Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[FatGambit]

At least you didn't wake up in a strangers boat on a trailer in someone's drive like I did once many moons ago.

Those electronic gates don't need staffing 24/7 here, round here the ticket office closes at 5 or 6 and the gates and cctv act as the deterrent, when a train comes in the conductor jumps off and waits by the gate to make sure people have proper tickets (at our local station anyway, there is only one exit on each platform), it's why they are striking this week because Southern want to get rid of the conductors without understanding all the little extra jobs they do that means stations don't need to be staffed 24/7.

Either that or we're far more trusting dawn sarf.

[Burnaby49]

Our Skytrain stations aren't permanently staffed. They have staff that travel the line and stop at stations from time to time. But no ticket sellers or checkers. All machines. Skytrain does have its own police force (actual authoized police) and they used to get on trains and check tickets. Haven't seen that since the new cards came into effect and I don't know how they would check them since it is just a plastic card with no information on it regarding the current trip.

[Gregg]

I am constantly amazed at what complete dicks most SovCits are in general, but watching British ones is fun because of the subtle differences in how law enforcement works in two countries with a common legal history. This twat standing in the door arguing about whether he's going to be arrested or not is one of those.
In the US, in any jurisdiction but most especially in the big cities, if a guy shows up with a warrant for your arrest, you're getting arrested. If you want to debate the finer points of how its going to occur, you can do it at your arraignment on Monday morning with the Judge. Avoiding the inevitable without leaving the doorway will buy you some time, measured in seconds. Typical arrest scrit:

3 knocks "Police!" (Sherrif, US Marshal, etc) We have a warrant for your arrest"

Perp: I don't want to be arrested, you have no authority over my..

Peace Officer: Are you John Douchbag Scumsucker?

Perp: I may be, or I may represent the estate of that fictional creation

Peace Officer: I have a warrant for your arrest, please turn around

Perp" I do not consent to your supposed authority to detain my flesh and..

Sound of tasers

Perp: please stop, oh shit, I do not

more tasers

sound of cuffs being fitted to someone wimpering like schoolgirl with a skinned knee


And this is in suburbia. Try this shit in Los Angeles or another big city and you're likely as not gonna get beat senseless and if you combine it with some Second Amendment bullshit, you'll be lucky to live.

Just google "Sov Cit arrest..." and when you watch, pay attention at the end, in a lot of them the idiot drops their phone which keeps recording so you have to listen closely toe hear the taser..

[Gregg]

Here's a little sampling of how this shit would play out on this side of the pond...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOxBRmeYd7g

[daveBeeston]

Here's a little sampling of how this shit would play out on this side of the pond...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOxBRmeYd7g

Im not going to lie that video made me chuckle(it also had the same effect on a few other train passengers),one thing we all agree on is thats how theses idiots should be dealt with, 30 seconds to 1 minute of being polite and then zap taser and handcuffed no ifs no buts.

[Pox]

Here's a little sampling of how this shit would play out on this side of the pond...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOxBRmeYd7g

Im not going to lie that video made me chuckle(it also had the same effect on a few other train passengers),one thing we all agree on is thats how theses idiots should be dealt with, 30 seconds to 1 minute of being polite and then zap taser and handcuffed no ifs no buts.

Not watched it all yet but this quote is a classic -

Soon to be tasered says - 'Call the police'

Response ' Sir, we are the police.'

The police in the USA seem, according to recent press, to act first and ask questions later, sometimes with fatal consequences, and I certainly wouldn't want to see similar press reports in the UK but at the same time, I do feel that our current cops allow far too much leeway when dealing with the 'I do not consent' (blah,blah) brigade.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I'm hoping the judiciary develops some additional backbone in their dealings with nitwits. The utter waste of time and resources is absurd.

[Pox]

I'm hoping the judiciary develops some additional backbone in their dealings with nitwits. The utter waste of time and resources is absurd.

Absolutely agree with you. IMO, whilst our police officers ( and courts, for that matter,) are giving up their supposedly valuable time and resources, so that these time wasters can have their hours of 'fame', others (maybe with more pressing/urgent issues) have to wait in the queue.

[JamesVincent]

Here's a little sampling of how this shit would play out on this side of the pond...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOxBRmeYd7g

Still my favorite video. When sov says, what's your first name and the officer replys, Lieutenant. Reminds me of being in a green uniform.

Absolutely agree on the time wasting. Too much time is taken by these idiots spewing every theory they can think of. Judges should let them have one shot at it, call the spewing irrelevant, and then tell then to make sense or be held in contempt.

[Hanslune]

Perhaps the courts should come out with a pamphlet that covers all the discounted arguments - I think the US IRS has a list of the failed arguments that if used mean automatic dismissal. People coming to court would have to acknowledge that they had read the pamphlet and knew what arguments were not valid.

[Firthy2002]

Perhaps the courts should come out with a pamphlet that covers all the discounted arguments - I think the US IRS has a list of the failed arguments that if used mean automatic dismissal. People coming to court would have to acknowledge that they had read the pamphlet and knew what arguments were not valid.

Sounds like a good idea although the ones like Tom Crawfraud and Guy Taylor would probably bluster on regardless.

[AndyPandy]

Perhaps the courts should come out with a pamphlet that covers all the discounted arguments - I think the US IRS has a list of the failed arguments that if used mean automatic dismissal. People coming to court would have to acknowledge that they had read the pamphlet and knew what arguments were not valid.

Sounds like a good idea although the ones like Tom Crawfraud and Guy Taylor would probably bluster on regardless.

