Sovrun Paraleguls

[Arthur Rubin]

What's a DOB to this -- person (or nonperson)?

[Burnaby49]

I just posted this on one of the Canadian discussions;

Freeman court cases are down, way down, from when I started my court reporting. Back then I'd even have conflicts where I'd have to pass on one hearing to attend another. But now that the Poriskyites are done I have nothing on my schedule and have no expectation of a resurgence. This seems to be the story right across Canada, the surge of now-stomped freeman cases has abated and sovereign activity seems to have gone into a death-spiral. I'm guessing that years of accumulated court losses, repossessions, criminal charges, and other failures without a single victory to report anywhere in Canada has finally had an effect on people's thinking that moronic sovereign arguments are the solution to their financial or legal problems.

So you may have seen the last of the Burnaby49 court reports and freeman reports in general except for the few small-fry now and then like our current subject. I'll have to find a new hobby.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11469

You brits are still in the heady optimistic days when the accumulated losses haven't yet beaten into your idiot's heads that they can't win with bullshit pulled off the internet. That legal name issue was huge here in Canada but now, as you can tell from the linked discussion, judges no longer even give it consideration but instead just ridicule it;

[10] It is obvious that the plaintiff relies on the very type of baseless pseudo-legal arguments that Associate Chief Justice Rooke discussed at length in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). Simply put, these sorts of arguments are sheer and utter nonsense. It is hard to know whether to condemn the proponents of these preposterous arguments or whether to sympathize with them for having being duped by others into believing them, but the result is the same. These arguments have never been successful in any court, and they have never been successful because they are, as I have said, sheer and utter nonsense.

[11] The plaintiff's claim that he is somehow distinct from a separate entity that is his given name was dealt with by Rooke A.C.J. in Meads at paras. 322 to 324. It is a subset of nonsense from the greater nonsense that typifies these sorts of cases. It is a concept unknown to the law, to logic and to common sense.

So you are still getting incredulous, shocked, angry responses when their gibberish gets rejected by the courts. Enjoy it while you can. We had that period too. But all of the gurus who led the charge, Menard, Clifford, Lindsay, Belanger, have been discredited and all of their various schemes proven, over and over, to be worthless. The leading source of networking and information for the Canadian Freeman community was the World Freeman Society website;

http://worldfreemansociety.ca/

But it declined into irrelevancy years ago and, just in the past few days, seems to have closed down because of a lack of any meaningful participation and because nobody was willing to pay the few hundred dollars required annually to maintain it.

Events like the total failure and closing of GOODF, the collapse of the WeRe Bank scam, and Tom Crawford's accumulated disasters are probably precursors to the same eventual collapse. These failures must be having some accumulated effect on even the most gullible. When that happens you will, like me, have to find a new hobby, or at least an interest, to fill the time previously squandered reporting on fools.

[aesmith]

Decoding the rant and making some wild speculation, I guess he was sent a notice for a routine traffic offence like speeding. He's pissed about with freeman nonsense and been found guilty of failure to provide driver details which would be 6 points plus £600. The so-called Section 172 offence. That ties with is "no evidence" babbling, the underlying offence would be irrelevant so no evidence would be presented. Why arrest? At a guess he was already on at least 6 points, meaning this offence makes him liable for a ban under the totting up process, courts reputedly reluctant to ban in the defendant's absence. Plus he probably pissed them off.

He's actually correct that you can't receive both points and a ban for the same offence, but if what I've speculated is correct then he hasn't.

[Footloose52]

Yup, he's a 'Totter'. Ban for accumulating 12 points is 6 months. If he has ignored two speeding offences within 3 years then he'll have been banned for 6 months instead of only having 3 points at best or 6 at worst.

[aesmith]

Anyone make head or tail of their ramblings about it being fraudulent for a company to use a PO box, and/or fraudulent to make the letter Private and Confidential? Question, is it illegal for a debt collection company to use a PO BOX?

I don't know if anyone could bear to watch this and give a summary? Sort of taking one for the team so to speak. I had a listen but couldn't last more than a couple of minutes. Steven Colley on mail fraud

[Hercule Parrot]

Events like the total failure and closing of GOODF, the collapse of the WeRe Bank scam, and Tom Crawford's accumulated disasters are probably precursors to the same eventual collapse. These failures must be having some accumulated effect on even the most gullible. When that happens you will, like me, have to find a new hobby, or at least an interest, to fill the time previously squandered reporting on fools.

If that becomes a problem, hopefully someone will volunteer to start a new strand of crazy. I could enjoy relaunching the WereBank on a new trading unit of turnips, for example. Or a campaign to stop the EU from secretly fluoridating Facebook.

[Hercule Parrot]

Yup... She's been trying to get out of paying her mortgage... http://expertinalllegalmatters.com/mortgage-fraud

But of course she wants to keep the house. I love it when they babble about invalid contracts, fictional loans and fake signatures, but they only want to renounce one side of the agreement. It's good to see their avarice stripped bare.

[Burnaby49]

Yup... She's been trying to get out of paying her mortgage... http://expertinalllegalmatters.com/mortgage-fraud

But of course she wants to keep the house. I love it when they babble about invalid contracts, fictional loans and fake signatures, but they only want to renounce one side of the agreement. It's good to see their avarice stripped bare.

My opening introduction in the discussion I linked to in my prior post was;

I'm always suspicious when a person extols beliefs in court with great passion when those beliefs, just by odd chance, are to the person's financial advantage. Sovereign and freeman beliefs tend, by and large, to revolve around money. Largely how they can avoid paying money (taxes, mortgage, credit card debt) but at the same time have all the advantages that money bestows (the house the mortgage is on, government services, whatever they bought with the credit card). Then there is Menard's freeman debit card that he claimed allowed you, for a real money payment of $250 a month to him, to access $2,500 a month out of thin air. And Let's not forget Peter of England and the WeRe Bank that literally manufactured money out of thin air. At least that was how Peter explained it.

Well meet Robert John: of the familymacmillan, another follower of that grand tradition. Robert owes tax, a lot of it, and doesn't want to pay.

[longdog]

the land registry has the properties as 2 genuinely different titles, so that should work out well for our hero!

Land Registry Title Register

Title Number : CL270167

Address of Property : 17 Pentewan Road, St Austell (PL25 5BU)

Price Stated : £xxx,0000

Registered Owner(s) : MARK SIMON HUSBAND and ANGELA CHRISTINE HUSBAND of 17
Pentewan Road, St. Austell PL25 5BU.

B: Proprietorship Register
This register specifies the class of title and identifies the owner. It contains any entries that affect the right of disposal.

Title absolute
1 (05.01.2010) PROPRIETOR: MARK SIMON HUSBAND and ANGELA CHRISTINE
HUSBAND of 17 Pentewan Road, St. Austell PL25 5BU.

Oh dear.

I hope but don't expect the 'claimant' is going to face criminal charges over this fiasco.

[notorial dissent]

Definitely a true footl sovrun type, only concerned with himself, and so totally clueless it is painful. I wonder how he holds down a job where he has to follow his boss's rules and orders? Did he ever say in all his whining what exactly he'd done to get hauled in front of the magistrates and pounded so nicely? He does at least recognize that he lost in that engagement, although I doubt if he ascribes it to the right reasons. I have a feeling we will see further adventures in legal self destruction of his life from this prize fool.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Anyone make head or tail of their ramblings about it being fraudulent for a company to use a PO box, and/or fraudulent to make the letter Private and Confidential? Question, is it illegal for a debt collection company to use a PO BOX?

I don't know if anyone could bear to watch this and give a summary? Sort of taking one for the team so to speak. I had a listen but couldn't last more than a couple of minutes. Steven Colley on mail fraud

Here is the comment I made which pretty much reflects the video. He called Royal Mail, undoubtably confused someone who suggested he report whatever it was as fraud. Action Fraud said they had never heard of this before, he says he was on the phone for 40 minutes and they finally took it as a report. So now he knows he is right.

"Please dimiss this pseudo legal nonsense before it is too late and you owe twice as much as you started with. Let your research include people and sources who know this debt shirking advice is nonsense and never works.
The reason they put private and confidental is for the benefit of the recipient, as they assume the debtor does not want other people who may open the letter to know about their problems. This has nothing to do with the company itself keeping secrets. It is certainly not mail fraud. PO boxes not only have full geographic addresses attached to them, but they are used for postal convenience only, not contracts. If you had been studying law for a month rather thanthe 3 years you mention, you'd know this stuff is nonsense.
US codes have nothing to do with UK law. UK and UK post office does not come under 'Federal Law'. Your other citations are irrelevant.
It is not fraud, deal with it, do not send it back.
Reporting a non criminal matter as a crime wastes everyone's time."

[MaritalArtist]

In English law there is no concept of a middle name. You have a first name and a surname. If you are called "Fred John Smith" then strictly speaking your first name is "Fred John". So whoever wrote that gibberish about using your middle name is wrong. It won't make any difference.
Incidentally there is no law in England and Wales that states you must have a name. There is no legal requirement to provide a name for the child when registering a birth. The law, however, will assume that you do have a name. The case law on the subject has ruled that an individual's name is the name that they are generally called and known by.

The reason you have a middle name is so you know when your mum is really angry with you.

[TheNewSaint]

I don't know if anyone could bear to watch this and give a summary? Sort of taking one for the team so to speak. I had a listen but couldn't last more than a couple of minutes. Steven Colley on mail fraud

Imagine your most boring uncle telling you a detailed story about the time he called tech support.

Basically he decided that because Wescot is a public company, they're not aren't allowed to put "personal and confidental" on their letter, or use a PO Box, or something about postage stamps I couldn't even follow. He got Royal Mail on the phone, who apparently confirmed all this.

What's interesting about that video isn't the content, but the way he nervously stammers through it all. The opening credits say "This is my first video ever so go easy on me! Please try and watch the whole video to get the complete story and point, of course that's completely your choice." He umms and ahhs and apologizes incessantly. He's obviously very nervous and unconvinced of what he's saying.

[notorial dissent]

An ignorant clueless idiot is an ignorant clueless idiot is an ignorant clueless idiot, for which there is NO HELPING.

[noblepa]

Reporting a non criminal matter as a crime wastes everyone's time."

Knowingly making a false crime report is often a crime itself.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Key to his phone calls may be that he never mentioned it was a legitimate debt that he actually owed. Just an assumption, of course.

He may have given the impression that it was a random attempt to collect a non-existant debt that he knew nothing about by some chancers hoping for a small payday. This would account for some confusion from the Royal Mail and Action Fraud. Such behaviour would indeed be fraud, he may however be so into not paying that he did not even consider mentioning that it was money and a debt that he really was responsible for.

[Comrade Sharik]

Clerk. We are going to disqualify you from driving today MR Boyce. Me. Stop calling me that. Where have you got that name from. I am not that name you seek. Clerk. Take him down until we can deal with this in his absence. Me. This is not your court, it is mine, you're nothing but criminals. Are you my Master, am I your slave.

Strikes me he was lucky not to be remanded for psychiatric reports. If you had no previous knowledge of FMOTLery you'd suspect anyone who came out with that had to have mental health issues.

[exiledscouser]

Ironic really that the saintly Helen Gardiner is seeking possession of her neighbours house, a process which will if successful end in their eviction.

But the modestly titled Experts in All Legal Matters don't like evictions, indeed the footle community as a whole claim that they are always illegal, irrespective of merit.

I hope this application is not only kicked out but stomped on with costs. Mr & Mrs Husband have good and apparently unencumbered title to their property according to LR. They'll be frantic with worry and busy I've no doubt instructing m'learned friends right now.

It's apparent that Steve (Mr Hubris himself) of uncertain surname is almost entirely responsible for events. It would be entirely just if the court recognised this when the matter is booted out as vexatious and entirely without merit and whacked him financially too.

If by some miracle the application succeeds then can we expect Chrisy and his ilk to rally to defend the Husbands?

May we live in interesting times!

[aesmith]

Interesting that they apparently got their court date only a week after making their application. Could this be the court wanting shot of it quickly?

[rumpelstilzchen]

This is one instance where the claimant really is trying to steal a house from its rightful owner.
Call Chrisy Morris.