Some Response from Ireland "Bar Council"

We welcome all new members and visitors to the Forum, please introduce yourself here, point to your own website/blog or point to articles of interest that you have created.

Some Response from Ireland "Bar Council"

Postby jonathan01n » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:11 am

https://www.lawlibrary.ie/media/lawlibrary/media/Secure/20140709KeysLayLitigants.pdf
What will be your response on the points about fmotl in the above documents, they tried to state that fmotl are rubbish but I don't agree with that. :shake:

Top line- " If we get to the point where a mob can appear in court or a mob can appear on land to resist a lawful order of the courts, well then the rule of law ceases to apply any more and then we are in the realm of anarchy".

Response- FMOTL are NOT mob- who are MOBS- There are two kinds, one of them are so called "politician" and the another one are "bankers", the are true corrupt and steal from purse- See how David Cameroon Hide his asset and how thieving mp are stealing public money. The another mobs are people doing things that is not abide to our basic morals, RAPIST, ROBBERS, STEALING, PEDO . They are the danger of our society. Driving without a license is NOT, you can drive very well without a license and insurance. Also you can drive like a dick when you have license and insurance.

Resist- We are resisting the unlawfulness of court.
lawful order of the courts- Lawful is Common law and basic morals, it is not same as legal (Statutes) and judges not always make good judgements to the society, don't they?

Judges have rule of law ? There are many corrupted officers not prosecuted for various offence from fraud to pedophilia- You can search those.

anarchy- What is wrong with anarchy- we can still live very good without the need of government, we can still be in order and we will have common sense justice and a common sense society, is this not more civilized.

Part 2 - This article will explore the concept of FOTL/OPCA litigants and it will set out the fallacy of their most common arguments. fallacy ? Because government have such ""powers" so they can bully us . ie police officers, hmrcuxt and " Court Security Officer" And then most important thing is we pay money to have our freedoms restricted. ( Money= Taxtation)

Part 3- Many of the arguments used by FOTL/OPCA litigants cause confusion and delay in the courts. Practitioners, upon hearing submissions or reading correspondence, pleadings or affidavits of FOTL/OPCA litigants may treat the arguments as bizarre, mildly amusing and an interesting anecdote to tell other colleagues.

confusion and delay in the courts? FMOTL concepts are quite easy to understand that so called "Laws" and " statues" aren't it .
delay? You don't accept those so called "nutters argument" obviously it will cause delay.

as bizarre, mildly amusing and an interesting anecdote to tell other colleagues. - Well if you think it is funny than just share the fun then- I don't think it is funny tho.

Part 4- However, FOTL/OPCA litigants in Ireland have been subject to costs orders upon their cases being dismissed for being frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail. Others have, on
costs orders - Sorry, wont pay it because it is unlawful judges wont listen to those arugments.
frivolous- Really, those arguments have a valid point. It is frivolous because you are wholly biased to people with fmotl believes.
vexatious- Same as the above, I think fmotl is NOT vexatious, it is even closer to natural justice and common sense than the current so called "Legal System".
bound to fail- Same as the above, because the legal system do not recognize common sense and natural justice and order.

Part 5- been imprisoned for contempt of court due to their obstructive behaviour in court and their failure to comply with court orders. - " contempt of court " is NOT a crime, a crime must have a victim /injured party, and that party MUST be a human soul with fresh blood in it. A court/ government cannot be a victim of crime because it is not a fresh soul.
imprisoned- NO CRIME how come punishment- This is transgression of freedom and hence people can resist it with the use of reasonable force, this I will explain in the later paragraph.
obstructive behaviour - Again according to Magna Carta Article 61 rebellion is LAWFUL and in face people should resist the court when it is not fair.
court orders- It is not lawful if the judge cannot produce an oath.

If given that title, he indicated he would proceed to argue the court had no authority to deal with him and he was subject to a “superior court”. Of several men accompanying Mr Cullen, a number sought to address the judge and to argue the jailing of Mr Cullen was unlawful.”
According to the original Irish times article- The judge have an option that is to let him go but she didn't do so so she is acting unlawfully as he didn't harm anyone

Part-6- The OPCA litigant phenomenon appears to have originated in Canada and the USA sometime in the 1980s but with the advent of the economic downturn, the growth in social media and the various anti governmental and austerity protest movements (e.g. the Occupy movement), OCPA litigants and the various gurus have become more prevalent in the courts of Ireland and the UK.

This is just a statement of fact and yes, more people has join the opca boat, HOWEVER the author made an error in typing OPCA as OCPA- Ha ha a lawyer can make such silly errors.

