Mark Quaile Loses His Farm - Goes Full Freeman

[longdog]

He is wrong about everything but will not accept it.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

[wserra]

Guys . . .

[NYGman]

Shame really as I would love to know on what grounds he thinks he will succeed with respect to the farm eviction. Instead we get meaningless verbal diarrhea, that makes little sense and adds nothing to his defense, or support his case for defamation.

Too bad he just ignores that and just insults us.

[longdog]

Shame really as I would love to know on what grounds he thinks he will succeed with respect to the farm eviction. Instead we get meaningless verbal diarrhea, that makes little sense and adds nothing to his defense, or support his case for defamation.

Looking at his LinkedIn page I think I may have found the reason...

There is an entire file of study being conducted by ":David-Wynn: Miller" into the rules of English Grammar construction. He refers to this as "Truth Language" because it retains all nouns as nouns. A sample of Truth Language is as follows:

"For the text of this web-site is with the absence of the legal-advice."

The construction of this sentence is "noun, noun, verb, noun, noun". The "nouns" are captured in "prepositional phrases" such as "For the text". Here is the decomposition:

Prepositional Phrase 1: "For the text"

Prepositional Phrase 2: "of this web-site"

Verb: "is"

Prepositional Phrase 3: "with the absence"

Prepositional Phrase 4: "of the legal-advice"

With the "Truth Language", the same sentence can be written in a different order, and the meaning is unambiguous. For example:

For the absence of the legal-advice is with the text of this web-site.

[JimUk1]

Ok Mark, here is your platfrom. Please be polite and understand, least from what I can read, nobody on here has ridiculed you.

My understanding is you had a tenancy agreement that went badly?

The developers wanted you out?

[wserra]

To be unlocked in 24 hours, when the guy can defend himself.

[wserra]

So I'd assume if you want it shut down you need to sue for defamation in the United States to get an American court order.

Well, you don't need to. However, there are steep hurdles to overcome in order to enforce a foreign defamation judgment here. First of all, the person seeking enforcement of the foreign judgment must show to the satisfaction of a US court that the foreign judgment was acquired under law at a minimum equivalent to both the First Amendment and the law of the state where enforcement is sought. Second, the person seeking enforcement must show that the foreign court that rendered the judgment acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendant in a manner that comports with US due process (International Shoe and the host of related cases). No mailing a summons to someone in the US from London. 28 U.S.C. § 4102.

Moreover, if the US defendant is an "interactive computer service" (hint: in the present case, it starts with a "Q" and ends with an "s"), then person seeking enforcement must show that the standards applied in the foreign court were consistent with 47 U.S.C. § 230. In short, § 230 says that Q, like other such boards, is not responsible in defamation for what its users post.

In sum: Good luck, Mark.

[JimUk1]

Well the floor is Mark’s to explain, calmly & concisely why he’s pissed at us and not the people he took bad advice from?

[longdog]

So I'd assume if you want it shut down you need to sue for defamation in the United States to get an American court order.

Well, you don't need to. However, there are steep hurdles to overcome in order to enforce a foreign defamation judgment here.

<snip>

He would have the option of suing UK based posters for libel but apart from the practical problems of identifying them he would have an uphill battle against a defence of truth and/or fair comment.

Looking back through the thread I can see very little that is actionable and the fact that he has been given, and has taken, the opportunity to present his side of the story and instead resorted to personal abuse and threats would do his case no favours at all.

[notorial dissent]

So I'd assume if you want it shut down you need to sue for defamation in the United States to get an American court order.

Well, you don't need to. However, there are steep hurdles to overcome in order to enforce a foreign defamation judgment here. First of all, the person seeking enforcement of the foreign judgment must show to the satisfaction of a US court that the foreign judgment was acquired under law at a minimum equivalent to both the First Amendment and the law of the state where enforcement is sought. Second, the person seeking enforcement must show that the foreign court that rendered the judgment acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendant in a manner that comports with US due process (International Shoe and the host of related cases). No mailing a summons to someone in the US from London. 28 U.S.C. § 4102.

Moreover, if the US defendant is an "interactive computer service" (hint: in the present case, it starts with a "Q" and ends with an "s"), then person seeking enforcement must show that the standards applied in the foreign court were consistent with 47 U.S.C. § 230. In short, § 230 says that Q, like other such boards, is not responsible in defamation for what its users post.

In sum: Good luck, Mark.

Doesn't defamation require like actual intentional untrue (harmful)statements being made?

[Aegis]

So I'd assume if you want it shut down you need to sue for defamation in the United States to get an American court order.

Well, you don't need to. However, there are steep hurdles to overcome in order to enforce a foreign defamation judgment here. First of all, the person seeking enforcement of the foreign judgment must show to the satisfaction of a US court that the foreign judgment was acquired under law at a minimum equivalent to both the First Amendment and the law of the state where enforcement is sought. Second, the person seeking enforcement must show that the foreign court that rendered the judgment acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendant in a manner that comports with US due process (International Shoe and the host of related cases). No mailing a summons to someone in the US from London. 28 U.S.C. § 4102.

Moreover, if the US defendant is an "interactive computer service" (hint: in the present case, it starts with a "Q" and ends with an "s"), then person seeking enforcement must show that the standards applied in the foreign court were consistent with 47 U.S.C. § 230. In short, § 230 says that Q, like other such boards, is not responsible in defamation for what its users post.

In sum: Good luck, Mark.

Doesn't defamation require like actual intentional untrue (harmful)statements being made?

From memory of when I've been threatened with a defamation lawsuit before, not quite. Truth is an absolute defence against a claim of defamation, i.e. you can't be found guilty if what you said is actually true, but just because you firmly believe something doesn't grant you the same level of protection.

IANAL, though!

[wserra]

Doesn't defamation require like actual intentional untrue (harmful)statements being made?

No. You may be thinking of the actual malice required to defame a public figure.

[wserra]

Looking back through the thread I can see very little that is actionable

I certainly agree with that.

[Hercule Parrot]

Stop this please, Mark.

Look around the message board, see what we do here. We discuss, expose and mock a range of stupid beliefs loosely termed as sovereign citizen or Freeman on the land. These beliefs recur in different forms across tax evasion, criminal behaviour, fraud, child custody, debt, divorce, traffic penalties, everywhere. And they fail everywhere, because they are stupid fantasies.

Read some topics. See how we differentiate between the deliberately dishonest scoundrels who knowingly promote this nonsense for their own ends, and the desperate fools who stumble into it. You are the second kind, maybe you've realised that now or maybe it will come later.

There was no malice in our discussion about your situation. We knew you had been poorly treated by the developers and you were grasping at straws to save your family dream. We also knew it was hopeless, because we've seen this nonsense fail a thousand times before, in every context, courtroom and country it has been tried.

You will achieve nothing by turning your bitter rage against us. If anything, it will harm you. At this time you need to dust yourself off, discard the FMOTL nonsense and make a new life for your family. Shouting at strangers on the internet won't help, in fact it will increase your need for psychological reinforcement - more blustering about what you're going to do, more fantasies of victory and vindication.

It will not help, Mark. Read some of the UK topics, see what happens to people who "double down" on FMOTL. They lose everything. Home, family, reputation, liberty - everything. They become obsessed, bitter and empty shells. Maybe you're willing to pay that price yourself, but you have no right to do it to your family. You cannot abandon yourself to childish rage, you have a duty to get over this and rebuild. They need you, Mark. We don't. Decide now where you're going to invest your energy.

[wserra]

That's well put.

[notorial dissent]

Mark, Hercule is right. Appearances say you pretty well got screwed. What you are doing now is NOT going to help you, your family, or your situation, in fact it obliterates any valid points you might have.

[BoomerSooner17]

It appears to me that Mr. Quaile is under the impression or delusion that we here on Quatloos, or at least the posters discussing him in this thread, are shills for either the British Ministry of Justice, the British police, or bailiffs. In reality, almost[*] all of us here at Quatloos are merely concerned Internet citizens (the great majority of whom are North Americans, so good luck taking legal action against us) who come together to discuss, dissect, and mock sovereign citizens, Freemen-on-the-land, tax protestors, and scammers. And while we find their antics and stupidity to be highly entertaining, I think we can all agree that in an ideal world, this forum would be redundant because everybody would follow the rules, pay their taxes, take care of their kids, do unto others, and leave us with nothing to talk about.

Stop this please, Mark.

There was no malice in our discussion about your situation. We knew you had been poorly treated by the developers and you were grasping at straws to save your family dream. We also knew it was hopeless, because we've seen this nonsense fail a thousand times before, in every context, courtroom and country it has been tried.

You will achieve nothing by turning your bitter rage against us. If anything, it will harm you. At this time you need to dust yourself off, discard the FMOTL nonsense and make a new life for your family. Shouting at strangers on the internet won't help, in fact it will increase your need for psychological reinforcement - more blustering about what you're going to do, more fantasies of victory and vindication.

It will not help, Mark. Read some of the UK topics, see what happens to people who "double down" on FMOTL. They lose everything. Home, family, reputation, liberty - everything. They become obsessed, bitter and empty shells. Maybe you're willing to pay that price yourself, but you have no right to do it to your family. You cannot abandon yourself to childish rage, you have a duty to get over this and rebuild. They need you, Mark. We don't. Decide now where you're going to invest your energy.

Listen to Hercule Parrot. He is offering you excellent advice. Turn away from the FMOTL fantasies.


[*]I say almost because some members of Quatloos are genuine attorneys or government employees whose work relates to the subjects of our discussion/ridicule, while other members are people whose lives have been affected by scammers or other ne'er-do-wells that we discuss.

[Comrade Sharik]

A fairly recent outline of Mr Quaile's version of events can be found here -

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/muppets- ... =prof-post

District Judge Bull passed down an unlawful Approved Judgement without hearing our Defence. WHY! At the next hearing on 13 September 2017 (which was again behind closed doors). We stood at the Court Room door and stated we enter this Court Room under Common Law Jurisdiction. We asked District Judge Bull “Do we have an accord”. He stated “No”. We stated, “We have a lawful right to establish jurisdiction”. District Judge Bull said, “You have no lawful rights”."WHAT". District Judge Bull threatened us with Contempt of Court. We asked, “Is that Civil or Criminal Sir?” District Judge Bull stood up, bowed and abandoned the Court Room. HE HAD TO PROOV JURISTICTION! ON AND FOR THE RECORD! HE COULDNT. As highest ruling Sovereign we claimed Sovereign of the Court and dismissed the case. The case was closed. WE HAVE THIS ON TAPE TOO. Good effort District Judge Bull. I wouldn't put in for an Oscar for your role play.

To Mr Quaile, I'd say a couple of things. First, in my limited experience of taking cases through the County Court without being a lawyer, the worst possible thing you can do is to wind the judge up in the slightest. If the case is finely balanced, you're guaranteeing that the 'balance of probability' will fall in your opponent's favour.

Second, and more importantly, assuming for the moment that you are the victim of a conspiracy which is able to buy off judges and subvert the legal process, how on earth do you imagine that you are going to defeat them, given your lack of resources and influence? Such a conspiracy will surely be able to block any moves you make through the legal system, as according to your narrative, you have already found out.

Look at how much attention your various attempts to bring this matter to the attention of the public through social media etc have got. The number of viewings of your YouTube videos is minuscule. Outside of a tiny circle of crackpots (and amused observers), nobody knows or cares about your case. There'll be no angry mobs demanding justice for you.

As others have said here, you've probably been dealt a bad hand on this, and it must have been a wrench to be forced out of your property, but realistically, all you can do is try to put it behind you and move on. If you continue your Quixotic crusade, at best you'll be wasting time that could be more profitably employed, and at worst you'll end up even worse off than you are now.

[SteveUK]

I'll break ranks on this one. Mark, if reading, you're an absolute fuck nut of the highest order. You deserve everything you get and you will lose everything. It couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Why are you threatening to sue people when you don't consent to the law?


If the term freetard had an Oscar, you'd get it.


PS - getting into the paras is as hard as tying your laces. You get zero cred.


All the best.

[longdog]

District Judge Bull passed down an unlawful Approved Judgement without hearing our Defence. WHY!

Why? Because you refused to give your defence by...

We stood at the Court Room door and stated we enter this Court Room under Common Law Jurisdiction. We asked District Judge Bull “Do we have an accord”. He stated “No”. We stated, “We have a lawful right to establish jurisdiction”. District Judge Bull said, “You have no lawful rights”."WHAT". District Judge Bull threatened us with Contempt of Court. We asked, “Is that Civil or Criminal Sir?” District Judge Bull stood up, bowed and abandoned the Court Room.

HE HAD TO PROOV JURISTICTION! ON AND FOR THE RECORD! HE COULDNT.

No he didn't. Jurisdiction is assumed and the correct course would've been to appeal the judgement on that basis. PS: Spelling.

As highest ruling Sovereign we claimed Sovereign of the Court and dismissed the case. The case was closed. WE HAVE THIS ON TAPE TOO. Good effort District Judge Bull. I wouldn't put in for an Oscar for your role play.

FMOTL gibberish with a 100% record of failure.