TokeyDokey
New Blood
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 8
The Freeman Movement and England
- Thread starter Especially
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fotl freeman on the land
- Status
Rolfe
Adult human female
I loved Mojo's links. These guys must brighten up the lives of bored court staff no end!
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
sleahead
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Messages
- 406
Do the police need a warrant to arrest me?
No. An arrest by a police officer without a warrant is proper if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed a crime.
From http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/50/
No. An arrest by a police officer without a warrant is proper if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed a crime.
From http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/50/
Last edited:
RHolmes
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 131
I'm not sure what to make of this comment. I say FOTL is ***** (which this site turned into asterisks) because I've looked at its "understanding" of the law and can tell from my own legal knowledge that it's nonsense.
Sorry if I'm missing the joke here.
Tokey: please see above. I didn't type them darned asterisks!
Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Last edited by a moderator:
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
{Idiotic smilies edited out by me}
I did not see a rude response at all to be quite honest. If you think that was rude, well.....
I do note that I responded that the whole FOTL was based on a misconception of what the Common Law is, and that you totally ignored my response, which is a typical FOTL tactic. To ignore facts.
The response which you so eloquently (that's called sarcasm) responded to in a couple of further posts after this one was exactly what FOTLers believe, as you would have realised that had you properly read this thread (and a couple of other FOTL threads on JREF if you had the slightest clue how to use the search function).
I realise you will not be back, and quite frankly, if you are offended by such an innocent and honest response, you would not have much of a good time here anyway.
But the "I am not FOTL, I am a sceptic" response gets a bit tiresome after a while, for people who are "just asking questions" Don't let the door hit you...
Norm
Last edited:
BazBear
Possible Suspect
Yep, it's called probable cause, and it's in the constitution of the USA, and implied by precedent in UK courts as far as I can tell (I'm not a lawyer). In fact this is a large leap historically in the rights of the individual rather than a setback. Of course history and reality have no place in this little dogma anyway.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Ooooh, touched a nerve, did I?
The only problem with that is that -- no, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm taking the words out of the mouths of FOTL proponents and asking you to look at them in detail. The fact that it sounds stupid to you should, in fact, be a moment of enlightenment,... a moment teaching (this is an EDUCATIONAL forum, after all), that the FOTL movement is (drum roll) stupid.
Similarly for the claim that statutes aren't law, which you can nevertheless find documented in the first post on this very thread. "The 'laws' made by the British Parliament in Westminster are NOT laws. They are Acts of Parliament. Statutes. And this is very important. These 'Acts of Parliament' are NOT the Law. They are in fact Statutes. They require your CONSENT before they are valid against you."
Similarly, and also from post 1, "Traffic police here genuinely believe they have the power to arrest people if they do not give their name and address on request. But that 'law' is only a Statute. It is contrary to the actual Law." The power to arrest is given only by statute, and therefore is not real.
Absolutely it matters. Because if they've arrested me without authority, I have standing to sue for false arrest -- to force them (via the court system) to release me, to drop any unfounded charges, and in many instances to collect compensatory and punitive damages.
That's one of the standard things that the court does -- rules on whether arrests and detentions are valid. In fact, one of the ways that you can tell that FOTL is total gibberish is because it presumes a monolithic conspiracy of police, lawmakers, and judges -- it has to be monolithic, because no one has ever disagreed (and set a Freeman loose on the merits of his legal argument). In fact, no one has ever even screwed up and made a mistake in the application of Freeman law that needed to be addressed by a higher court. The police always make the "correct" call, and the trial judges always support them, and the appellate courts always affirm the trial judges..... despite the fact that all three groups are actually in the wrong?
So, basically, FOTL is bat-guano insane. As you can confirm for yourself by simply LOOKING at the claims. But I guess it's easier to take offense when someone points you to the claims than it is to look at them, isn't it?
TokeyDonkey,
I am member of the Florida Bar. I can pm or email you my bar # if you like. I used to work at a firm that contracted to do child support enforcement for the state. About ten years ago, I was involved in a hearing where the non-custodial parent was charged with criminal contempt of court for continued non-payment of child support. He was court ordered to pay through the Central Governmental Depository (a standard order so as to keep track of payments). He had been held in civil contempt several times previously for admitting he was giving money directly to his 14-year-old child instead of paying child support. He had been warned several times to discontinue this practice and pay as he was ordered.
He was finally served an information for criminal contempt, and responded with several ludicrous motions regarding the capitalization of his name. He appeared at the hearing with a "representative" who was not a lawyer. Since, in FL, one must be a member of the FL Bar or have special permission from the court to practice in front of it, the "representative" was sent out. The defendant made several oral motions regarding various "freeman" type topics, which the judge, rather incredulously, denied. (This included asking the judge to represent him in the matter.)
We presented our case, the judge gave him considerable leeway in responding, wherein he basically admitted that he would continue to do as he chose because he was a "free man" and the court couldn't make him do anything else. He was sentenced to 5 months and 29 days in jail (the maximum allowable sentence for this type of charge.)
I personally watched the bailiff handcuff him and escort him out, as he ranted about "the Nazis getting him again."
I guarantee you that none of this stuff they are selling works in Florida courts, and as far as I know, anywhere else in the U.S., and people are harmed by believing it.
I am member of the Florida Bar. I can pm or email you my bar # if you like. I used to work at a firm that contracted to do child support enforcement for the state. About ten years ago, I was involved in a hearing where the non-custodial parent was charged with criminal contempt of court for continued non-payment of child support. He was court ordered to pay through the Central Governmental Depository (a standard order so as to keep track of payments). He had been held in civil contempt several times previously for admitting he was giving money directly to his 14-year-old child instead of paying child support. He had been warned several times to discontinue this practice and pay as he was ordered.
He was finally served an information for criminal contempt, and responded with several ludicrous motions regarding the capitalization of his name. He appeared at the hearing with a "representative" who was not a lawyer. Since, in FL, one must be a member of the FL Bar or have special permission from the court to practice in front of it, the "representative" was sent out. The defendant made several oral motions regarding various "freeman" type topics, which the judge, rather incredulously, denied. (This included asking the judge to represent him in the matter.)
We presented our case, the judge gave him considerable leeway in responding, wherein he basically admitted that he would continue to do as he chose because he was a "free man" and the court couldn't make him do anything else. He was sentenced to 5 months and 29 days in jail (the maximum allowable sentence for this type of charge.)
I personally watched the bailiff handcuff him and escort him out, as he ranted about "the Nazis getting him again."
I guarantee you that none of this stuff they are selling works in Florida courts, and as far as I know, anywhere else in the U.S., and people are harmed by believing it.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
ANother case of not saying the Magic Words in the exactly correct way.
It is hard to tell if he got the words right, it sounds like neither the judge or anyone else present would have recognised them if he did.
Freemen have the deck stacked against them with that kind of ignorance in the legal system. There must be a conspiracy to leave that out of the legal/lawyer curriculum.
It is hard to tell if he got the words right, it sounds like neither the judge or anyone else present would have recognised them if he did.
Freemen have the deck stacked against them with that kind of ignorance in the legal system. There must be a conspiracy to leave that out of the legal/lawyer curriculum.
I can think of more plausible explanations...
Including giant lizards controlling the hearing of the legal officers so that they can't hear the magic words, but don't notice.
LightinDarkness
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,583
I have started to read several FOTL woo forums for giggles every week or so. The level of sheer ignorance is so high in them (higher than even some conspiracy forums, if such is possible!) that any longer than that and it begins to give me a migraine.
But for short doses of high quality entertainment, FOTL woo boards are top notch.
The newest pearl dropped in the David Icke forum is hilarious - basically, the FOTL woos have determined that all government agencies are "third parties" and that you can simply decline to benefit from any of them. This means that when you go to court you no longer have to worry about barraging the judge with fake FOTL forms like the UCC-1 or Intent Declaration, but you can simply tell the judge that you are declining to use him as judge since you don't think he is of benefit to you. Yep, thats it kids. Then the judges will just go "OK, very well then" and leave the room and you win the court case.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=91011
On the David Icke forum they also seem to refer to all these fake legal forms and fake legal declarations as "technology". I must say, I have never seen a technology with such a 99.999999999999999999999999%* failure rate - why would one use that sort of technology?
*I acknowledge it is possible to use FOTL woo and somehow win a case. This is going to happen routinely on small things like traffic violations where if you throw enough fake paperwork they may just let you off not to deal with the headache. People don't win because FOTL woo has any legal standing in such cases, they simply win because the administrators dealing with it just don't want to have to waste the bureaucracy's time debunking everything and they have decided its better to just let it go.
But for short doses of high quality entertainment, FOTL woo boards are top notch.
The newest pearl dropped in the David Icke forum is hilarious - basically, the FOTL woos have determined that all government agencies are "third parties" and that you can simply decline to benefit from any of them. This means that when you go to court you no longer have to worry about barraging the judge with fake FOTL forms like the UCC-1 or Intent Declaration, but you can simply tell the judge that you are declining to use him as judge since you don't think he is of benefit to you. Yep, thats it kids. Then the judges will just go "OK, very well then" and leave the room and you win the court case.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=91011
On the David Icke forum they also seem to refer to all these fake legal forms and fake legal declarations as "technology". I must say, I have never seen a technology with such a 99.999999999999999999999999%* failure rate - why would one use that sort of technology?
*I acknowledge it is possible to use FOTL woo and somehow win a case. This is going to happen routinely on small things like traffic violations where if you throw enough fake paperwork they may just let you off not to deal with the headache. People don't win because FOTL woo has any legal standing in such cases, they simply win because the administrators dealing with it just don't want to have to waste the bureaucracy's time debunking everything and they have decided its better to just let it go.
Last edited:
I believe they refer to it this way because, per Arthur C. Clarke, it's "indistinguishable from magic".
The only problem with this analysis is that the FOTL "technology" is distinguishable from magic.
If I were to cast a magic spell on the judge before going into his courtroom to plead guilty to a traffic violation, I'd draw a fine of perhaps a few hundred dollars. If I try the FOTL "tech" I'm going to be facing contempt charges, several thousand dollars in fines and sanctions, and probably some jail time.
Magic merely doesn't do anything. This FOTL malecowexcrement makes matters actively worse.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
And then they will just throw you in jail without "benefit" of a trial. How does that help?
Well here's how it worked for one of them:
"However, he is a fine example of not giving up. Sean went in 4 times before he received justice and he had an offer of going to prison which he dealt with immediately by saying that's 20k charge to you and then coz he was stunned and shook to the core by the offer of prison he was then offered a fine of 200quid which he accepted. Bless im. Easy to say in theory but when you are the one facing these vipers another thing entirely."
When faced with prison he coughed up the money. I imagine he could have paid much less earlier in the proceedings. Guess he got the benefit of the judge whether he wanted it or not.
I think this is Mcattack whose example was touted by the first poster.
Oh I like how he was "offered" prison.
- Status