Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21-07-2010, 04:44 PM   #21
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anath View Post
I am confused...

Why would someone who is against the enforcement of laws on other people want to set up a corp to enforce their vision of the law on people?

Are you not just becoming what you dislike in doing so?
Don't know... Good thing that does not describe me. What makes you think I am against the enforcement of LAW? Is it because I distinguish between 'law' and statute? I will not be imposing statutes. I will be holding those who do, to the law.

Law is that which binds you regardless of if you consent.
Statute is that which binds you if you do and then appears to be law, due to that consent.
Ignorant people will say that because I refuse to have statutes imposed upon me and called law, that I reject all law.
That is not the case.
If I am on a cruise ship and it is hijacked by pirates, and start speaking out against how those pirates are operating OUR ship, would you claim that I have something against the ship itself? Or the idea of not drowning? I like the ship. I like not drowning. I do not like pirates in control.

I like the Law.
I like being a part of a community.
I do not like people passing off their rules as LAW in my community and then telling me because I reject their rules and impositions that I reject either law or my community. Their deception is not my law.
I stand as I do because of my love for them, not because I do not like them.

Have you seen what happened at the G20 Summit? Do we roll over and accept it? Or start holding these people who mistake statutes for law, to the law?

If you can learn to distinguish between statute and law, you will see why your question is based upon a very false assumption. '
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 04:46 PM   #22
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bob haulk View Post
i look forward tae it as well. My only slight concern with your point is, what happens when one of these peace officers happens upon some scoundrel,some mischievous scamp who wishes to do harm to someones property or life and they don't consent to being stopped from what they are doing?
If someone who is DOING HARM does not consent to being stopped then I'd hope that anyone (peace officer or otherwise) would still try and stop them by which ever means they deem appropriate. Their consent doesn't matter, they are DOING HARM and should be stopped. Wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bob haulk View Post
and if it's not about authority who decides when the said scamp is up to something he considers acceptable but his neighbour thinks otherwise?
There is a difference between someone ACTUALLY causing harm and the neighbours OPINION that something is unacceptable. The peace officer should only get involved if HARM is being done. Sure there will be some gray area's I imagine to do with intimidation...

...but I would hope that a peace officer would do the same as any other well meaning fellow human - protect each other from harm. try to reason with the provoceture, assist in resolving if suitable. They have no power in this instance, but they can still try and help resolve isues.
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 04:50 PM   #23
truthometer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In A Prison Without Bars
Posts: 514
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by britishnick View Post
Wow, that's a serious admition of ignorance right there. It's this kind of thinking that turns people in to slaves.

A PEACE Officer has no busines issuing speeding fines, or stopping people from peacefully protesting, or stopping people from taking photographs in public places, or stopping people smoking because there's been no breach of the peace: no harm has been done.

The only freedoms that both peace officers and police officers both stop are freedoms to cause harm or loss to another... like murder and theft (from a quick search in my brain)

I hope you can get some help with your education in this matter.

Good luck to you.

It's a shame you feel the need to spend you time dicouraging and (verbally) attacking those seeking peace and freedom. If you have suffered from a lack of freedom yourself, there are people to talk to privately - http://www.samaritans.org/

As you enjoy derailing fmotl, perhaps you would enjoy finding a forum for priests and spend you days telling them about their errors too?

I know that Super Nanny would say I shouldn't give you attention for being naughty, but I live in hope that one day you may understand.
Thank you lord! Im glad someone else here uses thier brain ans can see what Rob's trying to do. Its a great idea and i only hope it takes off and is successful in showing existing LAW ENFORCEMENT officers that they are there to protect and serve, not fine and harrass.

Nice on Britishnick.
truthometer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 04:56 PM   #24
hadabusa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 22,683
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

lol, rob len(in)ard


peace officers, to protect and serve.

hey rob, how you gonna protect me from bullets?with beer cans?words?

as for serve, ill have rice with chicken, get going.

hadabusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 04:58 PM   #25
anath
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK - brighton/devon
Posts: 607
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by britishnick View Post
I'm not putting words in to Robs keyboard here, but I think the key here is PEACE.

They are not supposed to ENFORCE law, but PROTECT people and property from harm.
Please excuse me if it gets a little confused here - say for example I am participating in a little graf work on someones wall - and that person calls the peace corps to sort me out - then what? I suppose they could stand between me and the wall - any attempt to restrain me would not be peaceable it would be forceful - taking away of my property (spray paint) would be theft as I do not recognise their power to do so and also would not be peaceable.

I honestly am just confused here.
anath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:06 PM   #26
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Graffiti would result in charges of mischief, under Section 430 of the Criminal Code. I would in that situation after detaining him, see if there could be amends and clean up made, and if not, then I would bring him and my information before a JP and they would take it from there.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:09 PM   #27
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hadabusa View Post
lol, rob len(in)ard


peace officers, to protect and serve.

hey rob, how you gonna protect me from bullets?with beer cans?words?

as for serve, ill have rice with chicken, get going.

Police are to protect and serve. That is not our motto, but once again I see the same ole trick of trying to assign to me your own words, and then you insult me for those. How do police now protect you from bullets? And what are you doing that you need protection from them? Are you reaping what you have sown?

Do you use that attitude with existing police officers who do in fact have that motto?
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:10 PM   #28
steven1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,265
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Rob wrote
Quote:
Don't know... Good thing that does not describe me. What makes you think I am against the enforcement of LAW? Is it because I distinguish between 'law' and statute? I will not be imposing statutes. I will be holding those who do, to the law.
WOW and I mean WOW....so as a peace officer you will allow someone to pass you by drunk at the wheel of a car and not intervene?????
Thats Statute law isnt it Rob?
Have you explained this stance to your employer?

Really Rob, have you thought any of this through?

PS you keep saying "my" community.
All this serves to do is create a picture in my mind of you standing there head to toe in black combat gear, taser on one hip, gun on the other with black aviator sunglasses on.
"This is MY community, and its MY rules."

sideshowbob*

Last edited by steven1; 21-07-2010 at 05:11 PM.
steven1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:13 PM   #29
anath
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK - brighton/devon
Posts: 607
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
Graffiti would result in charges of mischief, under Section 430 of the Criminal Code. I would in that situation after detaining him, see if there could be amends and clean up made, and if not, then I would bring him and my information before a JP and they would take it from there.
So you would more or less do as the police do
anath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:20 PM   #30
steven1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,265
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Oh and while I am on a peace officer only becomes a peace officer via the Peace Officers Act http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/sta...6-c-p-3.5.html

So to say that you would not enforce statutes when your entire existance is based on statute law is incredible even for you.

joan armatrading*

Last edited by steven1; 21-07-2010 at 05:21 PM.
steven1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:24 PM   #31
anath
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK - brighton/devon
Posts: 607
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I don't see how you can pick and choose what law to abide by. As societal norms and values change as does the law - I am perfectly aware of the difference between statutory law and common law.

How is letting a judge decide a case and set precedent any worse then a parliament voting for legislation?

What makes you trust a judge more then you do a politician?
anath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:33 PM   #32
hadabusa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 22,683
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
Graffiti would result in charges of mischief, under Section 430 of the Criminal Code. I would in that situation after detaining him, see if there could be amends and clean up made, and if not, then I would bring him and my information before a JP and they would take it from there.
how would you detain him, say, if he was a 6'8" 350lbs muscular behemont?

and where would you bring him till release?whats he gonna eat there?
hadabusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:34 PM   #33
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
I don't see how you can pick and choose what law to abide by.
I do not. I live by the law. And the Law allows me to revoke consent, and not be governed by the rules which are law to others because they do or did consent. It is the Law that allows me the remedy and power to say no to that which is not Law.

Quote:
As societal norms and values change as does the law
No, they change statutes. Law changes ever so slowly. Statutes and regs can change overnight.

Quote:
What makes you trust a judge more then you do a politician?
The oath they take, and the liability they hold. Plus I have met many of each, and the former tend to be far more truthful and less elf serving. Some hoestly love justice, and do their very best to serve it well.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:35 PM   #34
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
I would in that situation after detaining him,

Are you saying that you would detain somebody against their will?
What level of force are you willing to use, rob?
Have you actually arrested anybody yet?
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:37 PM   #35
steven1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,265
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Rob wrote
Quote:
I do not. I live by the law. And the Law allows me to revoke consent, and not be governed by the rules which are law to others because they do or did consent. It is the Law that allows me the remedy and power to say no to that which is not Law.
And he still cant see why his argument holds no water
He still thinks he can cherry pick the laws but no one else can.

budgiebeak*
steven1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:39 PM   #36
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hadabusa View Post
how would you detain him, say, if he was a 6'8" 350lbs muscular behemont?

and where would you bring him till release?whats he gonna eat there?
So now you go to the ludicrous extreme?

I would call for back up if needed. If I could not detain him, I would record his actions for later use in court after he is safely apprehended. As a peace officer, I can call on the cops, and they will come serve and do the arresting if needed. All I have to do at that point is witness, record, report and testify.

I would bring him to where every other charged party is brought. City Jail. I would be acting as a peace officer and process him as any cop would. I would bring information to a JP and then let them decide if there was sufficient cause to charge. He would be processed.

What makes you think it is so difficult or esoteric an action? Do you think only the police have those powers?
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:43 PM   #37
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post

I would call for back up if needed. If I could not detain him, I would record his actions for later use in court after he is safely apprehended.
So you don't mind using the courts?
So would that suggest in your opinion that they are not admiralty courts?
Or a fiction?
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:47 PM   #38
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
Are you saying that you would detain somebody against their will?
What level of force are you willing to use, rob?
Have you actually arrested anybody yet?
1 - Yes I would if they were witnessed breaching the peace or committing crimes, or I had a warrant for their arrest and I could do it reasonably safely.

2 - What ever is required and called for. Though I would not (as some may wish to now imply) be happy or eager about it. If force is not immediately required, and time and patience and words can be used, I would use those first. But if one is assaulting another, and the victim needs help, I will act to protect them and stop the assault.

3 - Yes. A great number of times when I was a security guard, usually for trespassing or assault, or theft. I was a Mall Cop for a year or so. A few times since then, once when I witnessed a mugging I chased the guy down and caught arrested and held him, and another time a woman was beating her female lover, and I did not know they were both women, and I came to the victims aid thinking the assailant was a man. She swung on me, I ended up decking her and arresting her and giving her to a peace officer.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:51 PM   #39
hadabusa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 22,683
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
So now you go to the ludicrous extreme?

I would call for back up if needed. If I could not detain him, I would record his actions for later use in court after he is safely apprehended. As a peace officer, I can call on the cops, and they will come serve and do the arresting if needed. All I have to do at that point is witness, record, report and testify.

I would bring him to where every other charged party is brought. City Jail. I would be acting as a peace officer and process him as any cop would. I would bring information to a JP and then let them decide if there was sufficient cause to charge. He would be processed.

What makes you think it is so difficult or esoteric an action? Do you think only the police have those powers?
so, basically, a citizen arrest?

if he asked you to show him your "badge", whatd you show him?

so, your corps in basically the 80's black panthers policing streets, minus the guns?

hadabusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2010, 05:59 PM   #40
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
So you don't mind using the courts?
So would that suggest in your opinion that they are not admiralty courts?
Or a fiction?
Have you ever been to the courts here in Canada? Your initial appearance is in a common law court, before a JP sitting at a desk, not raised up. There you are tricked into granting jurisdiction to the other courts, with the JP witnessing, and then your dates are set and you end up going into the Admiralty court where the judge is raised up. If at the first stage you lay a proper defense, and there refuse to consent, the JP cannot witness the acceptance of jurisdiction and the action dies. This does not happen when there is an actual victim and they are seeking charges for actual crimes. It does work for victimless statutory offenses.

Can we get something straight? I do not mind the concepts of justice, or law, or responsibility, or community, or using the courts for their proper purpose. I do not like the fact that those courts have been hijacked by one social class or group, to our detriment, and loss.

I LIKE BOATS.
I DO NOT LIKE BOATS OPERATED BY PIRATES.
DO NOT SAY I DISLIKE ALL BOATS BECAUSE I DO NOT LIKE THE ONES OPERATED BY PIRATES.

I like courts.
I do not like courts operated by pirates or corporations.
Do not say that because I have spoken out against the courts operated by pirates that I have rejected all courts.

Is this making any sense to you? Or am I wasting my time? Are you trying to waste my time? In any event, I have tried to answer your questions, and you are either being purposely difficult, or I am not a good enough teacher for you, and we are wasting each others time if you cannot understand that I have never rejected courts, or the law, or justice or responsibility. I have rejected the way they have come to be operated as a monopoly by self serving people.

You know what dealing with this is like?
I say "I do not like the way that man cuts hair. I will open a shop to compete."
And you say "You said you do not like hair cuts, so why are you opening a shop?"

You assign to me ideas and beliefs that are not mine and have never been mine. They are a function not of my previous words but of your own mindset and word comprehension skills.

In any event, I have a couple thousand peace officers to hire, and courts to seize. So I do not have time to teach those who seem to be willfully obtuse and difficult that which they have apparently already rejected as useless.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.