Freeman-on-the-land idiocies

[two sheds]

According to sources speaking about the Bournemouth court hearing, Hood turned up to the court with handcuffs and around 30 of his followers before attempting to arrest the judge. “He refused to enter the court without his followers and demanded to film it. This was refused and the case continued without him. He was then sentenced to three months prison,” the person said.

tried to arrest the judge

At the January 2023 Portsmouth County Court hearing, which The News attended, Hood claimed the DVSA had defrauded the British public out of £50m a year. But he was handed at injunction and told to pay £22,550 costs for publishing “harassing” social media posts against people at the government department, who he claimed were trying to “silence” him.

and another £22,550 costs must be the lawyers' fees

 

[existentialist]

Look at this prize plonker

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/rat-catcher-ex-portsmouth-driving-instructor-goes-on-run-after-being-ordered-to-jail-for-contempt-of-court-4658493

Enjoy your free holiday, dickhead

Someone has to be pretty fucked up to get to this point. Nonetheless, that can't be an excuse for the kind of nasty harassment he's clearly been engaging in.

 

[T & P]

Someone has to be pretty fucked up to get to this point. Nonetheless, that can't be an excuse for the kind of nasty harassment he's clearly been engaging in.

And backed up by dozens of fellow nutjobs as well.

 

[cupid_stunt]

That one is 'very special', what a twat.

 

[scifisam]

And his real name is Robert Hood, but instead of using that he goes by the rather shit Robbie the Rat Catcher. Maybe he doesn't want any implication that he'd give to the poor.

 

[Serge Forward]

And his real name is Robert Hood, but instead of using that he goes by the rather shit Robbie the Rat Catcher. Maybe he doesn't want any implication that he'd give to the poor.

Bobbins Hood.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

these lot are not freemen of the land but they say that their views are correct:


as it's an hour long, tldw:
this is about a 64 page affidavit from "baron david ward" which explains why there is no consent by anyone to be governed, and therefore no law really exist as everyone would have had to sign a contract giving their consent for them to be valid
in
wet
ink
so there.

e2a: anyone interested in learning more they are running a workshop in bristol soon.

 

[two sheds]

Some lovely quotes in there, for example "It's literally a life-changing journey" yep a journey to prison

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

Some lovely quotes in there, for example "It's literally a life-changing journey" yep a journey to prison

they do put this caveat:

Make no mistake. If you get the Affidavit wrong on any point and you are equally going to jail for 6570 Years for Fraud. This is why the Affidavit is so Powerful. DO you not think I knew this when I hit the Email Send button on 657 MP’s?? So don’t get your Affidavit WRONG.

 

[two sheds]

I liked that they sent a copy to all the MPs and it sounds like none of them responded so it was clearly an incredibly powerful Affidavit

 

[rubbershoes]

they do put this caveat:

Affidavits were largely phased out of English law 25 years.

They still exist in some aspects of law but I doubt these numpties have a clue about that.

 

[two sheds]

Not in witness statements? Does that mean people have to appear in court in person? I had a couple done in my court case although that was 30 years ago now.

 

[belboid]

they do put this caveat:

657 MPs? What fine is he going to get for creating 7 fictitious members?

 

[rubbershoes]

Not in witness statements? Does that mean people have to appear in court in person? I had a couple done in my court case although that was 30 years ago now.

Witness statements replaced affidavits.

And neither mean people don't attend court to give evidence. They contain the evidence you would give if you had to attend court

 

[two sheds]

And neither mean people don't attend court to give evidence. They contain the evidence you would give if you had to attend court

When you say neither mean people don't attend court ... so you do still have to attend court? That doesn't really align with your second sentence.

 

[DaveCinzano]

When you say neither mean people don't attend court ... so you do still have to attend court? That doesn't really align with your second sentence.

You may be called to court to face questions about what you say in your statement.

However, if (for example) both prosecution and defence accept a witness statement as a full and truthful account then it may be that neither wishes to call that witness to attend court.

 

[two sheds]

ah ok that makes sense ta

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I believe longdog is well versed in the history of the “Baron”.

 

[marty21]

BBC News - General election candidate jailed over Covid fine

Dr Anne McCloskey jailed over Covid fine

Anne McCloskey is standing as a candidate in Foyle in the upcoming Westminster election.

www.bbc.com

I guess this falls under the freeman type stuff , jailed for a week as she refused to pay the fine (some sort of lockdown fine) as she didn't recognise the court.

 

[cupid_stunt]

BBC News - General election candidate jailed over Covid fine

Dr Anne McCloskey jailed over Covid fine

Anne McCloskey is standing as a candidate in Foyle in the upcoming Westminster election.

www.bbc.com

I guess this falls under the freeman type stuff , jailed for a week as she refused to pay the fine (some sort of lockdown fine) as she didn't recognise the court.

Will she now not recognise the prison?

 

[rubbershoes]

When you say neither mean people don't attend court ... so you do still have to attend court? That doesn't really align with your second sentence.

The idea of putting it all in a statement is so everyone knows what the other side is saying and so hopefully the case will settle without going court. Before 1999, people would turn up at court and give evidence about things that had not been previously mentioned. It was known as litigation by ambush. People kept secrets up their sleeve to win in court, and judges let them do this as it was seen as unjust to exclude relevant evidence, even if it hadn't been disclosed before.

There were huge changes to the court procedure rules in 1999. One change was the move from affidavits to witness statements, but that's largely just a change of name. Affidavits and witness statements do the same.

A much larger change in 1999 was the emphasis on front loading and sticking to the rules. Documents and statements must be disclosed when the court says so, and woe betide anyone who doesn't comply.
The aim is a cards on the table approach to discourage cases ending up in a trial. Everyone knowing what the other side will say at trial makes a case more likely to settle before its ( extremely expensive) day in court.

Cases are prepared as though they're going to court, with witness statements saying what the witness would say. But the reality is that 99% of cases don't get to a trial

 

[two sheds]

Sounds like an improvement. My civil case never got to court but my final conversation with my barrister went:

"they've withheld documents" "County Court judge won't be too bothered about that",
"they've lied in their witness statements" "County Court judge won't be too bothered about that",
"but if they say in court what they've said in their witness statements they'll be committing perjury"

at which point he alternately nodded and shook his head to indicate that a County Court judge wouldn't be very much fucking bothered about that either. Whole fucking procedure was a farce.

 

[rubbershoes]

Sounds like an improvement. My civil case never got to court but my final conversation with my barrister went:

"they've withheld documents" "County Court judge won't be too bothered about that",
"they've lied in their witness statements" "County Court judge won't be too bothered about that",
"but if they say in court what they've said in their witness statements they'll be committing perjury"

at which point he alternately nodded and shook his head to indicate that a County Court judge wouldn't be very much fucking bothered about that either. Whole fucking procedure was a farce.

Pre 1999 it was the wild west and anything went.

In the early 2000s judges instituted a reign of terror to enforce compliance. I read about one unfortunate solicitor who delivered a bundle to the court one day early. It's meant to be 3-7 days before trial but they did it 8 days before.

The case was struck out and the solicitor would probably have had to pay compensation to their client for whatever they would have got if the trial had gone ahead

 

[two sheds]

I'd suggest that didn't hold for courts in Scotland - I got taken to court in some backwater court in Scotland by an arsewipe after then and he ignored all the procedures, and had a history of playing the courts and lying through his teeth. The judges still let him do it. I had to settle and the whole thing cost me ten grand. I eventually decided they were all in the same lodge.

He was a conspiracy theorist loon who had quite a following, eventually died of heart attack giving a conspiracy talk. Apparently some of them wanted an autopsy to make sure he hadn't actually been killed by the state. I wanted an autopsy to make sure the piece of shit was actually dead.

 

[T & P]

Another one

Election candidate jailed for an unpaid fine

Anne McClosey is running as an independent

www.irishnews.com

Ms McCloskey said she was protected by the Geneva Convention and accused court officials of “fraud” by entering a plea of not guilty for her in relation to the original offences.

The defendant went on to say she had been arrested on the foot of “a fake entity” namely the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) whom she said “does not exist in law or statute”.

As the defendant continued to speak Judge McElholm muted her microphone and said she was talking “nonsense” .

 

[NoXion]

The Geneva Convention? What do the laws and customs of warfare have to do with unpaid fines? Is she a PoW who has been coerced into providing labour?

These folks remind of that one time I tried to argue that teachers making me do schoolwork was against my human rights. The difference being that I was an ignorant child. What's their excuse?

 

[two sheds]

Yep pleading that the Geneva Convention protects her is just delusional. Everyone knows she should have been referring to the Magna Carta

 

[rubbershoes]

I'd suggest that didn't hold for courts in Scotland - I got taken to court in some backwater court in Scotland by an arsewipe after then and he ignored all the procedures, and had a history of playing the courts and lying through his teeth. The judges still let him do it. I had to settle and the whole thing cost me ten grand. I eventually decided they were all in the same lodge.

Scotland has a completely different legal system!

 

[two sheds]

Yes, so I discovered

 

[nogojones]

these lot are not freemen of the land but they say that their views are correct:


as it's an hour long, tldw:
this is about a 64 page affidavit from "baron david ward" which explains why there is no consent by anyone to be governed, and therefore no law really exist as everyone would have had to sign a contract giving their consent for them to be valid
in
wet
ink
so there.

e2a: anyone interested in learning more they are running a workshop in bristol soon.

You absolute fucker.

Sunday morning slugishness has made me watch that vid. Then I followed up on some of the bollocks contained in it. 2.5 hours later and three cups of coffee later brought me to...



That Warrington Council didn't have enough staff to read through his 64 page dyslexic "affidavit" back in 2011 means that this magic trick gets you out of every PCN.

If you bother to watch it all, close to the end the lady explains how she doesn't stand under laws and all the usual bollocks and when her car was clamped after she didn't pay up for her PCN's, tax or whatever, she spent three hours sawing the clamp off and managed to deflate her tyre in the process. Off she went for a drive, with the flat (if the world is flat, why shouldn't my tyre be as well?) only to be pulled by the plod for a flat tyre. Quick check on the PCN shows she isn't legal to be on the pavement, let alone the road and impounded her car.

The late "Baron David Ward" facebook then took me to WeRe "bank" WeRe Bank of England. If you pay this lot £180 (but please remember money isn't real - unless you're paying them, then it's pounds sterling please), they'll send you a "checkbook" that you can use to pay off your debts, as it's proof that you've "tendered payment".

I'm sort of split between laughing my socks off, but then feeling quite guilty, as a lot of these people, whilst being clearly barking and pretty entertaining, are also pretty vulnerable.