Please could you link me to the “laws” of this message board please?
The thing is I wouldn’t have thought of this as a “board war” because youtube is not a message board and I would not advocate a “war” against youtube as that would be the kind of think you’d have to be as insane as a freeman to do!
Clearly:
[ol][li]No one would listen to me here[]If they did, what could they do “against youtube”[]and if they could do something “against youtube” - no offense but youtube is a lot bigger than this website![/li]
[/ol]
I was just suggesting arguing with this guy cause it’s funny to do - not as way of “scoring points” or anything
I also want to clarify I am not arguing with you - I would just like to see the laws so I can not break them again.
For those that are as shocked and amazed that some people think this could even begin to work, here is a link to a decent summary of a recent Canadian decision. The judgment itself is directly linked in the summary (and is worth reading for the comprehensive, clear and no-nonsence without ridicule approach, even if it is very long).
Even though it is a Canadian law result, I am sure that lawyers and judges worldwide (or at least common law jurisdictions) will find this interesting. I did.
ps. I have no affiliations to the ukhumanrightsblog or in fact any institution named or referenced in either the article or judgment.
I’ve been reading it in my spare time all day. If you can cut through the caselaw citations (which are necessary in any court decision), it’s a comprehensive survey of all the arguments, magic words, documents, “gurus,” capital letters and weird punctuation, etc. etc. etc., and why they don’t work.
Stick with it–it’s a tough slog in spots; but overall, well worth reading.
I think “magic words” really categorizes it, nicely—it’s like chronicling a system of magic, or obsessive study of religious laws and mythos. Only instead of an undercurrent of art or fable, it has politics and economics. Fhtagn.
Really a fascinating insight into an alien worldview, and the kind of minds that could create it.
It is, and as an Alberta lawyer (which is where this case is from), I can tell you that it is fascinating. I have read “Freemen” decisions before, but this is perhaps the most comprehensive–and the most damning to their positions.
I’m up to “fee schedules,” unilateral contracts, and Felthouse v. Bindley. Fascinating reading, and a good review of contract law!
[QUOTE=Justice Rooke]
Another branch of the immunity category flows from an argument that a person has some status or has undertaken certain steps that renders the OPCA litigant immune to court action. I have given this category the name ‘magic hats’ to capture the manner in which OPCA gurus and litigants approach these arguments. They freely wear, remove, and switch ‘magic hats’ as need be. Many OPCA schemes are a combination, or succession, of ‘magic hats’."
The manner in which ‘magic hat’ schemes are presented is sometimes entirely arbitrary; a litigant only need say “I am a sovereign man”, or “I am a Freeman-on-the-Land”, and then are allegedly rendered immune to state and court action, all without any other further effort, explanation, or rationale. Some litigants go further: Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005 BCSC 839 at para. 24, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447 reports a litigant who filed an “Affidavit of Non-Participation in Commercial Activity” that announced “I am immune from the Jurisdiction of any Court in Canada.”
Sometimes a ‘magic hat’ is accompanied by a theoretical context to explain the operation of the ‘magic hat’. Mr. Meads, for example, explained his immunity to state and court action via his choice to be subject to “God’s law”, the “Maximus of Law”, which applies to him as he is a “living flesh and blood sentient-man”.
[/QUOTE]
Basically, as the justice uses the term, a “magic hat” is some claimed status that renders the litigant exempt from his legal obligations.
We can send them to the same planet I’m sending people who talk on the phone while driving, god-botherers of all flavors and people who get to the front of the line and still don’t know what they want.
The last link in the OP is no longer valid. The user has closed his account.
I did see a couple of the comments last night. (I wasn’t going to watch the crazy or read everything). I remember the poster saying something like, ‘You can’t just make a “law” and make people follow them.’ Um… Actually, you can. That’s why they’re called ‘laws’ and not ‘suggestions’.
