• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
The same garbage repeated on various different sites gives it the illusion of legitimacy.
Click to expand...

An ideal example of this is the term "an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in law" that they throw around.
If you google "unrebutted affidavit" it only shows results on various freeman/commercial redemption sites.
Now to an individual with a scrap of intelligence that should set alarm bells ringing as to its validity, but oh no, not the freeman convert he sees various sources and sees it as the truth.

I just love the idea that you can send an affidavit to a third party and he doesnt rebut it prior to court then they can produce the affidavit in court and its "game set and match".
They also write "without predjudice" on the bottom of them all without realising its implications as well.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Yozik is single.

Can you imagine the converstaions with his partner.

"Would you like a cup of tea dear"

"Well do you mean "I" as in me personally as a sentient being and not a figment of a corporate straw man or "I" as in the person/individual with all assumed god given rights.

"Just you really dear, I'm making a cup of tea just wondered if you'd like one"

"Is that cup as the meaning of the container or cup as in......."

Sound of door slamming

"of course that raises the question of trusts, in me accepting a cup of tea from you where is the trust, who is the beneficiary of the....hello....hello....have you gone love...hello!"
 
Last edited:
talkie toaster said:
i wonder if yozik is single.

Can you imagine the converstaions with his partner.

"would you like a cup of tea dear"

"well do you mean "i" as in me personally as a sentient being and not a figment of a corporate straw man or "i" as in the person/individual with all assumed god given rights.

"just you really dear, i'm making a cup of tea just wondered if you'd like one"

"is that cup as the meaning of the container or cup as in......."

sound of door slamming

"of course that raises the question of trusts, in me accepting a cup of tea from you where is the trust, who is the beneficiary of the....hello....hello....have you gone love...hello!"
Click to expand...

lol!!

:d
 
Last edited:
Excellent post talkie toaster, I was thinking along those lines the other day reading his posts, I think someone should post him a link to that. ;)
 
If you write "without prejudice" on any letters between you and a third party in an attempt to settle a dispute they cannot be used in any later legal proceedings.

edit: oops thanks cocana
 
Last edited:
I want to say "that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard," but it's just par for the course with FOTL.
 
gtm said:
The same garbage repeated on various different sites gives it the illusion of legitimacy.
Click to expand...



The echo chamber effect is endemic to pretty much all the CTs I've looked at. Every so often, one of the CT proponents will post a list of "quotes" that claim to prove that various people have "admitted the truth" about their favourite theory, and these lists are inevitably just cut-and-paste jobs from other CT sources. Every time I've bothered to track down the original source for any selected quote (once going so far as to pay out of pocket for a reprint of an article!), it turns out the quote either almost certainly never existed (that is, they're only found on CT websites, usually quoting the very same list!), was seriously altered, or was taken so far out of context as to completely change the intended meaning.

And yet, none of the CTists promoting such lists has ever bothered to do the same, despite their constant crowing about how much "research" they've done.
 
cocana said:
Can't be used in court proceedings. Hence that blinding freeman logic - "an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in court" and they mark it "without prejudice"....

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

jargon buster said:
If you write "without prejudice" on any letters between you and a third party in an attempt to settle a dispute they cannot be used in any later legal proceedings.

edit: oops thanks cocana
Click to expand...



Now that's some high-quality foot-shooting, right there!
 
At some point someone needs to start a thread or a webpage in the Colemanballs spirit.

Freemanballs, yep that should do it.

The without prejudice one is great

Practically any of the strawman stuff would be a dead cert too

I'm also partial to a good laugh about their maritime law theories, standing in the "dock" being a prime example

The berth (oow, "berth" - maritime again!) certificate is a treasury stock receipt stuff should make an appearance too. "But there's an email from the government confirming that this isn't true." "Ah yes, but that denial proves the conspiracy"
 
The freemen always like to throw in this little gem from Edward Mandell House

http://www.freedompool.org/HouseQuote.htm
NOW BEAR IN MIND IT WAS SAID IN A PRIVATE MEETING BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE.
1.Who wrote it down?
2. How accurate was the transcript if it existed at all?
A classic example of repeaters who never use rationale and logic because the information suits the agenda.
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
The freemen always like to throw in this little gem from Edward Mandell House

http://www.freedompool.org/HouseQuote.htm
NOW BEAR IN MIND IT WAS SAID IN A PRIVATE MEETING BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE.
1.Who wrote it down
2. How accurate was the transcript if it existed at all.
A classic example of repeaters who never use rationale and logic because the information suits the agenda.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha! Yes, that's a brilliant example!
 
gtm said:
Naaah, wikipedia at best. None of them own a legal text book or can be bother to borrow one from the library - too much like hard work.

I blame Blacks (no good freeman can do without a copy) for alot of this. They look at an entry, get over excited & then 'research' the term / maxim & come up with a typically ludicrous conclusion.
Click to expand...


Also, remember that they can't be bothered to buy a copy or go to a library (not that many libraries in the UK would stock an American law dictionary) so they are relying on the editions freely available on the internet, which are about a century out of date.
 
jargon buster said:
The freemen always like to throw in this little gem from Edward Mandell House

http://www.freedompool.org/HouseQuote.htm
NOW BEAR IN MIND IT WAS SAID IN A PRIVATE MEETING BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE.
1.Who wrote it down?
2. How accurate was the transcript if it existed at all?
A classic example of repeaters who never use rationale and logic because the information suits the agenda.
Click to expand...



That looks like the Freeman version of the "Mike the NJ EMT" e-mail the 9/11 truthers were all salivating over a few years back.

Isn't it just so convenient for one of THEM to have summed up the entire basis for the FoTLer's beliefs in such a neat little package? Who knew that real-life Super-villains actually do give away their plans in well-written monologues?

:rolleyes:
 
cocana said:
Yup.

Doesn't inspire confidence that Girlgye thinks Halsbury's Laws is "Hansburys" so I'm pretty confident that she's never even seen a volume, let alone read one. Then again her misspelling is not exactly the only reason for concluding that she has never done any legal research.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's a new mashup book, combining Halsbury's with Hansard. Now you can check what laws those scheming politicians are discussing.
 
Has Girlgye just taken wackiness to a new level? Ladies and gentlemen I give you the following from the "Mary Croft Appointing the Judge as Trustee" thread:

The patriot Movement has been going officially for 40 years.
There are people around alot longer than Menard, Croft and the latter Frank O Collins.

However, I went in and discussed this stuff before it became fashionable a la Croft and O Collins
At that time Croft et al were talking about using the BC as a payment for set off.

Suggest you trawl through here on the resource section just like everyone else is told they have to.

As I said to Mark when he asked me. Go and study this yourself. In English Case Law. Then go and watch some cases and even so put it to the judge yourself.

I did and am firmly convinced they relied on Equity methods to wriggle out of the questionning just as the beautiful example elucidated. MikeD can vouch for it.

As you know they stole the tape off me.

An Equity Court is a Trust
The judge is the Fiduciary
The Victim is the benfeficiary
and the contestants are the Trustees.
The Crown (who is the Crown) is the Grantor.

Prove me wrong.
Your case law is ******** and you know it.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

I'm having trouble catching my breath! The court process is one gigantic trust. Yeah, right Girlgye. Take another pill soon, please.

Still, she's inviting someone to prove that she's talking bollocks. Well that won't be hard. Who is up for it?

Trouble is that she is so convinced about her insane ramblings that nothing is going to shake her. She even says,

Prove me wrong.
Your case law is ******** and you know it.
Click to expand...

This is simply beautiful and a brand new Freemanball right there. Proof = no proof, Girlgye = gospel.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom