SpitfireIX
Philosopher
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Examples of Freeman success stories
- Thread starter BobHaulk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fotl freeman movement
Duffy Moon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 2,592
I overheard two fellas at work having a chat at work.
One was talking very quickly and enthusiastically about something he had discovered.
I didn't catch everything but I heard enough to know what he was talking about:
"You don't have to pay your mortgage or bills or anything, 'cos that money doesn't actually exist....."
"I read about it on this website, it tells you everything...."
"If you go to court, you just have to say certain things and they can't touch you.."
His friend was listening to all this with an incredulous look on his face.
Eventually, he noted "Yeah but if it was so easy, everyone would be doing it."
"People don't know about it! It's all really complicated, all the stuff you have to say but this website tells you what to do...."
His friend concluded "Well, I think I'm just gonna carry on paying my mortgage, that way I know I'm not breaking any laws."
FOTL man looked disappointed with the non-believer but let the matter drop.
So, one new recruit chucks himself down the rabbit hole; one rational bloke stays above ground.
Honours even.
One was talking very quickly and enthusiastically about something he had discovered.
I didn't catch everything but I heard enough to know what he was talking about:
"You don't have to pay your mortgage or bills or anything, 'cos that money doesn't actually exist....."
"I read about it on this website, it tells you everything...."
"If you go to court, you just have to say certain things and they can't touch you.."
His friend was listening to all this with an incredulous look on his face.
Eventually, he noted "Yeah but if it was so easy, everyone would be doing it."
"People don't know about it! It's all really complicated, all the stuff you have to say but this website tells you what to do...."
His friend concluded "Well, I think I'm just gonna carry on paying my mortgage, that way I know I'm not breaking any laws."
FOTL man looked disappointed with the non-believer but let the matter drop.
So, one new recruit chucks himself down the rabbit hole; one rational bloke stays above ground.
Honours even.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
The new recruit thinks he has just "woken up" and (depending on his tenacity and willingness to believe) will continue to spout until he actually wakes from the deep coma he is now languishing under.
Direct him here, we may be the "ice water in the ear" he needs to check for actual brain activity.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
ah, right.....
so, still nothing yet, eh?
even the woo masters at the david icke forum have given it up as a lost cause.
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Bumpity-bump
A "success" story from the local rag today.
Natural Person Evades Taxes, Headed To Jail - Naturally
Note please that refusing to agree to the fine and jail term resulted in her being freed. No, wait. It didn't do a thing.
Congratulations freeman peddlers. Another satisfied, successful customer to add to your tally.
A "success" story from the local rag today.
Natural Person Evades Taxes, Headed To Jail - Naturally
Note please that refusing to agree to the fine and jail term resulted in her being freed. No, wait. It didn't do a thing.
Congratulations freeman peddlers. Another satisfied, successful customer to add to your tally.
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
I think I just had a revelation. I had always assumed that the purpose of the "fee schedules" was to try to collect large amounts of money from the government in question. Now I realize that the actual purpose is to attempt to avoid being put in jail or otherwise having to accept the consequences of one's action by claiming something to the effect that "I agreed to be put in jail in return for $10 million, and you haven't paid, so you can't keep me in jail."
Boot2TheHead
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2011
- Messages
- 181
And once again Sovereign Citizen/Freeman antics prove to make things worse than they ever could have been otherwise, not only by escalating the situation to completely irrational levels but eroding away at any sympathy of the very people who could otherwise offer help, or at the very least leniency.
Irish Mick
New Blood
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 9
Just in case you are interested, there's a thread on boards.ie about freemanism.
I can't put up the URL as I haven't made at least 15 posts. But if you go over to boards . ie and click on forums and then legal discussions, the title of the thread is Freeman Megamerge.
The more exposure they get, the more people see through them.
I can't put up the URL as I haven't made at least 15 posts. But if you go over to boards . ie and click on forums and then legal discussions, the title of the thread is Freeman Megamerge.
The more exposure they get, the more people see through them.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
slowsmile
Critical Thinker
Linky here;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056353782
although might not be for much longer;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056562792
Chaetognath
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 90
So I don’t have what is explicitly a FOTLish success story, but instead what is the closest I have ever seen to a judicial result that matches the theoretical construct in which Canadian FOTLish persons claim to operate.
And it’s not a Freeman On The Land, but rather a Moorish Law advocate. So lets call him a Free Moor Who Owns The Land [“FMWOTL”].
The individual in question is :Chief :Nanya-Shaabu:El, the Indigenous/Autochthonous Chief of the At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors. I have previously mentioned this individual in the “Rob Menard's FOTL Claims” message thread. :Chief :El claims many things, including immunity from state action, that his uncle is a CSIS assassin, and that he owns North America as a consequence of a treaty with the Olmec people.
