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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-04-2011, 01:46 PM   #21
mark1963
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,645
Likes: 58 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
No

If you're calling me a liar I'll post up the whole chapter if needed.

The answers have been provided, suggest you look. If you wish to gainsay, so be it but you will end up looking rather silly. I'd rather we don't go down that route, but if you're calling me a liar then I guess we'll have to.

Are you calling me a liar?
You stated earlier that the comment by Blackstone was out of context. You have not provided the context, so post it.

You shouldn't be so touchy. Are you a boxer?
__________________
“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn’t learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn’t learn a little, at least we didn’t get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn’t die; so, let us all be thankful.” - Buddha

www.thrivingaudios.com
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 01:52 PM   #22
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
Perhaps because the Bar now make it up as they go along, after all you can do much when you are acting without the restraint of an oath.
Care to start a separate thread on that point?

You really suggesting that members of the legal profession don't swear oaths, or just that they don't trot off to the office to dust off their certificates when a freeman stands in the box and spouts mumbo jumbo?
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 01:52 PM   #23
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
You stated earlier that the comment by Blackstone was out of context. You have not provided the context, so post it.

You shouldn't be so touchy. Are you a boxer?
I provided the context and you've read the post because you've commented on it.

I ask you again, are you calling me a liar?
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 01:59 PM   #24
mark1963
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,645
Likes: 58 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
Care to start a separate thread on that point?

You really suggesting that members of the legal profession don't swear oaths, or just that they don't trot off to the office to dust off their certificates when a freeman stands in the box and spouts mumbo jumbo?
They swear oaths to a criminal PRIVATE association called the Bar. This gives them the ability to lie and cheat with impunity.
__________________
“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn’t learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn’t learn a little, at least we didn’t get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn’t die; so, let us all be thankful.” - Buddha

www.thrivingaudios.com
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:00 PM   #25
mark1963
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,645
Likes: 58 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
I provided the context and you've read the post because you've commented on it.

I ask you again, are you calling me a liar?
Get over yourself.

You have not provided the exact context of the quote.
__________________
“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn’t learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn’t learn a little, at least we didn’t get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn’t die; so, let us all be thankful.” - Buddha

www.thrivingaudios.com
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:02 PM   #26
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
They swear oaths to a criminal PRIVATE association called the Bar. This gives them the ability to lie and cheat with impunity.
Is that so? Where did you get that one from?

Have you heard of an advocate's duty to the court?
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:04 PM   #27
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
Get over yourself.

You have not provided the exact context of the quote.
http://www.freewebs.com/libertypages/Blackstone.html

There you go.

Now run along, chew on that and let's see what further distortions you can come up with.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:04 PM   #28
mark1963
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,645
Likes: 58 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
Is that so? Where did you get that one from?

Have you heard of an advocate's duty to the court?
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...wQlIgWFgRVpDBA

If they actually applied it, instead of lies and subterfuge, then that would be something.
__________________
“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn’t learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn’t learn a little, at least we didn’t get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn’t die; so, let us all be thankful.” - Buddha

www.thrivingaudios.com
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:10 PM   #29
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...wQlIgWFgRVpDBA

If they actually applied it, instead of lies and subterfuge, then that would be something.
So, what are the lies and subterfuge that you speak of?
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:12 PM   #30
mark1963
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,645
Likes: 58 (24 Posts)
Default

This is the context, from your link.

Quote:
Rights are however liable to another subdivision; being either, first, those which concern, and are annexed to the persons of men, and are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons; or they are, secondly, such as a man may acquire over external objects, or things unconnected with his person, which are styled jura rerum or the rights of things. Wrongs also are a divisible into, first, private wrongs, which, being a infringement merely of particular rights, concern individuals only, and are called civil injuries; and secondly, public wrongs, which, being a breach of general and public rights, affect the whole community, and are called crimes and misdemeanors.
Where is the error in my OP?


Now:

Quote:
Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposed of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic.
The rights of persons considered in their natural capacities are also of two sorts, absolute, and relative. Absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons: relative, which are indigent to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other. The first, that is, absolute rights, will be the subject of the present chapter.

Here he talks about natural persons and artificial persons. Good, there's a distinction but when we come to the next paragraph we see that rights are ascribed to both types of persons. Rights are artificial in nature, the first paragraph explains that so the natural person which is ascribed to being as God has given must under the law be artificial as well, otherwise rights could not be artifically ascribed to them.

It's a sleight of hand by the old dog and the original paragraph stands.
__________________
“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn’t learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn’t learn a little, at least we didn’t get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn’t die; so, let us all be thankful.” - Buddha

www.thrivingaudios.com
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:14 PM   #31
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
I provided the context and you've read the post because you've commented on it.

I ask you again, are you calling me a liar?
You do realise that the extended Blackstone quote you posted, is quite possibly one of the most eloquent substantiations and justifications of the FOTL ideology ... don't you?

Thank you for providing it.
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:16 PM   #32
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
This is the context, from your link.



Where is the error in my OP?


Now:




Here he talks about natural persons and artificial persons. Good, there's a distinction but when we come to the next paragraph we see that rights are ascribed to both types of persons. Rights are artificial in nature, the first paragraph explains that so the natural person which is ascribed to being as God has given must under the law be artificial as well, otherwise rights could not be artifically ascribed to them.

It's a sleight of hand by the old dog and the original paragraph stands.
Bullshit

You're either being deliberately argumentative or wilfully ignorant. Unsure which, but the outcome is the same.

Read on and you will see why you have taken his remarks out of context. I've already posted the relevant paragraph and marked it in bold, I've also given you the link to the whole chapter. Your response is a classic case of fingers in the ears and "la la la".

I can't help you with that. Readers will see though, of that I am sure.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:16 PM   #33
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
Here he talks about natural persons and artificial persons.
The devil is in the detail.
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:17 PM   #34
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
Bullshit

You're either being deliberately argumentative or wilfully ignorant. Unsure which, but the outcome is the same.

Read on and you will see why you have taken his remarks out of context. I've already posted the relevant paragraph and marked it in bold, I've also given you the link to the whole chapter. Your response is a classic case of fingers in the ears and "la la la".

I can't help you with that. Readers will see though, of that I am sure.
The whole chapter you have provided is fantastic and supports most of the FOTL ideology.

I'm happy to go head to head, paragraph by paragraph ... what you have bolded is a classic example of how you suffer from myopia and will only see what you want to see.

Blackstone has already defined the person as a separate attribute a man has.
He then further defines those persons into subsections; natural and artificial.
Nowhere does Blackstone state that man is natural person.
That is your flawed interpretation and hope.
He states that a natural person is "such as" a man; i.e. similar to, a mimic of.

Your interpretation is bullshit and flawed.
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman

Last edited by yozhik; 12-04-2011 at 02:20 PM.
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:18 PM   #35
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
You do realise that the extended Blackstone quote you posted, is quite possibly one of the most eloquent substantiations and justifications of the FOTL ideology ... don't you?

Thank you for providing it.
Unfortunately, yes.

You can look at PDF's of the actual book via Google but I went for the text link for ease of copying and pasting. It was a freeman link.

I've since disinfected my fingers.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:21 PM   #36
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
The whole chapter you have provided is fantastic and supports most of the FOTL ideology.

I'm happy to go head to head, paragraph by paragraph ...
Go for it.

No surprises that freemen are relying on 18th century resources to explain the legal system of the 21st century.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:27 PM   #37
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
Go for it.

No surprises that freemen are relying on 18th century resources to explain the legal system of the 21st century.
Are you seriously going to deny that Blackstone is still placed upon a pedestal?

Will you state as fact that his commentaries are wholly irrelevant and have been removed as a source or reference in all matters legal?

Is it your intention to view the 21st Century in isolation, without comprehending its roots and provenance?

Damn right we need to look at the 18th Century [and others] to see how the fuck we got where we are today!!

Most of the erosion of freedoms and liberties people are feeling today are as a direct result of 19th century legislation, which was brought through on the foundation that had previously been established and argued ... not just in legal circles, but philosophical doctrines, the corruptions of history and the bastardisation of language throughout the Ages.

I would suggest that your attempt to diminish its importance and summary dismissal of the likes of Blackstone goes a long way to explaining how it is your field of vision is so limited and your views so narrow.
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:28 PM   #38
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
The whole chapter you have provided is fantastic and supports most of the FOTL ideology.

I'm happy to go head to head, paragraph by paragraph ... what you have bolded is a classic example of how you suffer from myopia and will only see what you want to see.

Blackstone has already defined the person as a separate attribute a man has.
He then further defines those persons into subsections; natural and artificial.
Nowhere does Blackstone state that man is natural person.
That is your flawed interpretation and hope.
He states that a natural person is "such as" a man; i.e. similar to, a mimic of.

Your interpretation is bullshit and flawed.
Silly me. Now I remember why you were on ignore.

Quote:
Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposed of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic.
Yozhik thinks this means that there is a subdivision. Really.

Guess we have to disregard all the subsequent authorities as well, because it's possible to put a spin on some eloquent English prose from the 18th century. Deary me, game over for the skeptics. Silly Mr Blackstone, you let the cat out of the bag there sir, you should have used defined terms throughout because someone 250 years down the line will now get confused. I'll jump in the Illuminati time machine later to give you a slap.

Meanwhile, we'll also look forward to Yozhik producing those cases which prove the freeman point.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:36 PM   #39
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
Silly me. Now I remember why you were on ignore.
Argumentum ad hominem?
Shame on you.

I have genuinely offered to go at this with you paragraph by paragraph, rather than your preferred method of little girly punches, then running away ...

Now, the offer still stands, but with a caveat; the debate shall be done respectfully with focus on the argument, not the advocate.

Pretty simple terms being offered.

I will overlook your instinctive response already given and am now appealing to your implied intellect.

Oh ... and your attempts to divert and muddy the waters by changing the discussion from arguing and debating the Blackstone Commentaries, to somehow morphing into a wholly separate matter of "provide the cases proving the FOTL stance" ain't going to fly.

Debate your earlier post, with respect, without devolving into argumentum ad hominem or bringing in external, irrelevant issues ... that is the offer; those are the terms.


Now ... rebut the points made, rather than shit slinging;

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
Blackstone has already defined the person as a separate attribute a man has.
He then further defines those persons into subsections; natural and artificial.
Nowhere does Blackstone state that man is natural person.
That is your flawed interpretation and hope.
He states that a natural person is "such as" a man; i.e. similar to, a mimic of.
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman

Last edited by yozhik; 12-04-2011 at 02:39 PM.
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 02:46 PM   #40
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
Argumentum ad hominem?
Shame on you.

I have genuinely offered to go at this with you paragraph by paragraph, rather than your preferred method of little girly punches, then running away ...

Now, the offer still stands, but with a caveat; the debate shall be done respectfully with focus on the argument, not the advocate.

Pretty simple terms being offered.

I will overlook your instinctive response already given and am now appealing to your implied intellect.

Oh ... and your attempts to divert and muddy the waters by changing the discussion from arguing and debating the Blackstone Commentaries, to somehow morphing into a wholly separate matter of "provide the cases proving the FOTL stance" ain't going to fly.

Debate your earlier post, with respect, without devolving into argumentum ad hominem or bringing in external, irrelevant issues ... that is the offer; those are the terms.


Now ... rebut the points made, rather than shit slinging;
I have to answer that before switching on the ignore function again. Stupid me for switching it off in the first place.

I don't wish to have any dealings with you, Yozhik, whether on an intellectual level or otherwise. Hope I've made that clear enough. I would very happily debate the subject matter, but that means interracting with you and that's a definite no-no for me. The discussion is therefore over as far as you and I are concerned.

Ignore function reinstated.
micklemus 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 04:30 AM.


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