However, the manner in which the respondent (who was a litigant in person) dealt with the application through the lodging of voluminous papers with the court, correspondence with court officials and bizarre submissions in court lead the court to recognise that the respondent was employing a range of tactics which were disruptive, illogical and an attack on the court’s jurisdiction.

bizarre submissions ? A court should allow all sorts of arguments shouldn't it, what do bizarre means.
disruptive, illogical and an attack on the court’s jurisdiction - What do you mean disruptive and illogical- There are no arguments is " disruptive" nor illogical as you means. Any arguments are valid, just depend how to interpret the situation.

mildly amusing and an interesting anecdote to tell other colleagues. - Again, this is not funny, and arguments should be taken seriously and with merit because they are not rubbish , "Natural Justice did exist and it happens everywhere".

frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail- Again, no argument are not vaild, anything should be take seriously with merit. fmotl is just aa different point of view.

imprisoned for contempt of court due to their obstructive behaviour in court and their failure to comply with court orders.-
Contempt of COurt is not a CRIME, a crime MUST have a VICTIM or injured party, the government cannot be an injured party because it is not fresh blood of soul and they cannot be harmed, then If there is no crime that means the imprisonment is UNLAWFUL and can be constitute as false imprisonment.

“These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by “gurus” (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.”- This is because the court are operating UNLAWFULLY without the sense of justice and common sense.


illogical and have no basis in law and there does not appear to be any reported decision where an FOTL argument has succeeded in any common law jurisdiction.- Of course, this is because we do not agree and"consent" to the system obviously those arguments will not succed in your system.

A somewhat novel argument proffered by the FOTL litigant is that they have taken or may take certain steps to make them immune from court orders. The FOTL litigants do not appear to recognise that their continued failure to comply with simple directions of the court can lead to imprisonment for contempt of court.- Again , Contempt of court is not a crime because it do not have a VICTIM. imprisonment? Reserve the space for robbers killers rapist child abusers is better than those bloody "contempt" "crime".

1. no legal obligation can be enforced on the OPCA litigant without his or her agreement;
2. a single person has two legal aspects, or can be split into two legal entities, and
3. an OPCA litigant can unilaterally bind the state, a state actor, a court, or other persons with a ‘foisted’ agreement.

I agree with those, we must consent to the system before it has any effect on us.

Notwithstanding their refusal to consent the person is still arrested.- So lawful rebellion is required, includes the use of certain force to resist it.

(From now on I will skip some bits)

Attack the Tax - Good idea, we the free people should decide how much tax to pay , more or less or to support the people in need other than paying for tridents.

Challenging the Authority of a Judge-
produce his oath - NO oath, no authority , no sentence , any force to enforce sentence is unlawful.



We are all taught to be a name, the name on our birth certificate. But if you don't consent to be that "person", you step outside the system. - Yes, your legal fiction is different from your real person.


“I say to people: educate yourself. Google "lawful rebellion". Google "freeman on the land". Google the difference between "legal" and "lawful". Understand the rules that are keeping you enslaved.”
-Yes, as a Briton , we are not citizens , we are subject, or even worse, we are slaves, freedom never exist, we need to have soverign in everyone self to become absolute free.

He stated: “No you don’t. This movement is not just silly, it is also dangerous, and seemingly gaining popularity through numerous internet sites.”
Nosense , he is one of the SLAVES too.

example of how dangerous the FOTL argument can become and how a party employing OPCA/FOTL tactics can end up in jail.
Continue looking down and I will explain it further.

Ms Watson was jailed for 9 months for contempt. - 9 months is the judge having some problems in brain putting person with no danger for so long, such a waste of prison space, this is why our society is filled with crime.

childish scribblings.- What a rude judge, telling someone childish is bloody rude, how can such a rude person be on the bench.

increased security requirements.-- A way to scam more money from freeman.

and any who are concerned should alert the court officers who usually ensure that uniformed police officers are in attendance.”- Again, another scam money from freeman.

Conclusion- This article is anti-freemanism without surprise.
jonathan01n
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 2:44 pm

Re: Some Response from Ireland "Bar Council"

Postby pitano1 » Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:48 am

hi jonathan.

in my humble opinion,the document should be retitled....what the fuck do we do now.

[QUOTE]
If we get to the point where a mob can appear in

court or a mob can appear on land
to resist a lawful order of the courts, well then
the rule of law ceases to apply
anymore and then we are in the realm of anarchy.”

my reply.
the people make the law....not.....MERCHANTS.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE CONCLUSION.
the rule of law has been removed.!

which leaves us with.
TYRANNY

or to put it another way.

IS IT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
kind regards.
pitano1
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: Some Response from Ireland "Bar Council"

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:26 am

Thank you for the document. Very interesting.

I have read the first 9 pages. It is carefully worded and 100% correct. Notice throughout that it refers to "individuals" and "persons". If the reader does not comprehend the significance of those words then they might mistakenly think the document is a load of crap.

If either of you want me to exaplain, using examples from the first 9 pages, why the document is correct, I will.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Some Response from Ireland "Bar Council"

Postby jonathan01n » Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:37 pm

I want to say how can we make Britain street safer for all is to put real scums into jail not some people doing victimless crime, the judge in Britain is lack of common sense to make Britain justice more fair and consistant.


Also police should focus to catch thieves and not catching people no wearing seatbelt, photography in court, or urinate in war memorial (despite it is disgusting in my view)
jonathan01n
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 2:44 pm


Return to Welcome to the Freeman-on-the-land Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron