The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another example of freeman logic
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113645&page=10

Here is the summing up of the case
http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2008/2008nssc112/2008nssc112.html
It is clear that the defendants, through their solicitor, consented to the deadline of April 1 for compliance with professional undertakings given January 8, 2008 which not only remain outstanding but very clearly, from the direct response of the defendants, they have decided that they have the right to refuse complying with orders. The defendants in taking the various positions indicated in the material they filed, clearly and overwhelmingly show wilful and deliberate ignoring of the process plus a clear and unequivocal intent to ignore the authority of the court and it’s order. As a consequence, the only conclusion one can come to is that the plaintiffs are entitled to an order striking the defence with costs set in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) payable forthwith.
Click to expand...

Freeman says
I read the court case in which this threat is referring.
It's pretty easy to determine the end result. It is admitted in the conclusion.
"It is clear that the defendants, through their solicitor, consented to the deadline..."
It is clear to me as well. The defendants ran out and got a solicitor, who consented and contracted on there behalf, then realizing the mistake, they (the defendants) fired him but never rebutted his previous statements in the court (representing their interests etc)

So from the court's point of view: Case came up, Solicitor represented the defendants (We have a dispute, which was also admitted if you read the case), Defendants fire Solicitor, Solicitor does not send courtesy letter to court relaying his dismissal, no facts "represented" by solicitor were rebutted.
Now, as the conclusion came across, the court merely ordered them to pay something. What does a freeman do when he is ordered?
Yet, given that the defendants were not in the court during this "conclusion", the order would have been given by way of notice, thus the defendants could have easily knocked it out of existence.

As for what this court case says: NOUI/COR is acceptable in courts.
Courts do in fact read these documents, but do not enter them fully on the record (only partial)
The court wanted to save face, so they issued an order. After all, as far as the courts are concerned, the defendant's party has contracted and consented to the Court's "right" to witness the dispute.

What I don't see is: The plantiff winning
The court receiving anything
The order for the payment of $500 actually being paid.

As far as I'm concerned, the "defendant" won. Unless they only knew so much, and ended up paying the order anyway.
"The defendants in taking the various positions indicated in the material they filed, clearly and overwhelmingly show wilful and deliberate ignoring of the process plus a clear and unequivocal intent to ignore the authority of the court and it’s order."

So, the defendants clearly show they are refusing orders and contracts, so the court issues another order?

In fact, that last quote reads to me:
"The defendants are not bowing to our will, and are showing restraint in a calm and collected authority over their own affairs. Lets scare them with more orders, yes... Yes... Excellent."
-Peace
Click to expand...

:D
 
Last edited:
gtm said:
I'm just reading the Nova Scotia Judgement & I came across this little peach of a sentence:-

'The April 1 deadline is acceptable to my clients'

By any reasonable analysis the Sponagles were comprehensively & thoroughly defeated.
Click to expand...
We brought that case to Menard's attention back when he first showed up here. It looks suspiciously like the Sponagles were using Menard's, um, "remedies", and failed spectacularly of course. He wouldn't touch it. No surprise there.
 
D'rok said:
We brought that case to Menard's attention back when he first showed up here. It looks suspiciously like the Sponagles were using Menard's, um, "remedies", and failed spectacularly of course. He wouldn't touch it. No surprise there.
Click to expand...


Rob's cash cow has been brought to a juddering halt:


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058931032&postcount=148

The question is whether Rob will dust off his law books & sue the guilty party for Copyright infringement?
 
gtm said:
Rob's cash cow has been brought to a juddering halt:


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058931032&postcount=148

The question is whether Rob will dust off his law books & sue the guilty party for Copyright infringement?
Click to expand...
But what if the downloaders (and uploader) withdrew their consent from the Copyright Act?

That would be the greatest FOTL fail ever. FOTL grand poobah sues for copyright infringement. FOTL downloader deploys FOTL defence that he learned from grand poobah. Grand poobah wins case in a default judgment because FOTL defence is frivolous and asinine.
 
Last edited:
gtm said:
Rob's cash cow has been brought to a juddering halt:


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058931032&postcount=148

The question is whether Rob will dust off his law books & sue the guilty party for Copyright infringement?
Click to expand...



And of course:


I have seen the files and read the stuff, most of it is anecdotes and long boring stories that never really tell you where the prize is hidden.
Click to expand...
If most of it is anecdotes and long boring stories that never really tell you where the prize is hidden, care to comment on the rest of it please.
Click to expand...



"Sure, most of it's crap, but some has to be good! Right? Right?!?!"
 
D'rok said:
But what if the downloaders (and uploader) withdrew their consent from the Copyright Act?

That would be the greatest FOTL fail ever. FOTL grand poobah sues for copyright infringement. FOTL downloader deploys FOTL defence that he learned from grand poobah. Grand poobah wins case in a default judgment because FOTL defence is frivolous and asinine.
Click to expand...

I am sure the case could be entertaining. :)
 
If that case came then it may cause him to shut down due to a FOTL dichotomy.

He wants to use the nasty old statute law orders but the defence is his whole raison d'etre.

I need to win to keep my cash coming in, but that means my cash making scam is all false.

Damn !!!!
 
D'rok said:
But what if the downloaders (and uploader) withdrew their consent from the Copyright Act?

That would be the greatest FOTL fail ever. FOTL grand poobah sues for copyright infringement. FOTL downloader deploys FOTL defence that he learned (bought) from grand poobah. Grand poobah wins case in a default judgment because FOTL defence is frivolous and asinine.
Click to expand...


I'm hoping m'learned Freeman 'Especially' will be able to shed some light on this perplexing conumdrum.
 
remirol said:
I expect he would if he hadn't been banninated.
Click to expand...

What? Not again!

I'm reminded of that line in Blade Runner:-

'The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly'

I couldn't remember an appropriate line in the Matrix.
 
Greetings folks. I have been following this thread.
I should have signed up to this board years ago.
'Freemen' sometimes pop up on Pepipoo, a Traffic Law board in the UK. In reply to one of them someone put in a link to this thread to help educate the rest of the board as to the stupidity of it all.

Entertaining stuff. I have to say the 'Mods' over here are very restrained. I would have long since infracted certain 'Freemen' off the board if they behaved in the same way over on BAUT.
 
talkie toaster said:
If that case came then it may cause him to shut down due to a FOTL dichotomy.

He wants to use the nasty old statute law orders but the defence is his whole raison d'etre.

I need to win to keep my cash coming in, but that means my cash making scam is all false.

Damn !!!!
Click to expand...

gtm said:
I'm hoping m'learned Freeman 'Especially' will be able to shed some light on this perplexing conumdrum.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's easy. Prosecute to get the money (it's all about the money after all). Claim that the defence should have worked, but they didn't apply Freeman principles properly. If you want to know the mistakes they made, they're clearly laid out in a new pamphlet to buy for only $25.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom