Random Freemanesque Babblings II: Back to the Futile

[TBL]

You can add the utoobey to that list, amazing how many of them think that is private as well and get all frothy when you post a link or a bit from one of their cray cray fests. Even better when it gets used in a criminal action.

Don't you know Da Yoooooootube is run by Da Joooooooos (because it kicked some white nationalists off its site)?

PSA: Free speech doesn't apply to private areas, and private businesses have a right to bar you for holding an opinion (hence why incels/racists keep getting banned off Reddit, and why a bakery can refuse to bake a gay wedding cake)

Not entirely true, because YouTube is a US-based company running as a public forum. This protects them from lawsuits based on content but also means they have some First Amendment restrictions. I'm not trying to get into political, but it may explain why so many of these terrible ideas are allowed to be presented on these platforms.

[notorial dissent]

First Amendment thingies apply ONLY to the gov't, not private individuals, or to put it another way you can't force a newspaper to print something they find objectional, or just plain don't want to. Their sandbox, their rules. Same with Face Plant, if they find it objectionable for whatever reason, then they don't have to publish it since in the final analysis they are the publisher.

[Arthur Rubin]

There are some complications in regard US private companies and the 1st Amendment. Trump may not block anyone on Twitter; that has been ruled to be a 1st Amendment violation. There is has been an argument that Section 230 imposes may impose 1st Amendment concerns on (private) websites. I don't like the argument, but it has never been fully discredited.

[TBL]

There are some complications in regard US private companies and the 1st Amendment. Trump may not block anyone on Twitter; that has been ruled to be a 1st Amendment violation. There is has been an argument that Section 230 imposes may impose 1st Amendment concerns on (private) websites. I don't like the argument, but it has never been fully discredited.

Agreed, it's still very much up in the air.

[longdog]

There are some complications in regard US private companies and the 1st Amendment. Trump may not block anyone on Twitter; that has been ruled to be a 1st Amendment violation. There is has been an argument that Section 230 imposes may impose 1st Amendment concerns on (private) websites. I don't like the argument, but it has never been fully discredited.

That would be because his words of wisdom and bigly genius are being published both by him and Twitter. Twitter isn't bound by the 1st amendment but POTUS is.

[notorial dissent]

Has more to do with the law that anything generated by a public official has to be preserved and can't be censored. The law cited to enforce the matter was one on preserving records, the court ruled his twitterin' came under that law, affects ALL public officers if they are twitterin' in a public forum. So not really First Amendment at all.

[longdog]

I am indebted to m'learned friend.

[JimUk1]

Good to see the FMOTL coming out of the closet in my old home of Hull-

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hu ... ar-3558877

Check “Luke’s” comments in the article, my freeman senses are tingling.

Try reading the bills of exchange & common law of 1888. You will find that anyone demanding monies from you must also have a contract.
Its a fact that even Hull City Council can not dispute!

There is always more to these stories than the subject allows you to know.

[Comrade Sharik]

I'd spotted Mr Wheldon in the HDM as well, and wondered if the business about revoking Royal Mail's right of access was FMOTL related. Didn't scroll down to the comments though, so good catch Jim.

[JimUk1]

I'd spotted Mr Wheldon in the HDM as well, and wondered if the business about revoking Royal Mail's right of access was FMOTL related. Didn't scroll down to the comments though, so good catch Jim.

His comments all appear to be pointing towards it, of that I am certain.

It’s strange how someone beat the council in court with his argument that he wasn’t using the bus lane as an advantage when he was turning into Tesco on holderness rd, and yet this, Luke, seems to think he can only win by spouting freeman nonsense.

[MaritalArtist]

This is hilarious -

"But Mr Wheldon says he never received the letters about the fines due to removing Royal Mail's access to his property in 2017"

In a related video he even says his letterbox has been blocked up for three years.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hu ... ne-3403483

Guy's a genius!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It is a beat the bailiff rather than FOTLer tactic, although we know from Cwisy Mowwis that there is a cross-over of stupid.

It stems from the erroneous belief that if a summons isn't delivered then it hasn't been served. For the purposes of recovering debt, it's my understanding that it has to be posted (with proof of posting not proof of receipt) to the last known address.

If the debtor does not reply they will get a default judgement against them. Of course, mail can go missing, so a person has 21 days from being made aware of the judgement (not 21 days from the date of the judgement) to make a statutory declaration. If accepted by the court this will void the judgement. However the statutory declaration has to be made under penalties for perjury. And the very act of making a statutory declaration will remove any future defence of no knowing about it. And "I put up no trespassing signs" or "I nailed my letter box shut" are unlikely to see the court allowing the statutory declaration as being a valid reason.

Note: I've gleaned this from my dealings with companies who keep sending bailiff letters/summons to someone who has started applying for credit using MY flat number. Even though I have on literally dozens of occasions returned their mail and phoned their customer services to tell him he does not live in my flat and has never lived in my flat, they told me they have to. If anyone knows different, I'd be pleased to know as it's bloody annoying!

[longdog]

Ah yes... That never-been-known-to-fail legal strategy of putting your finger in your ears and going "LA-LA-LA"

[MiddlesexFinn]

There are some complications in regard US private companies and the 1st Amendment. Trump may not block anyone on Twitter; that has been ruled to be a 1st Amendment violation. There is has been an argument that Section 230 imposes may impose 1st Amendment concerns on (private) websites. I don't like the argument, but it has never been fully discredited.

The POTUS not being able to block people doesn't seem like a free speech issue. I'm no fan of Trump (being a libertarian) but this, to me, smacks of butthurt more than anything.

Anyway, to move this away from politics, it seems Based Amy is back at her tricks again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-n ... e-50494287
Once again, footlers fail to learn that ”da utoobey” is admissable as legal evidence and that posting all your footler/far right rants on it is not a good idea.

[Tevildo]

Note: I've gleaned this from my dealings with companies who keep sending bailiff letters/summons to someone who has started applying for credit using MY flat number. Even though I have on literally dozens of occasions returned their mail and phoned their customer services to tell him he does not live in my flat and has never lived in my flat, they told me they have to. If anyone knows different, I'd be pleased to know as it's bloody annoying!

See CPR Part 6 para 6.9 (3).

Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) [that is, their "usual or last-known" address] is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business.

So, the debt collection firm is on rather shaky ground if they're trying to serve documents on an address they know is wrong, and they may have difficulties if it gets to court. On the other hand, service at the last-known address is valid as soon as the letter is posted (Practice Direction 6A para 3.1 (b)), whether or not it arrives.

[grixit]

Last known address is a favorite ploy in the US when cops are doing a fugitive sting. They send out letters saying the addressee has won a car or a cruise or superbowl tickets, etc, they just have to show up at such and such a place and time. It's surprising how many people get those letters despite supposedly being long gone and no one's ever heard of them. Also surprisingly how many show up, with their id. I say those who do probably need to be locked up, for their own safety since they're obviously too stupid to look after themselves.

[MiddlesexFinn]

Last known address is a favorite ploy in the US when cops are doing a fugitive sting. They send out letters saying the addressee has won a car or a cruise or superbowl tickets, etc, they just have to show up at such and such a place and time. It's surprising how many people get those letters despite supposedly being long gone and no one's ever heard of them. Also surprisingly how many show up, with their id. I say those who do probably need to be locked up, for their own safety since they're obviously too stupid to look after themselves.

If sovrunty opens your mind, you would have thought they would have learnt how not to get arrested by now...

[Jeffrey]

Can you still cite the Magna Carta if it’s been sold?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Carta.html

[grixit]

False alarm. That's just the 1300 version. True sovereigns stand by the true Magna Carta of 1215.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The roundabout of stupid has just completed another full revolution. Accepted For Value. Not heard that mentioned around these here parts for a while!

Andy Coatesy
So, rather than go bankrupt, decided to say that I would settle the CT bill and costs. It has came in at around £11k, any ideas how I can pay this bill by a A4V? Or by other means, that will sort this mess out?