The Freeman Movement and England

[D'rok]

Isn't that a combination of both the above though?

Quite right. I take it back.

 

[tobjai]

reposted.
disregard and go to my next entry.

 

[drkitten]

Again, no judge will ever admit anything. That was the very answer I gave you before. All that can ever be achieved is that a judge is unable to establish jurisdiction in which case he either arbitrarily leaves the court room (and doesn't come back till you eventually leave, so he can then impose a reprimand) or drop the case entirely.

Why isn't simply finding you in contempt of court and jailing you one of his options?

And if you check the record, that is one of his options....

But without obtaining jurisdiction (call it "contracting" or not) the judge can not proceed (unless he violates his own rule book).

But that's the point, isn't it? What keeps him from "violat[ing] his own rule book"?

 

[tobjai]

Why would you possibly think that this stuff will make the judge go all sheepish and admit that the legal system is a lie?

Again, no judge will ever admit anything. That was the very answer I gave you before. All that can ever be achieved is that a judge is unable to establish jurisdiction in which case he either arbitrarily leaves the court room (and doesn't come back till you eventually leave, so he can then impose a reprimand) or drop the case entirely. I can see that FOTL have failed at this (and therefore ended up in jail) before, because the whole process is works in a very assumptive and deceiving manner.

So say for instance a guy named John goes to court. Now if the judge asks him "are you Mr. John Doe" and John answers with "yes", then John has just given away jurisdiction. This is because John has (unknowingly) agreed to represent the legal entity "Mr. John Doe" which in fact only exists on paper. Same applies if John rises when being asked. This action also also leads to the assumption of submission, in which case again a transfer of jurisdiction takes place. Same deal if John appears before the Judge after his legal name was called.

But without obtaining jurisdiction (call it "contracting" or whatever) the judge can not proceed (unless he violates his own rule book). Have you watched the video yet? This particular Judge (I believe it took place in the UK) was unable to obtain jurisdiction and eventually just took off in frustration... Prior he failed to convince the police of any wrong doing by the defendant. hmm... some nice "proof" when I think about it.... since this forum seems to be all about "I don't believe in common sense unless you show me proof".

Lets post it again: vimeodotcom/10211543 (unfortunately I'm still not allowed to post links, but I'm sure you guys will find it).

 

[tobjai]

Why isn't simply finding you in contempt of court and jailing you one of his options?

Because he has to have juristiction first in order to be finding anything!

But that's the point, isn't it? What keeps him from "violat[ing] his own rule book"?

If you get him to do that, you have won as he was unable to get you within the rules. And like I said, some people bite the bitter apple and sacrifice some freedom for that.

 

[drkitten]

Because he has to have juristiction first in order to be finding anything!

Why? Why can't he just tell the bailiff to haul you off to chokey?

If you get him to do that, you won as he was unable to get you within the rules.

So when I "win," I get a prison sentence?

What do I get for "losing"?

 

[uk_dave]

OMG
Is tobjai saying that the FOTL idiots get jailed for contempt of court and see that as a victory because they forced the judge to do it?

 

[remirol]

So say for instance a guy named John goes to court. Now if the judge asks him "are you Mr. John Doe" and John answers with "yes", then he has just given away jurisdiction. This is because John has (unknowingly) agreed to represent the legal entity "Mr. John Doe" that only exists on paper. Same applies if John rises when being asked to do so. This action also also leads to the assumption of submission, which again transfers jurisdiction to the judge. Same deal if John appears before the Judge after his name was called.

Do you really think any of this actually changes anything that happens?

Let me explain the reality to you. You go to court, and he says "Is Mr. John Doe present?" Nobody answers. He then says "Well, write up a warrant for his failure to appear", everyone leaves, and then John Doe is arrested later for failure to appear in court.

Have you watched the video yet? This particular Judge (I believe it took place in the UK) was unable to obtain jurisdiction and eventually just took off in frustration....

That's not what I saw happening in the video. It's certainly what the narrator claims happened, but what I saw is a crowd trying to play silly-buggers, and a bunch of obnoxious people being removed from the courtroom. And then, of course, the predictable cut-out.

 

[Sledge]

You're really not getting this, are you? Maybe someone else can try rephrasing it in some way that will get an answer, but I'll carry on.

Why would the judge have to obey what you think is the law?

 

[tobjai]

Why? Why can't he just tell the bailiff to haul you off to chokey?

They most certainly try. Sometimes they succeed, other times they don't (which are the cases where neither security nor police act against their oath, as it was the case in the posted video... have you watched it YET?)

So when I "win," I get a prison sentence?
What do I get for "losing"?

What a rhetorical question.
Obviously your values are of a different kind and your reasoning seems to be based on fear. Quite contrary to you, others find their values in principal and ideals. The principled man doesn't care about the consequences. He cares about the principal and its victory only (which is his personal win). It may also encourage other principled men to go all the way - the more there come, the more awareness there'll be, the more system gets shaken up (a lil' side-kick-win).

 

[Sledge]

I think you mean "principle." Anyone with any common sense cares about consequences. Throwing ones life away for the sake of FOTL stuff isn't principled, it's just stupid.

 

[Pikachu]

So say for instance a guy named John goes to court. Now if the judge asks him "are you Mr. John Doe" and John answers with "yes", then John has just given away jurisdiction. This is because John has (unknowingly) agreed to represent the legal entity "Mr. John Doe" which in fact only exists on paper. Same applies if John rises when being asked. This action also also leads to the assumption of submission, in which case again a transfer of jurisdiction takes place. Same deal if John appears before the Judge after his legal name was called.

But without obtaining jurisdiction (call it "contracting" or whatever) the judge can not proceed .

I'm willing to bet I've been to several thousand more court hearings than you have.
Yesterday a defendant (probably not a FMOTL because they never shut up) was refusing to speak or acknowledge anyone in custody. He resisted having his fingerprints taken so Livescan couldn't identify him. No-one knew his name age dob or nationality. He had to be dragged up to the dock by 4 burly police officers where they literally had to dump him on the floor. I can assure you he didn't acknowledge the court at all.
So did the Court let him go?
Of course not. He's been locked up in prison for 8 days while his identity is established.
When it is if he's still refusing to speak that will be treated as a not guilty plea and a trial set up. Evidence will be called and he'll be convicted and sentenced. Over several hundred years the Court have developed rules for dealing with awkward so-n-sos.

 

[cwalner]

I think you mean "principle." Anyone with any common sense cares about consequences. Throwing ones life away for the sake of FOTL stuff isn't principled, it's just stupid.

I disagree, it fits in perfectly with Freeloaders on the Land prnciples. They end up with free food clothing and shelter for the rest of their lives at the expense of the rest of society.

 

[D'rok]

Because he has to have juristiction first in order to be finding anything!

The jurisdiction of a particular court to hear a particular issue is in no way related to the consent of any particular FOTLer or to the princples, such as they are, of FOTLism generally. To imagine otherwise is the sheerest lunacy, and to act on this lunacy is a sure path to contempt of court.

 

[Sledge]

I disagree, it fits in perfectly with Freeloaders on the Land prnciples. They end up with free food clothing and shelter for the rest of their lives at the expense of the rest of society.

Great Scott, I think you've cracked it!

 

[remirol]

They most certainly try. Sometimes they succeed, other times they don't (which are the cases neither the bailiff nor police act against their oath, as it was the case in the posted video... have you watched it YET?)

I have watched it. First, the sound is very unclear, so it is difficult to make out what is being actually said; isn't it interesting how this so often happens in FOTL "proof" videos? The narrator should not have wasted his time, as he is clearly composing a fantastic work of fiction that bears no relation to anything which occurred in the video. And at the very end, all the "freemen" walk out of court, and as usual, the video cuts out without any actual evidence that anything else occurred other than Mr. Stephen Barry did not show up for his court appearance.

Tell me, why is it that these "proof" videos always have nothing of the sort in them? Is this the sort of rubbish that FOTL actually believe constitutes evidence?

 

[neocenturion]

Here is a question for the members that are more legal experts than myself. I have a pretty good idea what the answer is though. If one of the FOTLers causes the judge to leave the bench until the FOTLer leaves the courtroom, what do you suppose that judge is doing in his chamber?

 

[jargon buster]

If the video you are discussing is the Council Tax one with Ray St Clair http://www.raymondstclair.com/
Heres another link with Mr St Clair
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=119572

The Council sought a liability order and it was granted.

Council 1
Freeman 0

JB

 

[tobjai]

You guys are one lost cause... many of you probably in the legal business trying to defend the shaky house of cards.

Let me explain the reality to you. You go to court, and he says "Is Mr. John Doe present?" Nobody answers. He then says "Well, write up a warrant for his failure to appear", everyone leaves, and then John Doe is arrested later for failure to appear in court.

Wrong! The answer will be "Mr. John Doe is here in my hand, for and on the record" as the lay adviser holds up the birth certificate of the addressed legal fiction.

That's not what I saw happening in the video. It's certainly what the narrator claims happened, but what I saw is a crowd trying to play silly-buggers, and a bunch of obnoxious people being removed from the courtroom. And then, of course, the predictable cut-out.

You must have been watching a whole different video OR you are trying to obscure it.

This is what actually happened:

-Magistrates fails to gain jurisdiction... take off without notice then come back (2x)
-Layman repeats: "I claim common law jurisdiction sir"
-Bailiff: "Leave the court please, or I'll have you arrested"
-Layman: "Sir, are you here on your oath today?"
-Bailiff: "Security to court No.1 please"
"Those of you who wish to remain, stand please. Those who do not wish to remain will leave the court with security"
-Layman over and over: "Are you on oath today, sir?"
-Magistrate: "You have no right to address this court"
-Bailiff: "Everybody who's sitting will leave the court please".
-Lay adviser: "Are you refusing to say you're on oath madam, sir? Then we'll call a constable and have you arrested".
-Bailiff to security: "The magistrate has ordered this man to be removed"
-Lay adviser explains that neither the bailiff nor the magistrate have authority as they didn't gain jurisdiction.
-Lay adviser to Security: "Sir, if you lay finger on my I will sue you for assault under common law".
-Security (looking at the Bailiff): "Can he do that?"
-Bailiff keeps silent!
-Bailiff then repeats the request to have the guy removed.
-Lay adviser: "The magistrates have not offered their oath!"
-Security: "The police has already been called".
-Lay adviser repeats to Security multiple times not to touch him and honour their oath. "Please don't touch me! You are not authorized to touch me and I do not consent to be touched"
-Court usher calls the police.
-Lay adviser then retrieves the birth certificate, which is the legal person that was summonsed to appear in court
-Security makes peace with the lay adviser.
-Police arrive.
-Lay adviser: "Allegedly someone is purporting to be the magistrate"
-Lay adviser also explains to the constable that he had asked for the magistrates oath and that there was no breach of the peace.
-Lay adviser asks the constable to honour his oath.
-Constable concurs and therefore now acts as a peace officer.
-Constable requests his men to stand down via radio.
-A Sergeant however believes that the court belongs to the magistrates.
-Layman: "I have the lawful right in common law to prove that the person who gave that order has the lawful right to give that order, by seeing their oath."
-Lay adviser asks for the written order from the magistrates, to be produced before he leaves the court.
-Sergeant agrees and goes to get the order.
-Comes back without the written order.
-Sergeant tries again... no written order
-'Mr. Steven Barry' once again is produced in court for and on the record.
-Bailiff: Is anyone in this court room prepared to identify themselves as "Mr. Steven Barry"?
-Lay adviser: "Steven Barry has been present for and on the record. "
-Bailiff: "Nobody in this room now is Mr. Stephen Barry?"
-Lay adviser: "Would you like me to bring Mr. Stephen Barry to the court sir?"
-Bailiff: "I'm going to call him one more time in the tannoy, Stephen Barry"
-Lay adviser: "Sir, I've presented Stephen Barry to the court"
-Again the Bailiff asks for those who not stand to leave or be removed from the room.
-The constables honour their oaths by NOT responding to these "orders".
-Bailiff: "You've been asked to leave the court. I've called Stephen Barry"
-Lay adviser repeats: "Stephen Barry is in the court sir"
-Another attempt by the lay adviser to get a written order.
-Constable goes to the magistrate to try again for a written order.
-Lay adviser: "I'm now recovering Mr. Stephen Barry from the court".
-Lawyer: "Where is he?"
-Lay adviser holds up the birth certificate: "This is Mr. Stephen Barry right here"
-Sergeant comes back for the last time with no written order.
-Bailiff: "Mr. Steven Barry to court one please"
-Lay adviser: "Are you able to witness that I've presented Mr. Stephen Barry to the court?"
-For the 3rd time "Mr. Steven Barry" is produced in court for and on the record.
-Once again those the magistrates are denied jurisdiction as the people stay seated.
-Bailiff: "Can I ask Mr. Stephen Barry to identify himself?"
-Lay adviser: "I'm the lay agent of Stephen Barry. Stephen Barry is present in the court represented by the legal fiction - the birth certificate. "
-Bailiff quite blatant: "Is the Person Stephen Barry here?"
-Lay adviser: "That IS the legal Person, Sir."
-Bailiff to Magistrate: "We do not appear to have the respondent in court"
-Magistrate asks all those who are seated to leave the court. Nobody leaves.
-Lay adviser asks if him and his crowd is in contempt.
-Magistrate only repeats the previous request. Nobody leaves.
-Magistrate now tries with "contempt of court" despite of not having jurisdiction.
-Magistrates throws the towel and abandons the court for the last time.
-Lay adviser: "The court takes judicial notice that the magistrates have abandoned the court. I am therefore the highest authority in this court room and therefore we dismiss the case."

So much for your "silly-buggers, and a bunch of obnoxious people being removed from the courtroom and [..] the predictable cut-out.".
Nobody removed and no cut-out my dear Silly-bugger!


But to keep it quite simple, all the arrogance portrayed in this forum should be silenced with the two lines that I have typed out in bold.

 

[tobjai]

The Council sought a liability order and it was granted.

Council 1
Freeman 0

JB

Huh?? What are you trying to prove with this link containing all these posts by "Father"? I don't care about who Ray St Clair is. All I care about is what happened in this court room, which was a clear defeat of the legal mafia and a clear statement by the constables!

But when I read through all these posts I'm not surprised that all of you are such vigorous defenders of the system. Turns out, most of you either work in some sort of court position or study law with the prospect applying the deceitfulness later on. Aren't I right "Pikachu"?... BTW, I never said you can get away with total silence. If a "Person" is ordered to court, the legal fiction has to be produce on the given date and location.