Freeman on the Land?

[OldSolduer]

I thought you were a Mopar man?

An Olds Cutlass is a nice car - buy yes A Mopar family we are.

 

[Remius]

An Olds Cutlass is a nice car - buy yes A Mopar family we are.

I drove a cutlass supreme for a bit… and yes it very much was.

 

[Good2Golf]

I drove a cutlass supreme for a bit… and yes it very much was.

 

[Furniture]

But again philosophically they do have a slight amount of legitimacy, basically them along the lines of the social contract.

Not really, they simply want to ignore rules they don't like, and dress it up in meaningless fluff about "social contracts".

They are spoiled children throwing a tantrum because Mommy said it's bed time.

 

[PMedMoe]

And yet another yahoo in B.C.

B.C. judge rejects prohibited driver's 'manifestly unsound' legal arguments

A B.C. man who argued he could not be prosecuted for driving and tobacco offences because – among other reasons – he had changed his name to Tiberius Rex has been convicted of all three charges he faced.

In a decision issued earlier this month and posted online Tuesday, provincial court Judge Peter Whyte described the defendant's arguments as "nonsensical bafflegab."

Though the case is known as R. v. Kenneth Jeffrey Cooper, Whyte refers to Cooper as "the defendant" throughout, because of his insistence that he is no longer known by that name, but as Tiberius Rex, or just Tiberius.


Here's the link to the decision: REX v. KENNETH JEFFREY COOPER

 

[dapaterson]

Batshit crazy gonna batshit crazy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/daniel-nagase-lawsuit-1.6900086?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

 

[Remius]

Batshit crazy gonna batshit crazy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/daniel-nagase-lawsuit-1.6900086?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

Holey Moley….

 

[brihard]

Crazies gonna crazy…

 

[daftandbarmy]

Holey Moley….

BC... it stands for 'Because'

 

[RangerRay]

Batshit crazy gonna batshit crazy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/daniel-nagase-lawsuit-1.6900086?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

JFC…

 

[medicineman]

Batshit crazy gonna batshit crazy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/daniel-nagase-lawsuit-1.6900086?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

 

[Kilted]

And yet another yahoo in B.C.

B.C. judge rejects prohibited driver's 'manifestly unsound' legal arguments

A B.C. man who argued he could not be prosecuted for driving and tobacco offences because – among other reasons – he had changed his name to Tiberius Rex has been convicted of all three charges he faced.

In a decision issued earlier this month and posted online Tuesday, provincial court Judge Peter Whyte described the defendant's arguments as "nonsensical bafflegab."

Though the case is known as R. v. Kenneth Jeffrey Cooper, Whyte refers to Cooper as "the defendant" throughout, because of his insistence that he is no longer known by that name, but as Tiberius Rex, or just Tiberius.


Here's the link to the decision: REX v. KENNETH JEFFREY COOPER

I honestly hope that he appeals this all the way to the Supreme Court so that nonsensical bafflegab becomes binding in Common Law in the entire country.

 

[PMedMoe]

I honestly hope that he appeals this all the way to the Supreme Court so that nonsensical bafflegab becomes binding in Common Law in the entire country.

I really hope not. Our courts are tied up with enough BS. We don't need frivolous lawsuits.

 

[brihard]

I honestly hope that he appeals this all the way to the Supreme Court so that nonsensical bafflegab becomes binding in Common Law in the entire country.

At this point the courts are able to pretty quickly blow them off with reference to Meads v Meads. Can’t stop people bringing the actions (at least the first few times), but they invariably faceplant.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I honestly hope that he appeals this all the way to the Supreme Court so that nonsensical bafflegab becomes binding in Common Law in the entire country.

". . . so that nonsensical bafflegab becomes binding in Common Law . . ."

Maybe it's your syntax or just my lack of morning caffeine, but are you suggesting that OPCA should be acceptable practice? If not, pas de problem. If you're objecting to the practice, well and good, but (as @brihard has already mentioned) Meads v Meads has become the go-to decision in refuting nonsensical gibberish so I don't see what the SCC would be able to say that hasn't already been said. Even then, if specific words and actions were outlawed, the gurus of these movements would develop other nonsense in an attempt to flummox the legal system. And in the specific case that you referenced, despite the nonsense that Cooper Tyberias the asshole attempted, at least one of the issues he raised was (partly) valid.

[4] A portion of the Crown’s evidence was called in a voir dire. At the conclusion of the voir dire, I determined that the Defendant’s rights pursuant to s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated, and excluded some statements he made to the police. The otherwise admissible evidence was then rolled into the trial proper.

[9] The Defendant raised three Charter issues at the outset. Firstly, that his s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated when, upon his arrest, he was not provided access to counsel without delay. Secondly, that his s. 8 rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure were violated when the Sprinter van was searched without a warrant. Thirdly, his s. 10(c) rights pursuant to a claim of habeas corpus were violated when he was not transported directly from roadside to appear before a superior court justice to review the lawfulness of his detention.

[10] Approximately 16 minutes and 30 seconds after the vehicle stop, the Defendant was arrested by Cst. Miller for Driving While Prohibited. He was removed from the driver’s seat of the Sprinter van, and placed in the back of one of the police vehicles. Cst. Miller declined to provide the Defendant with his 10(b) Charter right to speak with counsel without delay. As previously indicated, I excluded utterances made by the Defendant to police officers between 16:31 and 26:21 of the video interaction (when the Defendant was provided his 10(b) Charter rights), approximately 9 minutes.

 

[Kilted]

". . . so that nonsensical bafflegab becomes binding in Common Law . . ."

Maybe it's your syntax or just my lack of morning caffeine, but are you suggesting that OPCA should be acceptable practice? If not, pas de problem. If you're objecting to the practice, well and good, but (as @brihard has already mentioned) Meads v Meads has become the go-to decision in refuting nonsensical gibberish so I don't see what the SCC would be able to say that hasn't already been said. Even then, if specific words and actions were outlawed, the gurus of these movements would develop other nonsense in an attempt to flummox the legal system. And in the specific case that you referenced, despite the nonsense that Cooper Tyberias the asshole attempted, at least one of the issues he raised was (partly) valid.

Sorry, I mean to say that I hoped that defining freemen/sovereign citizen positions as nonsensical bafflegab would become common law.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Sorry, I mean to say that I hoped that defining freemen/sovereign citizen positions as nonsensical bafflegab would become common law.

No need to be sorry. You knew what you meant. Everyone reading this thread knew what you meant in the context of the discussion. But one asshole, picking apart the syntax of a portion of what you wrote, gave an entirely different interpretation of what you wrote even though he knew exactly what you meant to say. That's why we have judges and why even the idiots who attempt to circumvent the law through nonsense should be permitted to have their day in court. Not because they are right, but because there is an infinitesimal chance that a tiny bit of what they claim to be valid just may be, based solely on exact wording.

 

[brihard]

But one asshole, picking apart the syntax of a portion of what you wrote, gave an entirely different interpretation of what you wrote even though he knew exactly what you meant to say.

Nobody likes that guy.

 

[PMedMoe]

No need to be sorry. You knew what you meant. Everyone reading this thread knew what you meant in the context of the discussion. But one asshole, picking apart the syntax of a portion of what you wrote, gave an entirely different interpretation of what you wrote even though he knew exactly what you meant to say.

Are you calling me an asshole??

Sorry if my reading skills aren't up to your standards.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Are you calling me an asshole??

Sorry if my reading skills aren't up to your standards.

Who used the word "syntax" in another, previous post? The culprit, in all his glory, is there.