"To F*** This Court And Everything that it Stands For"
Without a doubt, the greatest legal document in American history, written by a "Floridian-American" who rejects the "Citizens of the United States". Evidently, another group of Freemen on the Land providing more unintentional hilarity.
And enough colourful language that even Quentin Tarentino would suggest moderation.
I truly don't understand why people feel the need to make a$$es out of themselves in a public and glorious way.
when you start bringing up concepts like an organic constitution where in the opinion of the arguee that the constitution has somehow been changed by what amounts to a secret coup of foreign democrats you've legally lost.
She must have paid her lawyer a fortune to embarrass himself representing her abject stupidity.
She's almost like a internet forum troll with extreme anger issues.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
She must have paid her lawyer a fortune to embarrass himself representing her abject stupidity.
She was a pro se litigant. No lawyer would have involved themselves in that document. It would be a guaranteed benchslapping and almost certainly end in disbarment.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I was at a wedding a few years back, and one of those in attendance was an acquaintance I haven't seen in a long time.
In the parking lot after the ceremony the aquaintence comes up to me and the conversation was as follows:
Him: Hey, I was having an argument with Rudy. Can you explain to him that you don't actually need a drivers licence in order to drive on the roads?"
Me: Wait, what? Do you mean you don't need a drivers licence at all, or you don't need it on your physical person when driving... actually either way you need it.
Him: No, if you don't sign anything to say you fall under the law, then it doesn't apply.
Me: Yes it does.
Him: No, if you don't agree to it, you're not bound by it.
Me: It's the law, you accept the laws of the land that you're in. In Nova Scotia you HAVE to obey Nova Scotia driving laws, and all laws of the legislature as well as Parliament.
Him: Have you heard about Freeman on the Land?
Me: Yep, they're idiots. Justice Rooke wrote a pretty scathing piece on it just recently (I assume the case Troutman posted above, if so there's any easy way to determine how old this conversation it, haha). They're idiots, the way society works is you're bound to the laws of the government you're in.
Him: But what if I disagree with those laws, or don't want to follow them?
Me: You can leave. That's always an option, you can renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.
Him: But everywhere has laws like that, if I moved to the States I'd be in the same boat.
Me: You would, however you could move to Somalia they don't have any laws there.
Him: Why would I want to move there?
Me: You wouldn't, because a society without laws can't function. Which is why Freeman on the Land is idiotic. But hey, if you want to move to Somalia, it's your choice, and I wish you all the best.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
I can't believe the guy actually got off the hook. "You have the right to resist any unlawful arrest". But he was pulled over for a lawful reason. Don't get it.
Me: You would, however you could move to Somalia they don't have any laws there.
Him: Why would I want to move there?
Me: You wouldn't, because a society without laws can't function. Which is why Freeman on the Land is idiotic. But hey, if you want to move to Somalia, it's your choice, and I wish you all the best.
Actually I suspect Somalia has laws as well. He's screwed. Moon maybe? Random small Pacific Ocean ungoverned island?
I can't believe the guy actually got off the hook. "You have the right to resist any unlawful arrest". But he was pulled over for a lawful reason. Don't get it.
I see you didn't read the decision. Justice O'Donnell found that despite the man's ramblings, his first assertation that he had no lawful obligation to provide his identity was correct. The Ontario Highway Traffic Safety Act does not explicitly require a driver to signal turns. Rather, the driver is only obligated to signal when the turn will impact other drivers on the road. As they were on a deserted highway and the police car was behind, the police had no lawful pretense to pursue and search the defendant. All the events that precipitated were thereful unlawful. That's why he got off the hook.
Also, I wonder what happened to ":::dennis-larry:: of the meads-family:::"
I see you didn't read the decision. Justice O'Donnell found that despite the man's ramblings, his first assertation that he had no lawful obligation to provide his identity was correct. The Ontario Highway Traffic Safety Act does not explicitly require a driver to signal turns. Rather, the driver is only obligated to signal when the turn will impact other drivers on the road. As they were on a deserted highway and the police car was behind, the police had no lawful pretense to pursue and search the defendant. All the events that precipitated were thereful unlawful. That's why he got off the hook.
Also, I wonder what happened to ":::dennis-larry:: of the meads-family:::"
I read the decision and that was he surprising part...only needing to signal when there are other cars. Still thought it would have been a lawful stop though. Weird all around.
"To F*** This Court And Everything that it Stands For"
