Freemen of the Land

C

Club_B00k_Crutchless

Registered
See it in action in a real court. Looking forward to seeing these idiots in action when the actual case is heard

threadreaderapp.com

Thread by @ConorGogarty on Thread Reader App

Thread by @ConorGogarty: You join me at Bristol Magistrates' Court, where Piers Corbyn has just arrived in a cream Volkswagen. He's accused of a lockdown breach. He's slightly late, which he says is because of his...…
threadreaderapp.com threadreaderapp.com
 
Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
See it in action in a real court. Looking forward to seeing these idiots in action when the actual case is heard

threadreaderapp.com

Thread by @ConorGogarty on Thread Reader App

Thread by @ConorGogarty: You join me at Bristol Magistrates' Court, where Piers Corbyn has just arrived in a cream Volkswagen. He's accused of a lockdown breach. He's slightly late, which he says is because of his...…
threadreaderapp.com threadreaderapp.com
Click to expand...
Yes idiots, they should just accept what Boris tells them to do, not question their betters or their rights to roam freely. They should stay at home watching Man in a high castle for hours on end...
 
Richardvanles said:
Yes idiots, they should just accept what Boris tells them to do, not question their betters or their rights to roam freely. They should stay at home watching Man in a high castle for hours on end...
Click to expand...
If they want to protest crack on, but they've fallen for some dangerous Snake Oil bullshit with this Freemen of the Land stuff. They might as well save time and money and plead guilty to try to get a lesser sentence. The court case will provide some entertaining reading.
 
Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
If they want to protest crack on, but they've fallen for some dangerous Snake Oil bullshit with this Freemen of the Land stuff. They might as well save time and money and plead guilty to try to get a lesser sentence. The court case will provide some entertaining reading.
Click to expand...
You’re missing the point BC. We are expected to follow the law right?
But you’re advocating the powers that be not following their own laws and not only that, you think it’s ok for us normal people who challenge the law to be made an example of. Unfortunately, in simple terms they may probably fail (I began researching this around 10 or 12 years ago) the two main reasons they may fail is
1. They rely on the Magna Carta too much which was designed to protect the Lords and Barons against the King (or Queen)
2. All you need is a Judge who doesn’t care about the law to make a summary judgement just because they can. You probably can’t fathom it that someone who’s job it is to uphold the law will show little regard for it.

What you are actually missing, with your smarmy witty comments is the fact that lots and lots of rich and entitled people get away with things by hiring smart lawyers at massive costs who use little known laws etc to get cases thrown out as being unlawful.
But that’s ok, but we can’t have the little man get one over the law else there will be anarchy.
It’s all smoke and mirrors to get compliance.

Most little guys will lose in the end but I guess they are the type of people who would rather die on their feet than crawl on their knees.
Bless everyone of them!
 
So if I kill someone, they can only prosecute me with my consent? Where do I start?
 
Richardvanles said:
You’re missing the point BC. We are expected to follow the law right?
But you’re advocating the powers that be not following their own laws and not only that, you think it’s ok for us normal people who challenge the law to be made an example of. Unfortunately, in simple terms they may probably fail (I began researching this around 10 or 12 years ago) the two main reasons they may fail is
1. They rely on the Magna Carta too much which was designed to protect the Lords and Barons against the King (or Queen)
2. All you need is a Judge who doesn’t care about the law to make a summary judgement just because they can. You probably can’t fathom it that someone who’s job it is to uphold the law will show little regard for it.

What you are actually missing, with your smarmy witty comments is the fact that lots and lots of rich and entitled people get away with things by hiring smart lawyers at massive costs who use little known laws etc to get cases thrown out as being unlawful.
But that’s ok, but we can’t have the little man get one over the law else there will be anarchy.
It’s all smoke and mirrors to get compliance.

Most little guys will lose in the end but I guess they are the type of people who would rather die on their feet than crawl on their knees.
Bless everyone of them!
Click to expand...
It's not missing the point. They are wasting their time using this nonsense in a court of law. It doesn't matter if they recognised the jurisdiction of the court or not, it is there to uphold the laws in this country as they stand.

They would be better off expending their time and energy finding the loopholes used by the expensive lawyers, if they exist for this sort of thing. Spouting nonsense in the 3rd person and citing article 61, which doesn't apply to us commoners for a start, just riles the judges and makes it more likely they will be handed a bigger fine or longer sentence.
 
Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
It's not missing the point. They are wasting their time using this nonsense in a court of law. It doesn't matter if they recognised the jurisdiction of the court or not, it is there to uphold the laws in this country as they stand.

They would be better off expending their time and energy finding the loopholes used by the expensive lawyers, if they exist for this sort of thing. Spouting nonsense in the 3rd person and citing article 61, which doesn't apply to us commoners for a start, just riles the judges and makes it more likely they will be handed a bigger fine or longer sentence.
Click to expand...
Ahh ok, so it's ok for judges to pass sentence depending on what side of the bed they got out of?
You are aware that some cases have gone on for years using the defence you've described as nonsense
 
🚨🚨 MSM nonsense alert 🚨🚨

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56295261


"Such attempts are part of a larger "pseudolaw" movement - the use of non-existent or outdated legal arguments to defend a case - which goes back decades.

In addition to Article 61, this includes bizarre sounding and legally invalid concepts like "freeman on the land", "sovereign citizens" and "legal name fraud".

They're all based on invalid legal arguments - and on several occasions they've resulted in fines and other legal trouble for the people who attempt to use them.

Some might characterise such attempts as a wilful defiance of the law. But according to Ellie Cumbo, head of public law at the Law Society, such cases often arise from ignorance of the legal system, which is then made worse by poor advice found online."
 
Adumass said:
🚨🚨 MSM nonsense alert 🚨🚨

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56295261


"Such attempts are part of a larger "pseudolaw" movement - the use of non-existent or outdated legal arguments to defend a case - which goes back decades.

In addition to Article 61, this includes bizarre sounding and legally invalid concepts like "freeman on the land", "sovereign citizens" and "legal name fraud".

They're all based on invalid legal arguments - and on several occasions they've resulted in fines and other legal trouble for the people who attempt to use them.

Some might characterise such attempts as a wilful defiance of the law. But according to Ellie Cumbo, head of public law at the Law Society, such cases often arise from ignorance of the legal system, which is then made worse by poor advice found online."
Click to expand...
BBC 😂
 
Richardvanles said:
You’re missing the point BC. We are expected to follow the law right?
But you’re advocating the powers that be not following their own laws and not only that, you think it’s ok for us normal people who challenge the law to be made an example of. Unfortunately, in simple terms they may probably fail (I began researching this around 10 or 12 years ago) the two main reasons they may fail is
1. They rely on the Magna Carta too much which was designed to protect the Lords and Barons against the King (or Queen)
2. All you need is a Judge who doesn’t care about the law to make a summary judgement just because they can. You probably can’t fathom it that someone who’s job it is to uphold the law will show little regard for it.

What you are actually missing, with your smarmy witty comments is the fact that lots and lots of rich and entitled people get away with things by hiring smart lawyers at massive costs who use little known laws etc to get cases thrown out as being unlawful.
But that’s ok, but we can’t have the little man get one over the law else there will be anarchy.
It’s all smoke and mirrors to get compliance.

Most little guys will lose in the end but I guess they are the type of people who would rather die on their feet than crawl on their knees.
Bless everyone of them!
Click to expand...
Send the stupid fuckers to India and get them to help with the mass cremations on car parks, No masks of course as it really isn’t happening .
 
Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
It's not missing the point. They are wasting their time using this nonsense in a court of law. It doesn't matter if they recognised the jurisdiction of the court or not, it is there to uphold the laws in this country as they stand.

They would be better off expending their time and energy finding the loopholes used by the expensive lawyers, if they exist for this sort of thing. Spouting nonsense in the 3rd person and citing article 61, which doesn't apply to us commoners for a start, just riles the judges and makes it more likely they will be handed a bigger fine or longer sentence.
Click to expand...
Do you know what the "law of the land" or "this country" is ? It's common law, commit no loss, harm or injury. What you are talking about is the law of the sea (contract law), also known as "sheep law", for cap dothers to show their obedience to richer people.


Whats more its the court who use the "third person". I'm guessing that you don't understand the set up !
 
bnet said:
Do you know what the "law of the land" or "this country" is ? It's common law, commit no loss, harm or injury. What you are talking about is the law of the sea (contract law), also known as "sheep law", for cap dothers to show their obedience to richer people.


Whats more its the court who use the "third person". I'm guessing that you don't understand the set up !
Click to expand...
Does that mean we have to doff our caps to you?
 
bnet said:
Do you know what the "law of the land" or "this country" is ? It's common law, commit no loss, harm or injury. What you are talking about is the law of the sea (contract law), also known as "sheep law", for cap dothers to show their obedience to richer people.


Whats more its the court who use the "third person". I'm guessing that you don't understand the set up !
Click to expand...
Didn’t know you had professional qualifications in Law as well as Medical Scence . Impressive. 😂😂
 
bnet said:
Double thumbs up from Sardine !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


what a twat.
Click to expand...
Still here I see.

What an obnoxious welching wanker.

Does bnet stand for bigoted non entity twat?
 
SardiniaFox said:
So if I kill someone, they can only prosecute me with my consent? Where do I start?
Click to expand...
You really are a stupid person, only a complete twat would post something so stupid.

I know it, l know it !! I'm arguing again with idiots. Try and learn something before you reply with silly comments Little Miss thumbs up.
 
Foxgolfer said:
Didn’t know you had professional qualifications in Law as well as Medical Scence . Impressive. 😂😂
Click to expand...
There really is no reply worth making about that comment........... or are you just fishing for Thumbs Up from the gender fluid fraternity. Well Sardine to be more precise.
 
bnet said:
You really are a stupid person, only a complete twat would post something so stupid.

I know it, l know it !! I'm arguing again with idiots. Try and learn something before you reply with silly comments Little Miss thumbs up.
Click to expand...
Why don't you put your money where your big fat mouth is and pay to be subscribed since being here is to important to you?
 
Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
Not OK, but they will pass stiffer sentences that waste their time, and money as a consequence


Yes, but did any of them win?
Click to expand...
In the early days some got thrown out or dropped. Proper judges who saw upholding the law as paramount refused to pass judgement or sentence on these type of challenges (early days it was no car tax etc) they then made sure judges etc who don’t give a fuck about upholding the law heard the cases and just found them guilty.
 
bnet said:
Do you know what the "law of the land" or "this country" is ? It's common law, commit no loss, harm or injury. What you are talking about is the law of the sea (contract law), also known as "sheep law", for cap dothers to show their obedience to richer people.


Whats more its the court who use the "third person". I'm guessing that you don't understand the set up !
Click to expand...
Good to see someone demonstrating a clear example of Dunning-Kruger.

Call it whatever you like, if you go around doing whatever you like there's a chance you'll be prosecuted according to the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top