"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[KickahaOta]

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".

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?

Not quite at a 5-year-old reading level, but approachable:

First National Bank of Montgomery v. Daly

Basically, a debtor made the typical 'banks don't really give money, they just create credit on their books' argument. A jury actually found for the debtor, and the justice of the peace went along with the jury. The case was nullified on appeal.

[Burnaby49]

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.

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?

Millar's going to need at least two judges on his side this time since he's facing a three judge appeals bench. And of course he'll need five of the nine Supreme Court of Canada judges when he appeals his pending loss at the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Assuming, of course, that the SCC grants leave to appeal on the vital national issue of whether his name should be capitalized or not.

[notorial dissent]

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.

Burnaby, FWIW, I agree with you. A great many of these idjits actually do really and deeply believe what they are peddling, to the point they are immune to logic, reason, and reality. They really sincerely believe they are right and if ONLY the judge will just listen to their reasoned cogent theory then all will be well. The problem, as you point out, is that their reasons are reason and cogent, but instead the purest of fantasy. And thus they lose and lose and lose and lose again. There aren't a lot of these, but there are enough. On the other side of the coin we have the "researchers" who believe that looking for a theory on the internet that suits their needs and then adopting it whole without actually looking to see if ever actually works is actually research. They just regurgitate what someone else has told them, often without actually even understanding what they are regurgitating. There seem to be lots of "researchers" blind followers who jump from one fantasy to another probably oftener than they change their socks.

[The Observer]

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".

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?

Not quite at a 5-year-old reading level, but approachable:

First National Bank of Montgomery v. Daly

Basically, a debtor made the typical 'banks don't really give money, they just create credit on their books' argument. A jury actually found for the debtor, and the justice of the peace went along with the jury. The case was nullified on appeal.

There was some discussion and other links provided by Famspear here. The case was filed by a well-know tax protester by the name of Jerome Daly and you can find numerous references to him here on Quatloos.

[notorial dissent]

I can't make up my mind that Daley was really a tax protester, but was certainly an incompetent and dishonest lawyer who didn't like to pay for things. The dog pound judge in this case was a well known drunken sot, who probably had next to no legal knowledge or understanding of the law. That was one of those cases where the usual cry of jurisdiction jurisdiction really was and would have been valid, as in the judge had none and was completely out of his field of authority, and the State's Supreme court soundly whacked him for just that.

[Hercule Parrot]

Not quite at a 5-year-old reading level, but approachable:

First National Bank of Montgomery v. Daly

Basically, a debtor made the typical 'banks don't really give money, they just create credit on their books' argument. A jury actually found for the debtor, and the justice of the peace went along with the jury. The case was nullified on appeal.

You are correct of course, but anyone who googles "First National Bank of Montgomery v. Daly" will find countless websites asserting that this case still stands as precedent. Either it wasn't appealed, the appeal was lost or the nullification had no effect. They all find some shonky reason why it's still valid, and QED nobody needs to repay bank loans.

[wserra]

There was some discussion and other links provided by Famspear here.

And in somewhat more detail beginning here. This thread has the benefits of accompaniment by illustrious visitor and all-around snake oil salesman Heidi Guedel (posting as "Pantekhnikon").

[wserra]

anyone who googles "First National Bank of Montgomery v. Daly" will find countless websites asserting that this case still stands as precedent. Either it wasn't appealed, the appeal was lost or the nullification had no effect.

See the links in Obs' and my posts above. If you only read one post, I immodestly suggest that you make it this one.

[SteveUK]

It's not going too well for poor old Ash, it seems the horrid old police :

...laughed at this, just before closing the cell door. Taken back to court 3 hours later, thrown the dock...

Another win !!!1!!!

[notorial dissent]

I'm sure that'll get their attention.

[longdog]

I'm sure that'll get their attention.

It did... Although I'm somewhat doubtful that laughter was the type of attention he intended.

[Firthy2002]

But how can he serve notice of an unlawful oath if he wasn't there?

[Hercule Parrot]

But how can he serve notice of an unlawful oath if he wasn't there?

And what right does he have to claim justice from the same monarch, government and judicial system which he is rebelling against? Having denied their legitimacy, why would he expect the rights of a citizen?

Maybe we should intern these home-grown revolutionaries, Gruinard Island is still available (and has an apt history of containing virulent pestilence). Alternatively, next time one of them announces they are an enemy of the Queen, she should send a military unit to defeat them in battle.

[littleFred]

SovCits/FMOTLs traditionally ignore the practicalities of real modern life. A clause of an uneasy peace treaty that was ignored at the time, and not carried forward to superseding treaties, and certainly not into parliamentary legislation, is now -- SovCits say -- supposed to be in force.

But it has no force today. Anyone attempting to enforce it in court or elsewhere would be laughed at.

SovCits can, of course, say that it should be in force. I think they would be wrong -- a council of unelected barons holding the monarch to account makes no sense in today's world -- but they can argue for it if they want.

The effects of that clause and others have echoed down the ages, leading to modern-day representative democracy and the current systems of account.

But they can't coherently argue that this clause of war-lord feudalism has been transplanted as written in 1215 to today and has any direct effect.

[notorial dissent]

Or more importantly that they have any claim to be able to enforce it even if it did. The clause DID NOT apply to just anyone, and would not have applied to them in particular. The only ones who might conceivably have any claim to that power would be the legal descendants of the Barons of the treaty. These people are historical and legal idiots.

[littleFred]

The idiots, sorry, I mean "Lawful Rebels" claim that article 61 was evoked by barons in 2001, as reported in the Daily Telegraph. See also https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron- ... s-petition.

In 2001, Barons did present a petition to the Queen, and she didn't do what they wanted. That's the first part of Article 61. (Which is a "law" that has never been a law.)

The barons did not then "refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons", who in any case were never chosen in the first place. Nor did those barons "distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions" and so on. Instead, the barons sent the queen a polite letter giving more detail of their concerns. As far as I know, the matter ended there.

I think the current upsurge in Article 61 activity is because, in a couple of years, we'll be out of Europe so the 2001 excuse won't hold any water.

[JimUk1]

There was also the small issue that beign in the EU was an act of Parliament, so I think old queeny told them politely to go see the prime minister.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea ... _1972_(UK)

A fact which they always over look is: Parliament is not a monarch!

How can a 'treaty' between barons and a monarch have anything to do with parliament? Let alone a bunch of morons!

Sheer idiots the lot of them!

[letissier14]

They are now talking about a class action against the government

[Footloose52]

What an utter load of tripe, no such thing as a 'Class action' in UK Law as we know. Also it would help if they learned to spell and punctuate (how the heck do they expect to understand anything without that?). And so much of it is just complete nonsense anyway.

Their annoying little protests causing 'stalemate against the regime' are no more than a flea bite that is ignored because it is accepted that there is no prospect of success in taking matters any further than they have already progressed. And they, of course, see that as a win !!!1!!!

[John Uskglass]

Recent postings on the Facebook page show a worrying obsession with having weapons.

Nonsense about offensive weapons law here, with gleeful
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 6875376347
And even more chilling, an argument for the holding of firearms here
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 0245349010
Sailing close to the wind in terms of UK's draconian terror legislation, I suspect.