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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-05-2011, 06:06 AM   #341
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
Yep

It's not your right to say "no" that is damning (of course you have that right) but the fact that people interested in this stuff have never posted any evidence to support it. Not once.

Over time it becomes pretty obvious that their cupboards are bare. You can polish a turd all you like, but a turd is a turd nevertheless.
If I or anyone else make an unproven assumption and you do not offer evidence rebutting the claim then, the assumption, in absence of evidence to the contrary, is deemed to be admitted.
It stands as accepted fact.
Did you get that?
Or, do you need some help with that?

Last edited by jackieg; 01-05-2011 at 06:08 AM.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 07:35 AM   #342
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackieg View Post
If I or anyone else make an unproven assumption and you do not offer evidence rebutting the claim then, the assumption, in absence of evidence to the contrary, is deemed to be admitted.
It stands as accepted fact.
Did you get that?
Or, do you need some help with that?

Let us jack it up a notch or two.

If you fail to come to the table with clean hands then, what exactly. are you doing here?
Under what right do you have to continue questioning anyone when you have admitted to vacating the battlefield?
UNCLEAN HANDS

Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine or dirty hands doctrine[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands".
A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.

Last edited by jackieg; 01-05-2011 at 07:47 AM.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2011, 04:09 AM   #343
dubh ghaill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Good god. Is there a moderator present?

Could someone please move or delete all the senseless arguing and mudslinging between Rob Menard and his haters and save the rest of us who would like to actually read about the OP topic.

Sifting through the page after page of bullshit is really trying on my busy eyes.
dubh ghaill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2011, 10:07 AM   #344
thoreau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 291 (137 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dubh ghaill View Post
Good god. Is there a moderator present?

Could someone please move or delete all the senseless arguing and mudslinging between Rob Menard and his haters and save the rest of us who would like to actually read about the OP topic.

Sifting through the page after page of bullshit is really trying on my busy eyes.
Thats how I feel everytime I read a post claiming to be a success....
__________________
Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life you’ve imagined.HENRY DAVID THOREAU
Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people - Socrates
No amount of security is worth the suffering of a mediocre life chained to a routine that has killed your dreams - Maya Mendoza

Last edited by thoreau; 25-05-2011 at 10:07 AM.
thoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2011, 10:43 AM   #345
grammarian
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 226
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Sifting through the page after page of bullshit is really trying on my busy eyes
Deleting posts will not remove the bullshit. This is FOTLsville, population 5, biggest export: Bullshit.
grammarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-05-2011, 01:29 PM   #346
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackieg View Post
If I or anyone else make an unproven assumption and you do not offer evidence rebutting the claim then, the assumption, in absence of evidence to the contrary, is deemed to be admitted.
It stands as accepted fact.
Did you get that?
Or, do you need some help with that?
The only place where it stands as accepted fact is in your own head you twonk.

An unproven assumption is nothing except an unproven assumption. You need evidence to make it into something with any legal weight.

Evidence. How silly of me to bring that up, as I realise it's anathema to freemen.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-05-2011, 01:34 PM   #347
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackieg View Post

Let us jack it up a notch or two.

If you fail to come to the table with clean hands then, what exactly. are you doing here?
Under what right do you have to continue questioning anyone when you have admitted to vacating the battlefield?
UNCLEAN HANDS

Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine or dirty hands doctrine[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands".
A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.
And now what are you on about?

I understood this to be an internet forum, not a court considering equitable remedies. What the hell has the clean hands doctrine (which you clearly no naff all about, except what you've copied and pasted off the t'internet) got to do with a discussion here?

If you're suggesting that I'm dishonest, I'd simply suggest you grow up now. That's one thing I am most definitely not.

While we're at it, what "battlefield" am I vacating as well?
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-05-2011, 04:46 PM   #348
wispy
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,968
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
The only place where it stands as accepted fact is in your own head you twonk.

An unproven assumption is nothing except an unproven assumption. You need evidence to make it into something with any legal weight.

Evidence. How silly of me to bring that up, as I realise it's anathema to freemen.
Absolutely. And it's still only an assumption, not even a fact, never mind an accepted fact.
wispy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 08:31 AM   #349
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Correct me if I error but,
I think we are in a "legal arena " here and I still don't see any point-by-point rebuttal to the accusations I made against the clown.
Just a lot of verbiage, skirting the issue, rambling on about incontestable Bull-Shit.
Try staying on topic and on point, clown.
No one likes to be though of or caught with their pants down around their ankles.
So....
Get on with producing something in order to rebut the charges I made toward you.

Last edited by jackieg; 01-07-2011 at 08:36 AM.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 08:56 AM   #350
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
The only place where it stands as accepted fact is in your own head you twonk.

An unproven assumption is nothing except an unproven assumption. You need evidence to make it into something with any legal weight.

Evidence. How silly of me to bring that up, as I realise it's anathema to freemen.
An accusation remains an unproven assumption unless the respondent rebuts the charges (accusation).
Failing to rebut the accusation leads one to legally take the position that, the accusation is true and correct.
It is no longer an assumption but, an established fact in evidence.
Placed there ,
By your expressed lack of rebuttal lying before me or the judge (jury present).
Common sense....in regards to evidence or lack thereof.
Right?

Last edited by jackieg; 01-07-2011 at 08:59 AM.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 09:09 AM   #351
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

micklemus
I'm going to boil it down so even a tyro such as you, can grasp it.
If I fling a cow patty toward you and nail you square between the ears and all you do is whine and complain about the smell well, do I feel justified?
Of course I do!
And why wouldn't I?
Didn't you just expend all your time complaining about the smell?
Then what does that have to do with you not coming clean as to, why (for what purpose) are you really here?
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 10:08 AM   #352
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default The first British Freeman?

flies in a hot air balloon.

Some of you know and some of you will think 'am I going a bit mad'? er no.

Everyone of you is considered a dissident even the arselickers.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...8301546093905#

Very good with porridge and fruit first thing in the morning.
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2011, 06:51 PM   #353
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/vide...video_id=15727

It's difficult to not get angry when faced with 4 gun toting cops. Fair play they weren't psychopaths hell bent on meeting their quota for that day.

Just try to be calm. I can hear the fear in his voice, the pain and the incandescent rage.

If you can try always to be calm and polite.

Well done Moorish Nation on this lesson but they were bringing him back probably with a thick ear and he over reacted somewhat.

This is probably what you say when they are taking you away not bringing you back.

Last edited by girlgye; 15-07-2011 at 06:55 PM.
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2011, 08:38 PM   #354
undeadcreature
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,679
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

As I pointed out in it's original thread, how is this a success, all we see and hear is someone shouting a load of gibberish at the Police. One of the officers even says "We are returning your son to you"
Until there are facts to prove otherwise, that does not seem like kidnapping to me.
It comes across as a loud-mouth know-it-all when nothing was going to happen in the first place.
undeadcreature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2011, 09:09 PM   #355
weeman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Behind you....... Pulling Faces!
Posts: 6,065
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undeadcreature View Post
As I pointed out in it's original thread, how is this a success, all we see and hear is someone shouting a load of gibberish at the Police. One of the officers even says "We are returning your son to you"
Until there are facts to prove otherwise, that does not seem like kidnapping to me.
It comes across as a loud-mouth know-it-all when nothing was going to happen in the first place.
Know it all? Thou dost protest
weeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2011, 09:24 PM   #356
undeadcreature
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,679
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

My apologies Mr Man, loud-mouth, thinks-he-knows-it-all
undeadcreature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2011, 09:39 PM   #357
weeman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Behind you....... Pulling Faces!
Posts: 6,065
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undeadcreature View Post
My apologies Mr Man, loud-mouth, thinks-he-knows-it-all
weeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2011, 09:47 AM   #358
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default


Don't worry it's not always as a 'peaceful ride' as it seems.
girlgye 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 03:39 PM.


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