Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

It looks like the Freeman-on-the-Land phenomenon is now receiving some public commentary in Ireland (Republic of). The Law Society of Ireland indicates there are now over a hundred instances of Freeman-type arguments being employed in court, and advises against pursuit of this strategy:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-an ... -1.1396641

Naturally, a large number of persons with an opposite belief promptly appear out of the woodwork, and allege broad conspiracies among the courts and legal practitioners, and various other curious things.

The Irish Times article identifies some very familiar memes:

    all law is contract

    state authority requires consent

    that contract can emerge from apparently innocent activity

    one can trademark your own name

    dual identity of a ‘flesh and blood’ human, and a ‘something else’

    variant and magical names

And unsurprisingly people who attempt to implement these schemes end up in jail, like “Francis, of the family of Cullen”: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-an ... -1.1394553

or with suspended sentences, such as “Bobby of the Family Sludds”: http://www.newstalk.ie/Who-are-the-Freemen-on-the-Land

My attempts to identify any Freeman cases via the ‘BaiLII’ website were unsuccessful, though another article suggests this decision involved a Freeman argument:

Wellstead -v- Judge White & Anor [2011] IEHC 438: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2011/H438.html

[And what a horrible website – CanLII has spoiled me to a terminal degree.]

Poking around the Law Society Gazette (I gather this is an official publication of the Law Society of Ireland) turns up a few things (chronological order):

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gaze ... ch2012.pdf

    [a small notice from the McCann FitzGerald law firm stating that they are not the authors of a memo distributed in Freeman circles which says that statutes only operate if you feel like it – see p. 5]

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gaze ... il2012.pdf

    [a general commentary on the phenomenon - see p. 12-15]
http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gaze ... ay2012.pdf

    [this one is amusing - a letter to the Gazette from “Concerned Sovereign”, denouncing the April article as incorrect and propaganda. And that results in an Editor’s note:

    It should be pointed out that Keith Rooney [author of the April 2012 article] is not a member of the Law Society but rather a member of the Law Library. Normally, the Gazette does not publish letters of an anonymous nature, but has made an exception in this case!

Irish websites that promote these concepts include:

It's a pretty general conspiracy / alternative theory webpage, though it definitely contains and links to some Freemanish stuff – seems low activity. That said, it does contain this manifesto!


The Guidebook invokes classic Canadian-style Freeman approaches and directly cites Mary Elizabeth Croft and Robert Arthur Menard as sources. One interesting Irish-specific twist is that these Freemen appear to claim that they can access “Brehon Law”, a sort of early traditional Irish law.

There’s a lot of chatter on the Irish Freeman movement that I spotted on various message boards. Here’s some links:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthre ... 2056353782

    [Three years of messages and debate…]

http://www.politics.ie/forum/justice/16 ... n-law.html

    [Another massive multi-year discussion of the phenomenon]

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthre ... 62&page=25

    [Extended and ongoing commentary on the fate of “Francis, of the family of Cullen”]
Hopefully a native of the Emerald Isle will pop by and provide more on-the-spot commentary as this phenomenon unfolds.

As a frivolous aside, I nominate "Bobby Sludds" as the ultimate Freeman-on-the-Land name. You don't have to add spurious punctuation. You don't have to make him "of the Family". Bobby Sludds ... it's enough. It's everything. Right there - Freeman, and don't you dare touch.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Sat Jun 01, 2013 8:57 pm

Looks like there's been some developments in Ireland.

There's a relatively new political party, "Direct Democracy Ireland" (http://directdemocracyireland.ie) that apparently has a strong or at least significant link to the Freeman-on-the-Land community. According to Wikipedia, DDI was founded by Raymond Whitehead, "a photographer and teacher of Transcendental Meditation and the Science of Creative Intelligence."

It seems the movement's leading personality is a chap named Ben Gilroy. I've seen a number of videos in which Ben does things like confronts sheriffs during mortgage foreclosures, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9Da-r-VPQw

Ben says he's not a Freeman, but certainly he sounds like one. And when you reference yourself as “Ben of the ancient clan Giolla Rua authorised agent for Ben Gilroy™”, an informed person might be little suspicious.

In any case, the DDI website is touting a great victory by an "Anthony and Miriam Freeman" (apparently their actual names) who are arguing against foreclosure of their properties. Yesterday the High Court of Ireland rejected a motion by the Bank of Scotland to have the Freemans' action struck.

DDI is very excited: http://directdemocracyireland.ie/breaki ... ull-trial/

I have not located any actual arguments or documents associated with this action, but my understanding is the Freemans' position, at least in part, is that if X gets a mortgage from bank A, and bank A then 'securitizes' the mortgage to other entities, then bank A can no longer enforce the mortgage because it doesn't own the mortgage. I think there is a simple agency argument that responds to this complaint, but no matter.

The May 31 decision is that there is some possible legal basis for the Freemans' argument, and so a full trial is appropriate. I don't know Irish law, but I know that in the Commonwealth a very low threshold is applied for these preliminary motions to dismiss: that an action is not hopelessly and fatally flawed.

Other Freemanish/Sovereign commentators also appear excited by this development.

Mainstream Irish media sources report something that DDI left out - other elements of the Freemans' action were struck:

However, the judge said that he was striking out all other grounds of the couples claim, such as the allegation they had been defamed, that the bank was engaged in fraudulent activity, and that it had created money.

Mr Justice Gilligan said he accepted BOS’ arguments that those sections of the claims were bound to fail. Claims such as the "creation of money" argument are coming before the courts in numerous jurisdictions with increasing frequency since the economic and property market collapse.

These arguments, he said, often advanced in court cases by a particular type of vexatious litigant which have been described by the US courts as Organised Pseudo legal Commercial Arguments (OPCA).

The Judge added that he further endorsed the US courts findings that these type of claims are fanciful and devoid of merit.

They are often made by litigants who find themselves in financial pressure, acting under pressure and acting on the instruction of organised groups or individuals who have a vested interest in disrupting court operations and frustrating the legal rights of governments, corporations and individuals.


from: http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0531/453952 ... and-court/

Sounds like Meads v. Meads has landed in another jurisdiction.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

Chados
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Somewhere...over the Rainbow

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby Chados » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:03 pm

That Irish court is going to regret giving that argument any traction. the idea that securitizing a note strips the holder of right to defend its interest striked at the heart of the commercial lending system. Most Freeman arguments are built on the idea that they can buy something, not pay for it, but keep it, as long as they file the appropriate mix of magic paper. Ireland's given enough credence to this to get it into a full trial. That's erroneous, but I would bet cash that in the end they lose. But I also bet that sovereigns worldwide will now try to use this to justify more fraud.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7196
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby Famspear » Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:58 pm

Chados wrote:That Irish court is going to regret giving that argument any traction. the idea that securitizing a note strips the holder of right to defend its interest striked at the heart of the commercial lending system.....


I think that depends on what you mean by "securitizing." If the lender disposes of literally ALL its interest in the note then, by definition, the lender has no longer has any "right" that it can "defend" -- at least, not as an owner. This is pretty basic law. There is nothing new or unusual about that. As noted above, however, if the lender is granted an agency by the new owners to act on behalf of the new owners, that's a separate issue. Or, if the lender has disposed of some but not all of its interest, that's a different matter.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:01 am

I have a totally frivolous follow-up. But I must share. Because it brings on that particularly, taupe-coloured flavour of stupid that makes people like the Freemen-on-the-Land what they are.

Freeman Bobby Sludds? It turns out he sings:

But could this just be a coincidence, could there be two Bobby Sludds, one Freeman, one R&B superstar-to-be?

Nope, that's our songster:


And if there was any doubt on that, his YouTube channel includes this masterwork of Moorish Law rhetoric:


Ah, I think we've not heard the last of Bobby. In melody, verse, or otherwise.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2787
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:21 am

Famspear wrote:
Chados wrote:That Irish court is going to regret giving that argument any traction. the idea that securitizing a note strips the holder of right to defend its interest striked at the heart of the commercial lending system.....


I think that depends on what you mean by "securitizing." If the lender disposes of literally ALL its interest in the note then, by definition, the lender has no longer has any "right" that it can "defend" -- at least, not as an owner. This is pretty basic law. There is nothing new or unusual about that. As noted above, however, if the lender is granted an agency by the new owners to act on behalf of the new owners, that's a separate issue. Or, if the lender has disposed of some but not all of its interest, that's a different matter.
You can be pretty sure the situation is more like Famspear is describing. If the original owner had "sold the note" (to use the American term) in its entirety then the borrower should be paying the new owner. This is an unlikely situation as the "note" is likely to have transferred between companies by some seriously complex agreement with some rights retained by the original owners. Think about it, which is more valuable? A "note" worth x% of mortgage repayments or a "note" worth x% of mortgage repayments where the parties have some guarantee that their "note" will perform to x% return because the seller offers to do (some or all) the work to enforce the mortgages.
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:56 am

I located a mainstream report (http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/l ... 33298.html) on the Anthony and Miriam Freeman lawsuit, and it turns out the legal issue is neither what I or the other posters had anticipated. It's not the 'securitization' aspect itself of the transfer of the Freemans' mortgages that is being challenged.

Rather, the question is whether the Freemans had consented to the 'sale' of their mortgage from the original mortgagee to a second mortgagee - in this case a transfer from their original lender to the Bank of Scotland. Now before you panic, in this case "consent" is not a consequence of some alleged inherent common law pseudo-right. Consent was required by legislation, specifically the CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND CODE OF PRACTICE ON THE TRANSFER OF MORTGAGES.

I think this is the legislation in question:


From the Central Bank of Ireland website it seems this is a mandatory regulation on the mortgage industry, and not a suggested or recommended code of conduct.

The Irish Examiner article indicates that the Freemans' challenge involves section 1:

1. A loan secured by the mortgage of residential property may not be transferred without the written consent of the borrower. When seeking consent from either an existing or a new borrower the lender must provide a statement containing sufficient information to enable the borrower to make an informed decision. This statement, which must be cleared in advance with the Central Bank of Ireland, must include a clear explanation of the implications of a transfer (including the borrower’s future membership status where the lender is a building society) and how the transfer might affect the borrower. The borrower must be approached on an individual basis and given reasonable time to give or to decline to give his consent.


The Freemans' allege they never gave written consent, which nullifies the transfer, and means the Bank of Scotland is a third party to the mortgage.

I think that satisfies me that there is a triable issue for the Irish High Court. Though hardly a triumph for the Sovereigns / Freemen.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10893
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:36 am

And hardly, it would appear, a clear and completely true statement as to what was at issue here. Color me shocked and surprised. The ironic part is that they may actually win on the merits of what actually happened as opposed to what they claimed.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3550
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby grixit » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:03 pm

If they win it just means that they still owe the money to the original lender instead of a new participant.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:27 am

grixit wrote:If they win it just means that they still owe the money to the original lender instead of a new participant.


A really weird equity angle has occurred to me. The news reports I have read indicate that when the mortgages were sold to the Bank of Scotland those transactions were at a wildly discounted level, "10 cents on the euro".

I think a clever argument would be to say to the original lender that the discount rate now defines the fair market value of the mortgages. For the lender to receive any more than that would represent unjust enrichment to the lender, and lead to a constructive trust back in favour of the Freemans.

That could be spun in an income tax context too. If the fair market value of the mortgages is wildly discounted, then any mortgage payments above the discounted value are income - not repayment of borrowed capital. That, arguably, would lead to massive tax obligations by the original lender.

These are just thought experiments - nothing more.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
JamesVincent
A Councilor of the Kabosh
Posts: 2658
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:01 am

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby JamesVincent » Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:36 pm

notorial dissent wrote:And hardly, it would appear, a clear and completely true statement as to what was at issue here. Color me shocked and surprised. The ironic part is that they may actually win on the merits of what actually happened as opposed to what they claimed.


Kinda like the guys who promise they will get you out of your mortgage by finding illegal signatures. 1 time out of 100 they actually find an issue with paperwork that leads to the mortgage being iffy.
Lift me up above this, the flames and the ashes,
Lift me up and help me to fly away.
Lift me up above this, the broken, the empty,
Lift me up and help me to fly away,
Lift me up!

Five Finger Death Punch "Lift Me Up"

User avatar
JamesVincent
A Councilor of the Kabosh
Posts: 2658
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:01 am

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby JamesVincent » Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:40 pm

grixit wrote:If they win it just means that they still owe the money to the original lender instead of a new participant.


I wonder about that. If the note is proven to be sold illegally by Company A to Company B and Company A gets in serious trouble and loses their license, would the borrowers still be liable? You should be, you still borrowed the money, but if they can't sell off the note and end up going under due to legal issues, what can legally happen?
Lift me up above this, the flames and the ashes,
Lift me up and help me to fly away.
Lift me up above this, the broken, the empty,
Lift me up and help me to fly away,
Lift me up!

Five Finger Death Punch "Lift Me Up"

AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby AndyK » Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:16 pm

Does the prevailing law override mortgage contract clauses allowing resale (if they were in the original contract) ?
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:21 pm

I have located what appears to be a copy of the Freeman v. Bank of Scotland decision on a 'mortgage protest' website:

This appears to be a written decision, so I would hope it will be formally reported. I don't see any indication of a neutral citation or such. The decision is not listed yet on the Irish public access caselaw database, "IRLII", but I'll keep an eye on that to see if it appears later.

A lot of our questions are answered by this written decision. First, the facts are as follows:

    1. The Freemans in 2006 had six mortgages on properties, the mortgages were with the Bank of Scotland Ireland. In 2010 that Bank merged with the Bank of Scotland PLC.

    2. In 2011 the Freemans fell behind in their payments - I believe this is on five of the six properties. Foreclosure occurred on those five properties. The Freemans attempted to halt sale via an injunction, which was rejected.

    3. Three properties were sold by receivers, with the proceeds to the Bank. The Bank agreed to not sell the remaining two properties until the trial was resolved.
The Freemans attack this transaction set in a number of ways.

The Central Bank of Ireland Codes of Conduct (described in previous messages) prohibit the transfer and securitization of the mortgage without the Freemans' consent. The Bank replies with the response suggested by grixit - that even if there were glitches with the sale of the mortgages, the underlying debts would remain and thus the Freemans' action is fatally flawed as it will provide no remedy (para. 9).

The Bank also argues that its mortgage contracts included clauses that effectively meant the Freemans' had, in advance, agreed to whatever securitization or transfer steps the Bank might take in the future (paras. 10-11). These clauses 'trump' any legislative restrictions. So that is your argument, AndyK. In any case, the bank also argues the Codes of Conduct are merely suggestions, rather than binding legislation (paras. 12-15).

In response, the Court reviewed Irish cases have evaluated the Codes of Conduct and their effect (paras. 16-19), concluded that the jurisprudence is "not absolutely clear" (para. 20), and that as a consequence the Freemans' action is not certain to fail, and should therefore go to trial.

I have not reviewed the cases identified in paras. 16-19, but it's pretty hard to disagree with the conclusion that a serious evaluation would be appropriate to confirm the status of the Codes of Conduct, particularly as it seems some of the cases are handling the personal homes of mortgagors in a different manner, and that the Codes of Conduct may set a tort standard of care for lender conduct.

The Freemans' second issue is that the 2006 bank merger between the Bank of Scotland Ireland and the Bank of Scotland PLC was fraudulent and improper, in part because the Bank of Scotland Ireland was bankrupt. The Court rejects this proposition as the status of the Bank of Scotland Ireland is irrelevant, and the merger was supervised by both Irish and Scottish courts, bringing in the doctrine of collateral attack (though that is not expressly stated.) The illegal merger claim is struck.

Next, the Freemans challenge appointment of the receivers who sold their properties. The Court agrees with the Bank of Scotland Ireland that the mortgage contracts permitted that transfer, but that this claim should remain in relation to the potential legal effect of the Codes of Conduct (para. 28), and for the same reasons.

Last, we have the crazy-time arguments. The Freemans also advanced the claim that banks create money out of thin air, so there isn't any 'real' money to pay back. Here is the relevant passage (paras. 29-31):

29. At para. 10 of the statement of claim, the plaintiffs allege that the "first named defendants misled and deceived the plaintiffs by offering what the plaintiffs understood to be a 'loan of money', when in fact the first named defendants did not 'lend' the funds, they instead created the funds with the Plaintiff's signatures on a loan application" [Emphasis in original]. In support of this argument the plaintiffs seek to rely on the affidavit of a Mr. Walker F. Todd which discusses what he calls "a common misconception about the nature of money" and states -

"In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the banks) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers." [Emphasis in original]


30. This affidavit was sworn in unrelated proceedings in the United States. This Court has no knowledge of those proceedings, the facts and issues of the particular case, and the context in which the affidavit was made and accordingly the Court attaches no weight to it. The Court accepts the submission by counsel for the defendants that this 'creation of currency' argument resembles the so-called 'money for nothing' schemes discussed in Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571. Such arguments are coming before the Courts in numerous jurisdictions with increasing frequency since the economic and property market collapse. In Meads, Associate Chief Justice Rooke stated that such arguments are often advanced by a particular type of vexatious litigant which he termed 'Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants'. He described these arguments as 'fanciful' and 'completely devoid of merit' and said they are often made by distressed litigants, particularly those who find themselves in financial difficulty, acting under pressure and on the instruction of organized groups or individuals who have a vested interest in disrupting court operations and frustrating the legal rights of governments, corporations and individuals.

31. It is also important to note that the funds in question, regardless of how they were allegedly 'created', were drawn down by the plaintiffs and, as stated in the statement of claim, were spent on the refurbishment and upkeep of the properties or however else the plaintiffs saw fit. The nature of the loan agreement between the parties was clear and unambiguous and was willingly signed for by the plaintiffs who were aware of their obligations and responsibilities. For that reason, I am of the view that the plaintiffs' claim in relation to the 'creation of currency' argument is frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail and is therefore struck out.


The judgment continues to strike claims that the defendants had engaged in theft (para. 32, 34), but continues a defamation allegation against a receiver as a potential breach of a duty of care related to the Codes of Conduct (para. 33).

My guess is that the "Walker F. Todd" mentioned is this chap:

All in all, an interesting result! I anticipate that the Freeman v. Bank of Scotland case will now provide a clear precedent in Commonwealth jurisdictions to strike actions based on the 'banks create money' concept, as an OPCA 'money for nothing' scheme to evade financial obligation. My understanding is that this argument is very popular in UK Freeman-on-the-Land circles.

Hopefully this case is reported and therefore becomes more broadly accessible to the courts and lawyers.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2787
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:27 pm

Hilfskreuzer Möwe wrote:I have not reviewed the cases identified in paras. 16-19, but it's pretty hard to disagree with the conclusion that a serious evaluation would be appropriate to confirm the status of the Codes of Conduct, particularly as it seems some of the cases are handling the personal homes of mortgagors in a different manner, and that the Codes of Conduct may set a tort standard of care for lender conduct.
This is likely though. We generally view what the English call "owner-occupiers" differently than speculators/landlords. The typical owner occupier will be paying one mortgage on the house they live in. Someone with 5 or 6 mortgages is obviously "in business" and has to take the costs, mortgage rates and risks that go along with a business, consequently the codes of conduct are likely to reflect this. Most lenders will put a lot of effort into coming to some sort of arrangement with an owner-occupier mortgagee, as it looks bad if you keep making them homeless (and even worse if they are a lender bailed out by the government). Landlords, nothing like as much.
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3550
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby grixit » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:45 am

Continuing to accuse the bank of theft and fraud might open the plaintiffs to bepng themselves sued for defamation. In fact, if i were a bank administrator i'd probably do it as a way to discourage others.

Overall this does appear to be a case in wich the plaintiffs might actually have some real ground for complaint but they've poisoned their own well with their sovspeak.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10893
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby notorial dissent » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:50 am

Not being familiar with, or having access to the Irish banking codes, it is really hard to make a determination about the so called "codes of conduct" alluded to here, but I would say that absent any real evidence to the contrary, they are just that, suggestions, not the law.

I will be very interested to see how the Irish courts handle precedent and how they legislatively and judicially look at things like this. I would have thought, that if there was that much question about the enforcement or applicability of the codes to the law at hand that the judge would have taken it under advisement and stayed the case while he looked in to it since it should be an interpretation of law and not a trial issue.

When it is all boiled down, it just looks like more sovrun/freeman on the land gobbledegook trying to get out of paying off a mortgage, as all the other arguments fall back on OPCA rant, dragging the very tired old money from nothing/Walker Todd nonsense in was just the final touch.

Their only real and valid point of law being the "no transfer without approval" falls down against the bank having notified, and having gotten prior permission in the original note/mortgage documents. It still comes down to the fact that transfer or no, they defaulted on the loan, and thus it was in default, so regardless of who foreclosed, it was still in default.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:56 am

Thought forum members might be interested in some 'blog' commentary out of Ireland on the Freeman-on-the-Land movement as a social/political phenomenon:

While I do not necessarily agree with the observations and analysis of these two authors, I think this kind of exposition and review is interesting and helpful.

The latter article mentions a journal article by John Kersey on the UK Freeman-on-the-Land which is I think warrants a separate thread given the fact there is so little academic commentary on this subject.

Moderators, please feel free to 'merge' if you think that is appropriate!

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

Chados
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Somewhere...over the Rainbow

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby Chados » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:24 am

You know, I had occasion to contact and speak at length to the real, no joke Walker Todd himself a couple years ago. The same one all the sovereigns refer to.

He's actually a very credible witness who is absolutely horrified at how his name and work is being misused. He thinks that redemption theory is total BS, but you have to get through a lot of academic lecture to understand where he's coming from. Think Albert Einstein teaching high school algebra. The memoranda that are being passed around in sovereign circles attributed to Mr. Todd are all cut-n-paste hack-jobs put together by some joker who left out about half of it. I think I might actually have a .pdf of the uncut and unscrewed-with original, someplace. I was going to use Mr. Todd in a case, frankly, til the sovereign in question realized that I was about to blast the lid off their little scam and get the REAL Walker Todd on the immutable and sworn Record, and then he pled out in a hurry.

I bet the Federal motions in limine in the other thread happened because the federal prosecutor doesn't have the ability to depose defense witnesses. That would have cleared things up a lot; I've seen several instances over the years where defense counsel thinks the witness is going to support them...when he isn't.

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Irish Freeman-on-the-Land movement

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:18 pm

Stumbled across this 2010 news story of “Stephen of the family Sutton", an Irish chap who unsuccessfully ran a Freeman/Sovereign defence when on trial for driving without insurance (http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/local ... -1-1940175):

Mr. Sutton, who had no previous convictions for an offence of this type, did not cross-examine the Garda on his sworn evidence but did read a statement into the Court record, stating that he “came here to state my claim as a sovereign man”.

He said: “I have committed no crime. I have damaged nobody.”

He said he respected any properly constituted court but it had to be properly constituted.

Judge Zaidan strongly suggested he seek legal advice but Mr. Sutton opted to represent himself and said he would “waive all benefits and privileges.”

At a number of points he interupted Judge Zaidan and was told he could get seven days’ jail for contempt for making a mockery of the Court.

He replied that he would put any interuption “down to nerves”.

He said he had requested that a document of his would be passed to the judge but Judge Zaidan told Mr Sutton he would have to address the issue in public. “I do not deal with private correspondence with you or the Taoiseach,” said Judge Zaidan.

Mr. Sutton said he referred to Article 41 of the Irish Constitution, but the Gaelic version of it, not the blue book “masquerading” as the “true text” in all outlets.

The document described the fixed penalty system as a “money exchanging facility” and questioned under which authority the District Court was operating, asking if it was under “maritime admiralty” or “common law” jurisdiction.


I can't see how that wouldn't work. But sadly, Stephen of the family Sutton instead received a six-month sentence, with an added bonus:

In handing down sentence, Judge Zaidan said he would direct Mr Sutton to get “psychiatric treatment as appropriate” while in prison.

As Mr. Sutton was escorted out of the courtroom, he said: “You are breaking the law here.”


I did not turn up anything else on Stephen when I poked around online and on legal databases.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest