The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Freemanisim in a nutshell, if no one is going to be able to squeeze a penny out of you, and the charge is small, your probably going to get off, not because your a freeman, but because it just isn't worth the trouble. But when it comes to things that are, houses, large debts, criminal actions, you can be sure someone is going to knock you into next week, legally of course.
Click to expand...
I wrote on freeman forums 2 years ago that the easiest way to become a freeman was to become a hobo, if you have nothing the state will leave you alone, hell they will occasionally give you a bed and a meal.
Police tend to leave tramps pretty much well alone, and if the police leave you alone then the state will probably never get to hear about you.
 
jargon buster said:
I wrote on freeman forums 2 years ago that the easiest way to become a freeman was to become a hobo, if you have nothing the state will leave you alone, hell they will occasionally give you a bed and a meal.
Police tend to leave tramps pretty much well alone, and if the police leave you alone then the state will probably never get to hear about you.
Click to expand...

A friend from HS decided to live a 'simple' life and did that in California from 1973 to 2005. No one (government wise) ever bother him but feral dogs, marijane growers and the occassional tourist. As a matter of fact he became quite friendly with the Forest Service and local sheriffs.
 
jargon buster said:
victory is being claimed already on freedomrebels




heres the link but it will only be valid for a while as its a blog page and the posts work their way off
http://www.freedomrebels.co.uk/
Click to expand...
Horatius said:
The Courts taking pity on a crazy old man should not be mistaken as giving licence to obnoxious young men to start pulling whatever **** they'd like to pull.
Click to expand...


They say that the sentence was quashed, but don't seem to have noticed that a sentence of 12 weeks was substituted, and that the judge observed that a six month sentence would have been "entirely appropriate in the case of a younger and fitter man".
 
Last edited:
the new freeman/freeloader excuse for not paying back debts
Well if you gave me 7K even though I told you I cant pay it back, then thats called giving stuff away not theft...... Just like a bank giving you 7K, even though you have no proof of income because your self employed, the bank knows full well that it has a duty to lend responsibly to avoid this kind of issue.......

Unless the OP lied on his application which i doubt because he sounds sincere and ignorant then its not his fault that the bank was very generous to him and so no offence has been committed here other than irresponsible lending by the bank, time for another bail out eh or shall we just call the ombudsman and report the bank as its this kind of sloppy banking that brought this country's economy to its knees!......
Click to expand...
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060198943&postcount=40

So its the banks fault now :rolleyes:
 
...and I suppose the promise-to-repay contract really wasn't a contract because the bank should have known better (and it wasn't on robin egg blue paper).
 
Just to prove that freemen are an honourable bunch, the latest post suggest a visit to getoutofdebtfree, which pretends to show you how to "Lawfully, Honestly and Truthfully" behave like a cheap scrounging crook.

They do, however, in listing their scam, provide an overview of the usual stupid arguments.
 
Idiot Yozhiks resurfaced on Ickes with some freeman propaganda
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=183284

Truth is irrelevant in the legal system.

Procedure is the "new God".
Whilst the maxim tells us "equity regards substance over form", the legal system flips this on its head and places form above all else.


In 1993 a death penalty case (Herrera v. Collins) Scalia wrote that a condemned man awaiting execution did not have a right to another trial even if new evidence showed he was actually innocent of the crime. Scalia reasoned that because the condemned man's original trial had been free from procedural error, he'd have to die anyway, guilty or not.
"There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough) for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."
Justice Scalia said the man had no "right to demand." At that point, it was less expensive for the nation to save the man's life than to execute him. But Justice Scalia's decision was more a message to the nation than an exercise in justice: Justice Scalia is telling the nation and the world that in American justice, truth is unimportant in the face of procedure.
There you have it.
Succinct; clear and to the point.

It's so 'perfect', let's revisit it;

a condemned man [...] did not have a right to another trial even if new evidence showed he was actually innocent of the crime [...] because the condemned man's original trial had been free from procedural error, he'd have to die anyway, guilty or not.
Never let the Truth get in the way of a good story ...
__________________
Oh what delicious irony ...
Click to expand...

So the constitution is now against the freeman?
A quick search revealed that Justice Scalia was simply pointing out the flaws within the constitution.
Here is a bit more info on the case in question
http://reason.com/archives/2009/03/02/does-the-constitution-grant-a
This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has entertained the argument that the Constitution prevents the incarceration or execution of the innocent. In the 1993 case Herrera v. Collins, a divided Court denied relief to a Texas man convicted of killing two police officers who claimed new evidence (an affidavit from someone claiming another man confessed to the crimes) conclusively proved his innocence. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that a claim of actual innocence based on evidence discovered after a conviction would need to be “extraordinarily high” to merit a new trial, given the burden such claims would put on the criminal justice system. Herrera’s affidavits, Rehnquist wrote, didn’t meet that standard. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor pointed to the strong evidence of Herrera’s guilt, finding his claim of actual innocence lacking but adding that if someone could prove actual innocence, the Constitution would of course forbid their execution.
Click to expand...

the only evidence they had was an affidavit???

Its true Yozhik, never let the truth get in the way of a good story :)
 
Last edited:
"There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough) for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."
Click to expand...


Well, that's the way precedent in common law works. If judges have decided something in one way in the past, they have to continue doing so. The only way to change it would be by legislation. ;)
 
Pathetic Yozhik resurfaces, no doubt due to the lack of interest in his supremely idiotic pet project that is Ucadia.

If it wasn't for his incredibly unfortunate tone and rampant bigotry, I would find him far more amusing than I do. He has that unique ability, even surpassing Menard's in my view, to never know when to stop. He gets battered on strawmen, but keeps going. Battered on Ucadia; keeps going again. Battered on constitutional law; keeps going again. Battered on how equity and common law work; keeps going once more. Now battered on US law and the death penalty, but rather than read the case in full, you guessed it....

He surely has to be the most dogmatic, intransigent person on any of the FMOTL/conspiracy sites. If there's a stronger candidate, by all means nominate one.

This latest example is priceless - convicted murderer, damning evidence, all reasonable avenues of appeal explored and exhausted, resorts to an appeal which is clearly hopeless. However, to Yozhik the court is wrong for sticking to due process! It's so obvious really - the court should have just ignored everything else proving conclusively that he was guilty and let him off because he said so.

Then again, I suppose that this goes to the heart of the freeman mindset, i.e. "I disagree/don't consent, therefore what I say goes."

Applying his reasoning, I wonder what his position would be if someone stole his PC at knifepoint, maybe assaulted him as well, then was witnessed and filmed escaping the scene (totally damning evidence in other words) but at trial the perpetrator says it wasn't him and gets a hobo who wants a roof over his head to sign a trumped up confession instead. Surely Yozhik would be happy to see the guilty man go free and maybe pop round his house for a second session?


Yozhik gets a new wally badge for that thread.
 
Last edited:
I spoke to a guy attending the court I was working at today. He was only there to make a statutory declaration (some kind of traffic offence), but started spouting off about how he'd been doing some reading up on the recommendation of a friend, and if the proceedings were reinstated, then he wouldn't be too worried because *stream of FOTL feculence*.

Fortunately, by the time court proceedings began, I'd explained that the whole damn thing was the crock to end all crocks, and he had decided to pursue this burgeoning interest no further.

Phew!
 
Pathetic Yozhik resurfaces, no doubt due to the lack of interest in his supremely idiotic pet project that is Ucadia.
Click to expand...
Ucadia, hahahaha, I had forgotten all about that buffoonery.
Brian 'O' Collins had sorted out a peace treaty with God and the Devil and then made up a load of contradictory covenants.
And Yozhik wanted people to try and debunk it????:D

Really, it was like trying to debunk a Monty Python sketch, WHATS THE POINT, IT WAS JUST A JOKE.
 
jargon buster said:
Idiot Yozhiks resurfaced on Ickes with some freeman propaganda
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=183284



So the constitution is now against the freeman?
A quick search revealed that Justice Scalia was simply pointing out the flaws within the constitution.
Here is a bit more info on the case in question
http://reason.com/archives/2009/03/02/does-the-constitution-grant-a


the only evidence they had was an affidavit???

Its true Yozhik, never let the truth get in the way of a good story :)
Click to expand...

I kind of like this bit of 'oversight' on his part.
At that point, it was less expensive for the nation to save the man's life than to execute him
Click to expand...
yet according to the text of the ruling
Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that a claim of actual innocence based on evidence discovered after a conviction would need to be “extraordinarily high” to merit a new trial, given the burden such claims would put on the criminal justice system. Herrera’s affidavits, Rehnquist wrote, didn’t meet that standard
Click to expand...
So Scalia was pointing out that based on the level of the new evidence compared to the evidence that convicted him, the likely result of the new trial would still have been a guilty conviction. I am trying to figure out how it would have been less expensive to require another trial that would likely end up with the same result.
 
cwalner said:
So Scalia was pointing out that based on the level of the new evidence compared to the evidence that convicted him, the likely result of the new trial would still have been a guilty conviction. I am trying to figure out how it would have been less expensive to require another trial that would likely end up with the same result.
Click to expand...

You'll have a job getting to the bottom of that one. Trying to understand Yozhik's 'logic' is generally an impossible and thankless task.

He hasn't yet resorted to wordplay, normally a Yozhik favourite. I'm sure he'll have the dictionary out before long if that thread continues much further. Alternatively, he'll go for misrepresentation of the judgment (oh he's done that one), sweeping inaccurate statements about the 'unjust' legal system (he's touched on that), the Magna Carta or some other archaic document not allowing this, start calling everything which goes against him a "strawman argument" or if all else fails, how Ucadia is the answer (and JB is spot on with that one!).

Give up now, he's beyond help.
 
Last edited:
Yozhiks changing the subject now right on cue cocana
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060208406&postcount=11
As you attest to; this has happened.
Some would argue that police violence and beatings continue to this day.
Ian Tomlinson is a name that instantly springs to mind.

Cast the 'justice' net a little further and the issues of 'rendition', suspension of the Geneva Convention and Guantanamo Bay are top of mind.

Torture and waterboarding become 'process' of 'law and order'.
Nothing like a coerced confession, eh?

But hey; at least 'process' was seen to be done.
Who gives a f*** about the secondary issues of guilt and innocence?
Click to expand...

Now can everyone please forget his idiocy from earlier.
I wonder if he has a homemade "Men in Black" memory wiping pen he aims at the monitor and clicks on peoples avatars. :D
 
jargon buster said:
Yozhiks changing the subject now right on cue cocana
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060208406&postcount=11


Now can everyone please forget his idiocy from earlier.
I wonder if he has a homemade "Men in Black" memory wiping pen he aims at the monitor and clicks on peoples avatars. :D
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up JB. So, he's playing the unjust legal system card and hoping that the change of tack conveniently overlooks the idiocy of the premise behind his thread. Typical Yozhik once again.
 
cocana said:
You'll have a job getting to the bottom of that one. Trying to understand Yozhik's 'logic' is generally an impossible and thankless task.

He hasn't yet resorted to wordplay, normally a Yozhik favourite. I'm sure he'll have the dictionary out before long if that thread continues much further. Alternatively, he'll go for misrepresentation of the judgment (oh he's done that one), sweeping inaccurate statements about the 'unjust' legal system (he's touched on that), the Magna Carta or some other archaic document not allowing this, start calling everything which goes against him a "strawman argument" or if all else fails, how Ucadia is the answer (and JB is spot on with that one!).

Give up now, he's beyond help.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, I am quite liberal and generally don't like Scalia. Yet against the bat-guano rantings of a Freeman, I will gladly defend him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom