Practical Lawful Dissent FMOTL antics, continued...

[notorial dissent]

So now I will be building my case against them. I have about 20 questions to ask them with a YES or NO answer, whilst keeping a record of their answers. I will be asking for full closure, to be able to question the complaintent to enquire who has been hurt or had lose or been threatened without making any plea or giving them Jurisdiction. There are many ways to skin a tyrant. The way I will be playing them, has been used before with the outcome of a dismisle of the case hopefully.

Another idjit for slaughter. That particular tactic ALWAYS works so well, right up to the point where the judge tells them to shut up and sit down as he's the one running the court.

[Siegfried Shrink]

The trouble with Yes or No answers these people ask for is that they will not take yes or no for an answer.

"Do you have jurisdiction?"
"Yes"
"No, you don't because of reasons"

and so on.

The level of abstraction required to comprehend the idea that the body politic is the complainant, and that the plaintiff's actions, while not on this occasion causing specific harm, were such that a reasonable person would conclude they made harm to another person much more likely, is not usually found, and not easily explainable.

I suspect that this person may be seeking alternative, non-driving, employmentfairly soon.

[notorial dissent]

More to the point, they want the answers they want, NOT the ones they will inevitably get, that and courts DON'T work that way.

[SteveUK]

Rise and Shine campers - today is PLD's big day out, and in less than 4 hours, all hell will break loose something might happen.

Lets get the sweep stake going:

1) nobody turns up.
2) a handful turn up, have a few beers , then go home.
3) they manage to get into double figures, mooch around outside the court, then go home.
4) they manage to get into double figures, enter the courts, disrupt a case for a few minutes before being ejected.This is somehow classed as win.
5) it turns into a million man march that MLK would've been proud of. Common Law is restored following a bloodless coup.All hail King David. Crabbie made minister of housing. Quatloos proved to be wrong all along and we're first against the wall, for treason. Country sent back to the middle ages. Robotham is released to a hero's welcome.

My 1bn REs is on [3], with it being declared a massive success by the rest of the sheeple.The ejection will simply confirm they are getting closer to the truth.Perhaps one will get their collar felt and the police will be bomdarded with notices and phone calls.

[longdog]

I suspect these 20 yes/no questions will all be dependant on each other so that question 2 is dependant on the answer to question 1 being a particular way.

Q1 "Isn't it true that common law takes precedence over statute law"?

A1 "No"

Q2 "That being the case isn't it true that I am only governed by common law?"

A2 "I told you it wasn't the case"

And so on. It'll be like a badly written computer program that just steps through the lines regardless of the input and without any 'IF' or 'ELSE' commands.

[longdog]

3) they manage to get into double figures, mooch around outside the court, then go home.

This one.

[Burnaby49]

Your all leaving out the most important part of the 20 question ritual. The questions must be answered to the questioner's satisfaction. If he isn't satisfied then the court has no jurisdiction.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I vote for number 2, but the possibilities for number five seem entrancing. I think I will have one of my chums stand by with his boat to evacuate me to France with the rest of the ancient regime so we can watch the tumbrils roll from a safe distance, and I can finish my definitive book on French cheeses.

The only snag with the boat plan is that I have long left the south coast, and the voyage from a Midland canal marina will start with some days of slow chugging through miles of canals, but if we disguise ourselves as humble working folk we should be OK. If we reach the Thames safely, purloining a craft more suitable for the channel should not be hard, then it's Eastward Ho!.

I see the potential for a TV screenplay in option 5, but cannot decide if it should be a drama or a comedy. On balance I am inclined to a comedy treatment.

[Siegfried Shrink]

You're all leaving out the most important part of the 20 question ritual. The questions must be answered to the questioner's satisfaction. If he isn't satisfied then the court has no jurisdiction.

Of course, it is all so simple when you put it that way.

As a cofirmed advocate of gender ambivalence equivalence I should take exception to your assumption that it would be a 'he' asking the questions but it really is mostly men who suffer from pseudo-legality, despite a few exceptions.

