Boxes - Four Corner Rule

by **Farmer** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:13 pm

I’m coming to the conclusion that the freeman movement is interpreting the Four Corner rule incorrectly. This morning I went over to TPUC and there was the story of Darren Pollard. In the article it stated:

Court 7 contains a sealed dock – that is, the dock is surrounded by perspex on all sides – (if you wish to understand the significance of this, then research the 'four corners rule'.

Also, in the last video (pt 5) Darren stated that he:

was in the dock to be disregarded anyway, the Four Corner rule

If you think about it, it just doesn’t make any sense. He was arrested and kept to make sure he was put into the dock. Why would they then not want him there.

And, from the research so far, which did not take long, the opposite meaning is found to be the case. I think it's time that people show where they get their interpretation from. Seems to me everyone is just quoting everyone else on this without actually looking it up.

by **huntingross** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:22 pm

Agreed Farmer.....within 20 posts on the subject, it has been completely de-bunked in my opinion

by **thestoge** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:17 pm

Hi Farmer,

I am new to this forum. I am trying to research The Four Corner Rule.
I have found nothing new here and this post says mostly what I've discovered.
However, it is quite an old post and I was wondering if anybody had managed to
unearth the mystical scrolls about it since ?

Dave.

by **Farmer** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:41 pm

thestoge wrote:Hi Farmer,

I am new to this forum. I am trying to research The Four Corner Rule.
I have found nothing new here and this post says mostly what I've discovered.
However, it is quite an old post and I was wondering if anybody had managed to
unearth the mystical scrolls about it since ?

Dave.

Hi Dave and welcome,

Unfortunately so far nothing new. If it is the case that everyone has been following what others have been saying then its not really surprising that no evidence is appearing anywhere. I personally would love to see my conclusions being shown to be wrong, but the case against what people believe it to mean remains strong.

by **thestoge** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:16 pm

I am doing some serious research into various 'Key Myths' so that freeminded people can answer with authority and fact.
The evasiveness and chicanery involved in fruitless debate is wearing a bit thin now. Just for once I would like to be able to come back with the magic answers, and I would make damn sure that everyone on the forum(s), knew the answers to give when challenged in the future.
Perhaps it's about time a lot of us researchers made a concerted effort ?
http://www.searchlores.org/ .. I found some useful tips & tools here. - Let's get everyone boned up eh ?
All I want is fact, it is embarrassing to see half informed freemen being floored in debates, give them the facts ! :thinks:

by **Veronica** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:34 pm

Could you be specific about where, exactly, on searchlores there is the information you refer to?

As far as I am aware the only person who has mentioned the Four-Corners Rule is John Harris, and I have never seen any explanation as to where he got that from. (Oh ... checking back ... maybe it was from Winston Shrout)

In Black's 8th it says:

four corners rule 1. the principle that a document's meaning is to be gathered from the entire document and not from its isolated parts Corpus Juris Secundum reference: 314 2. the principle that no extraneous evidence should be used to interpret an unambiguous document (with multiple CJS references)

So quite what John Harris & Winston Shrout mean is .....? And where they got it from is ....?

Personally I don't see it as relevant. I'm even tempted to suggest it's a red herring ... but I may be wrong.

(But then, I don't see the Courts are very relevant anyway ... and I don't see Legalese is relevant either. It's just a Foreign Language English Look-Alike the Statutes are written in. So, in my view, it's all a red herring. And I think you guys have proved it. But then, who am I to say?)

by **thestoge** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:21 pm

Hello there Veronica,
My name is Dave. {I am the polite one.}

Could you be specific about where, exactly, on searchlores there is the information you refer to?

You will notice that I did not infact make any reference to information, just tools & tips that would be useful to a person searching for information.

Perhaps it's about time a lot of us researchers made a concerted effort ?
http://www.searchlores.org/ .. I found some useful tips & tools here. - Let's get everyone boned up eh ?

I admire you for your honesty in making this comment:

Personally I don't see it as relevant. I'm even tempted to suggest it's a red herring ... but I may be wrong.

Thanks for this one ! :grin:

I think I will print it out and ask my barrister to forward it to the judge at my appeal hearing ! :rotfl:

(But then, I don't see the Courts are very relevant anyway ... and I don't see Legalese is relevant either. It's just a Foreign Language English Look-Alike the Statutes are written in. So, in my view, it's all a red herring. And I think you guys have proved it. But then, who am I to say?)

I'll tell you what, nobody could call this forum dull, cheers for the jollies ! :giggle:

Dave.
Boned Up - Red Herring ! :giggle:

You are a card.

by **Freeman-B** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:12 pm

Terrywho wrote:Hi
What I think is that the four corners of the page are the boundaries of a single document...putting something in a box on that document is like stapling another document to it so that many documents can "appear" to be one.So looking at Farmers BC, it is two documents and the producer has tacked them together so it appears to be one and most of us will just see it as one.However we can undo the staples and deal with each document seperately.Which when it comes to dealing with "legal" documents is pretty useful .Thats what I think.... now someone prove me right

Having asked this very question (about the common interpretation of the "four-corner-rule" that it EXCLUDES anything within a box from the document) I have yet to hear anything definitive or find any other legal reference to what has already been said on this thread. However, the quote above is a very interesting interpretation that I had not previously considered and has given me pause for thought.

IF putting something within a box creates a SEPARATE document which then must be considered on its own merit, then there may be some truth to the common interpretation of Shrout et al, but it is a stretch in my opinion. Has anyone tried asking Shrout where he gets this interpretation from?

I am still fascinated to know.

:peace:

B

by **jonboy** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:34 pm

Whether it is a red herring or not, still gets me wondering about the purpose of all the boxes on documents and square brackets ([]). Also the meaning of the dock??

by **thestoge** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:02 pm

The point is peer pressure, example :- As we learned as children !

An emperor of a prosperous city who cares more about clothes than military pursuits or entertainment hires two swindlers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they tell him, is invisible to anyone who was either stupid or unfit for his position. The Emperor cannot see the (non-existent) cloth, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime. The Emperor then goes on a procession through the capital showing off his new “clothes”. During the course of the procession, a small child cries out, “But he has nothing on!” The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth. The Emperor, however, holds his head high and continues the procession.