Mead V's Mead should be a mandatory read for anyone considering legal action!

[noblepa]

Perhaps the courts should come out with a pamphlet that covers all the discounted arguments - I think the US IRS has a list of the failed arguments that if used mean automatic dismissal. People coming to court would have to acknowledge that they had read the pamphlet and knew what arguments were not valid.

Why would a court-issued pamphlet be of any interest? Everyone knows that the court has no authority over you unless you consent to allow it.

Also, everyone knows that the courts and judges don't know the law. They must be educated by the sovereign citizen, freeman on the land, common law expert who has learned more in two weeks surfing the internet than the judge has in four years of pre-law undergraduate college, three years of law school, ten years of private practice as a lawyer and ten years on the bench. So, anything that the court might print in such a pamphlet is obviously not lawful (although it might be legal) and can be safely ignored.

Alternatively, even if the judge knows the law, he/she is almost certainly corrupt and under the thumb of the evil corporate government that replaced the "organic", constitutional government in 1871.

[TheNewSaint]

I was thinking along the lines of a form letter. FMOTL arguments can be boiled down to 6-10 basic things that they try to accomplish, so you could make a response form with checkboxes. Here's a very rough first draft:

FROM:
TO:
RE:

(name of organization) has received your most recent letter. We note that it contains the following hallmarks of "Freedman", "FMOTL" or "OPCA" arguments:

[ ] Text copied from the Internet verbatim (including "3 letters" approach)

[ ] General misuse of legal terminology

[ ] Excessive demands for proof of jurisdiction/oaths

[ ] Attempt to declare self immune from applicable law:
[ ] via contractual arguments
[ ] via variant punctuation/capitalization of your own name
[ ] via claiming a special exemption you are not entitled to
[ ] ...and would not accomplish this even if you were

[ ] Misapplication of Contract Law:
[ ] Attempt to foist unilateral contract
[ ] Attempt to void bi-lateral, legally binding contract by citing spurious flaws

[ ] Citing inapplicable statute:
[ ] From another jurisdiction
[ ] From antiquity
[ ] Which you completely misunderstand
[ ] Which do not actually exist (demands for wet ink seals, etc.)

[ ] Other _____________________________________________________________________

You are hereby advised as follows:

- None of these arguments has ever succeeded in court.

- None of these arguments will convince us to be lenient towards you in working out a resolution.

- If you continue along these lines, you will likely face sanctions, fees, interest, penalties, and possible criminal charges, in addition to the original disputed amount.

- If you paid any money to someone who advised you to file this paperwork, you are likely the victim of a scam. Assistance to scam victims is available at (contact info).

- You would be much better served contacting us directly to discuss alternate resolutions to this matter.

- If you do not wish to contact us directly, please seek competent counsel at (local bar association contact info).

Check all that apply.

[notorial dissent]

Perhaps the courts should come out with a pamphlet that covers all the discounted arguments - I think the US IRS has a list of the failed arguments that if used mean automatic dismissal. People coming to court would have to acknowledge that they had read the pamphlet and knew what arguments were not valid.

One would think so, but I've seen filings where even after they'd been told repeatedly that something was legally frivolous that they came back and did it anyway with the disclaimer that it really wasn't THIS time, doesn't stop them from losing and/or getting fined though. Some kinds of stupid just can't be overcome.

Although I do think it would be a nice touch if they had to read the pamplet and certify in their lawsuit that they had read it were bound by it and would, not might, be sanctioned and fined if they used any of those excuses. Won't happen, but I can dream.

[longdog]

One would think so, but I've seen filings where even after they'd been told repeatedly that something was legally frivolous that they came back and did it anyway with the disclaimer that it really wasn't THIS time, doesn't stop them from losing and/or getting fined though. Some kinds of stupid just can't be overcome.

Are you seriously suggesting that the words "without vexation or frivolity" are legally worthless?

[Skeleton]

One would think so, but I've seen filings where even after they'd been told repeatedly that something was legally frivolous that they came back and did it anyway with the disclaimer that it really wasn't THIS time, doesn't stop them from losing and/or getting fined though. Some kinds of stupid just can't be overcome.

Are you seriously suggesting that the words "without vexation or frivolity" are legally worthless?

To a freeman they are Search Tom Crawford at the FOI site and it is the same people asking for the same information which is almost always thankfully met with a stone wall reply that they do not wish to hear. Being Freetards though they read the reply, decide it is not the answer they want and dress the same question up in different words which invariably ends once the letter tennis finishes, with a "fuck off and don't bother coming back because your now on ignore," type reply.

Freetards being built that way they are, however, will view being put on ignore as a victory. They need to be dealt with in a stronger manner, how you achieve that is the difficulty.

[mufc1959]

Here's another idiot making stupid FOI requests to WhatDoTheyKnow.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/i_a ... ictional_3

Oh, and don't call him Kenneth Heskin. He is "the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Kenneth Heskin"

[#six]

Here's another idiot making stupid FOI requests to WhatDoTheyKnow.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/i_a ... ictional_3

Oh, and don't call him Kenneth Heskin. He is "the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Kenneth Heskin"

Same guy?

https://twitter.com/kenheskin

If so, what it is it with Freemen and being Vegan. They give the rest of us vegans a bad name!

[Judge Roy Bean]

I think we should have a number of large rubber stamps made up and distributed to the judiciary:


TSDW

Signed: ______________________


All the judge has to do is stamp the document and sign it.



[ FYI - TSDW stands for "This S**t Doesn't Work." On this side of the Pecos, we use "Don't" but I've adapted it for UK applications. ]