Jun 17, 2013 3:04 PM

i cant read it what does it say

Nevermind the signatures Derek, it's the qualifications after the space provided. I was just highlighting the term Surety...

I think the guy who was arrested tries writing "under duress" but they erased it and made him start again...

Hello guys, I'm also a member of this group :P Uncanny to scroll through and see this. I can explain what happened. She put it in front of me to sign... (not wanting to create controversy by refusing) I asked 'what will happen to me if I don't sign it?' (conditional acceptance) - leading to a rant of 'you'll be thrown back in that cell and you'll stay there until you see the judge'. - Ok, says I - that's duress so I begin to write 'under duress' before signing my name through the words. After I had wrote that she snatched the pen and prevented me from signing and then she put another pen down flat on the page so i couldn't write under the signature (that's why the letters are all up off the line). She signed the other surety, scribbled it out and signed the rest. I ultimately ended up in mountjoy (prison) but to me this is still unresolved as i was held for breach of bail BUT my argument is that that agreement was under duress, therefore absent consent. I've been meaning to follow this up but haven't been able to with college (I went back to study law), but i'm finished that now so perhaps I should pick this back up again? hmmmm.

Kevin- are you saying that YOU are the guy in this audio in court...? :/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DX7ZI7S60w

Yeah. Why the :/ face?

That was four years ago, the information had only freshly arrived on our shores. Everything was so new, unknown, unchartered. It was some experience I tell you that.

WHOA. Thats a look of bewilderment. You know how many times ive listened to this audio- its fucking TEXTBOOK.....so many questions ;)

Really? Whoah hahah! Yeh bewilderment for me to brother. Not something I expected to see scrolling away haha. And in here too? A friend suggested I join up here and i've just been glancing every now and then to learn what I can so yeh it's bewildermental.

Here's the part that gets me with that audio. The part where you guys all barked at the Judge- "If you're going to give me an ORDER, then you're liable for a BILL. The Bills of Exchange Act says so..."

Now, i dont doubt that- BUT.....WHERE exactly does it say that, in the Bills of Exchange Act? :/

I don't know. :/

hahahah!

..reminds me of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY

That's the thing mate...you know I've asked myself that question, i've looked for it but never actually read that with my own eyes. It must be written in law (perhaps some other part) that an bill follows and order because it makes logical sense - but hey, it 'sounds' right and it worked that time. I think it rests conceptually on the point that you are a free agent - no one has the authority to order you around - if you fulfill someones order you are entitled to bill for that performance but (i would imagine) only when notice of said billing is given prior to.

" I don't know.".... so you guys just went on a 'fishing-expedition,' and you just happened to get the Judge to BITE on the whole - "...you gotta take a BILL thing?" - LOL, awesome

There's a guy on here from Ireland who lives in Australia now Adam Thomas who has a huge-hard-on for everything Bills of Exchange Act...maybe he might have the answer

"... but (i would imagine) only when notice of said billing is given prior to." - YESSS, i think that is the KEY...you gave him NOTICE, the Judge had time to think about it, and he stood down - fucking BRILLIANT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qm0KUPeD8

No, the thing is we believed that at the time. I think a LOT of people still do but without having read the law - you know it might BE true so? But we weren't trying to catch him out, that was the truth at the time to us. Also, the judge wasn't in the room. To my knowledge it is not good court etiquette to address the public gallery esp if the judge is not present. But can I say, the most significant part of that whole day for me, wasn't what I done, it was what those who came to support me done. Because (putting aside the Bill of Exchange Act) they stood their ground when they were ordered to leave. They remained peacefully and as such fully asserted their sovereign inherent power. The judge had to come back out and act like he didn't care, act like nothing had gone on - it was a tremendous sense of the people really holding the power. We do.

..im gonna listen to it again, just for fun :)

lol for the 'Gold' vid

there's a whole write up of it on our community website www.freemanireland.ning.com i'll dig it out for you if you like?

"..allegedly, but the court may call me Kevin today" - LMAO

But what sort of a question is: "Do you think you're KEVIN FLANAGAN?" anyway? who says that? "THINK YOU ARE"

As we've learned from Scott, MR./MISTER is a term of Admiralty Law that refers to a subordinate...

..you're RESERVING ALL RIGHTS, like everyone SHOULD do, and people are laughing at you - HA, love it...ignorance is bliss

..whats great, is that the people in the gallery it seems, got away with speaking out-loud in court and didnt seem to get any shit for it? :/

Scott has explained the significance of how it benefits THEM to having you in an empty-courtroom relative to admiralty-law...i just forget exactly now what that was

I'm not sure but at the very least it suggests he didn't want people seeing what was going on....now...WHY? That's the big question. Like I said this was all new to us at the time, I was very much testing the waters here in Ireland - I didn't know if it was true but that day in court proved to me it was. If what I was spouting was utter nonsense, pseudo-legal or whatever else things wouldn't have happened as they did, he wouldn't have referred to me as 'relatively' intelligent but be very careful what i did next if it was BS. I heard recently that since January 2013 there have already been over 100 so called 'freeman' cases in the Irish Courts. It's spreading rapidly however, having gone of to study and hone my skills there are parts of the 'concepts' which I think need refining, updating and some discarding in order to strengthen the cases going forward.

These arent courts of LAW as we think of watching JUDGE JUDY we're entering anymore. You were summoned basically to a BUSINESS MEETING. If you're in law-school somehow, look-up the definition of MAIN MOTION in Black's Law 9th if you have access to one... ;)

FIRST OF ALL, the fucking Constitution of Ireland applies to that arresting Garda reading it, not YOU! - LOL

"Contempt-of-court"...even AFTER you RESERVED ALL RIGHTS again? *shakes head*

Most people are used to saying OBJECTION! in court when something is said they dont agree with. But, when a Judge/Justice says it, we are to say instead "EXCEPTION!"

Do you ever consider the meta-physical aspect of the law? Ever consider why it's an OBJECTion?

Ever consider the words SUBSTANCE (of claim), MATTER, filling in FORMS?

We create these conceptual shapes using words - to go forth and do our bidding in the world - to cause effect.

"I DO NOT accept...i DO NOT accede...i DO NOT consent...i DO NOT ATTORN" - i love it how you just kept repeating simply "I DO NOT accept"

What's the MATTER with you my friend? Matter is a substance like energy, we percieve it as a solid - but by itself it is incomplete - MATTER must take on a FORM - so stick you matter down on our form, in our shape, after our likeness - not yours. When Matter and Form combine and take shape - OBJECTS APPEAR (just like you APPEAR before the court) ooooohh Brain fart.

What's the Matter before the court? What's the substance of this claim? Is it presented in the proper FORM? Has SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction been obtained?

Yes, but because...a court of admiralty only has jurisdiction over MATTERS of Mariners' wages, BOTTOMRY, and SALVAGE. SALVAGE = a shipwreck not yet cast ashore. I dont think you were there for any of those MATTERS.....pretty deep what you said there though

AND.....a court of admiralty NEVER interferes where there is a TITLE in controversy

Nice stuff !!!...Thanks

was that a freudian slip on her part to sign the surety line lol

It might be foreshadowing, i'm thinking, if/when this is challenged someone's going to have to foot the bill and she signed for it.