders of JB himself.

What a man. What a soldier of fortune. What a legend.

You can all rest safely, assured that he has saved you from a fate worse than death and happily sign yourself up to progressive happy, joyous and free lives you will lead.

The man deserves a Knighthood for services to the REALM.

I'm sure he will receive one.

Ah the sweet taste of victory.

The whole thing brought down by the part time posting of a person who couldn't have given a rats ass either way???:):):)
Wow, what foundations FMOTL was built on :rolleyes:

[Stacey Grove]

Yes the bragging of paid shills have won the day.
That always makes me chuckle. The FOTL are so deluded they really do believe the government pay people to post on Icke's in order to put the FOTL off the scent to prevent them from discovering "The Secret".

[ComfySlippers]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=129111&page=2

[jargon buster]

taken from travettes post in that link
The letter at the start about my financial hardship is irrelevant.
Nope, massively important actually.

I am poor. Does that affect the case? No.
errr...yes, if you show them you have no means to pay they will defer the repayments

[Hans]

That always makes me chuckle. The FOTL are so deluded they really do believe the government pay people to post on Icke's in order to put the FOTL off the scent to prevent them from discovering "The Secret".

That seems to be common to many fringe CTs, even archaeological ones that the CT feels that no one but a paid gub'mint shill would disagree with them......

[Captain_Swoop]

That seems to be common to many fringe CTs, even archaeological ones that the CT feels that no one but a paid gub'mint shill would disagree with them......

Apparently as a Mod on BAUT I am paid by NASA to shill for the Moon Hoax and the coverup of Aliens!

[Hans]

On archaeological CT forums few CT'ers would believe that people who didn't believe aliens built the pyramids or that the Piri Reis map showed antarctica or that Sitchin could really read Sumerian would do so on their own based on their own experience and research. One of my favorite questions was to ask who the head of the anti-archaeological bureau was in the US and how did they keep track of the several thousand digs going on world wide.....

[jargon buster]

Looks like I have helped girlgye over the edge as well as Menard.
And all in my spare time as well :D
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059948396&postcount=9
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059948389&postcount=9

what a maroon...

[drewid]

You do seem to get around JB, almost as if you're in several places at once.

[jargon buster]

thats the benefit of anonymous proxies :D

[ComfySlippers]

So am I still Jeff?

[Scoot Meevo]

Is there a decent place to get a concise summary of the FoTL stuff? I have a few friends who fiend on the CT whispers and the youtube vids are starting to get passed around of fat blokes standing on tables. They just kind of storm a local courthouse and shout stuff. Laughably, the vid comes with the assertion that the UK Government doesn't want you to see it and "IT WILL BE BLOCKED". The one I got sent has now been up for a fortnight and I quickly found another copy of the same vid which has been up for two months...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tictgGAE30

...which makes a bit of a mockery of the claims that the video is particularly terrifying to these sinister masters of ours :D


Anyway, I was trying to read a bit but I don't really have any legal experience or knowledge whatsoever so it can be slow going as I'm not sure exactly what some of the wordings mean in their context.

I know there's meant to be an assertion that Common Law is true law. From what I gathered, Common Law in the UK is determined by the establishing of precedents. By nature, this would mean it is a law which accommodates an evolution of sorts, keeping it relevant to the conditions of the time? If that's the case then harking back to a 700+ year old version must be almost redundant.

I also got as far as finding out that a lot is made of at least the Magna Carta. One FoTL site listed a series of old 'legal' documents and various versions of Magna Carta were amongst this, including the original version which was never turned into law, which surely makes that pointless? Newer versions were there but the fact that the oldest version was featured with highlighted passageways led me to believe the site author felt it perhaps was an actual legal document.

I'd like to see exactly what their point is supposed to be. I find many of the claims to be rather unfocussed and plentiful so would like to whittle down if possible. Is it merely this 'consent' issue that is being contested, and if so, do the Freemen wish to exclude themselves from other laws and features of our system, or just the ones that ask them for money? I'm no expert in medieval law, but I do imagine it wouldn't be much of a set of rules to work to in 2011. Maybe they wish to dump their pee onto the streets, settle disputes by duels and give up the use of their electricity and water supplies too?

Any clarifying help much appreciated, ta.

[Bosozoku]

If I understand it correctly, they generally believe that no law is valid unless they consent to that particular law. Even the common law is not valid unless they consent to that particular law. Essentially what it boils down to is that there is no law, and that any action is acceptable so long as that action does not harm another person. So when they don't pay their taxes this is all kosher because they are not doing anyone any harm, in their minds.

If a Freeman is reading this and wishes to correct me, feel free to do so.

For some examples of how this argument has worked in court, see this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7209496#post7209496). There is a list of case after case where their arguments are completely dismissed over and over. Those cases are Canadian, but it's the same in American and English courts. There is simply no truth to these claims.

[ComfySlippers]

if a freeman is reading this and wishes to correct me, feel free to do so.

...

those cases are canadian, but it's the same in american and english any courts

:)

[Horatius]

I know there's meant to be an assertion that Common Law is true law. From what I gathered, Common Law in the UK is determined by the establishing of precedents. By nature, this would mean it is a law which accommodates an evolution of sorts, keeping it relevant to the conditions of the time? If that's the case then harking back to a 700+ year old version must be almost redundant.




Part of the problem with pinning down what these guys really believe is that they don't use terms the same way everyone else does. For example, your description of "Common Law", while accurate in the real world, isn't what the Fotlers mean when they say "Common Law". Getting them to actually define what they do mean when they say "Common Law", though, is like pulling teeth.

Some of them have gone on about "Laws" that come from God, or Nature, but it's really not clear.

[ComfySlippers]

Is there a decent place to get a concise summary of the FoTL stuff?

This is a fairly accurate summary of FOTL-Waflle/Sovereign Citzenship (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land).

It is slightly tongue-in-cheek but still factually correct.

CBS: 60 Minutes. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/15/60minutes/main20062666.shtml)
(Different name, same con)

[Scoot Meevo]

I don't know if it's the same in the US, but in the UK, these ideas seem to be spouted by people who'd consider themselves to be left wingers so it's interesting that they often have extreme right wing origins.

Is there a gap in general CT'ist demographics on either side of the Atlantic?

[therival58]

one thing that still confuses me with FOTL in England is the claim by people like John Harris that Members of Parliament, Labour Party, courts and police stations are publicly traded companies.

Here's a screenshot from Small Business solutions listing them as companies. (From 3:40 to 4:30) Also claim that UK is a publicly traded corporation (From 9:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k

House of Lords - Corporation? (1:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E

Has anyone else looked into these claims?

[LightinDarkness]

one thing that still confuses me with FOTL in England is the claim by people like John Harris that Members of Parliament, Labour Party, courts and police stations are publicly traded companies.

Here's a screenshot from Small Business solutions listing them as companies. (From 3:40 to 4:30) Also claim that UK is a publicly traded corporation (From 9:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k

House of Lords - Corporation? (1:05 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E

Has anyone else looked into these claims?

Before I respond to this, I'd just like to point out TheRival that we all know you are on here to troll us. You've been playing the role of the "inquiring skeptic" since your arrival and have continually posted things like the above even though you know those questions have been answered and the notions behind them debunked half a dozen times in this thread alone. I realize by responding to you I am encouraging you to keep this up, but I am only doing so because we have some new posters in this thread and they should know what you are up to.

Anyways, as you know TheRival, the idea that the House of Commons, the UK, or any government agency is a corporation is wrong. It is, however, true that governments and government bodies have a corporation. The House of Commons indeed has a corporation (this is different from the House of Commons BEING a corporation). The FOTL woo is that you should freak out about that because in FOTL land corporations are evil for-profit enterprises out to enslave you.

But in reality, corporations are good things legally speaking. They are simply a legal structure. The House of Commons has a corporation because it enables it to operate and allows people to seek redress with the institution. The corporation allows people to work at the house of commons without being dragged into every law suit against an MP (employee immunity). It allows citizens to be able to file suit against the House of Commons as a whole if they have a problem but can't pinpoint a specific person to file suit against (which you can't do without a corporation).

Yes, for the love of the gods, governments have corporations. Lots of them. And thats not only A-OK, its a terrific thing for citizens and the people who work for the government because it allows us to actually function as a society.

[jargon buster]

Before I respond to this, I'd just like to point out TheRival that we all know you are on here to troll us.

+1
I pointed that out when he first started posting,hes a closet freeman trying to get people to read the garbage he links to.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7082970&postcount=5417

[ComfySlippers]

hes a closet freeman

Did the wardrobe consent though?...

[therival58]

+1
I pointed that out when he first started posting,hes a closet freeman trying to get people to read the garbage he links to.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7082970&postcount=5417

namecall all you want its a ridiculous accusation.

LightinDarkness, maybe my question was already answered, however, for time's sake, I prefer be direct with a question that's still puzzling me as opposed to sifting through 139 pages. If by posting links that makes me a closet FOTLer, well believe what you want.

[jargon buster]

LightinDarkness, maybe my question was already answered, however, for time's sake, I prefer be direct with a question that's still puzzling me as opposed to sifting through 139 pages. If by posting links that makes me a closet FOTLer, well believe what you want.

Come on now rival freeman, you must know you have to do your own research.

By the way, I'm not name calling Im stating facts.
(the question mark in your sig gives you away,and your reluctance to bring up the issue of consent is also glaringly obvious)

[LightinDarkness]

namecall all you want its a ridiculous accusation.

LightinDarkness, maybe my question was already answered, however, for time's sake, I prefer be direct with a question that's still puzzling me as opposed to sifting through 139 pages. If by posting links that makes me a closet FOTLer, well believe what you want.

If it wasn't for your extensive post history and time here this would be believable. But no one is buying it, dear. You asked a "debunking freeman 101 question" that anyone whose looked at this for more than 5 minutes can answer. And you've been here far longer than 5 minutes. Thats why your name is "TheRival" - you are here to stir things up.

[therival58]

If it wasn't for your extensive post history and time here this would be believable. But no one is buying it, dear. You asked a "debunking freeman 101 question" that anyone whose looked at this for more than 5 minutes can answer. And you've been here far longer than 5 minutes. Thats why your name is "TheRival" - you are here to stir things up.

What is the goal of being a closet freeman - to secretly spread FOTL doctrine?:p

the truth is I was completely new to the FOTL theory back in january/february, but after doing some research, and viewing/asking questions on JREF, I am no longer convinced being a FOTL has any basis in law or makes any sense. the corporation thing was one of the last things I needed clarification with - this CT is very extensive and combines so much info it takes awhile to sift through it all. I'm in the process of clearing out my favorites now.

[jargon buster]

I am no longer convinced being a FOTL has any basis in law or makes any sense.
Good, now maybe you can stop posting idiotic freeman links and youtube videos and asking inane questions which 2 minutes of googling will give you the answer to.

[ComfySlippers]

this CT is very extensive and combines so much info it takes awhile to sift through it all.

No sifting required. File it all under "BS" sub-folder "Scam".

[therival58]

Good, now maybe you can stop posting idiotic freeman links and youtube videos and asking inane questions which 2 minutes of googling will give you the answer to.

actually I did try googling the answer to the question from post #5527 before posting. I couldn't find any answers - perhaps I was using insufficient search terms.

[jargon buster]

the only question in that post was you asking if anyone else had looked into the claims.
the rest was a statement which can be researched by searching the freeman threads on this forum (try the search function)

happy hunting.

[ComfySlippers]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=172582

(emphasis is mine)

girlgye:
If we restrict Liberty
to attain security we will lose them both.

Benjamin Franklin (A US President)


Her eagerness to demonstrate her lack of any kind of knowledge whatsoever is astounding.

[Hans]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=172582

(emphasis is mine)

girlgye:

Benjamin Franklin (A US President)

Her eagerness to demonstrate her lack of any kind of knowledge whatsoever is astounding.

Wasn't he the 'President' of the State of Franklin? <LOL>

[tsig]

Wasn't he the 'President' of the State of Franklin? <LOL>

This?

The State of Franklin, known also as the Free Republic of Franklin or the State of Frankland (the latter being the name submitted to the Continental Congress when it considered the territory's application for statehood[1]), was an unrecognized autonomous United States territory created in 1784 from part of the territory west of the Appalachian Mountains that had been offered, by North Carolina, as a cession to the federal government (to help pay off debts related to the American Revolutionary War)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Franklin

[jargon buster]

heres a taste of freedom from a poster on Ickes
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059967694&postcount=17
So it's really a choice only you can make, you have to decide what's best for you. I live alone, my parents and friends know what I'm doing,
I have special things in place so I know when to answer the door and when not to.
No passport, no drivers license, no picture I.D. so unless my grandma comes back from the grave during the zombie apocalypse lol then they
have no way of attaching me to THE name.

Will I go to prison, more than likely but hey I could do with a break from my neighbour and her annoying kids, loud music, arguments
and slamming doors.
I'll get 3 meals a day, internet access, a library, a gym, sounds like a holiday to me lol so bring it on.

Hey this freeman lifestyle sounds great, bring it on.

[Mojo]

heres a taste of freedom from a poster on Ickes
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059967694&postcount=17


Hey this freeman lifestyle sounds great, bring it on.


If the FOTL stuff works, why does he need to hide whenever anyone knocks on the door?

[ComfySlippers]

I have special things in place so I know when to answer the door and when not to.

"special things"
lol. Windows?

ETA: A doorbell?

[jargon buster]

He does say he lives alone, I wonder if he gave his birth name when he applied for the lease?
The guys full of BS, landlords and councils only lease properties to people they can trace.(proof of ID)

freeloader on the land is more like it. :rolleyes:

[Hans]

He may live in a place he inherited or rents/uses from a relative or is just squating

[Grassy Knowlington]

"special things"
lol. Windows?

ETA: A doorbell?

Probably a video camera so there's never a need to move away from the computer screen.

[jeffwode]

FOTL Ranty moves closer (http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2011/06/ukba-plot-sickens.html) to his day in court.

Dear XXXXX XXXXX

I refer to your letter dated 7 June 2011. My reply is late because I was abroad on business.

You have sent me a form on which I need to select one of two options: challenge the legality of the seizure or withdraw my claim. I do not wish to withdraw my claim, nor do I wish to challenge the legality of the seizure. I believe that your officers did as they were trained to do.

However, it is clear to me from reading your letter that you did not even bother to read mine (dated 21 April 2011) in which I explained to you what my lawful standing is. I even included supporting documentation. How you missed it is beyond me. I must now insist that you take advice from a constitutional lawyer. You obviously do not understand the ramifications or the importance of my standing as a Lawful Rebel. Your statutes are meaningless to me. I have opted out. Lawfully. I am under no obligation to obey statute law. Indeed, I am obliged to ignore it.

I appreciate that the concept is alien to you, and it will mystify any lawyer who has no experience in constitutional matters. I forgive your (collective) ignorance, just this once.

What reasonable man could do more?

My favourite bit:

Finally, a word on costs. I conditionally agree to pay your costs as long as you agree to pay mine. For my special appearance at the court, my fee is one thousand (1,000) ounces of silver per hour. I expect to be paid in bullion, not fiat currency. This is non-negotiable.

I understand that silver currently costs $33 an ounce, which values this FOTL's time as $33,000 an hour.

Without frivolity, ill-will or vexation,

(my mark)

Captain: of the Ranty family."

Let's see what happens next, shall we?

Yes, let's.

[SpitfireIX]

Yes, let's [see what happens next].


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604dfe123bb2cb1.jpg

[Horatius]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604dfe123bb2cb1.jpg



You need to photoshop that to "$33,000/hour".

[Plutonium]

I know there's meant to be an assertion that Common Law is true law. From what I gathered, Common Law in the UK is determined by the establishing of precedents. By nature, this would mean it is a law which accommodates an evolution of sorts, keeping it relevant to the conditions of the time? If that's the case then harking back to a 700+ year old version must be almost redundant.

You are correct that Common Law is based on precedent. When a court makes a decision in a particular matter, that decision is binding on all courts at the same or a lower level, in dealing with cases in which the facts are similar. Hence it is a system of judge-made law.

The age of a precedent is not important - some relevant cases are hundreds of years old, eg Pinnel's case, in contract law.

However, Common Law is only one of the two sources of English law*. The other source is Parliamentary statute. Contrary to what the OP says, these are also valid laws, and indeed they trump the Common Law. Any law at Common Law can be overridden by an Act of Parliament. The constitutional formula is that "the Queen in Parliament is supreme". A law passed by both houses of Parliament, and receiving the royal assent, cannot be overridden by any judge, only by a subsequent Act of Parliament that repeals it.

I haven't previously heard of the Freemen movement, but based on the OP's rant, they have less knowledge of English law than a 16-year-old who has passed GCSE Law.

(* NB I notice you live in Scotland. Scots Law is slightly different - it is a hybrid system, also incorporating elements of Roman law.)

[jargon buster]

Now,now plutonium, writing things like that means you are either in on the law societies trickery or are not yet awake. :rolleyes:

[SpitfireIX]

You need to photoshop that to "$33,000/hour".


Thought about it, but I would have had to have driven over to school to use Photoshop, and I'm too busy today. :(

[ComfySlippers]

I bring forth good news:

You have received an Spam Notice at David Icke's Official Forums

Not only did I get one an spam notice but three! Awesome.

My first an Spam Notice:

Dear grammarian,

You have received an infraction at David Icke's Official Forums.

Reason: Insulted Other Member(s) - First Notice
-------
We take a serious view on accusations on this forum, your account will be suspended if you insist on posting with your troll like behaviour.
-------

This infraction is worth 3 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1059968977

With some minor exceptions:

Menard scams $1million, is the default leader therefore declares shagging underage girls is not unlawful, and they all go and buy big cannons to defend themselves from the ebil gibberment


...... Wonder how that story ends.

All the best,
David Icke's Official Forums


My second an Spam Notice:

Dear grammarian,

You have received an infraction at David Icke's Official Forums.

Reason: Provocative Trolling - First Notice
-------
If you continue with your trolling of this forum, your account will be suspended very quickly.
-------

This infraction is worth 3 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1059968576

Umm..... this is a silly forum filled with silly people who believe silly things, with the odd conman like Menard thrown in for good measure.

Why in Queen E-Lizard the Second's name would I want to, or care about befriending muppets who are daft enough to believe crap and scams?

You do understand that silly forums on the intertubes are not actually a substitute for real life?

Postcounts and "Forum Friends" are meaningless, and if you believe them to be otherwise you have just made the whacka-doodle-ometer hit 15.

All the best,
David Icke's Official Forums

My third an Spam Notice:

Dear grammarian,

You have received an infraction at David Icke's Official Forums.

Reason: Provocative Trolling - Second Notice
-------
Reading through your posts, one can easily see why you are here, not for much longer though.
-------

This infraction is worth 5 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1059965033

What is freedom?
It's the thing that the paranoid-schizophrenics protest they don'y have, whilst listening to Alex Jones and reading Icke-Woo.
All the best,
David Icke's Official Forums

---
All within 8 minutes.
Thing is, I don't consent to their rules :rolleyes: and Menard is still a conman.

[ComfySlippers]

A fourth an Spam Notice ... Groovy:

Dear grammarian,

You have received an infraction at David Icke's Official Forums.

Reason: Repeated Abuse Of Forum
-------
All your posts have some sort of ridicule, insults, and generally just trolling this forum.
-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1059980827

She is being given licence to grant Statutes here for the purposes of a money making banking Franchise owned pretty much wholesale by the Rothschilds and which to create a Gi-nourmous Ponzi scheme so greedy so powerful and so psychopathically unrelenting to begger belief .


Just out of interest can you pinpoint the moment in time when you deicided to believe every daft conspiracy tale out there? Is there no scam or conspiracy-nonsense you will not fall for?

You truly are a conman's dream come true.
If you had any money I'm sure you'd be giving it to Menard.
Then again if you had any money you wouldn't be endlessly searching for ways to blame your mistakes and failures in life on others.

It doesn't matter one iota whether or not there was a lump of rock under the coronation throne. Only a fool would believe tales stating otherwise. (How does the Coronation Stone in Kingston-upon-Thames fit into this silly conspiracy story then?).

And btw, the quack you are now promoting in your sig is.... a conman!

All the best,
David Icke's Official Forums

[Stacey Grove]

Icke moderator clone wrote:

We take a serious view on accusations on this forum

Well, that depends on who is being accused.

[Captain_Swoop]

I bring forth good news:



Not only did I get one an spam notice but three! Awesome.

My first an Spam Notice:




My second an Spam Notice:



My third an Spam Notice:



---
All within 8 minutes.
Thing is, I don't consent to their rules :rolleyes: and Menard is still a conman.

Didn't you consent to their rules when you signed up and agreed to the rules? just like you did here on JREF?

Do you fell better now you have Martyred yourself on the Icke Forum?

[ComfySlippers]

Didn't you consent to their rules when you signed up and agreed to the rules? just like you did here on JREF?

Do you fell better now you have Martyred yourself on the Icke Forum?

Well they don't have my consent in ink :rolleyes:

I honestly couldn't give a flying saucepan about Icke Forum. It is a cauldron of insanity, who's only purpose in life is to be a source of hilarity for anyone capable of tying their own shoe-laces.

(I am not in any way knocking the sterling efforts of those who post there with well constructed contributions demonstrating very clearly how the whole FOTL-Scam is just that.)

[hal5001]

My Dad was in the UK freemasons for a few years. He joined because he thought he could get some contacts for his business. He said that the reality was it was a club for mainly lonely old men who wanted company and the sumit of their political power was sending out a bit of money here and there to widows of dead members. My Dad left, disillusioned that there were no Soprano style deals going on.

[jargon buster]

Didn't you consent to their rules when you signed up and agreed to the rules? just like you did here on JREF?

You can withdraw your consent to the rules at any time dontcha know?

So if Menard is right you couldnt be banned from a forum for not following the rules.;)

[LightinDarkness]

My Dad was in the UK freemasons for a few years. He joined because he thought he could get some contacts for his business. He said that the reality was it was a club for mainly lonely old men who wanted company and the sumit of their political power was sending out a bit of money here and there to widows of dead members. My Dad left, disillusioned that there were no Soprano style deals going on.

Should have known better if he joined for that reason, 5 minutes of research would have saved him months of trouble.

[SpitfireIX]

Should have known better if he joined for that reason, 5 minutes of research would have saved him months of trouble.


At least around here, in addition to the lonely old men, there have been some fairly prominent business and professional people who belong. My dad is a 33rd, and he always wanted me to join for networking, but I never wanted to (despite the fact that I was in DeMolay).

Side note: one time a friend of mine who'd recently become a fundamentalist Christian asked me and some other friends of ours, "Does anybody know anything about the Masons?" Before I could answer, he started parroting several Masonic conspiracies that he'd heard Josh McDowell spouting off about on his radio show. I and one other guy (who knew my dad) about laughed ourselves onto the floor, especially when my friend said that the 33rd Degree were the leaders of the conspiracy. Finally he noticed that we were laughing at him, and asked what was funny. After I told him, he shut up, but a few weeks later he said to me, "I still believe the things that Josh McDowell said about the Masons, because he wouldn't have said that if it weren't true." :rolleyes:

[ComfySlippers]

Lovely. But back to the topic at hand, (Freeloaders on the land):

I would urge anyone in need of a good laugh to look at
A rather silly place (http://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
It seems to be getting more stupid by the day.

There you can read whack-a-gibber-nuttery like this:
Precisely. Your superb analogy about paedophilia in the JAH thread has been neatly exposed and duplicated in, as usual, tautological fashion by trolls who are keen to make us toe the line to stupid fines which criminalise us and seize our assets and possessions. You are quite astute to see the tactic employed and rebut with the reasonable suggestion to which they know fully well Rob is referring to.

You must have radiation at airports and scanners that perv your children's and your pubic parts because the twin towers were bombed by Arab (coveniently holders of lots of black gold) terrorists. This is for your own good. Neatly exposing you to a basic mind control technique - hypnotising you to accept a moral agenda of bombing the Arab of all his black gold. Puppet leaders in their place who will sell the black gold cheaply to illuminati cronies and rape the people of that land bone dry. This in turn causes the dissension and anger we see displayed here on this very board and wahay people are in a constant state of bickering and war, thus needing a govt and court to sort out the fighting.

[jargon buster]

Another idiot on Ickes going over the same stupid point
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059987846&postcount=83
Therein lies the sleight of hand - the fraudulent failure to disclose the fact that the alleged borrower is the one who funds the alleged loan. THE BANKS LEND YOU NOTHING. YOUR PROMISE TO PAY IS WHAT CREATES THE FUNDS. (Just like the promise to pay on a Bank Note, of course). We are the creditors, my friends, the banksters are merely extenders of our own credit who commit fraud each and every minute of the day by enslaving people to imaginary debts which are ratchet up ridiculous interest rates.

By his own argument wouldnt his refusal to honour the promise make the funds disappear and as such make his claim on the property invalid as he didnt have any funds to buy it with in the first place.
He bought it on a "promise" and now his promise is broken then so is the contract and he must give back the house to its original owner, who if Im right must give back the one hes living in as well as he spent the promise of the original buyer and.......oh never mind.

PS I am using freeman logic* here

* if such a thing exists :rolleyes:

[jargon buster]

Yet another honourable soul wishes to take solice in the freeman movement.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060137241&postcount=1
I bought a laptop, but got a discount if i agrred to take a dongal form vodaphone on a two year contract. The Dongal was stolen from me after about a year. I asked vodaphone to cancel the dongal, but they would not cancel the contract claiming i had to buy my way out.

Anyway after a bit of negligence from me, i got a letter from a debt collector asking for the remainder of the contract. I am quite happy to pay vodaphone, but really dont want to enter into any agreements with this agency....... what can i do?? So he sulked and refused to pay , now threatened he wants to pay, but not to the debt collector.

maybe he should have been happy to pay Vodaphone in the first place.

[uk_dave]

Hmmmmmm, I thought the laptop was free when you signed up for an expensive mobile phone contract. So, perhaps he wanted a free laptop, tried to get out of the phone contract by claiming the dongal was stolen (like that'll matter) failed miserably and now has to pay the mobile phone company.

[Architect]

"dongle"


(sigh)

[Toke]

He is unlikely to get out of the contract.
What he could do is to get a new dongle and simcard for it.
The fee for that would not be much compared to paying another year for nothing.

[TjW]

He is unlikely to get out of the contract.
What he could do is to get a new dongle and simcard for it.
The fee for that would not be much compared to paying another year for nothing.

Freemen don't want to pay for another year for nothing, they want to pay nothing for another year.

[Toke]

Freemen don't want to pay for another year for nothing, they want to pay nothing for another year.
I wonder if phonecompanies and collection agencies are more responsive to freeman logic than courts?:rolleyes:

[8den]

http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Picture-326.png?f22064

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1416262/Court-refuses-trial-by-combat.html

[Horatius]

http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Picture-326.png?f22064

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1416262/Court-refuses-trial-by-combat.html



You know, I think I'd actually support this....


Of course, he fails to realize that, under the ancient law he cites, the Champion could be anyone who was willing to step up to fight for the side of the King. I'm pretty sure I'm a lot better with a katana than this putz.

[cwalner]

You know, I think I'd actually support this....


Of course, he fails to realize that, under the ancient law he cites, the Champion could be anyone who was willing to step up to fight for the side of the King. I'm pretty sure I'm a lot better with a katana than this putz.

Which is of course why I have to wonder what planet he lives on to think that trial by combat is not a violation of human rights legislation.

Now that I think about it, how much more would such fines be, if the state had to contract out Champions to deal with these jackasses. Don't they want smaller government?

[catsmate1]

You know, I think I'd actually support this....


Of course, he fails to realize that, under the ancient law he cites, the Champion could be anyone who was willing to step up to fight for the side of the King. I'm pretty sure I'm a lot better with a katana than this putz.
Assault rifles at ten paces...........
Alas Trial by Combat was abolished in Britain in 1819 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton). It might work in the USA..........

[fromdownunder]

Assault rifles at ten paces...........


Naahhh...Chuck Norris.

Norm

[Toke]

Which is of course why I have to wonder what planet he lives on to think that trial by combat is not a violation of human rights legislation.

Now that I think about it, how much more would such fines be, if the state had to contract out Champions to deal with these jackasses. Don't they want smaller government?

I believe English authorities have access to people quite confident with Gurkha knives, who may settle for a lower fee for representing the crown than laymen.:rolleyes:
It would really cut down on the repeat silly lawsuits. :D

[Horatius]

Now that I think about it, how much more would such fines be, if the state had to contract out Champions to deal with these jackasses. Don't they want smaller government?

I believe English authorities have access to people quite confident with Gurkha knives, who may settle for a lower fee for representing the crown than laymen.:rolleyes:
It would really cut down on the repeat silly lawsuits. :D



I was about to say....I'm pretty sure I could find people who would volunteer for this, just to test various notions they have about how sword fights actually work in real life.

Add in the old rule about how the winner gets ALL of the loser's stuff, and it pretty much funds itself...[/ModestProposal]

[Captain_Swoop]

I believe English authorities have access to people quite confident with Gurkha knives, who may settle for a lower fee for representing the crown than laymen.:rolleyes:
It would really cut down on the repeat silly lawsuits. :D

A whole regiment of them, already paid to fight for the Crown.

[Toke]

A whole regiment of them, already paid to fight for the Crown.
I know they are already on the payroll, but as legal duels are unlikely to be part of the contract there should be a bonus/additional pay involved.

[Paul]

A performance related bonus perhaps?

[Toke]

A performance related bonus perhaps?
Like for artistic impression?

[Horatius]

Like for artistic impression?



I can practice cutting the kanji for "idiot" or "cheap bastard" on his chest.....

[patchbunny]

http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Picture-326.png?f22064

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1416262/Court-refuses-trial-by-combat.html

Brings new meaning to the term Public Defender.

[Paul]

ring, ring. ring, ring.


...Hello. DVLA Swansea, dispute resolution.

Ah, Lord Vader. Mr. the Barbarian in HR wanted me to remind you about your 3 o'clock. Apparently Mr. Simkins doesn't have a lightsabre and asked if pointed sticks would be OK?...

[cwalner]

I can practice cutting the kanji for "idiot" or "cheap bastard" on his chest.....

I was thinking more along the lines of a little public humiliation. Instead of killing them, do like in the swashbuckler movies where you cut their suspenders or something and cause their pants to fall down to their ankles.

[ArmillarySphere]

An acquaintance of mine actually faced some burglars with a sharp sword, and bloodied some of them before chasing them off. When the police showed up, they merely commented that it seemed a reasonable response and let it go.

[Horatius]

I was thinking more along the lines of a little public humiliation. Instead of killing them, do like in the swashbuckler movies where you cut their suspenders or something and cause their pants to fall down to their ankles.



I put it to you that having the kanji for "idiot" formed in scars across your chest is humiliating.

Most cuts in my style of iaido are actually very shallow, done with the point of the sword, maybe 1cm or less deep. That would hurt like a bastard, but likely wouldn't be fatal unless you were hitting the neck, or something.

[Horatius]

Although, in doing some research, it seems like "fool" would be easier....my handwriting isn't the best!

http://www.japanese-symbols.org/japanese-symbol-for-idiot

[cwalner]

I can practice cutting the kanji for "idiot" or "cheap bastard" on his chest.....

Having met you at TAM, I am picturing one of these idiots getting his duel and then a door opens in the side of the courtroom and in strides Horatius, a large 'milquetoast' Canadian with an Amish beard, wearing a black Gi with a wakizashi at his side and a Katana on the back with an over-the-shoulder shoulder draw. (not sure if you would wear your broad brimmed hat with the Samurai getup or not)

ETA: then you speak: 'Hey you hosehead, you want to duel, eh?' (sorry forgot one of my Canadian stereotypes).

Note: I am not doubting your competence with said daisho, but the image of you carrying one does not exactly inspire dread in my heart.

[Toke]

....
Note: I am not doubting your competence with said daisho, but the image of you carrying one does not exactly inspire dread in my heart.

I would look forward to the drawing attempt part with great amusement. :)

(The length of a sword vs. the length of an arm makes it impossible to draw from the shoulder, it is only carried so to look cool to movie audiences.)

[Horatius]

I would look forward to the drawing attempt part with great amusement. :)

(The length of a sword vs. the length of an arm makes it impossible to draw from the shoulder, it is only carried so to look cool to movie audiences.)



...and my style doesn't use the wakizashi either....:boxedin:

[Horatius]

Note: I am not doubting your competence with said daisho, but the image of you carrying one does not exactly inspire dread in my heart.



This, of course, is why I tend to win in real fights. I may not look like much, but I've actually got some game. More than one person in a kendo match has regretted not taking me seriously.

[cwalner]

...and my style doesn't use the wakizashi either....:boxedin:

I kind of guessed that based on you referencing just the Katana, but I was trying to paint the image in my head, which had the classic Samurai daisho

[Mojo]

Here's another couple of cases.

Massey v. Governor of HM Prison Liverpool (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2270.html).

The basis of the claim brought by the Claimant appeared to be that he had not given his consent to the proceedings in the Magistrates' Court and that such consent was necessary. Further, he seemed to assert that his consent was necessary for a term of imprisonment to be imposed. His McKenzie friend sought to challenge the basis of my jurisdiction. He also sought to criticise the behaviour of police officers who had been involved in the incident giving rise to the arrest of the Claimant and his subsequent remand and appearance in court.

I have no doubt that this claim is entirely hopeless.

Seems to have arisen from the "arrest" of a judge at Birkenhead County Court (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/03/09/council-tax-protester-jailed-after-birkenhead-court-stormed-92534-28302896/2/).

NORMAN OF THE FAMILY SCARTH (THE LIVING MAN) v. GOVERNOR OF HM PRISON ARMLEY (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2269.html)

Seems to have been held in contempt for recording court proceedings.

[jsfisher]

Here's another couple of cases.

Massey v. Governor of HM Prison Liverpool (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2270.html).



Seems to have arisen from the "arrest" of a judge at Birkenhead County Court (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/03/09/council-tax-protester-jailed-after-birkenhead-court-stormed-92534-28302896/2/).

NORMAN OF THE FAMILY SCARTH (THE LIVING MAN) v. GOVERNOR OF HM PRISON ARMLEY (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2269.html)

Seems to have been held in contempt for recording court proceedings.


I'm sure he just mispronounced a few of the magic words, and that's why his incantation failed. He's probably Welsh. They can be very hard to understand. Not to worry, though; he'll win on appeal...with prejudice.

[cocana]

We need Menard's 'learned counsel' on this one....!

[drewid]

OooOoo. I can do that.

"Ha, he didn't do it exactly right, I advised him to say different words, but the email got scrambled and he said it wrong." - Luv Rob

[dafydd]

He's probably Welsh. They can be very hard to understand. .

Sailing close to the wind there,bachgen ai bachgennes!

[Mojo]

We need Menard's 'learned counsel' on this one....!


We've got his response to one of them in the other thread: "it's not fair because the same judge whose jurisdiction was challenged heard the appeal (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7526076#post7526076)" (that despite the original decision being in Wirral Magistrates' Court and the appeal being heard by a High Court judge sitting in the Administrative Court in London), "judges make mistakes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7526076#post7526076)" (which kind of undermines "common law"), and "it wasn't a real court anyway (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7526119#post7526119)".

[cocana]

It wasn't a real court anyway! Classic!

:D

[cocana]

OooOoo. I can do that.

"Ha, he didn't do it exactly right, I advised him to say different words, but the email got scrambled and he said it wrong." - Luv Rob

I believe that excuse appeared on the other thread as well. My, the powers of prediction are strong in colleagues here!

:D

[Jaynbob42]

I am slowly trying to work my way through this thread, as and when I can, and also looking to see what else I can find on the web.
However a couple of my friends are really getting in to this. I am just trying to find as much info as I can to give them counter arguments. Really this seems like such crap to me and I can just imagine my friends getting themselves into some stupid trouble if they start trying to apply some of this nonsense.

Anyway I would really appreciate a few pointers that I can suggest that my friends look at before they do something stupid.
I have tried showing them a video of one guy in the states who apparently got into trouble over a couch somehow. Tried to pull a few of the magic words and ended up serving, I believe, 93 days in jail for his troubles. Sadly they see it as a victory????

Maybe I just need to find new friends :-D

Edit: Should also say I am also in the UK and the vast majority of stuff on the net about this is US based and I am sure that the laws are slightly different.

Many thanks
JB

[jargon buster]

However a couple of my friends are really getting in to this. I am just trying to find as much info as I can to give them counter arguments. Really this seems like such crap to me and I can just imagine my friends getting themselves into some stupid trouble if they start trying to apply some of this nonsense.
Are they unemployed potheads?
If so, if it goes past 2 weeks and they still believe it, get shut of them.
It means they dont have the sense to see its nonsense.

[Jaynbob42]

Sadly they are both full time employed, working in the same place as me. One of them was really rational before but had a housemate for a short who has brainwashed the poor guy with conspiracy nonsense. The other is a hippy but the funny thing is they both now talk about not being zombies and sheeple. Hmm half of me wants to leave 'em to it and not offer any alternative. Free to follow what they choose I guess. See how it goes for them. Nice guys though and would hate to see them get into big trouble. The hippy has just had a new baby as well.

Like you suggest I will see ho the next couple of weeks go.

[jargon buster]

They will probably come around mate, if they dont tell them that any self respecting freeman wouldnt be paying taxes and to go and have a word with the boss about it.
Companies are always looking for ways of getting rid of "dead wood" and you never know they may be replaced by some people you can relate to.

Good luck mate

[Jaynbob42]

Haha now there's a direction I hadn't thought of coming from. Gotta try that, I'll try and get a picture of their faces when I suggest it and they try to think of reasons not to lol :D

[Captain_Swoop]

If you tell a Constable in Uniform that you are a Freeman and decline his 'Offere of Conversatione' he is obligated to offer you a set of Maundy money and a carry to 'Wherever you so chooes that be withine the Curtilage of the Lord of the Land.'

They never repealed the 1321 Right to transport in silence Act

[Toke]

Haha now there's a direction I hadn't thought of coming from. Gotta try that, I'll try and get a picture of their faces when I suggest it and they try to think of reasons not to lol :D

You could also try some extreme scenarios like the Somali warlord or feudal baron and imagine telling them that you "Do not consent" to their tax ideas. :D

Or try to get them to consider how a society would keep functioning if anyone could opt out of following the law.

Have they through of of why the police is called Law enforcement and how that relates to the consent thing?

[cwalner]

Have they through of of why the police is called Law enforcement and how that relates to the consent thing?

This sounds like a good argument, but will fall on deaf ears of an FOTLer. I have seen several of them make posts arguing that they are Peace Officers, not Law Enforcement Officers.

[Horatius]

The hippy has just had a new baby as well.

Like you suggest I will see ho the next couple of weeks go.



Tell the Hippie to do some science. He'll be the non-Fotl control group, and let the other guy try it all out. Once the other guy is in trouble, hopefully the Hippie will realize what the results of the experiment mean, and conclude that Fotl is crap.

That way, you at least save one of them, and the baby.

[Toke]

This sounds like a good argument, but will fall on deaf ears of an FOTLer. I have seen several of them make posts arguing that they are Peace Officers, not Law Enforcement Officers.
That is a point, Rob Menard have just been claiming it again on another tread. :eye-poppi
Still if the guys are not too far gone it might give them pause.

[jargon buster]

Heres an e-mail I received from Admin at Freedom Rebels website (Ray St Claire's site)
Admin has replied to the message "slander" on Freedom Rebels

Payless ... We do NOT have the time to point out the facts to you anymore.

Clearly you are not willing to accept what we are telling you.

You basically cause a lot of disruption with just about everybody you talk to on here. You clearly do NOT accept or agree with what we are trying to expose.

There are LAWS that uphold mankind's FREEDOM and LAWS that oppress and turn mankind into SLAVES of their system.

You do NOT get this reality and constantly seek to undermine it.

We have given YOU a lot of slack to respond in ways that contribute to a positive move forward in gaining better understanding and dealing with what we Know to be the truth and that is systems of control being passed into so called LAW to bring down any kind of protest against injustice and seeking to crush and stamp down people's freedom of speech etc.

There is so much more we could cover to point out the facts, of which we do NOT have time.

So in view of everything so far we have decided to terminate your account.

We want FREEDOM for all and not just the minority.

Admin

Freedom for all, except me :D

[gtm]

This clown has been making waves for all the usual reasons. I've tried to post his reported cases in chronological order.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2269.html

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/930.html

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/1676.html

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/ECHR/1999/59.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1582.html

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=54269614&skin=hudoc-en&action=html&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=60795

[D'rok]

This clown has been making waves for all the usual reasons. I've tried to post his reported cases in chronological order.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2269.html

Uh-oh. There's a conundrum here. The Claimant is referred to by his freeman name, but...IT'S IN ALL CAPS!

NORMAN OF THE FAMILY SCARTH (THE LIVING MAN)

What does this mean? Is this his strawman? His fictional person? But it's the flesh and blood man! <head asplodes>

[Boot2TheHead]

Interesting. Thanks! I've never been able to get anything out of BaiLII.

More on this guy:
Bradford court contempt man, 85, legally jailed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14680180)
Norman Scarth freed as Bradford contempt sentence cut (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14854070)

From that last article:
Lord Justice Pitchford said Scarth suffered from a delusional disorder, could be loud and argumentative, and was a conspiracy theorist.

He said it was perfectly clear that the continued incarceration of Scarth, who has always refused medication, was having a "deleterious effect" on his mental health.

"He is an unusual individual in that the nature of his personality disorder means that he is not one of those who is likely to see the error of his ways and, to use technical language, purge his contempt."

So they just let him go? If you search his name on Google and YouTube, there's plenty of blogs and videos, so he seems to be one of the gurus. The article mentions that he had been "assisting" a litigant. They don't see problems with that? Shouldn't they be doing some sort of follow-up on the guy?

[gtm]

Uh-oh. There's a conundrum here. The Claimant is referred to by his freeman name, but...IT'S IN ALL CAPS!



What does this mean? Is this his strawman? His fictional person? But it's the flesh and blood man! <head asplodes>



I don't know.

Scarth is an interesting example of a FMOTL nutter in that he has gone himself a fistful of reported cases. One can enjoy the 'genius' of his pleadings and the judicial responses.

Needless to say Scarth is as mad as a bag of frogs & a nasty piece of work as well. He attacked a bailiff with a chainsaw :mad:

[D'rok]

I don't know.

I was joking. It means nothing. However, I'm sure that it will be seen as a victory by FOTL nutters. "See! They recognize our status!"

Needless to say Scarth is as mad as a bag of frogs & a nasty piece of work as well. He attacked a bailiff with a chainsaw :mad:
Yikes.

[jargon buster]

victory is being claimed already on freedomrebels
BlackbirdXXV - One of the judges claims to have released Norman Scarth because it was not in the public interest to jail an 85 year old man who was of unsound mind, was unlikely to see the error of his ways and was a conspiracy theorist .. This is a classic propaganda technique called 'guilt by association' .. ie: conspiracy theorists are of unsound mind and unlikely to see the errors of their ways ...
BlackbirdXXV - They also said that they were not critical of the original judgement .. but they quashed it anyway .. How more critical can you get than to quash a judgement that isn't in the public interest .. They mean: "not in the crown's interest 'cos people are taking notice !"
jonnyboy GREAT NEWS GUYS just seen this on facebook, posted half hour ago. IT GIVES ME GREAT PLEASURE TO ANNOUNCE THAT NORMAN SCARTHS SENTENCE HAS BEEN QUASHED AT THE APPEAL HEARING AT THE ROYAL COURTS IN LONDON TODAY!! WE ARE AT LEEDS PRISON NOW AWAITING THE ARRIVAL OF NORMAN SCARTH AND A VIDEO OF FREE NORMAN SCARTH WILL BE FOLLOWING SOON! THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO PLAYED A PART IN THIS!

heres the link but it will only be valid for a while as its a blog page and the posts work their way off
http://www.freedomrebels.co.uk/

[sadhatter]

victory is being claimed already on freedomrebels




heres the link but it will only be valid for a while as its a blog page and the posts work their way off
http://www.freedomrebels.co.uk/

Every time i see one of these i am reminded of a gent that used to come into our video store when i was a teenager.

Little guy, smaller than i am now ( saw him at a bar not long ago.), with the worlds biggest mouth.

We had a bar beside the video store, and as such got the tales of his exploits. He was fond of finding the biggest nastiest ******* in the bar, and **** talking him at length. 99.9% of the time this ended up with the big guy rolling his eyes and leaving due to the fact he was an obvious loudmouth, with little ability to harm anyone ( tiny, tiny gent, i mean i am a small guy, but he was just tiny. ). After the bigger guy removed himself, due to not wanting to pulpify him, and get in trouble with the cops ( it was otherwise a small pub, frequented by fairly nice folks.) , he would spend the rest of the night loudly proclaiming that the guy left due to fear.

Now just like the freemen, this only worked when people saw no benefit from harming him. Once in an attempt to provoke, what ended up being a semi pro fighter, he decided to place a hand ( in a sexual, not violent manner) on his girlfriend. Now that someone had a real reason to harm him, that would provide some kind of benefit, it was all down hill. The guy was beaten to the point where for the next month one could not recognize the man.

Freemanisim in a nutshell, if no one is going to be able to squeeze a penny out of you, and the charge is small, your probably going to get off, not because your a freeman, but because it just isn't worth the trouble. But when it comes to things that are, houses, large debts, criminal actions, you can be sure someone is going to knock you into next week, legally of course.

[Horatius]

Freemanisim in a nutshell, if no one is going to be able to squeeze a penny out of you, and the charge is small, your probably going to get off, not because your a freeman, but because it just isn't worth the trouble. But when it comes to things that are, houses, large debts, criminal actions, you can be sure someone is going to knock you into next week, legally of course.



Yes. In similar contexts to your story, I've occasionally advised people, "Don't mistake politeness for fear."

The Courts taking pity on a crazy old man should not be mistaken as giving licence to obnoxious young men to start pulling whatever **** they'd like to pull.

[jargon buster]

Freemanisim in a nutshell, if no one is going to be able to squeeze a penny out of you, and the charge is small, your probably going to get off, not because your a freeman, but because it just isn't worth the trouble. But when it comes to things that are, houses, large debts, criminal actions, you can be sure someone is going to knock you into next week, legally of course.

I wrote on freeman forums 2 years ago that the easiest way to become a freeman was to become a hobo, if you have nothing the state will leave you alone, hell they will occasionally give you a bed and a meal.
Police tend to leave tramps pretty much well alone, and if the police leave you alone then the state will probably never get to hear about you.

[Hans]

I wrote on freeman forums 2 years ago that the easiest way to become a freeman was to become a hobo, if you have nothing the state will leave you alone, hell they will occasionally give you a bed and a meal.
Police tend to leave tramps pretty much well alone, and if the police leave you alone then the state will probably never get to hear about you.

A friend from HS decided to live a 'simple' life and did that in California from 1973 to 2005. No one (government wise) ever bother him but feral dogs, marijane growers and the occassional tourist. As a matter of fact he became quite friendly with the Forest Service and local sheriffs.

[Mojo]

victory is being claimed already on freedomrebels




heres the link but it will only be valid for a while as its a blog page and the posts work their way off
http://www.freedomrebels.co.uk/The Courts taking pity on a crazy old man should not be mistaken as giving licence to obnoxious young men to start pulling whatever **** they'd like to pull.


They say that the sentence was quashed, but don't seem to have noticed that a sentence of 12 weeks was substituted, and that the judge observed that a six month sentence would have been "entirely appropriate in the case of a younger and fitter man".

[jargon buster]

the new freeman/freeloader excuse for not paying back debts
Well if you gave me 7K even though I told you I cant pay it back, then thats called giving stuff away not theft...... Just like a bank giving you 7K, even though you have no proof of income because your self employed, the bank knows full well that it has a duty to lend responsibly to avoid this kind of issue.......

Unless the OP lied on his application which i doubt because he sounds sincere and ignorant then its not his fault that the bank was very generous to him and so no offence has been committed here other than irresponsible lending by the bank, time for another bail out eh or shall we just call the ombudsman and report the bank as its this kind of sloppy banking that brought this country's economy to its knees!......
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060198943&postcount=40

So its the banks fault now :rolleyes:

[Horatius]

the new freeman/freeloader excuse for not paying back debts

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060198943&postcount=40

So its the banks fault now :rolleyes:



And yet, I'm sure this guy would be one of the first to complain if banks started routinely refusing credit to poor or self-employed people as a matter of policy.

[jsfisher]

...and I suppose the promise-to-repay contract really wasn't a contract because the bank should have known better (and it wasn't on robin egg blue paper).

[Paul]

Just to prove that freemen are an honourable bunch, the latest post suggest a visit to getoutofdebtfree, which pretends to show you how to "Lawfully, Honestly and Truthfully" behave like a cheap scrounging crook.

They do, however, in listing their scam, provide an overview of the usual stupid arguments.

[uk_dave]

because he sounds sincere and ignorant

Love it.

[jargon buster]

Idiot Yozhiks resurfaced on Ickes with some freeman propaganda
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=183284

Truth is irrelevant in the legal system.

Procedure is the "new God".
Whilst the maxim tells us "equity regards substance over form", the legal system flips this on its head and places form above all else.


In 1993 a death penalty case (Herrera v. Collins) Scalia wrote that a condemned man awaiting execution did not have a right to another trial even if new evidence showed he was actually innocent of the crime. Scalia reasoned that because the condemned man's original trial had been free from procedural error, he'd have to die anyway, guilty or not.
"There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough) for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."
Justice Scalia said the man had no "right to demand." At that point, it was less expensive for the nation to save the man's life than to execute him. But Justice Scalia's decision was more a message to the nation than an exercise in justice: Justice Scalia is telling the nation and the world that in American justice, truth is unimportant in the face of procedure.
There you have it.
Succinct; clear and to the point.

It's so 'perfect', let's revisit it;

a condemned man [...] did not have a right to another trial even if new evidence showed he was actually innocent of the crime [...] because the condemned man's original trial had been free from procedural error, he'd have to die anyway, guilty or not.
Never let the Truth get in the way of a good story ...
__________________
Oh what delicious irony ...

So the constitution is now against the freeman?
A quick search revealed that Justice Scalia was simply pointing out the flaws within the constitution.
Here is a bit more info on the case in question
http://reason.com/archives/2009/03/02/does-the-constitution-grant-a
This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has entertained the argument that the Constitution prevents the incarceration or execution of the innocent. In the 1993 case Herrera v. Collins, a divided Court denied relief to a Texas man convicted of killing two police officers who claimed new evidence (an affidavit from someone claiming another man confessed to the crimes) conclusively proved his innocence. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that a claim of actual innocence based on evidence discovered after a conviction would need to be “extraordinarily high” to merit a new trial, given the burden such claims would put on the criminal justice system. Herrera’s affidavits, Rehnquist wrote, didn’t meet that standard. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor pointed to the strong evidence of Herrera’s guilt, finding his claim of actual innocence lacking but adding that if someone could prove actual innocence, the Constitution would of course forbid their execution.

the only evidence they had was an affidavit???

Its true Yozhik, never let the truth get in the way of a good story :)

[Mojo]

"There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough) for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."



Well, that's the way precedent in common law works. If judges have decided something in one way in the past, they have to continue doing so. The only way to change it would be by legislation. ;)

[cocana]

Pathetic Yozhik resurfaces, no doubt due to the lack of interest in his supremely idiotic pet project that is Ucadia.

If it wasn't for his incredibly unfortunate tone and rampant bigotry, I would find him far more amusing than I do. He has that unique ability, even surpassing Menard's in my view, to never know when to stop. He gets battered on strawmen, but keeps going. Battered on Ucadia; keeps going again. Battered on constitutional law; keeps going again. Battered on how equity and common law work; keeps going once more. Now battered on US law and the death penalty, but rather than read the case in full, you guessed it....

He surely has to be the most dogmatic, intransigent person on any of the FMOTL/conspiracy sites. If there's a stronger candidate, by all means nominate one.

This latest example is priceless - convicted murderer, damning evidence, all reasonable avenues of appeal explored and exhausted, resorts to an appeal which is clearly hopeless. However, to Yozhik the court is wrong for sticking to due process! It's so obvious really - the court should have just ignored everything else proving conclusively that he was guilty and let him off because he said so.

Then again, I suppose that this goes to the heart of the freeman mindset, i.e. "I disagree/don't consent, therefore what I say goes."

Applying his reasoning, I wonder what his position would be if someone stole his PC at knifepoint, maybe assaulted him as well, then was witnessed and filmed escaping the scene (totally damning evidence in other words) but at trial the perpetrator says it wasn't him and gets a hobo who wants a roof over his head to sign a trumped up confession instead. Surely Yozhik would be happy to see the guilty man go free and maybe pop round his house for a second session?


Yozhik gets a new wally badge for that thread.

[WhenDanSaysJump]

I spoke to a guy attending the court I was working at today. He was only there to make a statutory declaration (some kind of traffic offence), but started spouting off about how he'd been doing some reading up on the recommendation of a friend, and if the proceedings were reinstated, then he wouldn't be too worried because *stream of FOTL feculence*.

Fortunately, by the time court proceedings began, I'd explained that the whole damn thing was the crock to end all crocks, and he had decided to pursue this burgeoning interest no further.

Phew!

[jargon buster]

Pathetic Yozhik resurfaces, no doubt due to the lack of interest in his supremely idiotic pet project that is Ucadia.
Ucadia, hahahaha, I had forgotten all about that buffoonery.
Brian 'O' Collins had sorted out a peace treaty with God and the Devil and then made up a load of contradictory covenants.
And Yozhik wanted people to try and debunk it????:D

Really, it was like trying to debunk a Monty Python sketch, WHATS THE POINT, IT WAS JUST A JOKE.

[Stacey Grove]

Brian 'O' Collins had sorted out a peace treaty with God and the Devil and then made up a load of contradictory covenants.


Am I right in thinking that UCADIA have predicted some sort of event that will occur in December?

[cwalner]

Idiot Yozhiks resurfaced on Ickes with some freeman propaganda
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=183284



So the constitution is now against the freeman?
A quick search revealed that Justice Scalia was simply pointing out the flaws within the constitution.
Here is a bit more info on the case in question
http://reason.com/archives/2009/03/02/does-the-constitution-grant-a


the only evidence they had was an affidavit???

Its true Yozhik, never let the truth get in the way of a good story :)

I kind of like this bit of 'oversight' on his part.
At that point, it was less expensive for the nation to save the man's life than to execute him
yet according to the text of the ruling
Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that a claim of actual innocence based on evidence discovered after a conviction would need to be “extraordinarily high” to merit a new trial, given the burden such claims would put on the criminal justice system. Herrera’s affidavits, Rehnquist wrote, didn’t meet that standard
So Scalia was pointing out that based on the level of the new evidence compared to the evidence that convicted him, the likely result of the new trial would still have been a guilty conviction. I am trying to figure out how it would have been less expensive to require another trial that would likely end up with the same result.

[cocana]

Am I right in thinking that UCADIA have predicted some sort of event that will occur in December?

If it is Yozhik looking stupid in December then O'Collins might have got that one right!

:D

[cocana]

So Scalia was pointing out that based on the level of the new evidence compared to the evidence that convicted him, the likely result of the new trial would still have been a guilty conviction. I am trying to figure out how it would have been less expensive to require another trial that would likely end up with the same result.

You'll have a job getting to the bottom of that one. Trying to understand Yozhik's 'logic' is generally an impossible and thankless task.

He hasn't yet resorted to wordplay, normally a Yozhik favourite. I'm sure he'll have the dictionary out before long if that thread continues much further. Alternatively, he'll go for misrepresentation of the judgment (oh he's done that one), sweeping inaccurate statements about the 'unjust' legal system (he's touched on that), the Magna Carta or some other archaic document not allowing this, start calling everything which goes against him a "strawman argument" or if all else fails, how Ucadia is the answer (and JB is spot on with that one!).

Give up now, he's beyond help.

[jargon buster]

Yozhiks changing the subject now right on cue cocana
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060208406&postcount=11
As you attest to; this has happened.
Some would argue that police violence and beatings continue to this day.
Ian Tomlinson is a name that instantly springs to mind.

Cast the 'justice' net a little further and the issues of 'rendition', suspension of the Geneva Convention and Guantanamo Bay are top of mind.

Torture and waterboarding become 'process' of 'law and order'.
Nothing like a coerced confession, eh?

But hey; at least 'process' was seen to be done.
Who gives a f*** about the secondary issues of guilt and innocence?

Now can everyone please forget his idiocy from earlier.
I wonder if he has a homemade "Men in Black" memory wiping pen he aims at the monitor and clicks on peoples avatars. :D

[cocana]

Yozhiks changing the subject now right on cue cocana
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060208406&postcount=11


Now can everyone please forget his idiocy from earlier.
I wonder if he has a homemade "Men in Black" memory wiping pen he aims at the monitor and clicks on peoples avatars. :D

Thanks for the heads up JB. So, he's playing the unjust legal system card and hoping that the change of tack conveniently overlooks the idiocy of the premise behind his thread. Typical Yozhik once again.

[cwalner]

You'll have a job getting to the bottom of that one. Trying to understand Yozhik's 'logic' is generally an impossible and thankless task.

He hasn't yet resorted to wordplay, normally a Yozhik favourite. I'm sure he'll have the dictionary out before long if that thread continues much further. Alternatively, he'll go for misrepresentation of the judgment (oh he's done that one), sweeping inaccurate statements about the 'unjust' legal system (he's touched on that), the Magna Carta or some other archaic document not allowing this, start calling everything which goes against him a "strawman argument" or if all else fails, how Ucadia is the answer (and JB is spot on with that one!).

Give up now, he's beyond help.

The funny thing is, I am quite liberal and generally don't like Scalia. Yet against the bat-guano rantings of a Freeman, I will gladly defend him.

[cocana]

The funny thing is, I am quite liberal and generally don't like Scalia. Yet against the bat-guano rantings of a Freeman, I will gladly defend him.

Amen brother. +1

[jargon buster]

I dont think even idiotic Yozhik can pull this one back
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=183284&page=3
I found this little 'gem' within the UCADIA Jucial Code:

http://globe-union.org/code_judicial/article_1000.htm

So according to the UCADIA 'Constitution' you have to lodge your appeal within 60 days of sentencing otherwise your' 'goose is cooked'. This wouldn't have helped poor old Mr Herrera as he came up with his 'new evidence' 8 years after he was sentenced. Seems to me Mr Herrera would have found himself in a similar predicament if his case had been dealt with in a UCADIA Court.

I suppose he could petition for mercy from the benevolent Frank O'Collins

Sheer perfection :D

[Stacey Grove]

I dont think even idiotic Yozhik can pull this one back
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=183284&page=3


Sheer perfection :D

I could be wrong but I think yozhik will take a breather and wait until that thread gets buried before posting again. :D

[Stacey Grove]

I could be wrong
I was wrong.
He's let rip:D

[jargon buster]

hes "mine quoted" a section of text which he no doubt picked up from another daft site and posted it without even reading the case.:rolleyes:

He actually believes in and promotes a philosophy(Ucadia) which is actually more restrictive and less lenient than the system he is critical of.

Now he seems to want to ignore everything and claim he's the victim, I find it unusual Merlincove is the one to police that thread, wheres weeman and infidelyork when you need them?

[Stacey Grove]

hes "mine quoted" a section of text which he no doubt picked up from another daft site and posted it without even reading the case.:rolleyes:

He actually believes in and promotes a philosophy(Ucadia) which is actually more restrictive and less lenient than the system he is critical of.

Now he seems to want to ignore everything and claim he's the victim, I find it unusual Merlincove is the one to police that thread, wheres weeman and infidelyork when you need them?

Shame, his rant posts have disappeared.
He seemed to be a tad upset:D

[cocana]

Poor Yozhik, deedums for the the Yozy Wozy.
:D

[Stacey Grove]

I dont think even idiotic Yozhik can pull this one back
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=183284&page=3

yozhik managed it with ease.
He called up melonclone and had the post that ruined his argument removed:D

[cocana]

yozhik managed it with ease.
He called up melonclone and had the post that ruined his argument removed:D

The tag team returneth. Nothing like free speech over there...

[abaddon]

Reposted it.

[Toke]

Reposted it.

Ucadia again?
Really?

Start a new thread.
Reported.

I don't think the guy likes you.
:dl:

[abaddon]

I don't think the guy likes you.
:dl:

It would appear not.

[Stacey Grove]

yozhik's reporting everybody tonight:D

[Boot2TheHead]

yozhik managed it with ease.
He called up melonclone and had the post that ruined his argument removed:D
"I object!"
"Why?"
"Because it's devastating to my case!"

[gtm]

Am I right in thinking that UCADIA have predicted some sort of event that will occur in December?

I can field this one. I think in December 2012 Frank O'Collins 'treaty' sorting out that spot of unpleasantness between the devil & god comes into force. I'm surprised you haven't diarised it.

[jargon buster]

Well, unless God and the Devil contact Frank he has their silent asquiesence.
And as all good FMOTL know thats a binding contract.
Im afraid he has got them hook line and sinker.

[cocana]

I see Yozhik's backtracking now and hoping that no one will notice. He's moved (http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060211660&postcount=43) from that case being an example of injustice caused by blindly following legal process to stating that legal procedure should be designed to arrive at the truth.

Urrr, yes Yozhik. So why the reference to Herrera?! Wally Badge No. 2, I think.

This could be a bumper season for badge makers.

[Stacey Grove]

I think in December 2012 Frank O'Collins 'treaty' sorting out that spot of unpleasantness between the devil & god comes into force.

:eek:
Is there going to be a fight?

[jargon buster]

:D

[jargon buster]

I see Yozhik's backtracking now and hoping that no one will notice. He's moved from that case being an example of injustice caused by blindly following legal process to stating that legal procedure should be designed to arrive at the truth.
Yozhik wrote
I embrace procedure and consistent process.
That is wholly consistent with "equality".
My 'beef' is the artificial elevation of process to a point where in extreme situations, it becomes the primary focus: where form is regarded as superior to substance.My point - the purpose of starting this thread - is that consistent procedure or "administrative process" is absolutely required, but it should never be the primary goal of a legal system. The 'truth' and justice which include what is morally right, incorporating the conscience, should ALWAYS be the primary focus.
I hope someone asks him for evidence that its the case, apart from his cherrypicked quote which when taken in its true context actually poo poos his point.

[cocana]

He appears to be dodging that one. He will no doubt find another conspiracy fish to fry. Look out anyone who tells him his cooking is rubbish....

[EvilBiker]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but considering SA is a former colony, I thought it would fit in here.

South Africa has a census coming up, and there is a local bunch/person, the Johan Joubert Community, who are sending out the following mail:

Dear XXX <friend's name removed>


This is an approach that you could try for the upcoming Census. We can't comment on the legal ramifications of doing this and, as always, we suggest that you handle yourself with care, but it's certainly very interesting!
--The JJC

How to Avoid the Census


Complete, print and sign this letter.
Give it to the Census worker when they arrive. Always be polite. They will probably threaten you if you don't comply.
This approach is called "conditional acceptance." You are agreeing in principle to do what you are told, but first you have a couple of questions that need to be answered. Of course they cannot answer these questions because to do so would be to reveal a betrayal of human rights.
If you wish, send this through to the Census authority first. Give them 7 days to reply and amend this letter accordingly depending on their response.


Dear Census Official,
My name is [first name in lowercase, eg. John] of the family [surname in lowercase, eg. Smith]. I am a living, breathing sentient human being.
My research has led me to conclude that when my birth was registered, a corporate entity was created. This corporate entity is referred to as [write your title and whole name in all uppercase, eg. MR JOHN RONAN SMITH] with account number [insert your ID number] and is distinct from me, the flesh and blood human being.
It is my understanding that my title, full name and ID Number represent a juristic person / corporation, and the record of this account is held at the South African Reserve bank using a master / slave computer software system.
I have also discovered that my birth certificate is evidence of a financial instrument with a very real commercial value. This commercial value predicted by the amount of money I would earn as I grew up. Thus, it provides collateral for the South African government to float loans at interest without my knowledge or direct consent.
If this holds true, then it stands to reason that a primary role of this Census is to re-evaluate my status as chattel property so that the South African Government can literally “sell” me and my fellow citizens to foreign bankers, as the governments of Iceland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and others did to their own people.
My research indicates that the purpose of the first census in 1904 was to give names to indigenous people so that they could be granted rights by the existing government. However, in order to be granted rights, it makes logical sense that one would first have to be stripped of the natural rights that he or she was born with. After all, you cannot grant rights to someone who already has them by the mere fact that they are alive.
As I believe in full disclosure, I will therefore only take part in the Census if the following questions have been satisfactorily answered.


Do I have a juristic person?
Is there an account in my name linked to my ID number held at the Reserve Bank, or any other government department?
Is there a bond or security registered in my name with a corresponding CUSIP number?
Does the South African government receive loans based the ability of its people (ie. me) to pay it back?
If yes, then:

How does the government calculate the value of its people?
How does the government connect me to the money that they have borrowed on my behalf?
Does this loan include interest? If it does, then where is the interest supposed to come from in order to pay back these loans?
Are any of the loans granted to the South African government created “out of thin air” using a book-keeping entry, or are 100% of all loans made using real, lawful money?


Is the data collected from the Census linked in any way to the granting of loans made by our government?
Is the census a form of contract? If so, please provide me with the terms and conditions of this contract.
Am I a flesh and blood human being born with natural human rights, or am I a slave with no rights whatsoever, except for those which are granted to me by the South African Government?

Please note that I am intelligent enough to know when my questions are being avoided. I will only accept real, valid and direct answers to my questions above.
Once I have received a suitable response, I will happily take part in your Census.
Yours Faithfully,
[first name in lowercase, eg. John] of the family [surname in lowercase, eg. Smith]



Some comments:

1. I love the way it states "we can't comment on the legal ramifications if this". Doesn't this imply they accept there may be legal ramifications?

2. "...the record of this account is held at the South African Reserve bank using a master / slave computer software system". WTF is that? I suspect they are hinting at a submissive scenario, bringing up slavery as a button to push.

3. I have never heard of ID numbers being linked to the Reserve Bank.

I could go on...

I've been following the FMOTL threads off and on, but I have not yet seen a concise explanation of the FMOTL theory. Can anybody point me to something suitable that I can send to my friend to steer her away from this? The search function is not doing it for me :mad:.

Thanks in advance,

EB.

Edit: NVM, I found a fairly good response here. (http://www.examiner.com/skepticism-in-denver/the-freeman-on-the-land-myth-debunked)

[Mojo]

I've been following the FMOTL threads off and on, but I have not yet seen a concise explanation of the FMOTL theory.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799&page=66

See posts 2614, 2616, 2617, 2618, and 2621.

[EvilBiker]

Thanks, Mojo!

Heh, perfect :-)

[Horatius]

2. "...the record of this account is held at the South African Reserve bank using a master / slave computer software system". WTF is that? I suspect they are hinting at a submissive scenario, bringing up slavery as a button to push.




I suspect they're applying greater significance to certain computer terminology than is warranted. A Server/Client configuration for networked computers is sometimes referred to as a Master/Slave configuration. So of course they leap on this to suggest that these computers are used to keep track of actual slaves.


As for their questions, any bets on whether a series of "No" answers would be accepted as "satisfactorily answered", or "real, valid and direct"?

[Paul]

I just discovered that I am part of teh eevil gubmint NWO, one of my hard drives is set to slave...









Could someone from HQ please send me a couple of minions, I have a lot of housework that needs doing.

[jargon buster]

As for their questions, any bets on whether a series of "No" answers would be accepted as "satisfactorily answered", or "real, valid and direct"?
Another thing I find strange about FOTLers, is there bizarre take on burden of proof, I used to debate with a guy called jackieg on WFS, his take on things goes like this;
jackie makes a wild unsubstantiate claim without a shred of evidence.
He then believes if no one rebuts his claim by providing evidence to the contrary it stands as true?????

So by jackies argument unicorns exist.
as i said, bizarre.

[Stacey Grove]

I used to debate with a guy called jackieg on WFS, his take on things goes like this;


Here's one of jackieg's posts on Icke's:

If I or anyone else make an unproven assumption and you do not offer evidence rebutting the claim then, the assumption, in absence of evidence to the contrary, is deemed to be admitted.
It stands as accepted fact.
Did you get that?
Or, do you need some help with that?

So according to jackieg even an assumption that is not rebutted stands as fact.
He is a total fruitcake.

[gtm]

I was thinking it'd be fun to stage an anti FMOTL 'Conference' in London at some point before x-mas. Any takers?

[WhenDanSaysJump]

I'd be up for that, but only if the invitation is written in green ink on robin egg blue paper. :D

[cocana]

Might be fun to remove the mask if it fits the diary

[Bad Lieutenant]

My first major thread here. Greetings from London, England !

There are a number of things you might care to know about the UK these days. And they are all quite serious. First is the fact that our government (so-called) are a bunch of hypocrites, paid stooges of the globalist 'New World Order' and that our national sovereignty is only a few months away from being surrendered to the European Union. I'll stop you there :D the USA is a far greater "threat" to the UKs Sovereignty.

[cwalner]

So according to jackieg even an assumption that is not rebutted stands as fact.

I have a 14 inch ....

[Stacey Grove]

I have a 14 inch ....

Me too, when I fold it in half.

[gtm]

Might be fun to remove the mask if it fits the diary


You can't miss it :D

I'm already working on a keynote speaker. I've sent Ronald Dworkin an email inviting him to give a presentation on 'Menardian Consentism' & I myself am working on a talk entitled 'Gurus, Moderators & Morons - the anthropology of Freemen'

[D'rok]

Ooo...can you ask Rawls to come and give a talk on The Veil of Ignoramuses: A Theory of FOTL Justice?

[Garrison]

I'll stop you there :D the USA is a far greater "threat" to the UKs Sovereignty.

Those months were two years ago and we have a completely different government, not any better mind you but a different one so a prophet Especially wasn't.

[Bad Lieutenant]

Those months were two years ago and we have a completely different government, not any better mind you but a different one so a prophet Especially wasn't. Yes I didn't realise what a mind bogglingly gargantuan thread this was 'til after I posted. Tory government = threat to UK sovereignty from the USA; labour government = threat to UK sovereignty from the EU. Check.

[cocana]

I'm prepared to let Yozhik have a stall outside signing autographed dictionaries. I'm sure he'll be a big draw and rake it in.

[jargon buster]

signing autographed dictionaries
With amendments and corrections in the margin. :D

[cocana]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know about this chap:

http://www.levi-tarot.co.uk/freemanontheland.html

[Captain_Swoop]

I satisfied myself that 9/11 was an 'inside job' and then quickly moved on. I will not allow myself to be gate keepered like so many others and get wrapped up in the arguments. It was an inside job, period.

Says it all I suppose.

[Stacey Grove]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know about this chap:

http://www.levi-tarot.co.uk/freemanontheland.html

From the comments:

You see think of this. A judge in a court overseeing Admiralty Law' is only interested in extracting money from someone who has breached company policy i.e. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA company policy or should we say Statute Laws.

A court is called a court becuase it's where a game takes place. A judge is often seen wearing black and white becuase he is the referee. A solicitor 'represents' his client or he 're-presents' the human man/woman as their Artificial Person'. Also, always remember, a solicitor's first duty is always to the court and never ever to the client. Remember that, it is important.

A Judge sits on a 'Bench' which if you trace the origins of this word it means 'Bank'. What flows between 2 Banks? Yes, a river with 'currency'.

Now, back to the BC. When a ship/vessel arrives into port it 'Docks' (oh Dock, thats another word used in court) and once it 'dock's) it goes into its Berth. The ship has 'berthed'.

Now, when a ship 'Berths' it is traditionally carrying cargo and has a manifest and the ships captain will take the manifest to the Harbour Master who takes responsibilty for the cargo.

Now compare this with the Birth of a child.

The child travels along the womans water canal to Birth. Once 'birthed' it is regarded as 'cargo' and if you register this cargo then it is picked up by the government as Maritime Salvage' and they take ownership.

I do have to say that with such compelling evidence I'm beginning to think perhaps these freemen might be on to something.........:eye-poppi

[drewid]

I feel like I've lost IQ points just reading that. :boggled:

[cocana]

Ha ha!

Apologies for going off topic but this guy has not only done one of the most entertaining freeman maritime law explanations, but he's done some cracking predictions elsewhere on his website.

I really liked this one -

Watch for mega scary Thunder and Lightening storms in some places.

Man this guy is some mega powerful seer.

[ComfySlippers]

...I was just weeks away from "filing my UCC-1 financing statement and turning in my Notice of Understanding and Intent"...Luckily I logged on here first and cleared my hallow skull of the poison that had fillied it for the last 5 years.

Whilst it is both funny and sad that some people fall for and believe this nonsense, I am glad you found your way back into the real world:)

With regard to the con artists using "complicated words"... they don't.
They don't understand the words they are using themselves, never mind Law, and they rely on other people's lack of comprehension to propagate their incredibly silly stories.

(ETA) e.g. look at the quote in post 5684. Utter gibberish... Not all countries speak English so the "theory" of the origins of words is ludicrously stupid.

[Mojo]

i do have to say that with such compelling evidence i'm beginning to think perhaps these freemen might be on to something.........:eye-poppi


ftfy.

[Mojo]

Now, when a ship 'Berths' it is traditionally carrying cargo and has a manifest and the ships captain will take the manifest to the Harbour Master who takes responsibilty for the cargo.

Now compare this with the Birth of a child.


Spike Milligan used this joke on the Goon Show over half a century ago:

Seagoon (Harry Secombe): "Are you gentlemen responsible for berths on this ship?"

[Audience: huge laugh]

Mr Lalkaka (Peter Sellars): "What is written here is now pointless ... Not all of them."

[Hans]

Well dang someone else made the same comment....so deleted mine

[laughingboy]

There's a film and food night put on in my town every month on various environmental topics etc. Last week the subject was 'commercial redemption' and basically it turned out to be FOTL nonsense. This really appalled me as it was a pretty packed meeting and the speaker was very articulate and persuasive.

I already knew a bit about the Freeman movement but since that meeting I've done research (read most of this thread) and am even more concerned at the high profile this guy got and the fact that people I know are seriously talking about going down this road and think they can win against the courts.

It would be hugely useful if some of the more expert posters here could create some kind of resource debunking this stuff from a UK perspective. It certainly seems to be gaining currency amongst green-inclined types which is ironic, given the selfish nature of the whole thing.

[ComfySlippers]

What was the name of the speaker, do we know?

Or is it just a local nobody who's just graduated from The University of YouTube?

[laughingboy]

The speaker was 'The Spaniard' from the 'White Rabbit Education Group'.

[Pikachu]

Has anyone linked to this one yet? A freeman in the High Court getting 9 months for contempt?
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/B15.html

[Mojo]

Has anyone linked to this one yet? A freeman in the High Court getting 9 months for contempt?
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/B15.html


Yes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7579098#post7579098).

Now out after hiring lawyers and getting the sentence suspended: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7596512#post7596512

[ComfySlippers]

Oh dear... (http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=185146)

As I am I.P. banned I can not post on the Icke Cesspit, I shall sit and watch....

[Paul]

Rather unexpectedly, merlincove seems to have come over all sensible, although a little dim.

I'm sure normal service will be resumed shortly.

[jargon buster]

I predicit it is simply a temporary lapse into lucidity for Merlincove.
And if he reads this he will snap back into stupidity instantly rather than agree with the comments.

[Horatius]

Oh dear... (http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=185146)

As I am I.P. banned I can not post on the Icke Cesspit, I shall sit and watch....



Am I reading this right: He thinks the skeptics have breached a contract with him, because they may have violated the MA of the forum they're posting on?

Is that correct?

[jargon buster]

Rather unexpectedly, merlincove seems to have come over all sensible, although a little dim.

I'm sure normal service will be resumed shortly.

ahem, right on cue.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060246439&postcount=96
So, are you a soul, a living breathing human being, a 'person,' or a legal entity? - and further more do the contractual agreements that the person / legal entity enters into effect upon anything else but the moral accountability of the legal entity / person (whatever you would wish to call it)?

i hear what you are saying, rreeve, but am morally guided to uphold all transactions that i enter into of my own free will - it is the 'agreement's' that are forced upon me that i have issues with

If i, as a human being, enter into a court room - then is that physical representation overstanding my energetic representation of a free soul existing outside of any physical jurisdictions - and further more, as my 'body' gives my spirit animation - do we enter into an agreement that any legal standing is inclusive of all aspects of our being?

is then law driven to the animated aspect of our appreciation - wherein the fines and statutes apply to the animation - and is that animation then a legal entity existing under an applied jurisdiction through our acquiescence or ignorance of the rules that are created in order to turn a person / human being into a cash machine?

i can just imagine him finishing it with..."and thats the way I see it your honour"

:rolleyes:

[uk_dave]

While I'm rather concerned that many stundie noms are merely poking fun at the mentally disturbed and that drawing from the David Ike forum is rather like shooting dead fish in a barrel ..... for my sins I started reading another thread at DI and came across this from 'Madandbad' ......

why are the so called legal proffesion so pig ignorant,i have walked into univeristys and spoken to so called proffersers of law to ask these questions and all i got was a blank look,it is without a doubt that the only way to join the so called law proffesion is that you have there point of view or you cant join .it was more than blank looks they didnt even want to answer,just sat there without saying a word.didnt even try an argument.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=185001&page=3

The mind boggles.

[twinstead]

It's like shooting dead fish floating in dead fish in a barrel made of dead fish

[jargon buster]

With a bazooka.

[jeffwode]

FOTLs are making their presence known as Occupy LSX. The Guardian found a chap who calls himself "commonly known as dom" who had these words of wisdom...

"I might be a danger to corporate control of humanity, but what's the worst they're going to do? Lock me up? The last place they want me to be teaching is in prison. I've been in jail: I talk to the inmates, I talk to the screws. I take every opportunity to speak to the police, to educate them. Don't forget, the police are part of the solution. I'll talk to anyone: laymen, lawyers, magistrates, judges.

I say to people: educate yourself. Google "lawful rebellion". Google "freeman on the land". Google the difference between "legal" and "lawful". Understand the rules that are keeping you enslaved."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/15/welfare-education-law-occupy-london

This clown has been enlightening his fellow occupiers about the FOTL woo (various videos on Youtube) and can be seen spouting his nonsense in the video below. The New World Order gets a mention at 2.40. His belief that the legal definition of occupy is "to go to war" comes up at 3.10 and, rather delightfully, he reckons the whole Occupy LSX thing is an "inside job". He's pretty far gone and, by the looks of some of the other videos, has found a few disciples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L1ax_5lDws

The Guardian allowed a voice of sanity to prevail yesterday:

The love freemen show for magic texts, incantations and ritual is not just funny: it shows a strange, childlike respect for the trappings of justice, and a commitment to jargon not even the stuffiest solicitor can match. This thinking is to law as crystal healing is to medicine and, like fake healing, it's not as harmless as first appears.

Perhaps some freemen really have found that small debts have been written off because of the nuisance they've been able to cause. Confusing people can be a useful way of bluffing, and fobbing them off. But there are limits. The barrister and law blogger Adam Wagner has called freemanism "quackery plain and simple" and says: "These ideas are most attractive to desperate, vulnerable people who are going through terrible times in their lives."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/nov/16/law-protest-occupy-freemen