He recently in a “Charter Notice” ordered that Canada be moved into the middle of the Atlantic ocean. His “Facebook” webpage 'links' section has many, many fascinating documents.
:Chief :El has not been successful in court. In 2010 Justice Slatter of the Alberta Court of Appeal declared him a vexatious litigant (Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312). And here’s where things get interesting…
The Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 37 says "... an appeal to the Supreme Court lies with leave of the highest court of final resort in a province from a final judgment of that court ...". In Alberta, the highest court of final resort is the Alberta Court of Appeal.
On February 24, 2011, :Chief :El sought leave to appeal Justice Slatter’s decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. This is documented in Supreme Court of Canada Docket #34172.
For those who are unfamiliar with that court’s procedures, in most instances a person has to ‘ask permission’ to have their appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. That is a “leave application”. If the court “grants leave”, you have the right to a full hearing at the court. If it denies leave, that is the end of that.
The file was assigned to three Supreme Court of Canada justices: Binnie, Abella, and Rothstein. The docket record shows a number of “miscellaneous motions”; I cannot suggest what those might be.
In July 14, 2011, the three justices dismiss :Chief :El’s leave application but the language they use is unique:
The miscellaneous motion is dismissed without costs. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 1003-0045-AC, 2010 ABCA 312, dated October 14, 2010, is dismissed with costs for lack of jurisdiction.
The text of this leave decision can be read on the “canlii” website, and is reported at Nanya-Shaabu: El v. Kenyouth Lucien Henry (Alta.), 2011 CanLII 43414 (SCC).
The reason I observe that this leave dismissal is unique is the phrase “for lack of jurisdiction”. I have reviewed the Supreme Court of Canada’s leave decision history that is available electronically and this particular phrasing does not seem to appear in any other leave decision. Normally a leave application is “dismissed without costs”, “dismissed with costs”, or “dismissed without costs on a solicitor-client basis”. For example, :Chief :El had another leave application dismissed on that last basis, see Merle Berrinice Henry et al. v. Starwood Hotels et al., 2011 CanLII 20819 (SCC).
I certainly am not suggesting that the “dismissed with costs for lack of jurisdiction” means that :Chief :El’s claims are correct, but I note this is the one instance of which I am aware where a court, the Supreme Court of Canada no less, has said it has no jurisdiction over a person who claimed to be immune from state and court action.
There may be another alternative explanation for this result (and I can think of one very likely one), but at a minimum :Chief :El should be a focus for considerable FOTL interest. He is the only Canadian litigant of whom I am aware who has managed to obtain a result that matches his theoretical construct.
(Other than it was him asking for the court’s intervention…)
Chaetognath.
And it’s not a Freeman On The Land, but rather a Moorish Law advocate. So lets call him a Free Moor Who Owns The Land [“FMWOTL”].
The individual in question is :Chief :Nanya-Shaabu:El, the Indigenous/Autochthonous Chief of the At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors. I have previously mentioned this individual in the “Rob Menard's FOTL Claims” message thread. :Chief :El claims many things, including immunity from state action, that his uncle is a CSIS assassin, and that he owns North America as a consequence of a treaty with the Olmec people.
He recently in a “Charter Notice” ordered that Canada be moved into the middle of the Atlantic ocean. His “Facebook” webpage 'links' section has many, many fascinating documents.
:Chief :El has not been successful in court. In 2010 Justice Slatter of the Alberta Court of Appeal declared him a vexatious litigant (Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312). And here’s where things get interesting…
The Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 37 says "... an appeal to the Supreme Court lies with leave of the highest court of final resort in a province from a final judgment of that court ...". In Alberta, the highest court of final resort is the Alberta Court of Appeal.
On February 24, 2011, :Chief :El sought leave to appeal Justice Slatter’s decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. This is documented in Supreme Court of Canada Docket #34172.
For those who are unfamiliar with that court’s procedures, in most instances a person has to ‘ask permission’ to have their appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. That is a “leave application”. If the court “grants leave”, you have the right to a full hearing at the court. If it denies leave, that is the end of that.
The file was assigned to three Supreme Court of Canada justices: Binnie, Abella, and Rothstein. The docket record shows a number of “miscellaneous motions”; I cannot suggest what those might be.
In July 14, 2011, the three justices dismiss :Chief :El’s leave application but the language they use is unique:
The miscellaneous motion is dismissed without costs. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 1003-0045-AC, 2010 ABCA 312, dated October 14, 2010, is dismissed with costs for lack of jurisdiction.
