• 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

I'm in love with this judge.

"The reference to monkeys with typewriters is intended solely to point out that technological “advances” are sometimes used to such ends that one wonders if perhaps the Luddites didn’t have a point."

I wonder if he's in the market for a girlfriend.
 
Its a shame more people dont have the opportunity to read judgements like that, it would certainly go a long way to dispel the myth that all judges are out of touch, stuck in the mud, fuddy duddies.

A great read.
 
D'rok said:
It's got at least 7 citations in other cases already. Very impressive for a recent decision.

http://canlii.org/eliisa/noteUpSear...anguage=en&searchTitle=2012+ABQB+571+(CanLII)
Click to expand...


I think the most interesting one is this one:

http://canlii.org/canlii-dynamic/en/ns/nspc/doc/2012/2012nspc115/2012nspc115.html#_ftnref5


Before concluding this judgment, I feel it important to note that the submissions by the Crown on this specific application were, in my view, of limited assistance to the Court. The focus of the Crown seemed to be on pigeon-holing Mr. Martin as a category of Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] Litigant, a description adopted by Rooke A.C.J. in Meads v. Meads.[5] While that judgment is of immense benefit to trial Courts in managing cases defended by improperly guided, self-represented or agent-represented parties, it underscores the critical importance of maintaining focus on the merits of the case.[6] The argument adopted by the Crown in its written brief is, in essence, that Mr. Martin, as an OPCA litigant, has brought unmeritorious applications in the past; therefore, his present application should be assessed as being unmeritorious, as well. This is a formal fallacy. The fact that Mr. Martin has previously made unsupportable applications, does not mean that the Court must dismiss axiomatically every application he might bring on in the future.
Click to expand...


It reminds the courts that simply claiming the defendant is an OPCA isn't a slam dunk, the case still needs to be decided on its merits. References to OPCAs certainly can be beneficial (see the other citations, at least one of which doesn't even deal with Freemen!), but fundamentally, the Courts are still trying to determine the truth, and come to just rulings.

Which of course just points out how flawed the whole Freeman notion of the courts actually is. They're really not monolithic tools of oppression created to destroy the lives of honest people for the benefits of some ill-defined "elite".
 
Horatius said:
Which of course just points out how flawed the whole Freeman notion of the courts actually is. They're really not monolithic tools of oppression created to destroy the lives of honest people for the benefits of some ill-defined "elite".
Click to expand...

Right. That's just an unintended side effect.

Not wholly unwelcome, unless you're unlucky enough to be in the honest, rather than the elite, camp.

(Just kidding, obviously.)
 
D'rok said:
It's got at least 7 citations in other cases already. Very impressive for a recent decision.

http://canlii.org/eliisa/noteUpSear...anguage=en&searchTitle=2012+ABQB+571+(CanLII)
Click to expand...


I'm aware of a couple more citations that are not listed on CanLII:

The latter is quite interesting as the judgment seems to be the first instance where a non-Canadian or appellate court has accepted and applied Meads v. Meads. And I had no idea that the Channel Islands had their own complete judicial apparatus, and apparently refuse to share with one another!

Chaetognath
 
Chaetognath said:
I'm aware of a couple more citations that are not listed on CanLII:

The latter is quite interesting as the judgment seems to be the first instance where a non-Canadian or appellate court has accepted and applied Meads v. Meads. And I had no idea that the Channel Islands had their own complete judicial apparatus, and apparently refuse to share with one another!

Chaetognath
Click to expand...
I seem to remember encountering Mr Vibert's nonsense previously. I think he, or possibly one of his cohorts, popped up on Icke a while ago making fantastical claims about parking offenses.

The Island of Jersey has my sympathy: they seem to have a least three FMOTLers busily wasting public resources...
 
LordEd said:
I see my little venture to visit the GOODF was noted here. Its amazing how 'truth seekers' get a little uptight when you start asking targeted questions that have answers that can't fit into their ideals.

This quote that they often use is amusing for a few reasons. First, I have clearly won according to it. I didn't achieve anything during the visit, but a win nonetheless. Second, in true freeman fashion, fact checking would point out that there is no clear evidence that this was actually said by Gandhi. Wikipedia lists it as disputed.

I also must be onto something because of the degree of resistance and attempts to suppress my opinion. I think I had 3 accounts corrupted during my visit as well as a possible IP ban (site doesn't work at one location now for some reason).
Click to expand...

I did enjoy your posts on GOODF, although I couldn't help but notice the responses you got - the posters just seem so brainwashed into the whole "banks are evil, courts are evil, money doesn't exist" point of view that they are incapable of responding without resorting to abuse if you ask any complicated questions. And yet they call us "brainwashed" for daring to have an independant thought that wasn't suggested by Veronica Chapman or Mary Croft.

Yeesh.

Is your thread still there? I looked for it but couldn't find it anywhere...
 
Chaetognath said:
I'm aware of a couple more citations that are not listed on CanLII:

The latter is quite interesting as the judgment seems to be the first instance where a non-Canadian or appellate court has accepted and applied Meads v. Meads. And I had no idea that the Channel Islands had their own complete judicial apparatus, and apparently refuse to share with one another!

Chaetognath
Click to expand...

The second one is also a classic freeman outcome. Get some parking tickets, wind up spending two weeks in jail. And he still appeals the matter. Imagine the kind of spare time you must have on your hands to not simply pay the parking ticket.
 
Some of them are there. Some were erased. The last round where I had somebody actually state that they no longer use credit was erased.

I don't think I asked complicated questions. I tried to break it down into simple questions. They couldn't answer. They can only answer complicated questions with complicated answers that are difficult to trace and require extended time to disprove.

I've determined through my discussions there that the participants are either incapable or unwilling to understand abstract concepts.

The "create money" idea is one. Its true in a way that banks 'create' money. Fractional reserve banking is one of those complicated things. But they forget the part that the money eventually has to be re-paid in order to destroy it. The money isn't 'just created' in that it is balanced against a debt. Not paying that debt doesn't mean they can print more money.

They can't 'see' it as a physical operation (hand over the bag of gold/silver), so it must not exist. I notice they have utilities and phone services on there as well. Same idea. They can't see the utility do any work, so there is no reason to pay.

I had to pull teeth to get one of them to explain something simple. It took several pages for them to arrange a simple person to person transaction.

If a person is unable to explain something in their own words, then it's a red flag to it not being true. Memorization is not understanding.

Another round went with one of them actually showing concern about a plumber self-employed friend not getting paid for a contract. Nobody could answer at what threshold of a company is it 'right' to not pay. A 'simple' question of ethics.
 
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=47967

Here's some fantastic advice from GOODF for anyone who receives a Claim Form:

If you are contacted by NCCBC or NCCTEC they send a bundle of papers and among this is something called an "Acknowledgement of Service" which they ask you to fill in, this is another way of gaining your consent to act in the matter and nothing else. By refusing to fill it in you are denying them consent to act in the matter which means they can't act as you haven't consented to their services.

If you send the entire bundle back to them untouched and send a letter clearly stating that you have not consented to their services and never will consent to their services, they cannot act.

Don't get caught out by the clever wording and the other paperwork which acts to confuse you so you sign and consent to their services.
Click to expand...


It betrays such a shocking lack of understanding of the Court Process, the Civil Procedure Rules, the Law of Contract... oh, I could go on. I'm sure you get the message.
 
The Palmernator said:
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=47967

Here's some fantastic advice from GOODF for anyone who receives a Claim Form:




It betrays such a shocking lack of understanding of the Court Process, the Civil Procedure Rules, the Law of Contract... oh, I could go on. I'm sure you get the message.
Click to expand...

Totally not a lawyer or anything but I would guess that "Acknowledgement of service" is simply you letting them know that you received the paper work. If they decide take it to court you can't say "I had no idea about this, I was never served" to get the case thrown out (at least temporarily).

If ANYTHING their best bet to prolong the amount of time before they get slapped down by the court would be to NOT SEND ANYTHING back. Then at least they may have to physically send someone out to you. If you send it back with a letter saying you don't consent, would that be functionally equivalent of acknowledgment of service?
 
JLord said:
The second one is also a classic freeman outcome. Get some parking tickets, wind up spending two weeks in jail. And he still appeals the matter. Imagine the kind of spare time you must have on your hands to not simply pay the parking ticket.
Click to expand...

It isn't really spare time if you spend 0% of your time being gainfully employed.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
Totally not a lawyer or anything but I would guess that "Acknowledgement of service" is simply you letting them know that you received the paper work. If they decide take it to court you can't say "I had no idea about this, I was never served" to get the case thrown out (at least temporarily).

If ANYTHING their best bet to prolong the amount of time before they get slapped down by the court would be to NOT SEND ANYTHING back. Then at least they may have to physically send someone out to you. If you send it back with a letter saying you don't consent, would that be functionally equivalent of acknowledgment of service?
Click to expand...


Back in the day when I worked as a paralegal in a paralegal firm (as opposed to for the government like I do now) I did a lot of service of doucments for the firm and for clients. We used a thing called an "Affidavit of Service" which let the court know we either gave the documents to the person named in the action, an apparently adult person at that address who promised to give them to the appropriate person, posted the documents on the front door (I liked to position it so you had to move said documents to access the door lock), or that you had sent them by registered mail. And now you can even serve by fax or email in some jurisdictions with the permission of the court.
 
If ANYTHING their best bet to prolong the amount of time before they get slapped down by the court would be to NOT SEND ANYTHING back.
Click to expand...
Correct, debt collection firms tend to just write letters to last known addresses of debtors, the easiest way to keep them at bay is to just ignore the letters and phone calls.
The debt collectors are just looking for a hook.
I often wondered if this "Return to Sender" garbage was concocted by a debt collection agency.
Once you send it back they know you live there. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom