Freeman On The Land in Court (1 of 2) First appearance, traffic tickets (**AUDIO ONLY**)

***TURN CAPTIONS ON FOR THIS VIDEO***
(so you can understand what's going on without cranking your volume)

**SKIP TO 5:32 TO HEAR MY HEARING**

***Due to complications and privacy issues, I have respectfully removed the video track of my first video. The second one has still full video, but the video part is really not that important, just the audio***

Part 2 of 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkrBpGbo0No

I later got arrested, and when I get my [seized] MP3 player back, I'll upload the full and complete recording, as well as one where I cut out all the jibberish that has nothing to do with me. It recorded 3.5 hours, and includes the first five or ten minutes of my arrest. I doubt it will come back without being deleted though, I'll try my best to recover the files.

Please note that this is perfectly lawful, as stated in the Courts of Justice Act section 132(2)(b), as I have every right to record myself in court. I also outlined this right in an un-disputed document I sent to the Supreme Court of Canada, and Attourney General, along with 14 other ministries/ministers.


"Freeman On The Land in Court" "Within Honour" Person "Human Being" Arrested Detained Harassed


***COMMENTS****:
(THE FOLLOWING NINE COMMENTS WERE THE ONLY NINE FROM THE ORIGINAL VIDEO)
1) Awesome! ;) - Ladyowned

2) (Comment Removed) - ScottONansk

3) Where was this? If it was in Ontario, you have the right to record your hearing
Section 136, paragraph 2 subsection (b) of the Courts of Justice Act. - ScottONansk

4) @ScottONanski 'Twas in Ontario, Milton to be exact. Unfortunately however I do not see the remedy you do. In an additional post I will add the quote you specified (136)(2)(b).  Unless you mean that I am the "party acting in person" because I know I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a journalist simply recording audio either.
Also, I find it interesting, their summons sheet claims that I'm charged under section 436 of the act, but that doesn't exist XD - bigrandom77777

5) @bigrandom77777 "(2) Nothing in subsection (1)" "(b)prohibits a lawyer, a party acting in person or a journalist from unobtrusively making an audio recording at a court hearing, in the manner that has been approved by the judge, for the sole purpose of supplementing or replacing handwritten notes. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 136 (2); 1996, c. 25, s. 1 (22)." - bigrandom77777

6) @bigrandom77777 Oh wait, that DOES make sense and work, 'cause they only charged me with audio recording, and they only seized an audio recording. They have no idea about this and the next videos :P
THANKS :D:D - Bigrandom77777

7) @bigrandom77777 a typo...it's 136..they let that go as a mistake..i can't remember which act governs that action, but it's not a big deal at any rate. Besides, you didn't read the passage right. "in a manner that has been approved by the judge" Unless your willing to be part of their society and claim your THE judge, then you have no LEGAL standing. You gave up lawful when you entered the courthouse. - TheCurtisnixon

8) @ScottONanski Okk :) - Bigrandom77777

9) I'll message you with an article because I can't post it here... - ScottONanski

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Freeman
• On
• The
• Land
• recording
• in
• court
• person
• arrested
• first
• attendance
• bill
• judge

[contrell69]

good work...keep it up! follow my case on my youtube channel! the first words out your mouth should be "are we on and for the record"?

[914light]

OMG trying to read this gave me a head ache ..:(

[68camify]

aah, another dim-wit without a job.

[TTGMattismodz]

ur gonna make it big!!!!!!

[liadhead]

great thank you

[allcatscool128]

dang yo so hax

[peternoicadmirer]

neat

[teamSoFarGone11]

dang thanks ur the best

[CuReCompetitiveClan]

wait...WAIT WHAT? O.O

[DexDurp]

thanks this helped alot