The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
tobjai said:
Wrong! The answer will be "Mr. John Doe is here in my hand, for and on the record" as the lay adviser holds up the birth certificate of the addressed legal fiction.
Click to expand...

And Mr. John Doe will be recorded as not present, and will be arrested later on a warrant of non-appearance. Which in fact is exactly what happens in the video, as you admit:

-Bailiff: "Can I ask Mr. Stephen Barry to identify himself?"
-Lay adviser: "I'm the lay agent of Stephen Barry. Stephen Barry is present in the court represented by the legal fiction - the birth certificate. "
-Bailiff quite blatant: "Is the Person Stephen Barry here?"
-Lay adviser: "That IS the legal Person, Sir."
-Bailiff to Magistrate: "We do not appear to have the respondent in court"
-Magistrate asks all those who are seated to leave the court. Nobody leaves.
-Lay adviser asks if him and his crowd is in contempt.
-Magistrate only repeats the previous request. Nobody leaves.
-Magistrate now tries with "contempt of court" despite of not having jurisdiction.
-Magistrates throws the towel and abandons the court for the last time.
-Lay adviser: "The court takes judicial notice that the magistrates have abandoned the court. I am therefore the highest authority in this court room and therefore we dismiss the case."
Click to expand...
The video cuts out at this point, so there is no evidence whether the case was actually dismissed (hint: it wasn't) or whether the lay adviser and other FOTLers were ignored as just playing a bunch of silly buggers (hint: it was the latter). Barry is now recorded as having not shown up in court despite having been summoned. A warrant was likely later issued for his arrest; the usual proceeding in these cases.

All the pretense of the magistrate having "abandoned the court" and "not having jurisdiction" is so much nonsense, of course. And yet again we have a video displaying no evidence to support the assertions; no evidence whatsoever that Mr Barry's charges were dismissed or that he was allowed to not appear in court.

Seriously. Is this sort of rubbish the best FOTL can do? It's no wonder so many of you end up in jail.
 
tobjai said:
Huh?? What are you trying to prove with this link containing all these posts by "Father"? I don't care about who Ray St Clair is. All I care about is what happened in this court room, which was a clear defeat of the legal mafia and a clear statement by the constables!

But when I read through all these posts I'm not surprised that all of you are such vigorous defenders of the system. Turns out, most of you either work in some sort of court position or study law with the prospect applying the deceitfulness later on. Aren't I right "Pikachu"?... BTW, I never said you can get away with total silence. If a "Person" is ordered to court, the legal fiction has to be produce on the given date and location.
Click to expand...

That was quite the song and dance in that video. Does the end result matter at all to you? In the end, did the FOTLer successfully avoid liability for his council tax?

No. No he didn't. Fail.

It is terribly amusing the weight you loons put onto isolated bits of courtroom interaction and post-hoc commentary. Do you honestly believe that you have achieved recognition of FOTL status with this stuff? All you succeed in doing is creating chaos in the courtroom and pissing off the judge.

Sad.

Reminiscent of Menard showing off the mailing address on his envelope.
 
remirol said:
And Mr. John Doe will be recorded as not present, and will be arrested later on a warrant of non-appearance. Which in fact is exactly what happens in the video, as you admit:

The video cuts out at this point, so there is no evidence whether the case was actually dismissed (hint: it wasn't) or whether the lay adviser and other FOTLers were ignored as just playing a bunch of silly buggers (hint: it was the latter). Barry is now recorded as having not shown up in court despite having been summoned. A warrant was likely later issued for his arrest; the usual proceeding in these cases.

All the pretense of the magistrate having "abandoned the court" and "not having jurisdiction" is so much nonsense, of course. And yet again we have a video displaying no evidence to support the assertions; no evidence whatsoever that Mr Barry's charges were dismissed or that he was allowed to not appear in court.

Seriously. Is this sort of rubbish the best FOTL can do? It's no wonder so many of you end up in jail.
Click to expand...
Yup. And Stephen Barry's life is ruined while St. Clair adds another notch to his con-belt.
 
Apparently Tobjai is totally unaware of the ability of people to fool themsleves into thinking what they want to do is "the right thing", despite what their real motives are.
 
If you take the trouble to read my previous posts I have described a recent occasion on which a FOTL tried the (silly by anyone's standards) holding up the birth certificate as an answer and a warrant was issued. He (for it was he) and his protesting courtiers were slung out of the courtroom sharpish and arrested.
I know of at least one other example recently and locally. These don't turn up on those pathetic "success story" threads.
Did you read the account I posted of the chap whose chances of rehabilitation were blown by this nonsense? I'm sure it's a great comfort to him in his cell. Waving his birth certificate did him no good and plenty of bad.
Then there was the chap last week who tried it at his trial - and was totally ignored. Trial part-heard now.
This is reality not your strange form of role-playing (the one with inconsistent rules and appalling DMs).
 
@tobjai

Do you have any empathy at all for the lives that are damaged by this scam? The consequences of relying on advice from the likes of St. Clair and Menard are uniformly awful. Who wins besides those two and others like them? Doesn't this bother you at all?
 
Pantaz said:
(Emphasis added)

Let's think about that -- "they are their own authority".

Really, let that sink in for a moment.

Think about the HUGE implications if that were true.
Click to expand...

YES. On an individual level, every Freeman is his own author.
 
tobjai said:
Huh?? What are you trying to prove with this link containing all these posts by "Father"? I don't care about who Ray St Clair is. All I care about is what happened in this court room, which was a clear defeat of the legal mafia and a clear statement by the constables!.
Click to expand...

Ray St. Clair was the principle "lay advisor" jackass in that video. He was the one personally destroying Stephen Barry's life. His actions lead to the liability order against Barry, which looks like it will have to collected by bailiffs. St. Clair suffers no consequences and is using this "success" to promote his FOTL business, while Barry is in serious trouble. All over a tax bill of 308 pounds.

Sad.

Does this bother you at all?
 
I have never gotten a good explanation of where the FMOTL think laws come from.
Just some hand waving about natural and/or god given.

Could you tell me who writes down the laws, and decide e.g. if something should be written in blue, red, or purple ink, and at what angle?
 
Quick summary of the latest video:

- Mr. Stephen Barry doesn't show up for his court date regarding his failure to pay Council Tax
- Instead, sends Ray St. Clair (the British Robert Menard) and a birth certificate to do the usual FOTLer routine
- The result: a summary judgment and a liability order against Barry
- St. Clair edits the video, narrates it, and uses it as propaganda to lure other numpties to his cause/business

Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
And of course this:
-Lay adviser to Security: "Sir, if you lay finger on my I will sue you for assault under common law".
-Security (looking at the Bailiff): "Can he do that?"
-Bailiff keeps silent!
Click to expand...

...and that...
-Again the Bailiff asks for those who not stand to leave or be removed from the room.
-The constables honour their oaths by NOT responding to these "orders".
Click to expand...

doesn't matter. I'm done here.
 
Toke said:
I have never gotten a good explanation of where the FMOTL think laws come from.
Just some hand waving about natural and/or god given.

Could you tell me who writes down the laws, and decide e.g. if something should be written in blue, red, or purple ink, and at what angle?
Click to expand...

This bit of poetry from Suddenly captures it quite nicely:

The "common law" just is, like the shape of a circle, like the beauty of a rose, like the taste of honey, like the thrill of victory, like the agony of defeat, like the four sides of a square, like the... ummm... infinite reach of human stupidity. It is innate to all existence and obviously known to all except the hopelessly corrupt.

Judges discover common law, the same way the mathematician discovers the value of pi. A seemingly obscure distinction, but essential in understanding the base theoretical underpinnings of freepers. Law is not created by judges, just discovered.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5163241#post5163241
 
Last edited:
tobjai said:
You guys are one lost cause... many of you probably in the legal business trying to defend the shaky house of cards.



Wrong! The answer will be "Mr. John Doe is here in my hand, for and on the record" as the lay adviser holds up the birth certificate of the addressed legal fiction.



You must have been watching a whole different video OR you are trying to obscure it.

This is what actually happened:

-Magistrates fails to gain jurisdiction... take off without notice then come back (2x)
-Layman repeats: "I claim common law jurisdiction sir"
-Bailiff: "Leave the court please, or I'll have you arrested"
-Layman: "Sir, are you here on your oath today?"
-Bailiff: "Security to court No.1 please"
"Those of you who wish to remain, stand please. Those who do not wish to remain will leave the court with security"
-Layman over and over: "Are you on oath today, sir?"
-Magistrate: "You have no right to address this court"
-Bailiff: "Everybody who's sitting will leave the court please".
-Lay adviser: "Are you refusing to say you're on oath madam, sir? Then we'll call a constable and have you arrested".
-Bailiff to security: "The magistrate has ordered this man to be removed"
-Lay adviser explains that neither the bailiff nor the magistrate have authority as they didn't gain jurisdiction.
-Lay adviser to Security: "Sir, if you lay finger on my I will sue you for assault under common law".
-Security (looking at the Bailiff): "Can he do that?"
-Bailiff keeps silent!
-Bailiff then repeats the request to have the guy removed.
-Lay adviser: "The magistrates have not offered their oath!"
-Security: "The police has already been called".
-Lay adviser repeats to Security multiple times not to touch him and honour their oath. "Please don't touch me! You are not authorized to touch me and I do not consent to be touched"
-Court usher calls the police.
-Lay adviser then retrieves the birth certificate, which is the legal person that was summonsed to appear in court
-Security makes peace with the lay adviser.
-Police arrive.
-Lay adviser: "Allegedly someone is purporting to be the magistrate"
-Lay adviser also explains to the constable that he had asked for the magistrates oath and that there was no breach of the peace.
-Lay adviser asks the constable to honour his oath.
-Constable concurs and therefore now acts as a peace officer.
-Constable requests his men to stand down via radio.
-A Sergeant however believes that the court belongs to the magistrates.
-Layman: "I have the lawful right in common law to prove that the person who gave that order has the lawful right to give that order, by seeing their oath."
-Lay adviser asks for the written order from the magistrates, to be produced before he leaves the court.
-Sergeant agrees and goes to get the order.
-Comes back without the written order.
-Sergeant tries again... no written order
-'Mr. Steven Barry' once again is produced in court for and on the record.
-Bailiff: Is anyone in this court room prepared to identify themselves as "Mr. Steven Barry"?
-Lay adviser: "Steven Barry has been present for and on the record. "
-Bailiff: "Nobody in this room now is Mr. Stephen Barry?"
-Lay adviser: "Would you like me to bring Mr. Stephen Barry to the court sir?"
-Bailiff: "I'm going to call him one more time in the tannoy, Stephen Barry"
-Lay adviser: "Sir, I've presented Stephen Barry to the court"
-Again the Bailiff asks for those who not stand to leave or be removed from the room.
-The constables honour their oaths by NOT responding to these "orders".
-Bailiff: "You've been asked to leave the court. I've called Stephen Barry"
-Lay adviser repeats: "Stephen Barry is in the court sir"
-Another attempt by the lay adviser to get a written order.
-Constable goes to the magistrate to try again for a written order.
-Lay adviser: "I'm now recovering Mr. Stephen Barry from the court".
-Lawyer: "Where is he?"
-Lay adviser holds up the birth certificate: "This is Mr. Stephen Barry right here"
-Sergeant comes back for the last time with no written order.
-Bailiff: "Mr. Steven Barry to court one please"
-Lay adviser: "Are you able to witness that I've presented Mr. Stephen Barry to the court?"
-For the 3rd time "Mr. Steven Barry" is produced in court for and on the record.
-Once again those the magistrates are denied jurisdiction as the people stay seated.
-Bailiff: "Can I ask Mr. Stephen Barry to identify himself?"
-Lay adviser: "I'm the lay agent of Stephen Barry. Stephen Barry is present in the court represented by the legal fiction - the birth certificate. "
-Bailiff quite blatant: "Is the Person Stephen Barry here?"
-Lay adviser: "That IS the legal Person, Sir."
-Bailiff to Magistrate: "We do not appear to have the respondent in court"
-Magistrate asks all those who are seated to leave the court. Nobody leaves.
-Lay adviser asks if him and his crowd is in contempt.
-Magistrate only repeats the previous request. Nobody leaves.
-Magistrate now tries with "contempt of court" despite of not having jurisdiction.
-Magistrates throws the towel and abandons the court for the last time.
-Lay adviser: "The court takes judicial notice that the magistrates have abandoned the court. I am therefore the highest authority in this court room and therefore we dismiss the case."

So much for your "silly-buggers, and a bunch of obnoxious people being removed from the courtroom and [..] the predictable cut-out.".
Nobody removed and no cut-out my dear Silly-bugger!


But to keep it quite simple, all the arrogance portrayed in this forum should be silenced with the two lines that I have typed out in bold.
Click to expand...

Horatius said:
And this is one of the weaknesses (or strengths, if you're not a whack job) of our system that these guys exploit. The courts will usually bend over backwards to allow people to have the time they need to present a proper defense. These delays, which have no real impact on the application of the law, are taken as "victories" by the whack jobs, who never seem to follow up on what happens later.

Notice in that thread, his last update was over a month ago. Is his mother still in jail? Was the case dismissed? Why hasn't he said anything about what's happened since that court date?
Click to expand...



Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I rest my case.
 
tobjai said:
Huh?? What are you trying to prove with this link containing all these posts by "Father"? I don't care about who Ray St Clair is. All I care about is what happened in this court room, which was a clear defeat of the legal mafia and a clear statement by the constables!

But when I read through all these posts I'm not surprised that all of you are such vigorous defenders of the system. Turns out, most of you either work in some sort of court position or study law with the prospect applying the deceitfulness later on. Aren't I right "Pikachu"?... BTW, I never said you can get away with total silence. If a "Person" is ordered to court, the legal fiction has to be produce on the given date and location.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how, as this goes along and every post you make is shown to be devoid of evidence, you are sounding more and more paranoid? Now everyone debunking you must be "in on it" by working in the legal profession or be law students!

No. Although we have a few lawyers here, the vast majority have no legal background. They just spot FOTL for the myth that it is.

There is no such thing as a "legal fiction" as you believe it to be. There is no difference between a person and a human being.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom