FREEMAN stephen

Important Announcements and Forum Alerts

FREEMAN stephen

Postby hurn » Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:24 pm

for and on behalf of FREEMAN stephen

A prepared. statement i will be reading to an enquiry tommorrow in regard to a "fiscal fine" imposed with the presumption of guilt and where the right to a fair trial is a right one must apply for - abrogations of some of our most basic rights - declaring that i do not consent to being governed under the supremacy of a foreign power - the european union.

stephens links

http://www.youtube.com/v/MvOSKeL0HSg

http://www.youtube.com/v/0wBNSvPH9_I

my link copy of above

http://www.youtube.com/v/lLRR6HpzEcU
DONT WORRY IT WONT BE LONG NOW the countdown has started
User avatar
hurn
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:05 pm

Re: FREEMAN stephen

Postby rebelwithoutaclue » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:02 pm

Good luck tomorrow m8. I will try get along to court tomorrow
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
rebelwithoutaclue
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: FREEMAN stephen

Postby holy vehm » Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:21 am

Thoughts are with you today Stephen

:peace:
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: FREEMAN stephen

Postby maglite » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:16 am

hope things go well for you today stephen , just heard of whats going on and had to log in been a while m8 best wishes and really hope things go well for you alan.
maglite
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: FREEMAN stephen

Postby Freeman Stephen » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:51 pm

thanks for your words of support guys. im having severe problems connecting to this site recently. im not in jail yet, more info on tpuc and my channel on yt.

(crossing fingers as he hits the post button)
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: FREEMAN stephen

Postby Freeman Stephen » Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:15 pm


http://www.youtube.com/v/a7tYQMR1OU0


http://www.youtube.com/v/hAr4QCf0R_k


http://www.youtube.com/v/m_kVg5cwNU4


http://www.youtube.com/v/wD6GaKwfETY


the first two are a bit dull, just evidence of what happened. the third one is where the court shows it prefers certain matters not to be read out in public.

the last one is the best where at 8:20, "his honour" clarifies that we dont have the right to a fair trial. im thinking about making them apply for the right to cite me ever again.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: FREEMAN stephen

Postby Dreadlock » Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:33 pm

Hi Stephen.

A few things I noticed while watching the last video.

The judge used legalese at 3.10 (last video) to trick you. He asked "Did you receive that?", in reference to the conditional offer you were sent, and you said, "I received it."

Bouvier's 6th edition

TO RECEIVE. Voluntarily to take from another what is offered.

So you admitted to accepting the offer that was made to you. It's a dirty trick they use because they know all too well that colloquially when people admit to "receiving" something they are simply admitting that the thing was "delivered" to them.
Admitting something has been delivered to you is totally different from admitting that something has been received (accepted) by you. Your answer to his question should have been "absolutely not" or words to that effect.

At 3.36 the female says, "are you accepting that you got that?" in reference to the conditional offer. She was deliberately re-enforcing your mistaken belief that the judge had asked you if the offer had been delivered to you. In fact her question has a completely different meaning to that posed by the judge, although colloquially they seem to mean the same thing. Bastards!

The other thing I noticed is that they were referring to you as "Mr Duffy" which is fine. However at the time of the alleged trespass were you acting as "Mr Duffy"? If not (and I would strongly suggest you weren't) then you were not even there at the time of the alleged offense. In court you are "Mr Duffy" therefore all your answers and arguments should be from that perspective.

I would suggest that at the time that "Mr Duffy" was allegedly trespassing, that he was not even present at the scene. I would suggest that there was a witness to the event, a man named Stephen Duffy (I'm assuming Stephen is your real first name, forgive me if it isn't!) who was not acting under title or as a government employee/agent at the time and who is prepared to create an affidavit to that effect.

Such an affidavit would be impossible for them to rebut. Their statute would not apply and that would, or at least should, be the end of the case as the court has no jurisdiction over Stephen Duffy. I'm assuming it was a court of summary conviction.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: FREEMAN stephen

Postby rebelwithoutaclue » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:47 pm

Excellent stephen. Great to show the bastards that your don't fear them. You are an inspiration to your fellow weegies :clap:
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
rebelwithoutaclue
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: FREEMAN stephen

Postby Freeman Stephen » Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:26 am

i cant even remember which letter she showed me. receive meaning, delivered and i picked it up ...

definitely the one from the pf and definitely one from the court.

the one from the pf i laughed at in astonished amazement - it offered to not prosecute me in exchange for money and claimed that it was to be presumed i accepted this. i wrote back to them and politely told them they were taking the piss.

the problem was that they were saying i had to sort out that presumption with the court - i didnt actually realise that my response was supposed to go to the court until the date passed that the pf was claiming that it would be presumed i was guilty for not correcting their presumption.

so i didnt quite realise where it was at by the time the court sent a letter stating that they had indeed presumed me guilty.

i did phone the court and tell them that no i didnt accept this fine and i did this in time with their whole way of doing things. they told me to write in and say that but before i ever put pen to paper it dawned on me that i was about to appeal the decision of a court which had just presumed me guilty.

i cant remember the exact name of the court but i remember i got the impression that it was one of those. courts run by the council (legislature) rather than the judiciary.

so i just kind of thought presumed guilty, solicited for bribe, im not entering their jurisdiction by sending in a letter of appeal.

now the thing is, the jp court building is a council building, so whats the chances its the same crew trying to pull a fast one?

when i appeared, it was not on the basis that i had been cited, but on the basis that i had knowledge they wished to speak with me - they served it to the wrong address.

when i was there the jp cited me in person to attend on the 23rd. I dont think im in their jurisdiction yet until i attend (as cited) on the 23rd. i think if i turn up that will count as acceptance of their jurisdiction by obeying an order to attend. if i dont turn up, im not sure what the deal is, whether they are providing a cause of shreds etc.

the third way is to write in before the date and declare the citation will not be honoured - on the grounds that they uphold the presumption of guilt.

the guy just sits there doing whatever his legal advisor tells him to do. no concept of justice going through his head as far as i can tell, just a talking head with bold low toned voice to declare whatever the legal advisor tells him "the position is".

the position relates to statute says this, statute says you can do this or that. they havent debugged my statement except to say that the fine still stands - which i dont accept because its without trial under presumption of guilt.

its like a deadlock because i cant apply for something i already have and they cant do anything the government says they cant do.

the commonwealth charter is letters patent from the queen "granting" the udhr rights, if i use that i accept inferiority to hm lizzy windsor, but if i use that and they reject it, they renounce their own authority as whether council or judiciary, they are all hm property so if they reject the authority of their own principal, they are simply acting on their own behalf.

still not sure how to move on this one. its really intriguing though.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: FREEMAN stephen

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:31 pm

Whenever people show up at a magistrates court the presumption is that they are guilty.

All appearances at a magistrates court by a defendant are "general appearances". This means that as the Crown is the person bringing the case it is assumed that everything they say is true. The hearing is purely administrative and is to determine how much the defendant should be penalized.

The court should be informed before the hearing date that a "special appearance" is being made. This allows the defendant the opportunity to rebut the bullshit being put forward by the Crown as truth. It also means that the court cannot presume that it has jurisdiction in the matter as the court's jurisdiction is derived from the "fact" that the Crown is telling the truth.

I would turn up under special appearance. Rebut all the Crown's presumptions on the record, you don't even need to know what they all are, submit my affidavit (preferably before the court date) and take it from there.

I would admit to any mistakes that I may have made in the past, such as stating that I "received" their conditional offer when in fact I didn't (speaking legalese), apologise and correct the mistake. Everyone makes honest mistakes and is entitled to correct them.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Next

Return to Bulletin Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest