The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
D'rok said:
They took their jobs very seriously and diffused the situation without resorting to violence. Bravo! And bravo also to the old gents working security.

I find it interesting that at no point during the confrontation with security were the magistrates in the courtroom. Of course, for FOTLers, this is a victory - "they left because they couldn't establish jurisdiction!". (Umm...no). The cops, who arrived well after the confrontation with security started, and who appear to have been called in the first place by the FOTLers in the gallery, had to go off-camera and into chambers to talk to the magistrates. Do we know precisely what instructions they received? Of course not. But when has accurate information ever stopped an FOTLer from making claims?

There is no evidence on that video of a police officer refusing an order from a magistrate. There is no evidence in that video of a police officer receiving an order from a magistrate. There is a whole pile of evidence of FOTLers refusing to follow the clerk's instructions, which is not at all the same thing, and of the resulting confusion amongst the old security geezers. This escalates into a mild confrontation with the police and is resolved peacefully.

I think the key point in the video comes when St. Clair gloats that the whole thing cost the Council more than the amount of the tax bill they were trying to collect. Is this the victory? Successful paper terrorism? Apparently so.

Of course, Stephen Barry is still deep in the **** and is liable for his taxes.
Click to expand...
Is that MR STEPHEN BARRY, Mr Stephen Barry, STEPHEN BARRY, stephen barry, stephen of the family barry you're trying to place the legal fiction/person/child of god on? You're not being clear enough with the definition of this person/human/clown, see it's a mine field. I'm off to Dunn and Bradstreet to check the corporation status of this individual,humanoid,slave .
 
BobHaulk said:
Is that MR STEPHEN BARRY, Mr Stephen Barry, STEPHEN BARRY, stephen barry, stephen of the family barry you're trying to place the legal fiction/person/child of god on? You're not being clear enough with the definition of this person/human/clown, see it's a mine field. I'm off to Dunn and Bradstreet to check the corporation status of this individual,humanoid,slave .
Click to expand...
I'd suggest the high street pub would be a better destination and a nice ale a better purpose. Bonus! You can pay with your credit card and use FOTL tactics to avoid the bill later! You, Bob of the Family Haulk, are a flesh and blood human, not a paper strawman slave of the bank!
 
Horatius said:
The problem is, he has addressed this:






He considers the more severe consequences a victory.
Click to expand...

So if they walk out of court free that's a victory(never happened) but if they are taken out in chains that is also a victory.:eek:
 
tsig said:
So if they walk out of court free that's a victory(never happened) but if they are taken out in chains that is also a victory.:eek:
Click to expand...

Phase 1: Play silly-buggers in the courtroom
Phase 2: ???????
Phase 3: Victory!!

Above flow chart is lovingly plagairaized from the Underpants Gnomes, inc. residing beneath South Park, CO.
 
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112022&page=7

Check out this link
Rob Menard has talked himself into a whole world of trouble and the writing may be on the wall.
I challenged him to prove to his minions that he was as he says "A freeman not bound bu statute law" to make a film driving around in an untaxed uninsured unregistered car whilst smoking weed until the police stopped him and then film the result of him claiming statutes do not apply and driving away a free man

Just look how he deals with it :D

JB/ asky
 
jargon buster said:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112022&page=7

Check out this link
Rob Menard has talked himself into a whole world of trouble and the writing may be on the wall.
I challenged him to prove to his minions that he was as he says "A freeman not bound bu statute law" to make a film driving around in an untaxed uninsured unregistered car whilst smoking weed until the police stopped him and then film the result of him claiming statutes do not apply and driving away a free man

Just look how he deals with it :D

JB/ asky
Click to expand...

Like your sig ;)

I think this from Menard is really telling:

Robert-Arthur: Menard said:
As for defense, I WILL USE WHAT EVER LOGICAL AND REASONABLE ARGUMENT I SEE FIT in or out of court. I am not going to be limited to repeating "I am a Freeman and that statute does not apply to me." Having accepted my challenge, you do not limit or control HOW I act. If I claim I can cross a field faster than a bull, and then you say prove it but you must do it while carrying this anchor... well then it becomes a different story.
Click to expand...

That's a straight-up admission that he will simply try to make legal arguments where he thinks it is to his advantage, and FOTL arguments where he thinks he can get away with it. He knows that he can't rely on the crap that he promotes.

He is a transparent fraud and a pathetic hypocrite.
 
I came across all this nonsense last July when I was trawling the net and spent some time on TPUC/FMOTL and Ickes digging around asking uncomfortable questions and recieved multiple bans.
It made me determined to expose the charlatans behind it.
TPUC is now virtually numb as the mods are questioning every new member and threatening to ban anybody with a different viewpoint (FMOTL dont even let you ask question without banning you :rolleyes:)
Ickes are continually putting me on warning when I get close to the truth.
Merlincove the moderator is so far up Robs arse its disgraceful.
I would love to be a fly on the wall reading their PMs.
Yozhick is missing at the moment as he normally trys to bail out Menard, maybe he feels hes cooked his goose this time.

asky
 
jargon buster said:
I came across all this nonsense last July when I was trawling the net and spent some time on TPUC/FMOTL and Ickes digging around asking uncomfortable questions and recieved multiple bans.
It made me determined to expose the charlatans behind it.
TPUC is now virtually numb as the mods are questioning every new member and threatening to ban anybody with a different viewpoint (FMOTL dont even let you ask question without banning you :rolleyes:)
Ickes are continually putting me on warning when I get close to the truth.
Merlincove the moderator is so far up Robs arse its disgraceful.
I would love to be a fly on the wall reading their PMs.
Yozhick is missing at the moment as he normally trys to bail out Menard, maybe he feels hes cooked his goose this time.

asky
Click to expand...

The moderator on the Icke form (merlincove, I think is the screen name) is working proactively to get anyone banned who is asking "tough questions" they cannot answer. It won't be long before the only people left on there is Menard and his choir.
 
jargon buster said:
I came across all this nonsense last July when I was trawling the net and spent some time on TPUC/FMOTL and Ickes digging around asking uncomfortable questions and recieved multiple bans.
It made me determined to expose the charlatans behind it.
TPUC is now virtually numb as the mods are questioning every new member and threatening to ban anybody with a different viewpoint (FMOTL dont even let you ask question without banning you :rolleyes:)
Ickes are continually putting me on warning when I get close to the truth.
Merlincove the moderator is so far up Robs arse its disgraceful.
I would love to be a fly on the wall reading their PMs.
Yozhick is missing at the moment as he normally trys to bail out Menard, maybe he feels hes cooked his goose this time.

asky
Click to expand...

I'd never heard of it until a couple of them showed up here last year. Of all the conspiracy madness out there, I think FOTL mythology has the greatest potential to really harm people.
 
lightindarkness wrote
It won't be long before the only people left on there is Menard and his choir.
Click to expand...
I think thats the intention
TPUC are now banning everyone with a different viewpoint.
With the "harming people" quote D'ROK.
I fear you are right.
So many are now up **** creek because of the likes of Menard and Harris.

JB
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for improper masking of profanity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frankly, we're lucky they're using ANY legal source and not something like the Star Trek Technical Manual.
 
I'm living in the hope there's a slim chance of getting them to see some sort of sense. I know, I know, I'm a hopeless idealist.
 
Sledge said:
I'm living in the hope there's a slim chance of getting them to see some sort of sense. I know, I know, I'm a hopeless idealist.
Click to expand...

Ok, there were a link uptread to one who had started wondering about the lack of success. So there could be a chance of one coming to his senses.:)
 
I fear that for me that was more than counterbalanced by tobjai's "even if we lose, we win" statement. If they're really of the mentality that being thrown in jail over a couple of hundred quid in owed council tax is a victory, there isn't much hope.
 
This is Rob Menards latest reply to the little scenario I offered him about driving an uninsured untaxed deregisted vehicle around whilst smoking weed

I thought he had taken the time to sober up before writing this but Im not sure

I do not think this confusion you have would exist if when I was sharing my perspectives, they were not immediately attacked, and were examined first.

Instead of saying, oh you pick and choose, you could ask, well how do you determine which are and are nto applicable?

If I say applicable and non-applicable, and you hear, immune, and attack for that, there is never much communication there is there?

Now, let us look at the use of pubic roads.

As it is just about everybody has a DL and feels they need one. They have also not read the Act. I have and I deconstructed it.

Now my position is, that I do not need a DL to exercise my common law right to travel. The MVA is NOT APPLICABLE to me, for I am not engaging in the activities governed by it.

Now let us suppose I swish to operate a taxi, on PUBLIC HIGHWAYS without license or permit? Could I do that? NO. I would be using public property for my own profit and sharing none, and that is against some of my biggest internal guide posts. It is a form of theft. However if I am not driving, but only traveling, then they do not apply.

People who think I am picking and choosing willy nilly as it suits me fail to distinguish and discern and have never truly even tried to understand my perspective. Is the confusion and lack of common ground not what one would expect if when sharing a perspective you are attacked without regard for your position or what you are TRYING to say?

If I am hunting in the bush for sustenance, I will not be getting a license. Some might feel I require it, certainly the CO's who enforce the Act. However it is not applicable to me in that situation, but I am not immune to it, for if I wanted to make money acting as a hunting guide, or by hunting and selling, then I would feel the need for a license.



If someone tales a custom, and codifies it and puts it in an Act, and you do what you customarily do without regard for the Act, can they now claim you obeyed the Act and thus are subject to them? I ORDER YOU ALL TO GO TO SLEEP WITHIN 72 HOURS. SEE NOW WHEN YO WAKE UP, I WILL BE IN CHARGE OF YOU. Silly right? A communities right to control commerce on the highway is long custom, and goes back BEFORE the Act. So recognizing the custom, is not the same as bowing to the Act, even if the Act mentions the custom.


Now a lot of people are ignorantly tricked into becoming subject to an Act which they could have easily avoided. I have seen how they trick and will engage in an activity that is apparently against an Act, but I will establish it is not. Thus we will see a number of things.

Deception is used in the penning of those statutes.
Police are ignorant as to the limits of their authority.
They require our consent.


Now if I was engaging in an activity that was profiting from the use of commons, I would feel the need for regulation and licensing, and I would likely operate under existing legislation. But what I do not feel, is the need to have permission to use the commons for private purposes. And since I do not use the road for commercial activities, I do not need a license to travel.

That is what I call the distinction between immunity and applicability.
NOW INSTEAD OF ARGUING ABOUT the words used to describe a concept and a difference, accept the concept exists and that these are suitable words for our purposes, or find better that we can agree upon.


How about this. Instead of being so argumentative and contrary, you share with uys your words, to describe these concepts, if you can.

Immunity or ______________________ would be the right to operate a taxi on the highway without license and to profit from the use of the public roads without paying the public for the use of their roads.


Non - applicability or __________________ would be the right to travel on the highway privately and not be subject to the Act that governs public because you have distinguished between traveling and driving and you are not doing the later.

Can you distinguish between these two concepts and then share with us what words you would use, if these are unacceptable? You know so we can aoid needless argument. Or does the concept itself escape your grasp?

As we can see, it is a result of reason and logic, not mere emotional attachment to a long held paradigm, and if many of you people would put more energy into trying to understand what the other is saying, and not attacking the other first and automatically, which causes them to go on defensive, suffer frustration, and lose communication clarity.

I am sorry if I did not express my position better and those who thought I claimed 'immunity' may want to look at their own communication abilities. When the position was raised, did you examine it truthfully and without fear, or did you attack the messenger? Had you done so, a process of discussion and sharing would have taken place, and this confusion would not have resulted.

Applicability of an Act is a function of consent.
Use of the commons for private purposes is not licensed. I refer to roads.
Use of the roads for profit generating purposes is an activity that the public can lawfully regulate, regardless of statute and has been long customary. Since I do not seek to do the latter, the Act is not applicable. If I did seek to do the latter , I would not have an argument against proper regulation, not that I believe it exists now. (Especially when it is things like liquor or pub licenses, its is an old boys club used to exclude others. )


Imagine germs.
Immunity means you can breathe them in and not be affected.
Non-applicability means you are wearing a mask but if you did breathe them in, you would be affected.

I find it funny how some of you equate seeking and accepting greater personal responsibility, and no longer blindly following Acts with abandoning morals, or breaking the law and joining a cult.

I find it funny how you purposely seek to avoid a perspective, and seek to shout down those who bring perspectives not already accepted and embraced and reject it outright, and then failing to see it for what it truly is, you label it as something it is not.

If I apply for some benefit under some Act, I am bound by that Act.
However I am not bound to apply, and if I do not, I am not bound.

Immunity would imply that I can collect the benefits and never bear the burdens.
Non-applicability, means I am not collecting the benefits, and therefore cannot be forced to shoulder the burdens.

Unless of course you have better words to describe these concepts. If so share them. If not, then your contention is uselessly argumentative, and as always, you can easily criticize but cannot add anything of real value to this discussion.

As for the challenge, how about this.

It will be clearly, specifically and unequivocally established that we have the common law right to travel in British Columbia and Alberta, and it will be established that I exercise that right regularly and with the knowledge of the local constabulary, and the holders of highest offices in the government.

How I do that is entirely up to me.

Whether I achieve my goal I will leave entirely up to you.

I trust that I can achieve something that even the staunchest naysayer will not be able to deny without being seen as the biggest git on the planet.

Or did you want to play hide the truth more?
Click to expand...
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112022&page=22
asky
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom