Pleasuredome Vs Leicestershire Constabulary

[pleasuredome]

the hearing will be at Leicester County Court on 21st October at 10am.

Leicestershire Constabulary are facing civil charges of:

Breach of contract
Failure to pay monies owed

if anyone can make it, please do. should be interesting to see how this goes.

we're on the offensive guys! :cool::D

*Its possible that this case could released to another court, if that happens i will let you know

[girlgye]

Good luck Richard. I really really hope you make it.

I'd take some big big guys with you if I were you. If you get slam dunked then make sure we know who is judging it. Get that info out before you even think of getting into that ring of fire. A simple txt or phone call. Ask someone at the desk who's the CJ that day for court blah blah. Though the bastards might be sneaky and do a Darren Pollard on you at the last minute.

[smoke n mirrors]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif Good luck.

[pleasuredome]

IMPORTANT ANOUNCEMENT for those who are intending to turn up on the day:

There are 2 hearings on the 21st October in the Leicester County Court. one is an evidence hearing and the other is a Return of Goods hearing. Both should probably take around 15mins in total. This date is not the final hearing.

If you are intending to turn up on this date and you're traveling a long distance, it might not be worth your while in this instance. If you're local and want to turn up anyway, you're more than welcome.

I will let you know when the date is for the final hearing when i'm informed.

p.s. if you want to turn up, I'll be there from around 9.30am as it takes a while for everyone turning up for hearings to go through security etc. the hearings could start any time between 10am and 11am

[platform7]

Good luck mate if I was not on afternoons I would be there.
Will you please advise me of the later final hearing date by either PM or on here.

Wishing Peace Love and Happiness to you and your family always :)

[girlgye]

Actually I'm not clear why you need a hearing here at all. Why hasn't it gone to summary judgement?

[sindakit]

Is this regarding your car being impounded, pleasuredome?

If not whats the latest regarding that matter?

[talulah]

the hearing will be at Leicester County Court on 21st October at 10am.

Leicestershire Constabulary are facing civil charges of:

Breach of contract
Failure to pay monies owed

if anyone can make it, please do. should be interesting to see how this goes.

we're on the offensive guys! :cool::D

*Its possible that this case could released to another court, if that happens i will let you know

Good luck hun,let me know how you get on.;)

[cruise4]

Yes, Good luck pleasuredome :D

[pleasuredome]

Is this regarding your car being impounded, pleasuredome?

If not whats the latest regarding that matter?

yes, its to do with my car being impounded. evidence hearing and return of goods hearing on the 21st.

[comma berenices]

Good luck pleasure dome,i'll be with you in spirit.

[girlgye]

Well I had mine 2 weeks ago and he was a fabulous judge but he said 'I'm sorry you just can't drop out of society'.. He would say that in his public role wouldn't he? It was then that I realise that I didn't have a public leg to stand on.

I realise then I'd got it arse backwards so going to counter sue now.
30 days to respond with 28 days left.

He has of course the option of returning my property because I'm a fair and reasonable individual.

[yozhik]

Well I had mine 2 weeks ago and he was a fabulous judge but he said 'I'm sorry you just can't drop out of society'.

I'd love to hear his supporting argument for this ...

[girlgye]

what he was saying in a thin veil was when the hotshots come with the Chief of Police at the next hearing I will give the ruling to them. The clue is in WHAT he said not in how he could prove it.

I might add in response to your question which was mine to him he said 'yes but this is all philosophy and the law stems from thousands of years and is passed on to what we have today. I've had this conversation with you before Yoshik. I must say you were a bloody rock for me that day.

He was a very very clever man.

[pleasuredome]

'I'm sorry you just can't drop out of society'

i would have resonded, "your absolutely right, i couldnt agree more. how can i drop out of something i never consented to enter?"

[girlgye]

Great minds think alike. My exact response was 'ah yes there seems to be a misunderstanding which is why I have notified the queen that I no longer consent to any of her contracts implied, explicit or implicit.' He was stumped and I walked out and my mate said 'you've been brilliant and by far the best judge we've come across, thank you'.

[pleasuredome]

Great minds think alike. My exact response was 'ah yes there seems to be a misunderstanding which is why I have notified the queen that I no longer consent to any of her contracts implied, explicit or implicit.' He was stumped and I walked out and my mate said 'you've been brilliant and by far the best judge we've come across, thank you'.

haha quality! :cool:

[sindakit]

yes, its to do with my car being impounded. evidence hearing and return of goods hearing on the 21st

I've just been reading the start of AntiTerrorist handbook that came today and he mentions that even if you claim the car as unregistered and your property, and exercising your right to travel, the roads are not (well the majority at least) public rights of way so you're travelling on their roads and thus enter into their jurisdiction.


I'm assuming you've probably came across something regarding this and if you had a way to combat that arguement?
Not sure if this will be necessary for the hearing, could be a point they get you on but I obviously don't know the details of the situation so just throwing stuff out there.

Without having looked into it any further yet, I'm thinking claiming something along the lines of those roads were built upon my/our/Gods land (similar to rob's 96 video regarding hydro using your rivers) and thus have left you without choice and foced you into having to travel upon them is prob the counter to that ' no public right of way' arguement.

But perhaps, they are public rights of way, i dunno yet :p

[zerogov]

Good luck, pleasuredome
Should be interesting. Keep us posted
Peace

[the worm that turned]

I've just been reading the start of AntiTerrorist handbook that came today and he mentions that even if you claim the car as unregistered and your property, and exercising your right to travel, the roads are not (well the majority at least) public rights of way so you're travelling on their roads and thus enter into their jurisdiction.


I'm assuming you've probably came across something regarding this and if you had a way to combat that arguement?
Not sure if this will be necessary for the hearing, could be a point they get you on but I obviously don't know the details of the situation so just throwing stuff out there.

Without having looked into it any further yet, I'm thinking claiming something along the lines of those roads were built upon my/our/Gods land (similar to rob's 96 video regarding hydro using your rivers) and thus have left you without choice and foced you into having to travel upon them is prob the counter to that ' no public right of way' arguement.

But perhaps, they are public rights of way, i dunno yet :p

It would be interesting to hear if this is brought up as I have a Private Conveyance that the DVLA have confirmed is not registered with them as a vehicle (because previous owner did not send details to them and I since claimed it is not a vehicle and have received no rebuttal in over 2 months). So I intend to use my private conveyance in a non-commercial way unhindered and undeterred in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as is my right.

Following with interest...

[pleasuredome]

I've just been reading the start of AntiTerrorist handbook that came today and he mentions that even if you claim the car as unregistered and your property, and exercising your right to travel, the roads are not (well the majority at least) public rights of way so you're travelling on their roads and thus enter into their jurisdiction.


I'm assuming you've probably came across something regarding this and if you had a way to combat that arguement?
Not sure if this will be necessary for the hearing, could be a point they get you on but I obviously don't know the details of the situation so just throwing stuff out there.


its not relevant to my hearing, but lets just put it like this: does the government exist by our consent? who funds the government, and thus who paid for the roads? and am i public or private?

the government can only operate by our consent. their funds are created by our labour. in that contractual relationship, we are the creditors and they are the debtors. we, as the sovereign people of this land, are the private, and they are the public. imo, the AT has it the wrong way around in this instance.

[godspeed]

kick some ass pleasuredome.......good luck and keep us posted.....;)

[girlgye]

I've just been reading the start of AntiTerrorist handbook that came today and he mentions that even if you claim the car as unregistered and your property, and exercising your right to travel, the roads are not (well the majority at least) public rights of way so you're travelling on their roads and thus enter into their jurisdiction.


I'm assuming you've probably came across something regarding this and if you had a way to combat that arguement?
Not sure if this will be necessary for the hearing, could be a point they get you on but I obviously don't know the details of the situation so just throwing stuff out there.

Without having looked into it any further yet, I'm thinking claiming something along the lines of those roads were built upon my/our/Gods land (similar to rob's 96 video regarding hydro using your rivers) and thus have left you without choice and foced you into having to travel upon them is prob the counter to that ' no public right of way' arguement.

But perhaps, they are public rights of way, i dunno yet :p

Well as someone has just pointed out to me if you follow someone slavishly then when they drop you in the water as the AT did with me you gonna be paddling up proverbial shit creek without a paddle. So he doesn't have all the answers and he isn't always right unless of course he wants to swear that under penalty of perjury which I somehow doubt. Ever had someone join your group. Get up right close, then drop you at the most important hurdle? Check out Rob Menards latest vids on you tube. He has posted the links here recently.

[pleasuredome]

ok, here's what happened,

the hearing lasted for about 10mins. the judge, who of course wasnt biased in any way errrhum, was "sucked in" by what the barrister was saying that he because of "The Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005" that governs the seizure notice, and that the regulations set out what the charges are, and that they are payable by me in order for me to get the car back. he tried to get the case struck out there and then but that didn't happen. he then said he would apply for it to be struck out.

i told the judge that all i see is a contract with the police and not there contractors, and that i asked the police for a bill as proof of charges and they failed to do so, and on that basis i asked the judge to order leics police to release the car to me. the judge ignored me and asked the solicitor to explain the above regulations to me after the hearing. the judge asked the barrister if there way any way of providing a bill to me, and the barrister said that under the regulations there is no obligation on them to provide one.

the judge then set a provisional date for the final hearing for the 4th of december, with some deadlines for exchanging evidence etc.

so i havent got the car back at this stage, but it seems that the basis of the defence is on the above regulation. some of you might want to check it out and deconstruct it. ive been doing so today, its seems a very deceptive statute.

[rjl9332]

Hey pleasuredome - how did you enter court -did you play the name game etc? is this why / how the judge will have ignored you?

[pleasuredome]

sorry, the provisional date for the final hearing is the 2nd december

[pleasuredome]

Hey pleasuredome - how did you enter court -did you play the name game etc? is this why / how the judge will have ignored you?

nah im just doing this as standard. the judge ignored me probably because she didnt want to do what i asked her to do, and found some excuse in what the barrister said, although he didnt back up what he said.

they obviously dont like us going in their with claims against the cunts who have no authority without our consent.

[girlgye]

so do you have a plan? Because you see the Act backs them up?

Don't say what it is though. They are apt to read this and change their mind.:rolleyes: you need more fire power. This is exactly what happened to me and I did it twice in 2 different courts, two different ways. Talk about desperation. Trick is to not give up and let the police know that you will not be giving up on your claim against them. As we know and they know it is UNLAWFUL.

Well done. I love the spirit. They tend to do this let's get this over quickly when they are on the back foot. Been to enough trials now to know this.

[debishop]

@pleasuredome,

Any update on this.

I would love to experience such court action, any ideas how to find out when hearings are scheduled for?, or is it a matter of visiting the court for a schedule for that day.

Thanks in advance,

dB

N.B. PM me if more appropriate

[pleasuredome]

@pleasuredome,

Any update on this.

I would love to experience such court action, any ideas how to find out when hearings are scheduled for?, or is it a matter of visiting the court for a schedule for that day.

Thanks in advance,

dB

N.B. PM me if more appropriate

no update so far. a trial is scheduled for the 14th january

[debishop]

@pleasuredome,

Thanks,

Also my question about when hearings are scheduled for in court was not specific to you. I want to attend hearings locally (nearest CC is 25miles), so any web site that gives a schedule?

PS, I would not attend your hearing unless I got the heads up via PM, and as my journey has just begun, perhaps at this stage, the battle might make me a little queazy ;)

Thanks again

[pleasuredome]

i think schedules are only published in the court itself. you'd have to take a trip to a court and find out whats going on for that particular day.

[pleasuredome]

This is an overview of the summary judgement hearing on the 29th December 2009. the defendants had applied for summary judgement and the court had accepted it. The court had ordered I pay £1100 by the 7th December. I sent in a waiver saying that I waive the fees and as consideration offered them God’s love. The sent back the waiver with a letter saying that they don’t waive the fees and that they are not negotiable. I wrote across their letter in red marker pen “paid with god’s love” and sent it all back to them. There was no further response. The claim was for £27,500 which they had agreed to by acquiescence for not presenting a bill as proof/validation of charges for the seizure/theft of my car, and a claim for the return of my car. The claim was made at the beginning of July, using the person as it wasnt my intention to make it a “freeman” issue for this particular claim, just using a commercial process. My knowledge since then had increased and i wasn’t able to include many of the issues of the matter that were very relevant in the claim, which was a problem for me in the hearing.

Apart from a brief 10mins in a preliminary hearing in October, this was my first time in court and having to face an onslaught from a judge and a barrister. I wasn’t well as I had a cold at the time, it’s a stressful situation and its not always easy to follow what they are saying. It wasn’t easy to think quickly and remember the things that were needed to be said. I made some errors and one fatal mistake.

What you read here on is only what I can recollect and what was relevant, the vast majority of it I paraphrase.

Judge: Are you mr Harrison?

Me: I am, I am. Richard Harrison

Judge talks about dealing with the issue of payment of hearing fees….

Judge: You were ordered to pay court fees before 7th December and they have not been received. Are you able to pay?

Me: They’re paid with god’s love

J: The fees have not been paid

Me: I offer you god’s love

J: You have not paid the fees

They are paid with god’s love. Do you not accept gods love?

J: You cannot pay with that

Me: what is "that"? Can you say to me that I cannot pay with god’s love?

Judge avoids the question and says something about the fees being payable in pounds

me: Are you saying that god’s love is not valuable?

J: God’s love may be valuable, but the court expects to be paid

Me: Paid with gods love

J: [to a one of my party who was sitting behind me, not part of the hearing] do he have the means to pay?

Me: he cant speak for me.

the judge being unable to get anywhere with me, changes tack and turns to the defense counsel….

J: [talking to the barrister] This claim should have been struck out… normally you would have been sent a notice stating such but I think because the court is so busy in the run up to xmas we did not send out a notice to say the claim had been struck out, Im sorry that it hadn’t.

Judge talks about it being a summary judgment by the defendant to have the claim stuck out which should have been struck out anyway, shall we proceed on the basis that it would have been struck out?

Me: [to the barrister] Proceed. [big mistake. I should have said no. it seems the judge couldn’t strike out my claim because it had been paid with god’s love and therefore could only move forward unless I somehow agreed for the claim to be struck out]

J: Proceed on the basis that the claim would have been struck out

barrister claimed that: the car was seized “lawfully” under statutes, and that these statutes empower the police to do so. There was no valid offer and acceptance of a contract which contained 4 principles of contract of law. My notices were refered to as letters which seemed to be demands for various amounts. The police didn’t respond as it was thought that to respond to the letters would have empowered what I was doing. The recovery and storage charges are valid in accordance with the statutes and that I hadn’t met my “obligation” to pay them. It was decided that my car shouldn’t be disposed of because they didn’t want me to lose the car and would still like for me to have the opportunity to recover it [how charitable. This is a cover story because of my use of NCRTS]. The claimant says that he agrees with us that there was no contract at all between himself and Leicestershire constabulary. on this basis my claim had no real prospects of success at trial, it should be struck out.

J: [to me] do you have anything to say?

i point to the “diversity” document saying that the police police by consent, and that consent is vital and cannot be taken for granted, it being “essential for them to delivery their business”. As the police claim there was no contract at all, there cannot be a consensual contract and thefore the actions that were taken against me were unlawfull. Judge said but that is not what you have pleaded. I said it is what is in evidence and is relevant to the matter. Judge said it is not in your claim, I can only deal with your claim.

J: did you comply with the seizure notice? [in other words, did you accept the offer to contract?]

Me: I did conditionally

Judge cuts in and goes on to talk about that there is a license number and insurance document number, signature and is stamped by police. I mention that the signature is a conditional signature because it was signed under coercion due to the police’s theft. Judge goes on saying but that isn’t part of your claim. The law allows the police to take a vehicle off the public road if it doesn’t have tax and insurance. I go on to question whether statutes are law. Judge says this issue is about common law because its about contracts, even though I never made an issue about common law.

I put a question to the barrister asking him if he claims that the statutes he quoted are law. The judge cuts in talking about the they are the law of England and Wales and whilst in this country they are applicable whether we like it or not. There is more tooing and froing on the subject. I throw another question at the barrister asking him if he claims that if the statutes are laws, are they my laws? Judge cuts in some more, and basically says whilst pointing to the claim form this is my country and my court. more could have been said on the subject, but as the judge was becoming irate I simply ended it by saying I don’t accept that.

By this time was becoming tired and it became more difficult to think of things to say. I moved forward with my offer to relieve the defendant of the liability in accordance with “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors”. I explained the reason for the offer which the judge seemed to happy with my reasoning. I put it to the defense but they remained silent. The judge cut in and explained the reason for their silence which from what I remember was to do with their offer which they had made some weeks earlier.

[the offer: Our client offers to settle your claim in full and final settlement. Our client offers to return your vehicle, subject to having evidence of valid insurance, if you discontinue your claim. This is not an admission of liability but purely an economic offer to avoid the high costs of litigation. If you discontinue at this stage each party will bear its own costs. The interesting thing about this offer is that they make no mention about the number plates which are not UK plates and also no mention about car tax. It seems they were happy to allow me to drive it away as long as there was insurance. That offer some would have been happy to accept]

The barrister then talks about the offer, that they would release the car and drop the charges subject to their being valid insurance, and that each side would absorb their own costs and that I had rejected their offer. The judge asked my if this was true. I said it was partially true. I explained…

I received their letter of the their offer to settle my claim in full and final settlement. I called their office to seek clarification on their offer. I asked if the offer was for £27,500 and the return of my car, to which the solicitor replied yes. At the end of the conversation I asked once more just to be sure, and she confirmed again. I will have a think and call you back. I called back the following day to accept the offer, but the solicitor I spoke to wanst there so I left a message with another solicitor. The next day she called back to confirm acceptance, but she then changed her off that I accepted by saying they were not offering any money. Because she had changed the offer and was basically making me a new offer I rejected it.

The defence handed over transcripts of the conversation to the judge. The judge said that it seems I was correct. The barrister looked a bit flustered and then said that the claim would have been struck out anyway so basically it didn’t matter. The judge agreed. [I was told about this by spoonog and some others at the time of the offer. They said I had them. I didn’t quite believe it. So I didn’t follow it up. I was so close to victory I didn’t realise it]. the judge gave judgment in favour of the defendant

The judge asked me if I had a copy of their fee schedule, and showed me a copy, I said that I didn’t recognise it. The judge said ok, and proceeded to check the costs. I asked the judge questions that if the court gave me an order, was the court liable for a bill for the order? The judge avoided the questions by saying you would be liable to pay the order. The judge then ordered that I pay I think was just under four grand in costs. I said that I do not consent. She said the order is enforceable. I said I do not consent. She said the court orders the claimant to pay £……., I said the the court can keep its order. She said “that’s it then. Good afternoon”.

Now, I haven’t got the car back yet, but it was a close run thing because of the balls up they made with their offer. There are still more options to continue taking action, which I will be looking into soon. the car is still in the compound according to the defense counsel.

[girlgye]

Read mine on thinkfree I'm too exhausted to feed back on here. LMAO
the love of God aw. Thats the Rich I used to know! Reem.

Well done.

OH make sure you get that on record for the s£%%$$%$^$E^"%$$£"

I'm posting on Thinkfree as omage! If you would be so kind?

Psst it is also a common law CoR I believe wot did it int first place.So I think common law still trumps eh? Ah no wonder po-lice sent me my paper work today. Minus the CoR the Affadavit of Truth and the Commercial Oath.

Or shall we put it Matt Stratts way. Never mind burning your brain cells with all the technology in the world just know who you are and what you are.
That popped out at me this morning as if the angels whose meditation cds fell every where wanted me to know.
Aw I'm glad there was justice. That gives us all some hope.
Well well news travels fast.

I think this should be sticked. Richard is the first man to be free in England officially.

[pleasuredome]

i kick myself at some of things i forgot to bring up, in spite of fucking up by allowing them to continue on the basis that the claim would have been struck out. for those who have never been in this situation, and it was the first time ive ever done this, its not bloody easy. i hadnt had a cold for 18 months up until that point. the twisting and manipulation of words is sickening. i know that im not cut out for being in that sort of situation, and there will be people far more capable and competent than myself who will eventually force their hand. all i can say is i gave it my best shot given the circumstances. i maintain that what is meant to be is meant to be.

[pleasuredome]

We police with the consent and the co-operation of all
members of the community. Consent is vital and cannot
be taken for granted. For consent to be earned and
sustained, the public need to have absolute confidence
in us and the service we provide.

Increasing diversity is not just the right or moral thing to
do – it is essential for us to deliver our business.

PDF.... http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/human-resources/Operational_Benefits_Leaflet2835.pdf?view=Binary

HTML.... http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=html&cd=2&ved=undefined&url=http%3A%2F%2F209.85.229.132%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcac he%3A6kLqrfPJjEIJ%3Awww.leics.police.uk%2Ffiles%2F departments%2Fdepartments%2FOperational_Benefits_L eaflet.pdf%2Boperational%2Bbenefits%2Bdiversity%26 cd%3D2%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Duk&rct=j&q=operational+benefits+diversity&ei=1Lc8S7_LBNeOjAfx-5WtDQ&usg=AFQjCNEqlKGYmnaSJHeiss6NzwXGDqfbhg

the common law should be this, that there should be a consensual contract between you and the business called the constabulary. if there isnt, then any "services" they force on you are not lawful. thats my opinion on the matter.

[girlgye]

i kick myself at some of things i forgot to bring up, in spite of fucking up by allowing them to continue on the basis that the claim would have been struck out. for those who have never been in this situation, and it was the first time ive ever done this, its not bloody easy. i hadnt had a cold for 18 months up until that point. the twisting and manipulation of words is sickening. i know that im not cut out for being in that sort of situation, and there will be people far more capable and competent than myself who will eventually force their hand. all i can say is i gave it my best shot given the circumstances. i maintain that what is meant to be is meant to be.


Well thats life hun. They must feel the same.

[asky]

pleasuredome wrote
The judge then ordered that I pay I think was just under four grand in costs. I said that I do not consent. She said the order is enforceable. I said I do not consent. She said the court orders the claimant to pay £……., I said the the court can keep its order. She said “that’s it then. Good afternoon”.

Now, I haven’t got the car back yet, but it was a close run thing because of the balls up they made with their offer. There are still more options to continue taking action, which I will be looking into soon. the car is still in the compound according to the defense counsel.

Not one for the success stories section just yet then.

Just a thought why isnt there a section for the failure stories?

Mind you it would probably take too long to read it all.

asky

[bones]

pleasuredome wrote


Not one for the success stories section just yet then.

Just a thought why isnt there a section for the failure stories?

Mind you it would probably take too long to read it all.

asky

eat shit least hes trying to make a difference. what do you do apart from piss everyone off?

[number_6]

eat shit least hes trying to make a difference.

But it does appear that every method tried does not work. The only glimmer of success was when a solicitor inadvertently made a fuck up, but was soon corrected. But a fuck up by a solicitor, even if not corrected, cannot be claimed a success, as it would not be the normal procedure. Now pleasuredome is faced with a bill for just under four grand. Cannot it be considered that this freeman stuff is not based in fact?

[bones]

But it does appear that every method tried does not work. The only glimmer of success was when a solicitor inadvertently made a fuck up, but was soon corrected. But a fuck up by a solicitor, even if not corrected, cannot be claimed a success, as it would not be the normal procedure. Now pleasuredome is faced with a bill for just under four grand. Cannot it be considered that this freeman stuff is not based in fact?


clearly the system cannot let this become president as the ammount of ppl that will follow will bring the end to this corrupt system we live in and that scares em, they would rather break the law than to allow richard to win this, thats how pathetic the law is.

its ppl like asky who are slowing it down with his pathetic attempts to undermine the freeman movement, what is it asky ! sell ya soul for a few quid . your actions will slow the freeman way down but we will prevale and ide love to be the one to get hold of you and personally hang you when we are done. find a rock troll!

[number_6]

clearly the system cannot let this become president as the ammount of ppl that will follow will bring the end to this corrupt system we live in and that scares em, they would rather break the law than to allow richard to win this, thats how pathetic the law is.


But reading pleasuredome's account I can see no evidence that they have broken any laws.

[asky]

BONES wrote
ide love to be the one to get hold of you and personally hang you when we are done. find a rock troll!

Now really
I find it strange the freemen who shout "harm no one" from the rooftops always seem to be the ones who threaten violence on people.

Calm down bones its an internet forum it isnt real life.;)

asky

[bones]

BONES wrote


Now really
I find it strange the freemen who shout "harm no one" from the rooftops always seem to be the ones who threaten violence on people.

Calm down bones its an internet forum it isnt real life.;)

asky

ide have to make en exception for your kind. i too have been conditiond all these yrs. and im not a freeman just a learning one.

[asky]

BONES wrote
ide have to make en exception for your kind.

My kind?

Where do you draw the line on people you would like to get rid of in your utopia?

You do say your not a freeman and just learning, well you have a lot to learn about being considerate to your fellow man.

asky

[number_6]

your actions will slow the freeman way down but we will prevale and ide love to be the one to get hold of you and personally hang you when we are done.

Is that how you envisage the freeman movement progressing? Take control and execute those that oppose?

[asky]

Its too easy number 6 :D

One of the requirements for believing the freeman concept is a low IQ

asky

[bones]

Its too easy number 6 :D

One of the requirements for believing the freeman concept is a low IQ

asky
so having a larger iq means you are superior?

wow how pathetic you really are.

[asky]

Bones wrote
so having a larger iq means you are superior?

No, just less gullible ;)

ASKY

[spoonogsback]

Wow....! ...lol .... I was waiting for the usual responses....
To all thoses that think Pleasuredome has somehow either failed or missed the mark in some way ... let it be known ...... Those in the so called system did not fail, they did not make erroneous demands or contrite projections of ludicrous inane abject proclivities. No, simply they failed. How so, I hear you say ?
They proclaimed inept and inaccurate translation of their acts and statutes, they parried and thrust in the ventricle of spite and aortic despotism, and they would have you, yes you ! hold dear that they should be victorious in such a vile business of inequity and malevolent ineptness, but who holds that ineptness at grace ? is it the Man that stand and say NO ! I shall not bend to your will. I am a Man. I will not bow to you ! I will brace and stand with the full vigor of my kind and stature, bend I will not to your will.
No...... the words and wisdom of a thousand years came forth from the one known as Richard of the Family Harrison....... No said he ! and NO again .... !
He stood while you fell....... He stood for you and you fell....... Again he stood for you and You FELL... and FELL again ...... How can you bear it ?
How can you bear the shame .....
Your fellow man a brother, a friend, a fellow on your land has had the will. the spirit , the boiled brine to stand when you don't, when you haven't !
and he has stood FOR YOU ! How dare you question him...... you weak and pitiful shadow.....
Those that supported him are know to him and will rejoice in his works.
Those that watched with an eye for sport .... Do you have your pitiful sport now ??? Richard of the family Harrison as of now is the only Man amongst most of you and your fellows that can say. He Stood when others faltered.
Who are you to criticize, Name you deeds ?? or be silent !!
Where or when have you stood and said NO ?
This far and no further ? ? ?
When have you stood at your own peril to defend others ? ? ?
Bitterness and vile ineptitude lives in your hearts those that cast unworthy stones at the trials that this man has endured so that you may learn..... Shame on you..... SHAME ON YOU ! ! !
Don't dare to respond ..... unless you have the decency to beg and plead for the forgiveness that you do not deserve.......

[yozhik]

pleasuredome wrote


Not one for the success stories section just yet then.

Just a thought why isnt there a section for the failure stories?

Mind you it would probably take too long to read it all.

asky

Great idea asky!
Maybe we could put it right alongside the;
'pointless snide comments' section, for posts such as yours.

'Mind you' it would probably become your second home and we'd never have the pleasure of reading any more of your posts unless we ventured to dwell in the cellar with rest of the Snide family ...

[yozhik]

Its too easy number 6 :D

One of the requirements for believing the freeman concept is a low IQ

asky

Oh really?

:rolleyes:


I would suggest that to make such a comment requires a far lower IQ!
... and besides, what I genuinely can't comprehend asky is this; if it is 'too easy' as you boast it is - why bother?

I mean ... surely for someone with supposed superior intellect and a claimed higher IQ ... why waste your time shooting fish in a barrel?
It beggars belief and defies logic.

Why would a man of inferred vast knowledge and claimed superiority spend his time amongst the imbeciles?
Such a waste of intellectual ability asky ... shame on you.

[number_6]

He stood for you and you fell

No, I didn't fall. He certainly didn't stand for me. Maybe though, he stood for those who have influenced him and goaded him, and used him as a guinea pig to try out their ill founded ideas that are based in fantasy, as they don't have the nerve to do it themselves. More fool him.

[spoonogsback]

No, I didn't fall. He certainly didn't stand for me. Maybe though, he stood for those who have influenced him and goaded him, and used him as a guinea pig to try out their ill founded ideas that are based in fantasy, as they don't have the nerve to do it themselves. More fool him.

History will tell the tale ...... not you ... you will not be part of it .... I suggest you crawl back on your belly, under the rock you came from.
Is it your belief that a man seeking to free himself and his fellow men is some how in fantasy land ? ? ? I say that you are the one in fantasy land......
So you believe in Global warming, Fiat currency (not backed by anything tangible) is a wonderful system that can perpetuate forever with no problem ? ?
You believe that a Man that has courage to stand and say No to oppression is wrong ? ? ?
You believe that the "Governments" are working tirelessly for the benefit of Man ? ? ?
You believe that these people that have time and time again abused the position they hold at the good graces of the people they have sworn to protect ? ?
I say you are the deluded one Number-6
I say you are lying to yourself and others.
I say that you are so fearful and cowardly and that you have no respect for yourself or others.... you only think of you ! ! !
You are a vile and greedy creature, your behavior is treasonous to yourself and your fellow man and your children (if you have any)
How dare you .... You spineless, weak and feeble minded fool.
You dare to say that you have an opinion ? ? ? well lets hear it ? ?
What say you 6 ?? What way should the world be run .. huh ?
Tell us all I'm sure we wait for your wisdom with glee.
Tell one and all 6 where do you stand ? but please don't leave out the details ? Tell us all your wonderful solutions ?? Do you have any ??
What do you have to offer ?? I await your response with interest ?