The law is the law

turbotommy

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Does anybody else find Manc33's posts indecipherable? the words he uses all seem to be reasonably correct as does the punctuation but by the end I find myself oblivious to what I have just read.

I'm guessing it makes more sense if you smoke crack on a regular basis but I'm not qualified to say for sure :shock:

On a side note manc, please don't ever stop posting. Your logic is both rediculous and awesome in equal measure and this forum is a better place for having you around!

Manc33

elbowloh wrote:

So the law isn't the law?

This thread is hilarious!

Statute Law is not Common Law and Common Law is not Statute Law, but people use the phrase "the law".

There's no such thing as "the" law and if that were the case, it would have to be be Common Law because it always takes precedence over Statute Law.

I can't find the thing about that guy in the US with his $17,000 tax bill, it was years ago I heard it. What he proved was that money isn't (in the legal world anyway) what we think it is. For example you go to get a loan, no money actually moves anywhere, it is created by your signature and nothing else. A member of the public does this and it is called "counterfeiting". Banks do it and it is called "Fractional Reserve Lending". I call it what it actually is - usury.

The wooden lolly stick thing... there is logic to it in that a girl leaving a wooden lolly stick on a wall is obviously not anything to be concerned about if its a natural material and all over the place trees are dropping twigs and leaves off all the time anyway! What I am getting at is if thats not such an issue they have to chop trees down because of it (they don't) then it shows how absurd it is to try to fine someone £30 for doing basically nothing. For doing something that happens all the time in nature. The point is humans can be fined money - so they are, at every single opportunity. For a start a 16 year old girl probably isn't going to have memorized every Statute and wouldn't even conceive of such an action resulting in a monetary fine, plus she left the stick on the wall by accident anyway.

First.Aspect

Manc33 suffers from Prescottia nonsensica, which a medical condition causing northerners to talk absolute cobblers.

I'm loving this Freeman stuff though. Must be perfect in most of Europe because they don't have a common law system. You can literally get away with murder.

greg66_tri_v2.0

If anyone is interested, a Canadian Judge has comprehensively reviewed and excoriated this mindless FOTL drivel here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/20 ... qb571.html

It makes for a very entertaining read, unless, I suppose, you are a purveyor of or believer in the drivel.

orraloon

176 pages! Xxxx me, I thought Manc33's posts were long.

greg66_tri_v2.0

High level overview (copied and pasted, OPCA = Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument):

IV. The OPCA Phenomenon

[67] I will first engage in an overview of the OPCA community, its composition, and their concepts. Certain of these observations are generalizations that flow from the more specific examples and materials that make up the bulk of these Reasons. In other instances, this information reflects the experiences of justices of this Court that have come to my attention as the supervising administrative Justice of this Court.

[68] Members in the OPCA community appear surprisingly unified by their methodology and objectives. They are otherwise diverse. OPCA litigants appearing in our Court may be anything from educated professionals to retired senior citizens. They may be wealthy or poor. The famous are not immune; for example the American action movie actor Wesley Snipes adopted OPCA techniques in an attempt to defeat his income tax obligations: United State v. Wesley Trent Snipes et al., No. 5:06‑cr‑00022‑WTH‑GRJ‑1 (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fl., February 1, 2008). Snipes presently is serving a three year prison sentence for income tax evasion.

[69] In Canada, this category of litigation traces into the late 1990’s, representing the spread of concepts that emerged much earlier in the United States. Our Court’s experience has been that persons involved in the OPCA community often hold highly conspiratorial perspectives, but there is no consistency in who is the alleged hidden hand. Another uniform OPCA characteristic appears to be a belief that ordinary persons have been unfairly cheated, or deceived as to their rights. This belief that the common man has been abused and cheated by a hidden hand seems to form the basis for OPCA community members perceived right to break ‘the system’ and retaliate against ‘their oppressors’.

[70] These Reasons in many instances identify reported caselaw that comments on OPCA litigants, OPCA gurus, and their misconduct. It should be understood that the reported caselaw is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of encounters between this Court and OPCA litigants are not reported. These litigants and their schemes have been encountered in almost all areas of law. They appear in chambers, in criminal proceedings, initiate civil litigation based on illusionary OPCA rights, attempt to evade court and state authority with procedural and defence-based schemes, and interfere with unrelated matters.

[71] OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.

[72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

[73] A critical first point is an appreciation that the concepts discussed in these Reasons are frequently a commercial product, designed, promoted, and sold by a community of individuals, whom I refer to as “gurus”. Gurus claim that their techniques provide easy rewards – one does not have to pay tax, child and spousal support payments, or pay attention to traffic laws. There are allegedly secret but accessible bank accounts that contain nearly unlimited funds, if you know the trick to unlock their gates. You can transform a bill into a cheque with a stamp and some coloured writing. You are only subject to criminal sanction if you agree to be subject to criminal sanction. You can make yourself independent of any state obligation if you so desire, and unilaterally force and enforce demands on other persons, institutions, and the state. All this is a consequence of the fact gurus proclaim they know secret principles and law, hidden from the public, but binding on the state, courts, and individuals.

[74] And all these “secrets” can be yours, for small payment to the guru.

[75] These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense. A judge who encounters and reviews OPCA concepts will find their errors are obvious and manifest, once one strips away the layers of peculiar language, irrelevant references, and deciphers the often bizarre documentation which accompanies an OPCA scheme. When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts are contemptibly stupid. Mr. Meads, for example, has presented the Court with documents that appear to be a contract between himself, and himself. One Mr. Meads promises to pay for any liability of the other Mr. Meads. One owns all property, the other all debts. What is the difference between these entities? One spells his name with upper case letters. The other adds spurious and meaningless punctuation to his name. Mr. Meads (with punctuation) is the Mr. Meads who appeared in court. He says the Mr. Meads (all capitals) is the one who should pay child and spousal support.

[76] So where is that Mr. Meads (all capitals)? At one point in the June 8 hearing Mr. Meads said that Mr. Meads (all capitals) was a “corporate entity” attached to his birth certificate. Later, he told me that the other Mr. Meads was a “person” - and that I had created him! Again, total nonsense.

[77] The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer.

[78] Mediaeval alchemy is a helpful analogue. Alchemists sold their services based on the theatre of their activities, rather than demonstrated results, or any analytical or systematic methodology. OPCA gurus are modern legal alchemists. They promise gold, but their methods are principally intended to impress the gullible, or those who wish to use this drivel to abuse the court system. Any lack of legal success by the OPCA litigant is, of course, portrayed as a consequence of the customer’s failure to properly understand and apply the guru’s special knowledge.

[79] Caselaw that relates to Gurus, reviewed below, explains how gurus present these ideas in seminars, books, websites, and instructional DVDs and other recordings. They provide pre‑prepared documents, which sometimes are government forms, and instruct how to fill in the necessary information that then produces the desired effects. Gurus write scripts to follow in court. Some will attempt to act as your representative, and argue your case.

[80] When gurus do appear in court their schemes uniformly fail, which is why most leave court appearances to their customers. That explains why it is not unusual to find that an OPCA litigant cannot even explain their own materials. They did not write them. They do not (fully) understand them. OPCA litigants appear, engage in a court drama that is more akin to a magic spell ritual than an actual legal proceeding, and wait to see if the court is entranced and compliant. If not, the litigant returns home to scrutinize at what point the wrong incantation was uttered, an incorrectly prepared artifact waved or submitted.

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

I can't find the thing about that guy in the US with his $17,000 tax bill

Well I am shocked

bompington

"Contemptibly stupid"... "bluntly idiotic"... can we invite that judge onto this forum?

Manc33

...

Manc33

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

<snip>

What about cases where the argument wins?

bompington

Manc33 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

<snip>

What about cases where the argument wins?

Absolutely. Please list some for us!

orraloon

bompington wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

<snip>

What about cases where the argument wins?

Absolutely. Please list some for us!

Why are we waiting, why are we waiting...?

seajays

orraloon wrote:

bompington wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

<snip>

What about cases where the argument wins?

Absolutely. Please list some for us!

Why are we waiting, why are we waiting...?

Well they're all on this wiki:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on ... _successes

The Rookie

Some will 'win', as a (very) legally qualified friend of mine is want to say 'magistrates courts are a crap's shoot' and there is an element of gambling, some will win because of prosecution errors which would have seen any defence win anyway, and it's inevitable some will win by bamboozling the lay magistrates and the fairly lowly qualifies legal advisor, some may even win at crown court (Every successful appeal published online was the result of an incorrect county court verdict - for a laugh read how well the CC can screw up http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /3193.html ), so yes it's very likely some will win - for referenace I've searched the database for 'freemen on the land' and there is no case made it to a higher court than the crown court (apart from an obiter comment in a family court case which isn't relevant).

But also very likely most will lose, and given they will have royally pi55ed the court off will likely find the punishment towards the top end of the scale, not to mention that losing a contested trial even in magistrates courts has a guideline for costs of £620 towards the CPS, I would say the odds are not in favour of the FoTL.

FoTL had it's peak about 3-4 years ago, most the people who saw it as a wizard wheeze have now suffered the consequences and moved on, but there is an excellent article on the Guardian webby with some useful links.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ullet-debt

surrey_commuter

Chris Bass wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

I can't find the thing about that guy in the US with his $17,000 tax bill

Well I am shocked

Of course you can't find it "they" can not have people turning up at "their" banks paying in any old utility bill. The absence of proof just confirms Manc33's conspiracy theory

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

plus she left the stick on the wall by accident anyway.

How do you know? Are you the little girl in question?

seajays

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

I can't find the thing about that guy in the US with his $17,000 tax bill

Well I am shocked

Of course you can't find it "they" can not have people turning up at "their" banks paying in any old utility bill. The absence of proof just confirms Manc33's conspiracy theory

Ah yes - the old "begging the question" logical fallacy...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

veronese68

So reading Greg's post above, the copied summary not the link, the people who try this nonsense on are wasting the courts time in trying to be clever having been fleeced by a snake oil salesman that claims to be an expert. They also seem to be trying to get out of their obligations to pay taxes, child support and traffic fines. In other words these people have no place in society. Could we not just have them shot so the rest of us don't have to pay for their ignorance, stupidity and selfishness.
Unfortunately I can't say any of that surprises me. The most surprising thing is that some people are stupid enough to believe it.

UndercoverElephant

Seajays wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

I can't find the thing about that guy in the US with his $17,000 tax bill

Well I am shocked

Of course you can't find it "they" can not have people turning up at "their" banks paying in any old utility bill. The absence of proof just confirms Manc33's conspiracy theory

Ah yes - the old "begging the question" logical fallacy...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

Couldn't find it as it's been covered up for being too true.

surrey_commuter

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Seajays wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

I can't find the thing about that guy in the US with his $17,000 tax bill

Well I am shocked

Of course you can't find it "they" can not have people turning up at "their" banks paying in any old utility bill. The absence of proof just confirms Manc33's conspiracy theory

Ah yes - the old "begging the question" logical fallacy...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

Couldn't find it as it's been covered up for being too true.

Exactly - initially I thought that he had some mental health issues but the complete lack of evidence to support his theory is making me think that he is indeed correct.

Manc33

There's nothing stopping anyone else finding it. I think it was on a radio show.

It hardly matters with it being the US.

The point of it was to show that when a "receipt" is produced, it carries the value of itself.

I owed something like £950 on a debt but when they sent me the statement it just had my name on it, an account number and a figure, so I rang them up to claim the £950 and they said I owe them it... I said but there's no "negative" symbol in front of this number so as far as I am concerned I have an account with you with £950 in the account, the statement itself proves this, doesn't hint at it, PROVES. The Indian woman arguing the toss with me eventually said "How are you going to get this £950, take us to court" and I said "There's nothing stopping me" and she put the phone down. That was about ten years back, never heard from them since.

Yes this is true. If a piece of paper says X amount on it then the paperwork itself creates the money, in some cases the existence of that paperwork is the only reason and the only place the money "exists".

I don't care what Wesley Snipes did, he probably just didn't know what to say. If there are cases where people won I don't have to care really. Some tried the position and it didn't work, some tried and it did work. It would be my guess that the ones failing said the wrong thing or didn't say something they needed to and the ones succeeding knew what they were doing.

Using the argument that doing this is "bypassing" law is asinine considering that is all Statute Law does, bypasses Common Law in most cases because people aren't educated about the differences between Statute Law and Common Law.

If it didn't matter they would have merged the two legal systems a long time ago.

The Rookie

Bo11ocks......your entitled to your opinion of course, however wrong it is, but legally, it is all bo11ocks.

The fact they didn't progress chasing you for money, doesn't make you right, and if you did owe it, it's immoral.

Even the forums at FMOTL have barely been used in 2 years as the majority realise it's value (none) when faced with someone who will continue in the face of the BS.

'Not saying the right words' is always the excuse given when FoTL fails.....

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

The point of it was to show that when a "receipt" is produced, it carries the value of itself.

I owed something like £950 on a debt but when they sent me the statement it just had my name on it, an account number and a figure, so I rang them up to claim the £950 and they said I owe them it... I said but there's no "negative" symbol in front of this number so as far as I am concerned I have an account with you with £950 in the account, the statement itself proves this, doesn't hint at it, PROVES. The Indian woman arguing the toss with me eventually said "How are you going to get this £950, take us to court" and I said "There's nothing stopping me" and she put the phone down. That was about ten years back, never heard from them since.

Yes this is true. If a piece of paper says X amount on it then the paperwork itself creates the money, in some cases the existence of that paperwork is the only reason and the only place the money "exists".

I don't care what Wesley Snipes did, he probably just didn't know what to say. If there are cases where people won I don't have to care really. Some tried the position and it didn't work, some tried and it did work. It would be my guess that the ones failing said the wrong thing or didn't say something they needed to and the ones succeeding knew what they were doing.

Using the argument that doing this is "bypassing" law is asinine considering that is all Statute Law does, bypasses Common Law in most cases because people aren't educated about the differences between Statute Law and Common Law.

If it didn't matter they would have merged the two legal systems a long time ago.

The reason nobody else will bother looking for it is that it's not true. Read the post from G66 on the previous page. Would I believe a judge or an idiot that has lost his village?
Even if your fantasy were true it would still make you an arsehat for trying to wriggle out of what you owe by thinking you're clever. Anyway please try it, hopefully you will have no internet access from your padded cell.

bompington

I would just like to declare that I am exempting myself from the law of gravity. Of course you may mock, but about 10 years ago I was in India and I fell off a 950m cliff, but I still haven't hit the ground yet, so that proves it!

elbowloh

bompington wrote:

I would just like to declare that I am exempting myself from the law of gravity. Of course you may mock, but about 10 years ago I was in India and I fell off a 950m cliff, but I still haven't hit the ground yet, so that proves it!

That could be the basis for an entire new religion...

Ian.B

Manc33 wrote:

The point of it was to show that when a "receipt" is produced, it carries the value of itself.

I owed something like £950 on a debt but when they sent me the statement it just had my name on it, an account number and a figure, so I rang them up to claim the £950 and they said I owe them it... I said but there's no "negative" symbol in front of this number so as far as I am concerned I have an account with you with £950 in the account, the statement itself proves this, doesn't hint at it, PROVES. The Indian woman arguing the toss with me eventually said "How are you going to get this £950, take us to court" and I said "There's nothing stopping me" and she put the phone down. That was about ten years back, never heard from them since.

Yes this is true. If a piece of paper says X amount on it then the paperwork itself creates the money, in some cases the existence of that paperwork is the only reason and the only place the money "exists".

So let's all send Manc invoices for large negative amounts and he'll owe us the money!

Manc33 wrote:

Using the argument that doing this is "bypassing" law is asinine considering that is all Statute Law does, bypasses Common Law in most cases because people aren't educated about the differences between Statute Law and Common Law.

Debt and contract are common law concepts, not based on statute. But perhaps I just haven't understood their perverse definitions of common law and statute law.

Manc33

What about people that ask for a copy of their mortgage and the company cannot provide the paperwork?

They still get evicted if they stop paying the mortgage.

You also know there's two legal systems when they say if you have a bump in your car don't call the cops if you can sort it out yourself. If only they said that about everything that falls under a statute. In other words don't go harassing people that swear or whatever, it should be left down to them whether they want to pay the fine or not. You could argue "Yeah right, no one would pay it" so what if its their choice to. Some people can't afford to pay some ridiculous fine, whereas others can easily afford it.

There should be a proper opposition party that says don't fall for statute law etc... I'm sure parties like the BNP were simply created by the main parties to point at and say "Look what you'll get if you don't vote for us". Its obvious.

Common Law can only pertain to debt if a financial loss occurs. That is criminal - because it is theft.

bompington

You should really stop drinking before midday, you're making even less sense than usual...

greg66_tri_v2.0

Serious question.

How do you type wearing one of these things?

Manc33

Don't forget a padded cell for the two cops that didn't arrest the van driver with no number plates (the guy that de-registered his van with the DVLA and re-registered it in his own name).