The Freeman Movement and England

[dafydd]

Nice to know that she didn't die in vain.

Tony Hancock!

 

[Stacey Grove]

I must share this gem with you.
Jayen 4 on TPUC is on benefits and has received a fine due to having no MoT on her car.
She writes:

Well,apparently,they think that they can do whatever the **** they want !! I got a FPN for no MoT on the car...didn't pay it,so they increased it to £90...still didn't pay it.... In fact I A4V'd their 'invioce'. I gave them full instructions on what to do to claim their 'money',but they weren't having it. They sent it back twice,then put an attachment on my dole money...£5 a week ! If it wasn't for the fact that I'm getting council tax and housing benefit too,I would have signed off immediately ! THEN there woulda been a fight ! **** the lot of 'em !!
That jail option doesn't sound so bad tho'.....cost them more than it's worth to them,eh ??

See, she nearly threatened to stop receiving those nasty benefits.

 

[carlitos]

A FOTL "on the dole," go figure. It's almost as if ... never mind.

 

[gtm]

I must share this gem with you.
Jayen 4 on TPUC is on benefits and has received a fine due to having no MoT on her car.
She writes:



See, she nearly threatened to stop receiving those nasty benefits.

I'm not a specialist in criminal law but could A4V'ing be seen as an attempt to commit fraud?

 

[BobHaulk]

I must share this gem with you.
Jayen 4 on TPUC is on benefits and has received a fine due to having no MoT on her car.
She writes:



See, she nearly threatened to stop receiving those nasty benefits.

I'm not a specialist in criminal law but could A4V'ing be seen as an attempt to commit fraud?

How can you be a freeman and claim money from the taxpayers, no wait, sorry, i was forgetting, the money comes from their bond. Damn, she's not a hypocrite after all.

 

[jimbob]

How can you be a freeman and claim money from the taxpayers, no wait, sorry, i was forgetting, the money comes from their bond. Damn, she's not a hypocrite after all.

Stupidity isn't a crime

 

[Mojo]

Tony Hancock!

Yet another person with a better grasp of law and procedure than the FOTLers.

HANCOCK: Well, it was a mistake anybody could make.
SIR JASPER WORTHINGTON Q.C.: A mistake? An important murder case and you turn up at the wrong court! You spend three hours making an impassioned plea for a life sentence on a man accused of passing betting slips in Hyde Park!

...

HANCOCK: How dare you! I shall sue you for libel!
SIR JASPER WORTHINGTON Q.C.: Don't you mean 'slander'?
HANCOCK: Do I? Hang on a minute, no I don't, you can't catch me - 'slander' is setting fire to people.

Source: Hancock's Half Hour: "The Crown v James S."

 

[Mojo]

How can you be a freeman and claim money from the taxpayers...

They get to choose which bits of the law they consent to, i.e. they consent to the bits that involve them receiving money but not to the bits that involve them paying.

 

[neocenturion]

I'm not a specialist in criminal law but could A4V'ing be seen as an attempt to commit fraud?

Possibly. The problem with convicting these people of fraud, is they have to be knowingly defrauding someone (please correct me if i'm wrong). If these people wholeheartedly believe that they are using a valid means of payment, then I do not believe they can get them for fraud.

What they CAN do though, is send them for mental health exams prior to trial, which happens in MANY of these FOTL cases. Aftwards they will be ordered to pay their tax, get removed from the dole (English people have such great words! I'm officially starting a campaign to change 'welfare' to 'the dole' in America!), and pay court costs as well.

 

[Mojo]

Possibly. The problem with convicting these people of fraud, is they have to be knowingly defrauding someone (please correct me if i'm wrong). If these people wholeheartedly believe that they are using a valid means of payment, then I do not believe they can get them for fraud.

I'm not sure whether the belief that it was a valid means of payment would have to be "reasonable", in the absence of actual insanity.

 

[Pikachu]

Lovely. Real Law. The Fraud Act 2006 actually applies here.

Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
B
2 Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it
(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without
human intervention).

The key issue here is dishonesty. The Fraud Act specifically adopts the Ghosh test for dishonesty.

The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.

I think most juries (and this would definitely go to a jury (because FMOTL never plead properly so they won't consent to summary trial - so the matter will have to be heard at the Crown Court) would convict. They're never going to believe that the FMOTL genuinely believes this rubbish.

 

[neocenturion]

They're never going to believe that the FMOTL genuinely believes this rubbish.

Good point. I certainly have a hard time believing it. While some of these loonies do seem 100% convinced that this is all true - right down to the birth certificate being a bond nonsense - the vast majority are just looking for a way to skip out on the bill.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Good point. I certainly have a hard time believing it. While some of these loonies do seem 100% convinced that this is all true - right down to the birth certificate being a bond nonsense - the vast majority are just looking for a way to skip out on the bill.

I'm not sure the two are mutually inconsistent. They could be looking for ways to skip out on the bill and conclude that the FOTL method is a legitimate way to do it.

They would still be wrong, but sincere.

 

[gtm]

Lovely. Real Law. The Fraud Act 2006 actually applies here.

Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
B
2 Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it
(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without
human intervention).

The key issue here is dishonesty. The Fraud Act specifically adopts the Ghosh test for dishonesty.


I think most juries (and this would definitely go to a jury (because FMOTL never plead properly so they won't consent to summary trial - so the matter will have to be heard at the Crown Court) would convict. They're never going to believe that the FMOTL genuinely believes this rubbish.

Hahaha

This turning a payment slip into a cheque / A4V 'wheeze' disturbed long lost memories of doing criminal law whilst at law school. I'm surprised the utility companies, local authorites etc haven't called the Police in yet.

 

[Pikachu]

Although they're irritating time-wasters actually proving cases against FMOTL is a doddle.
Because although they go on a lot they never actually put forward a defence. The case I followed the defendant never asked any of the police witnesses any questions; never gave evidence on his own behalf; never called any witnesses; never made any proper submissions as to the law as it related to the evidence...
Basically when the magistrates retired all they had to consider was the unrebutted prosecution case...
Now extend that to the Crown Court. The defendant still won't be represented by a solicitor or barrister (even though both would be legally aided) because they're the embodiment of evil. After the preliminary hearing the Judge will have ordered a psychiatric assessment. When the defendant doesn't co-operate with that he will be remanded in custody for psychiatric assessment. Probably he will be found to be sane so a trial date will be set. Whether or not he gets bail will be down to how badly he has wound the Judge up. I would say there's a 50/50 chance that he's actually serving time for contempt by now (Crown Court Judges don't do tolerant).
Gets to the trial. There will be the usual failure to identify etc; objections to everything. The Judge and the Jury will be late for lunch. Eventually the trial will end up being heard in the defendant's absence (he will be in the cells along with half his supporters, the other half will have been slung out of the building. Anyone who has tried to record proceedings will get about six months - twelve if they get lippy)
Essentially the Crown's case will be unopposed. The Judge will fairmindedly point out to the jury that the prosecution do have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Now that smoking is forbidden in the jury room the defendant will be convicted ten minutes (the minimum time) later.
He will be brought back to court and asked for any mitigation. He will try and raise something extraneous instead. The Judge will conclude that there is no chance of cooperation with a community sentence and send him down.

 

[jimbob]

Although they're irritating time-wasters actually proving cases against FMOTL is a doddle.
Because although they go on a lot they never actually put forward a defence. The case I followed the defendant never asked any of the police witnesses any questions; never gave evidence on his own behalf; never called any witnesses; never made any proper submissions as to the law as it related to the evidence...
Basically when the magistrates retired all they had to consider was the unrebutted prosecution case...
Now extend that to the Crown Court. The defendant still won't be represented by a solicitor or barrister (even though both would be legally aided) because they're the embodiment of evil. After the preliminary hearing the Judge will have ordered a psychiatric assessment. When the defendant doesn't co-operate with that he will be remanded in custody for psychiatric assessment. Probably he will be found to be sane so a trial date will be set. Whether or not he gets bail will be down to how badly he has wound the Judge up. I would say there's a 50/50 chance that he's actually serving time for contempt by now (Crown Court Judges don't do tolerant).
Gets to the trial. There will be the usual failure to identify etc; objections to everything. The Judge and the Jury will be late for lunch. Eventually the trial will end up being heard in the defendant's absence (he will be in the cells along with half his supporters, the other half will have been slung out of the building. Anyone who has tried to record proceedings will get about six months - twelve if they get lippy)
Essentially the Crown's case will be unopposed. The Judge will fairmindedly point out to the jury that the prosecution do have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Now that smoking is forbidden in the jury room the defendant will be convicted ten minutes (the minimum time) later.
He will be brought back to court and asked for any mitigation. He will try and raise something extraneous instead. The Judge will conclude that there is no chance of cooperation with a community sentence and send him down.

Which would be regarded as FOTL victory...

 

[gtm]

Which would be regarded as FOTL victory...

FMOTL'ers look up to those of their bretheren who have done some jail time (although the ones who sell DVD's & 'legal documents' don't seem achieve these 'victories')

 

[jargon buster]

Rob Menard posted this
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058832532#post1058832532

LMAO!

Gawd if you only knew....

Yeap keep watching this forum. Tomorrow I make oath, sign contract and become a sworn Peace Officer. Along with a few others.

Next week I serve documents on certain parties, and a week or two later I will be on the road, in a privately owned unregistered automobile, ready to arrest anyone who attempts to impose statutory controls on myself or other Freemen.

Yeap, had a nice chat yesterday with some peace officers, told them all about it.

So what then asky? Would you consider that to be the end or NOT? And don't you worry our little head, you are a fool, and these things you say cannot happen, because FMOTL is bogus, will prove to all that you are a a huge failure as a human being, and all your beliefs have been and continue to be wring.

Wanna bet I do it? If I do you gonna promise to never post on another forum again?

Please do not answer, your promises like your words are empty, your actions thoughtless, and you go to forums where you know you are not welcomed, and where topics you do not agree with are discussed.

You are a fool and all can see it, especially when the reality is undeniable.

Yeap keep watching this forum.
Me travelling as a Peace Officer in an unregistered vehicle.

That pretty will much settle the issue won't it?

At that point there will be no doubt what kind of fool you are, have always been and will always be.

Yeap Tomorrow I make a stand for a better planet.
What are you going to be doing asky?

I wrote

Dont forget to keep us all updated Rob

PS What if in your role as peace officer someones says "I dont consent to your authourity".
What will you do?

asky

he didnt respond strangely enough

JB/asky

 

[Pikachu]

Although I don't think any of our prisons would ever feature on "America's Hardest Prisons" - they are not very nice places. Especially if you think you know better than everyone else and won't shut up about it. And as at least one of our local FMOTls proclaims that he only lives on purified water and organic fruit and veg...

They can call it victory if they like.

 

[jargon buster]

he only lives on purified water and organic fruit and veg...

That should guarantee him coming out of prison with a ringpiece like a jam doughnut.
And it wont be anything to do with what hes eating

JB/asky