Yes, security is a tricky situation. On the one hand, you are expected to stop all trouble instantaneously. On the other, you are legally constrained in what efforts you can take, and your safety is also an important factor in ensuring you resolve the issue. And contrary to what some manager may wish, you can’t just start popping caps in their asses for fighting inside. 
Yes. Very good observations from the frontline.
It seems to me that the worldview (which I admit I can’t quite define) already exists in their heads and all the things they list are simply taken as confirmation.
Divorce, Freemen style: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq>
This is destined to become the anti-Feemen bible for judges and litigators in Canada.
I know a man who successfully used a similar - but not exact - defense. His differed in that he was not pulled over, he was arrested in his house.
He had driven home drunk and missed his driveway - putting his car in a ditch. He left it there and went into his home. A half hour later the cops showed up and gave him a breathalyzer and arrested him for DUI.
His defense was, they did not see him driving under the influence. In theory, he could have driven home, landed in the ditch, and went inside and was so upset he did a bunch of shots to calm his nerves. The ruling was that since no one could prove *when *he had gotten hammered, he was not guilty.
I would actually be skeptical of this story - except, a mutual friend was also at the hearing and he reported the story to me, not the plaintive.
This is plausible to me, and, while I obviously don’t know all the facts and law here, were I could easily imagine ruling this way were I the judge.
Hopefully, the prosecutor got him for reckless driving, at least.
I notice that the parents disabled comments for the video. They probably did not want to see the thousand of comments on what a moron they raised.
As Ron White says, you can’t fix stupid.
No kidding! It’s really long, but it’s well worth perusing for anyone interested in this thread. A justice in Canada basically takes this one divorce case (in which the man is a Freeman-on-the-Land) and decides to use the case to write the book—literally—on Freeman legal tactics. Rather than just categorically dismissing all of Mr. Meads’ pseudolegal bullshit, the justice, in writing the case decision, goes through each one of his claims and dissects it, explaining both the claim and the reasons for the court’s rejection of it. It’s intended not only to explain the decision in this particular case, but to serve as a reference for the rest of the Alberta court system in dealing with these kooks.
The really amazing thing is that this couple apparently had at least a quarter million dollars in a bank account, in addition to silver bullion and other assets. I don’t know what job Mr. Meads has, but he’s clearly no backwoods hick in toe shoes!
Obviously you’ve never been there.
After reading the decision (yep, I read the whole thing), I agree. It explains why the Freemen arguments don’t, and won’t work; no matter how much the gurus, as Justice Rooke calls them, claim otherwise.
In a weird way, it’s kind of sad. I’ve read their documents–many are available online–and it seems to me that if they spent as much time on defending their matters under the current system as they did drafting lengthy and not-legally-binding documents that are bound to be rejected by courts (see, e.g. Felthouse v. Bindley, 142 ER 1037, [1862] EWHC CP J35: silence does not indicate acceptance of a contract; cited in the Meads decision at para. 465 et seq.), they would see a much faster and likely more satisfactory resolution to their matters. And, while a lawyer’s representation may cost a little more than the materials sold by the gurus, the defendants/accuseds would at least have someone on their side who can make arguments that a court will actually listen to.
Well, it’s their choice. Justice Rooke has written the user’s manual in this regard; they ignore his words at their peril.
nm
Ah, OK. NM, then.
NM!!!
Our friend from the OP (the one who was tased) has appeared in court again, this time on the contempt of court charge he was facing. According to the CDAPress of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho:
And interestingly,
I wonder if he will pay in gold?
Just for shits and giggles, they should have placed an electric chair in the prisoner’s dock, attached it to a taser, and jolted him when he refused to stand.
I like the idea of saying to him, “If you won’t stand up, you will grovel at the feet of the judge”, and then tasing him to the floor.
Win!
No, he’ll pay in a “Natural Citizen’s Promissory Note”, a handwritten self-issued script that basically says to get it out of the fund the Federal government owes all sovereign citizens.
Then he’ll issue a bill to the court for (delusionary bullshit god only knows what) for $611 billion, threatening to seize all government assets if they don’t pay up.
Seriously, the usual M.O. is to write “accepted for value” across the bill/invoice/notice and send it back.