[Burnaby49]

Anyone stupid enough to think this 20 question nonsense will work in court and is willing to give it a shot pretty much has to be male so saying ''he" in this context is just working the odds. You have an idiotic female outlier or two, say Rheka and her house, but they are overwhelmed by the men.

Same situation here. Read my court reporting for Bernie Yankson, Charles Holmes, Master Gee, Michael Millar and the rest. The only female equivalent I can note is Debbie Anderson. The women here can talk a good game but tend to show a lot more sense when it comes to actual court showdowns. That's why most of our Freemen (and your male idiots) tend to be single. The women have enough on the ball to cut their losses and bail rather than support.

[SteveUK]

I vote for number 2, but the possibilities for number five seem entrancing. I think I will have one of my chums stand by with his boat to evacuate me to France with the rest of the ancient regime so we can watch the tumbrils roll from a safe distance, and I can finish my definitive book on French cheeses.

The only snag with the boat plan is that I have long left the south coast, and the voyage from a Midland canal marina will start with some days of slow chugging through miles of canals, but if we disguise ourselves as humble working folk we should be OK. If we reach the Thames safely, purloining a craft more suitable for the channel should not be hard, then it's Eastward Ho!.

I see the potential for a TV screenplay in option 5, but cannot decide if it should be a drama or a comedy. On balance I am inclined to a comedy treatment.

If you think it'll bad for you, wait until they get around to debunker in chief, Burnaby49. They'll sentence him to eternal damnation. The pub in the sky where the only beer is Molsons. The only thing on the Duke Box is Robbo reciting the 1215 MC - in loop, forever. The TV will only show Neelu Berry eviction videos. The other punters he has to talk to will be the lost souls of freemen past, present and future.Prices will all be in REs with some warped, dynamic exchange rate to the CAD which becomes increasingly more difficult as the day becomes more drunk.

Every morning when he wakes up it'll be like groundhog day. Back to the bar of doom to once again here the same stories from the same FMOTL explaining why they aren't bound by laws, taking hour upon hour with loads of important sounding latin words.

This is what the world will be like when they win (!!1!!). Take action now - save your soul.

[Siegfried Shrink]

If I decide on a horror approach to my TV script, can you co-write? My blood was chilled, lord knows if Burnaby will even survive the vision of the Ninth Circle.......

[Burnaby49]

A bit of history. I used to have almost a library of Chief Rock Sino General's three letter scheme documents. Very impressively done. All of them required that the recipient answer detailed questions with answers that the questioner found satisfactory or the unilateral contract automatically kicked in. Unfortunately I never got to find out why the sender would have found the answers unsatisfactory because nobody ever answered.

One of my favorites was a shakedown scheme involving the Sandbar, a prominent local restaurant. The scammer would sent the Sandbar a bunch of very legalistic looking gibberish the gist of which was that the sender had been served ground glass in a drink at the Sandbar but had been too sick and distressed at the time to complain. However these documents were legal proof of the offense unless the Sandbar could prove, in a very tight timeframe and to the questioner's satisfaction, that the questioner had not been poisoned at the Sandbar. When the time ran out without proof the questioner would send a document, notarized by the chief, stating that the Sandbar now owed the Questioner hundreds of thousands of dollars and had, by not responding, agreed to this debt and had agreed that the restaurant had no legal recourse to avoid the requirement to pay.

They'd send the same things to local governments, courts, and the police force. With the police it was almost always about traffic offenses where their cars had been seized and they wanted them back and charges dropped. I knew the Chief fairly well, I took him to lunch once and we had a lively corespondence on Gmail. He actually seemed to believe this stuff and that he was somehow an "International Notary" until he was convicted of contempt of court. Then he dropped it all and, as far as I'm aware, never went back.

[Burnaby49]

If you think it'll bad for you, wait until they get around to debunker in chief, Burnaby49. They'll sentence him to eternal damnation. The pub in the sky where the only beer is Molsons. The only thing on the Duke Box is Robbo reciting the 1215 MC - in loop, forever. The TV will only show Neelu Berry eviction videos. The other punters he has to talk to will be the lost souls of freemen past, present and future.Prices will all be in REs with some warped, dynamic exchange rate to the CAD which becomes increasingly more difficult as the day becomes more drunk.

Every morning when he wakes up it'll be like groundhog day. Back to the bar of doom to once again here the same stories from the same FMOTL explaining why they aren't bound by laws, taking hour upon hour with loads of important sounding latin words.

This is what the world will be like when they win (!!1!!). Take action now - save your soul.

In my endless nightmare it would be an eternal Sunday night in 1963 eating TV dinners (Swanson's Salsbury Steak) in the living room on shaky plastic TV dinner trays watching eternal reruns of Ed Sullivan highlighting Topo Gigio;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=garNxavx8gY

Sullivan had that little fucker on the program 50 times and my parents probably saw every last one of them. He had it on immediately preceding the Beatles' historic appearance on his show! That puppet still haunts me. Put that on the TV in the bar in hell and you can bet I'd guzzle all the Molsen's Canadian I could get my hands on. It's piss but it might dull the agony.

Wait, wait, the program's changing! Topo's gone! Salvation at last? Maybe even Honor Blackman? AHHHHHH!!! IT'S ED SHOWING SENOR WENCES!!!! KILL ME, KILL ME NOW!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEio4rQDU5A

Ahem, sorry. Give me a moment. Had a bit of a flashback issue there, won't happen again. Nothing that a few Doan's Kolsch can't fix. Anyhow, compared to that your threats are almost meaningless. Given my own alternatives I'd be quite happy to watch Neelu while Tom babbles on and on why there was no warrant. I'd probably even enjoy the Molsons.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Truly, it is written, 'the hells others create for us are nothing compared to those we create for ourselves.'

[Burnaby49]

Ninth Circle? Bring it on! I've checked Dante. It doesn't include either Topo Gigio or Senor Wences. It may have endless reruns of The Beverly Hillbillies without Elly May but I suppose that's what hell's all about.

Fun fact, in the show one of Elly's boyfriends was named Bolt Upright. It was a more innocent age. I know that was how Elly affected me even if she was seventeen years older.

[notorial dissent]

Ninth Circle? Bring it on! I've checked Dante. It doesn't include either Topo Gigio or Senor Wences.

And here I thought I was the ONLY one who thought that way. Oh thank goodness!!!!

[longdog]

One of my favorites was a shakedown scheme involving the Sandbar, a prominent local restaurant. The scammer would sent the Sandbar a bunch of very legalistic looking gibberish the gist of which was that the sender had been served ground glass in a drink at the Sandbar but had been too sick and distressed at the time to complain. However these documents were legal proof of the offense unless the Sandbar could prove, in a very tight timeframe and to the questioner's satisfaction, that the questioner had not been poisoned at the Sandbar. When the time ran out without proof the questioner would send a document, notarized by the chief, stating that the Sandbar now owed the Questioner hundreds of thousands of dollars and had, by not responding, agreed to this debt and had agreed that the restaurant had no legal recourse to avoid the requirement to pay.

Finely ground glass is biologically inert and you wouldn't even know you'd ingested it. It would be no more deadly than the sandy sandwiches at seaside picnic.

Glass particles large enough to cause physical damage to the digestive system would be easily noticeable in food (mainly by the fact it would cut your mouth to ribbons) and just as easily noticed in a drink where it would settle to the bottom of the glass almost immediately.

If you're going to try scamming a restaurant for poisoning it's best to start with a method that's not pure folklore.

[rumpelstilzchen]

So now I will be building my case against them. I have about 20 questions to ask them with a YES or NO answer, whilst keeping a record of their answers. I will be asking for full closure, to be able to question the complaintent to enquire who has been hurt or had lose or been threatened without making any plea or giving them Jurisdiction. There are many ways to skin a tyrant. The way I will be playing them, has been used before with the outcome of a dismisle of the case hopefully.

I predict that he will get no further than question two. He will then realise the courts do not operate in the way he thinks they do.

[SteveUK]

Hmm, on http://www.thelawpages.com/ there's no Robotham listed in either mag or crown. Also very quiet on the PLD page. I know they've had 1.5 hours in the pub, but could it be that these idiots have got the date or location wrong?