The text of this leave decision can be read on the “canlii” website, and is reported at Nanya-Shaabu: El v. Kenyouth Lucien Henry (Alta.), 2011 CanLII 43414 (SCC).
The reason I observe that this leave dismissal is unique is the phrase “for lack of jurisdiction”. I have reviewed the Supreme Court of Canada’s leave decision history that is available electronically and this particular phrasing does not seem to appear in any other leave decision. Normally a leave application is “dismissed without costs”, “dismissed with costs”, or “dismissed without costs on a solicitor-client basis”. For example, :Chief :El had another leave application dismissed on that last basis, see Merle Berrinice Henry et al. v. Starwood Hotels et al., 2011 CanLII 20819 (SCC).
I certainly am not suggesting that the “dismissed with costs for lack of jurisdiction” means that :Chief :El’s claims are correct, but I note this is the one instance of which I am aware where a court, the Supreme Court of Canada no less, has said it has no jurisdiction over a person who claimed to be immune from state and court action.
There may be another alternative explanation for this result (and I can think of one very likely one), but at a minimum :Chief :El should be a focus for considerable FOTL interest. He is the only Canadian litigant of whom I am aware who has managed to obtain a result that matches his theoretical construct.
(Other than it was him asking for the court’s intervention…)
Chaetognath.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Link
But hang on, isn't it the FOTLer's own application that is being dismissed?
Here's the decision he was applying for leave to appeal against: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2010/2010abca312/2010abca312.html
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Here's one dismissing a motion for "want of jurisdiction": http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2008/2008canlii12093/2008canlii12093.html
Chaetognath
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 90
Nicely done, Mojo!
I also missed:
Brandi-Ann Beverly Shepherd v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2008 CanLII 48600 (SCC)
and
Alexis Nicole Washington v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2008 CanLII 48601 (SCC)
Worse, unlike 'Bruno Riendeau c. Ville de Québec' I cannot blame Michel Basterache, bane of my professional existence! Damnit!
BASTERACHE!!!! BAAASTERAAAACHE!!!!!!!
Ahem.
In the case of Brandi-Ann Beverly Shepherd v. Her Majesty the Queen and Alexis Nicole Washington v. Her Majesty the Queen it looks like the issue was that the subordinate court had no jurisdiction, and so no 'real' appeal had occurred at the provincial court of final resort.
I will investigate the Quebec case further.
Chaetognath.
I also missed:
Brandi-Ann Beverly Shepherd v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2008 CanLII 48600 (SCC)
and
Alexis Nicole Washington v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2008 CanLII 48601 (SCC)
Worse, unlike 'Bruno Riendeau c. Ville de Québec' I cannot blame Michel Basterache, bane of my professional existence! Damnit!
BASTERACHE!!!! BAAASTERAAAACHE!!!!!!!
Ahem.
In the case of Brandi-Ann Beverly Shepherd v. Her Majesty the Queen and Alexis Nicole Washington v. Her Majesty the Queen it looks like the issue was that the subordinate court had no jurisdiction, and so no 'real' appeal had occurred at the provincial court of final resort.
I will investigate the Quebec case further.
Chaetognath.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Care to elaborate?
Could the "lack of jurisdiction" be anything to do with the apellant's tendency (as noted by the lower court - see paragraphs 2 and 3) of citing pieces of legislation "that are not in force in Canada, or that have no application whatsoever to a civil cause of action", or to file pleadings described by a chambers judge as "absolute gibberish", or that "He purports to sue on behalf of the estate of his father, even though no grant of probate or administration has been issued in his favour"?
I notice another nice FOTL failure linked from that judgment, by the way:
Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201
Quoted in the Kenyouth Lucien Henry v. Nanya-Shaabul:El judgment as saying (at para 4) that "The law does not recognize the ability of one person to foist liability on another if they do not reply to a unilateral communication within an arbitrarily set time limit." That's one FOTL claim squashed, but there's another squashed at para 10: "The appellant put great stock in the fact that his unconventional documents had been notarized by a Notary Public, but the involvement of the notary could not give these legally ineffective documents any force of law." The judgment also notes that "Alberta Justice eventually advised the lay notaries not to continue to notarize these obviously irregular documents."
Last edited:
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
I see that the 'Chief's' acquaintance with Newtonian physics is a tad....hmmm, shall we say "weak". In the Notice, does he mention how the portions of the Great Lakes belonging to the U.S. were to be dealt with?
Fitz
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
I see that the 'Chief's' acquaintance with Newtonian physics is a tad....hmmm, shall we say "weak". In the Notice, does he mention how the portions of the Great Lakes belonging to the U.S. were to be dealt with?
Fitz
Why do you think he ordered it done in winter? Duh, they'll be frozen! Just saw them in half!
