Random Freemanesque Babblings II: Back to the Futile

[longdog]

It says something about the mentality of these morons that they think the law in a 21st century democracy is going to, or should, support any concept of visiting a penalty for (imagined) wrongs of a father on seven subsequent generations. Even the North Koreans limit their "sins of the father" all-expenses-paid holiday camps to a couple of generations.

[Burnaby49]

It's like 2010 in Vancouver all over again! Liens flying about, 3-5 letter schemes clogging up the mails, unappealable decisions by fake courts. I feel like I'm back in my 60's!

[JimUk1]

It says something about the mentality of these morons that they think the law in a 21st century democracy is going to, or should, support any concept of visiting a penalty for (imagined) wrongs of a father on seven subsequent generations. Even the North Koreans limit their "sins of the father" all-expenses-paid holiday camps to a couple of generations.

Least us not forget the North Koreans have some super spiffing tidy hair cuts unlike the freemen-on-the-land....

[TBL]

It says something about the mentality of these morons that they think the law in a 21st century democracy is going to, or should, support any concept of visiting a penalty for (imagined) wrongs of a father on seven subsequent generations. Even the North Koreans limit their "sins of the father" all-expenses-paid holiday camps to a couple of generations.

I mean, just to play devil's advocate here, it seems to me that any monetary damages are levied against all future generations since it intrinsically reduces the original sinner's net worth.

[Dr. Caligari]

It says something about the mentality of these morons that they think the law in a 21st century democracy is going to, or should, support any concept of visiting a penalty for (imagined) wrongs of a father on seven subsequent generations. Even the North Koreans limit their "sins of the father" all-expenses-paid holiday camps to a couple of generations.

Someone should look into Adrian's ancestry, and see if anyone 7 generations back did anything wrong. Then we could confiscate all of his assets.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I had to visit the local police station today on an unrelated matter, but whilst I was there I asked if the desk personnel had had any training or directives on how to deal with FOTLers, PLDers or Magna Carta idiots if they turned up demanding attention.

Answer: Nope.

Without wishing to dox myself, it is a top 10 police authority. Not sure whether I should take comfort from the police not taking them seriously or be concerned!

[TBL]

Concerned.
My department had training for sovereign citizens after two officers were killed by a father and son duo just across the river. But, it was all about threat detection and physical-harm risk. Not once did they point to responses that would be useful when they throw a stack of useless paper at you and refuse to identify. I even offered to develop a course and teach it after my unrelated injury.

[ArthurWankspittle]

That was the Kanes wasn't it? The senior LE man involved started giving presentations about Sovereigns following that incident. His son was one of the people killed.
The UK does have the benefit that the average paper filing SovCit isn't going to be accompanied by their sixteen year old son toting an AK47.

[John Uskglass]

I asked if the desk personnel had had any training or directives on how to deal with FOTLers, PLDers or Magna Carta idiots if they turned up demanding attention.

I wonder if they would just get lumped in with run of the mill nutters, rather than being identified as a specific group. Unless you have a particular persistent individual or group on your patch, FMOTL contact is probably quite rare. And if you look at the content on (say) 'Council Tax Is...', much of it is barely coherent or literate, so unless you've studied the field, would look like random gibberish if presented out of context.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I wonder if they would just get lumped in with run of the mill nutters, rather than being identified as a specific group.

I was very specific about asking about people who don't believe that the law applies to them, but you are right. That could be a multitude of people. Or criminals, as the rest of the population would call them!

[John Uskglass]

That could be a multitude of people.

Including, but not limited to, covidiots...

[TBL]

That was the Kanes wasn't it? The senior LE man involved started giving presentations about Sovereigns following that incident. His son was one of the people killed.
The UK does have the benefit that the average paper filing SovCit isn't going to be accompanied by their sixteen year old son toting an AK47.

Yes, and I was still fresh out of the academy when that happened. It took years for them to add Sovereign Citizens to the annual training and even then it didn't cover how to deal with all the stupid paperwork.
I always felt that a good training would include how to shut them down on the side of the road. So many of the videos I see include officers completely naive to the BS paperwork and getting flustered. Instead, a simple explanation that you disagree with their standpoint and they are free to discuss it with the judge seems the best course. Start with that then explain that you aren't holding court on the side of the road. If they still refuse to give their info or sign the citation, pull them out of the car (with or without force, depending) and arrest.
Either way, tow the car.

[Arthur Rubin]

Given he is one of Neelu's cause celébres, can we add Assange to the list of FOTLers?

"[Assange] told the judge at the start of Monday's hearing he does not consent to extradition."

Sorry Joolz. That's not how it works.

That may legitimately by the "extradition" version of a plea. If you consent, no hearing is needed. But I am not a lawyer. Any criminal lawyers here to confirm or deny?

[noblepa]

Given he is one of Neelu's cause celébres, can we add Assange to the list of FOTLers?

"[Assange] told the judge at the start of Monday's hearing he does not consent to extradition."

Sorry Joolz. That's not how it works.

That may legitimately by the "extradition" version of a plea. If you consent, no hearing is needed. But I am not a lawyer. Any criminal lawyers here to confirm or deny?

I believe that the terminology normally used is that the defendant "waives extradition".

But, you're right. It is the difference between voluntarily going to the country seeking extradition or being sent there by force, against the will of the defendant.

I remember once, about twenty years ago, when Cleveland area resident John Demjanuk (I'm sure I spelled that wrong), was accused of being a Nazi prison guard at one of the death camps during WWII. Israel was requesting his extradition, to be tried for war crimes. One of the commentators said something to the effect that, in an extradition hearing, there are only two real questions: can the defendant expect a fair trial and is he/she, in fact, the person they are looking for. You can't argue that you are innocent. That is for the jury to decide.

Regardless of what some sovcit idiots might say, I seriously doubt that a British court is going to rule that the US Justice system will deprive Assange of a fair trial, and there can be no question that he is the Julian Assange that the US is looking for.

[Juisarian]

Regardless of what some sovcit idiots might say, I seriously doubt that a British court is going to rule that the US Justice system will deprive Assange of a fair trial...

Isn't that what happened in the case of Gary "Pentagon Hacker" McKinnon?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Isn't that what happened in the case of Gary "Pentagon Hacker" McKinnon?

Not quite. The fair trial bit is wrapped up in Human Rights and his extradition was turned down, mostly on the grounds that he was suffering severe mental illness and assessed clinically to be suicidal. Assange, could try the same trick, but I suspect hubris will prevent his lawyers from making that claim.

[exiledscouser]

Asange is a fascinating character. Rather than be extradited to Sweden he decided to hole up in the Ecuadorean embassy for years and years (June 12 to April 19). All that time it gave the Land of the Free plenty of space to perfect and present its case to the UK authorities for an extradition of their own.

In the meantime Jules got busy himself, finding time to impregnate his then lawyer a couple of times, that might form the basis of an Article 8 right to private life claim. It’s certainly a conflict of interest on her part!

Will the UK now send him to the Stars and Stripes? And what might happen to him if extradited?

I think he’ll be off to a Supermax prison to await trial, of that I’m fairly certain making HMP Belmarsh (his current abode) look like an all-inclusive 18-30 holiday to Greece.

I’m torn between whether he is a crusading and fearless journalist, wrongly targeted for exposing the elite or someone who put very many lives at risk for a personal vanity trip, reckless and foolhardy in doing so.

On balance and despite his more obvious character flaws I’m siding with the first view. It’s fairly certain that if he is sent to the USA he’ll be inside for a very long time.

I’d love to know what the UK Ecuadorian embassy made of his antics.

[wserra]

Isn't that what happened in the case of Gary "Pentagon Hacker" McKinnon?

Those of us old enough to remember have always wondered if the McKinnon subtext involved certain accused IRA terrorists who fled to the U.S. in the late '70s and early '80s, and the efforts the U.K. made to extradite them.

I mean, Asperger's?

[longdog]

I’m torn between whether he is a crusading and fearless journalist, wrongly targeted for exposing the elite or someone who put very many lives at risk for a personal vanity trip, reckless and foolhardy in doing so.

I'd be inclined towards him being the former with a bit of the latter at one point but these days not much more than a delusional gobshite.

I think he’ll be off to a Supermax prison to await trial, of that I’m fairly certain making HMP Belmarsh (his current abode) look like an all-inclusive 18-30 holiday to Greece.

If I were a high court judge, which I'm not (yet), I would refuse any extradition to the US where being held in a super-max prison was not expressly ruled out. Utterly inhumane and I would argue totally incompatible with UK concepts of human rights. But then UK governments since the year dot have never let human rights stand in the way of foreign policy.

[John Uskglass]

. Utterly inhumane and I would argue totally incompatible with UK concepts of human rights.

Haven't you been listening to the Home Secretary? You sound like one of those lefty activist do-gooder lawyers...