Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
I was taken to Taunton Deane magistrates court on Friday morning, and taken to court room in handcuffs! They asked me my name and I refused to give and advised them that I was standing under Article 61 and that that country was being run by paedophiles and I wasn't standing for it!
the magistrates have now set a TRIAL date for Monday 3 April, Taunton Deane Magistrates' court if anyone would like to attend...
They got bail which suggests the magistrates were perfectly satisfied as to the identity of the person before them so presumably they had given their name at some point.John Uskglass wrote:I can't see this ending well...
I was taken to Taunton Deane magistrates court on Friday morning, and taken to court room in handcuffs! They asked me my name and I refused to give and advised them that I was standing under Article 61 and that that country was being run by paedophiles and I wasn't standing for it!the magistrates have now set a TRIAL date for Monday 3 April, Taunton Deane Magistrates' court if anyone would like to attend...
Of course it won't end well but it'll be their fault for not following the process to the letter, not the fact it's a load of total codswallop !!John Uskglass wrote:I can't see this ending well...
I was taken to Taunton Deane magistrates court on Friday morning, and taken to court room in handcuffs! They asked me my name and I refused to give and advised them that I was standing under Article 61 and that that country was being run by paedophiles and I wasn't standing for it!the magistrates have now set a TRIAL date for Monday 3 April, Taunton Deane Magistrates' court if anyone would like to attend...
It used to be that gurus like Haining, Menard and Clifford claimed to have brushed the cops and the courts aside at the mere mention of their "processes". Those claims proved to be laughable lies. A few gurus like Warman and Menard blamed the users of their methods for not dotting all the i's or crossing the t's. Insulting the follower/customer proved disastrous to those gurus.AndyPandy wrote: Of course it won't end well but it'll be their fault for not following the process to the letter, not the fact it's a load of total codswallop !!
All of which begs the question: if we take it as given that "the system" routinely conspires to ignore the "true law"... why the eff are these chuckleheads trying to push their legal fantasies in a forum where they are guaranteed to meet with nothing but resounding failure?arayder wrote:It used to be that gurus like Haining, Menard and Clifford claimed to have brushed the cops and the courts aside at the mere mention of their "processes". Those claims proved to be laughable lies. A few gurus like Warman and Menard blamed the users of their methods for not dotting all the i's or crossing the t's. Insulting the follower/customer proved disastrous to those gurus.AndyPandy wrote: Of course it won't end well but it'll be their fault for not following the process to the letter, not the fact it's a load of total codswallop !!
In light of these marketing and messaging catastrophes the guru class developed another ruse which is to claim that their "process" is a perfect reflection of the true law and that every cop or tax collector, every prosecutor and judge encountered along the way was part of a system that routinely conspires to ignore the true law. . .the law as correctly understood only by the brave, brilliant and newly awoken followers of the guru.
The idea that there is a true, but secret, law that only the lawful dissent (LD) gurus know is absurd.Pottapaug1938 wrote:if we take it as given that "the system" routinely conspires to ignore the "true law"... why the eff are these chuckleheads trying to push their legal fantasies in a forum where they are guaranteed to meet with nothing but resounding failure?
So true. Just a mob of stupid, greedy people looking for excuses to take without giving. Saddens me that Peter of England isn't ripping them off any more, I feel bad that we drove him away.arayder wrote:The pathetic thing about the LD movement is that it isn’t really about changing the law so as to protect the rights of individuals, reduce the power of government and the courts or even reform contract law. If any of those were the case the LD gurus could get some solid support in the real world.
In the end LDism embodies the worst part of the sovcit/fmotl movement. . .getting out of traffic/parking tickets and trying to find a way to get out of one's contractual obligations.
I have pondered that thought for years on this site. Every month we have court cases posted here that show how taxJimUk1 wrote:I agree. If the full force of the system is not going to let you win, then why fight it?
It's like the echo-chamber thesis. Drown out any dissenting voices to enforce your own.
Far easier to blame others for failure, rather than look at what caused th failure.
No, they were smart enough to avoid being brainwashed into acceptance of the slavery that is modern society. Haven't you learned anything from listening to them all these years?notorial dissent wrote:I'd say at a glance that one of the state benefits they DIDN'T make use of was education, as illiterate and ignorant are what comes across.
The Observer wrote:I have pondered that thought for years on this site. Every month we have court cases posted here that show how taxJimUk1 wrote:I agree. If the full force of the system is not going to let you win, then why fight it?
It's like the echo-chamber thesis. Drown out any dissenting voices to enforce your own.
Far easier to blame others for failure, rather than look at what caused th failure.
defiers go down in flames every time they walk into court with a silly argument or reason why they are not liable under income tax laws. Many of these cases are where the idiots are arguing the same losing argument that ten prior idiots argued before and lost on. And yet they persist without any ability to recognize the foolishness of trying to change the inevitable.
I have concluded that in some sick form or fashion they have rationalized the attempt as being equivalent to a lottery and that their battle cry is "if you don't play, you can't win." They have simply decided to believe that there must be some minute chance of winning if they try.
Hello my fellow rebellions
I have had info that the queen is stepping down at the end of the month and handing it over to Charles, this has not been pressed yet but only a word of mouth by leaked info from 2 trusted sources, now if this is the case then where does the article 61 come into play with Charles? The 2 sources told me is my mate in Manchester who told me Saturday and today my sister of which I have not said anything of what my mate said only to say ' the queen is stepping down at the end of month' so to me that's alarm bells as such but want to prepare if the announcement is made in a few weeks
It's the logic of the three year old.Burnaby49 wrote:They truly believe that their completely moronic interpretations of law are correct and, if they repeat them enough, eventually the dolts sitting on the bench pretending to be judges will have to agree with them.
The problem is of course, is that if there is a warrant out for his arrest he's 'small change'.David Robinson: Practical lawful dissent.
This document Is the one I used against the regime a few years ago, which Maud'Dib (aka John Hill - author of 7-7 ripple effect on youtube) kindly disllays on his website because I used his evidence against the crown also, its a large document because it is all encompassing i.e., it provided all the evidence required to prove my standing.
I was acting as a freeman on the land at the time but my objective has always been to use article 61 as we are supposed to be doing.
This document stopped all allegations against me from being enforced, even though an arrest warrant had been issued by the so called court when I didn't attend.....
https://jforjustice.net/download/Affida ... truth.html
Brian Varney
A powerful collection of words David Robinson.
But that is what I am saying. They think that if they keep trying, eventually they are going to find that one judge who is going to agree with them. If that isn't a stupid gamble, then what is?Burnaby49 wrote:I disagree with your analysis however. I'm the Millar expert (Keith Lawson too) having spent, in total, weeks attending their trials. They aren't working on a gambler's faint hope. They truly believe that their completely moronic interpretations of law are correct and, if they repeat them enough, eventually the dolts sitting on the bench pretending to be judges will have to agree with them.
I've seen that mentioned here a few times and read a bit about it, but I really don't understand what happened there. Is there any chance of explaining it to me like I'm 5 years old, please?Pottapaug1938 wrote:I wonder if the FMOTL idjits remember the Credit River decision, and think something like "if there is one judge who understands what the 'true law' is, there might be others".