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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 25-05-2014, 09:37 AM   #21
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doobyferkin View Post
my point being, where the courts put on trial people who have broken unlawful laws that cannot be won then the only way to stop it is to not play their game, unfortunately i am speaking to a minority who will understand this message, only if the majority understood this and acted on it then the unlawful laws would have to stop.



this is the wrong approach although one that many unfortunately use.
It has no different effect than your approach. It wont stop anything- the process will continue regardless of your participation. Its not the court (the judge or prosecution) you are trying to convince of you innocence, or the prosecution of your guilt- it is members of the public either lay magistrate or jury.

One of the main points of a jury or magistrate is that the do not need to convict a person for breaking a law they feel is unjust- its called jury equity. Its the foundation of lay involvement and the right to trial 'by a jury of your peers'.

So you saying some laws are unlawful and if enough people realize your point then they will go away is mute because this is the point in the jury. There a few recent cases where juries have failed to convict MS sufferers for growing weed. One woman was found not quilt twice by a jury twice and still grows openly. She probably will not be charged again as no jury will convict her.

Edit: ok I can not find this case and may be mistaken but hear similar ones:

Quote:
Colin Davies, 42, was acquitted by a jury at Manchester Crown Court after a three-day trial despite admitting that he had set up a co-operative to help fellow pain sufferers by providing them with cannabis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/401186.stm

Quote:
A multiple sclerosis sufferer who cultivated cannabis and used it to ease his pain has been cleared of committing a crime. [...] A jury at Ipswich Crown Court accepted his argument that he needed cannabis to ease his pain and cleared him of any offence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/681389.stm

Quote:
A multiple sclerosis sufferer was cleared of possessing cannabis after telling a court that she needed the drug to relieve the symptoms of the muscle-wasting disease.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/946935.stm

There is no concept in English law of an unlawful statute. (Although there is a hierarchy in that constitutional Acts must be expressly repealed as opposed to all others that can be repealed by implication, ie new contradictory legislation)

Last edited by jon galt; 25-05-2014 at 10:44 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 09:50 AM   #22
doobyferkin
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,500
Likes: 22 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
It has no different effect than your approach.
"fuck off" is asking to be treated in the same disrespectful manner, stating that "I do not recognize this court's right to try me" may have the same outcome but will be a more dignified and respected retort while if repeated enough times could become contagious.

Quote:
There is no concept in English law of an unlawful statute.
i do not play therefore do not recognize the term "English law" thus unlawful law is MY interpretation by MY standards.

the op scenario will not happen in this world anywhere in the near future, although i can openly discuss this "vision" with like minded people, after all i made the thread, it would be nice to get some comments on the support of the op quotes, it is significant and it has value, shame there is a lot of negative views on this thread by those who feel they have to appose something that represents good, yes it is fiction, imo stating something meaningful and honorable, does anyone agree?
doobyferkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 10:03 AM   #23
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doobyferkin View Post


i do not play therefore do not recognize the term "English law" thus unlawful law is MY interpretation by MY standards.
That's my point your interpretation or acceptance of the law is irrelevant. However as a political protest, fair play to you and I wish you the best of luck.

Quote:
"fuck off" is asking to be treated in the same disrespectful manner, stating that "I do not recognize this court's right to try me" may have the same outcome but will be a more dignified and respected retort while if repeated enough times could become contagious.
True, and although a jury should be unbiased it definitely don't look good, but he was guilty as hell any way so did not really make much a difference to his sentence.

Quote:
yes it is fiction, imo stating something meaningful and honorable, does anyone agree?
I am not being negative because of the value of the quotes in its self, I am negative of its use as a legal remedy. Especially in the bigger picture of fmotl where they claim that consent to prosecution is required, it is not. I (perhaps mistakenly) thought that's what you were tiring to say with the emphasis on voluntariness.

Last edited by jon galt; 25-05-2014 at 10:20 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 10:30 AM   #24
doobyferkin
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,500
Likes: 22 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
That's my point your interpretation or acceptance of the law is irrelevant.
it is relevant to me

Quote:
However as a political protest
i do not see it as political protest, i see it as moral values, my moral values will not save me from this "beast" we call the justice system, so i will be taken by force, imprisoned, i will have to be carried everywhere, i will probably end up in a mental hospital, drugged and eventually die....is this the price i am prepared to take standing up for my moral values? yes it is and then i am free, dead or alive.


Quote:
fair play to you and I wish you the best of luck.
i am not subjected to this scenario, yet.... i am only telling my interpretation how i see it......... i would not need luck, i only need to stand by my moral values.

Quote:
I am not being negative because of the value of the quotes in its self, I am negative of its use as a legal remedy. Especially in the bigger picture of fmotl where they claim that consent to prosecution is required, it is not. I (perhaps mistakenly) thought that's what you were tiring to say with the emphasis on voluntariness.
then going by the spirit of the op you are on the wrong thread, make a thread of your own to get YOUR message that YOU want to share.
doobyferkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 10:35 AM   #25
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doobyferkin View Post


then going by the spirit of the op you are on the wrong thread, make a thread of your own to get YOUR message that YOU want to share.
I take issue with this and not because its a public forum. Why are pro freemen against anything that debunks their theory? This is a red flag to me and any one reading this. To be clear I don't care if you believe the op or anything fmotl related. I don't particularly care if you manage to convince anyone of it either. What I do care about is when people are confronted by such nonsense they should at least have access to the alternative. Why are you against that? Why would you hope to limit peoples access to information?

Last edited by jon galt; 25-05-2014 at 10:37 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 10:37 AM   #26
doobyferkin
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,500
Likes: 22 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
I take issue with this. Why are pro freemen against anything that debunks their theory. This is a red flag to me and any one reading this. To be clear I don't care if you believe the op or anything fmotl related. I don't particularly care if you manage to convince anyone of it either. What I do care about is when people are confronted by such nonsense they should at least have access to the alternative. Why are you against that? Why would you hope to limit peoples access to information?
pro freemen = nonsense, so you think the freedom of men is nonsense

i am not telling, i am suggesting.... make a thread of your own to get YOUR message that YOU want to share, you can choose to stay here, it is an open forum and open thread.

The more you appose it the more credibility you give to it, after all you are jon galt, keep them coming!

Last edited by doobyferkin; 25-05-2014 at 11:20 AM.
doobyferkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 10:46 AM   #27
thecatsmeow
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: In limbo
Posts: 5,622
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doobyferkin View Post
"fuck off" is asking to be treated in the same disrespectful manner, stating that "I do not recognize this court's right to try me" may have the same outcome but will be a more dignified and respected retort while if repeated enough times could become contagious.



i do not play therefore do not recognize the term "English law" thus unlawful law is MY interpretation by MY standards.

the op scenario will not happen in this world anywhere in the near future, although i can openly discuss this "vision" with like minded people, after all i made the thread, it would be nice to get some comments on the support of the op quotes, it is significant and it has value, shame there is a lot of negative views on this thread by those who feel they have to appose something that represents good, yes it is fiction, imo stating something meaningful and honorable, does anyone agree?
Yes! I do!
thecatsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 10:48 AM   #28
doobyferkin
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,500
Likes: 22 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatsmeow View Post
Yes! I do!
thank you!
doobyferkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 10:49 AM   #29
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatsmeow View Post
Yes! I do!
That's actually a valid point in regards to the Official Secrets Act and similar legislation for the purpose of national security.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 11:25 AM   #30
thecatsmeow
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: In limbo
Posts: 5,622
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doobyferkin View Post
thank you!
You're welcome!
thecatsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 11:30 AM   #31
felixk
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boodle's
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doobyferkin View Post
"fuck off" is asking to be treated in the same disrespectful manner, stating that "I do not recognize this court's right to try me" may have the same outcome but will be a more dignified and respected retort while if repeated enough times could become contagious.
So that eventually it could become a valid response to a charge of murder?

Last edited by felixk; 25-05-2014 at 11:30 AM.
felixk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 11:32 AM   #32
thecatsmeow
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: In limbo
Posts: 5,622
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by felixk View Post
So that eventually it could become a valid response to a charge of murder?
Oh yeah! Right! The establishment murderers get to sentence the non-establishment murderers! Give the man a break!
thecatsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 11:36 AM   #33
felixk
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boodle's
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatsmeow View Post
Oh yeah! Right! The establishment murderers get to sentence the non-establishment murderers! Give the man a break!
Please address my point.
Is "I do not recognise this court's right to try me" a valid response to a charge of murder?
Yes or No?

Last edited by felixk; 25-05-2014 at 11:36 AM.
felixk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 11:36 AM   #34
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatsmeow View Post
Oh yeah! Right! The establishment murderers get to sentence the non-establishment murderers! Give the man a break!
What murders do the establishment commit? At common law murder is; 'the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought'. You would need to cite some examples to determine if the killings were unlawful. Those that are determined to be unlawful are usually prosecuted.

Are you suggesting that no one should be tried for murder because you believe that the establishment are murderers?

Last edited by jon galt; 25-05-2014 at 11:38 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 11:37 AM   #35
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by felixk View Post
Please address my point.
I would not hold your breath on that.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 11:38 AM   #36
doobyferkin
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,500
Likes: 22 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by felixk View Post
So that eventually it could become a valid response to a charge of murder?
have you been following, paying attention or just making excuses to prop up the justice system?

Quote:
i do not see it as political protest, i see it as moral values, my moral values will not save me from this "beast" we call the justice system, so i will be taken by force, imprisoned, i will have to be carried everywhere, i will probably end up in a mental hospital, drugged and eventually die....is this the price i am prepared to take standing up for my moral values? yes it is and then i am free, dead or alive.
who do you know who considers murder as moral....

i give you a body that do.....the government
doobyferkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 11:38 AM   #37
thecatsmeow
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: In limbo
Posts: 5,622
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by felixk View Post
Please address my point.
Is "I do not recognise this court's right to try me" a valid response to a charge of murder?
Yes or No?
Why should I address YOUR POINT. I'm not here to prove or disprove anything. A forum is a place for friendly discussion, not incessant bickering.
thecatsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 11:41 AM   #38
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doobyferkin View Post
have you been following, paying attention or just making excuses to prop up the justice system?



who do you know who considers murder as moral....

i give you a body that do.....the government
The charge of murder is nothing to do with morality. Murder is illegal because generally a person has a right to life and no other has the right to take it. This can be disputed, self defence being the obvious example in which case the person did have the right to take the life and has not committed murder.

Many people justify murder from terrorists who believes that infidels should be killed to a NED that has been insulted, to some in-between like a father killing the partner of his daughter who had beaten her, where duress may mitigate the charge.

Last edited by jon galt; 25-05-2014 at 11:43 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 11:41 AM   #39
felixk
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boodle's
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatsmeow View Post
Why should I address YOUR POINT.
Why?
Because you quoted my post.
felixk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2014, 11:46 AM   #40
felixk
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boodle's
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doobyferkin View Post
have you been following, paying attention or just making excuses to prop up the justice system?
Yes I have read every post.


Quote:
who do you know who considers murder as moral....
I cannot speak on behalf of everybody, therefore it is impossible to decide how many people believe that murder is not immoral.
But, just because you believe that to murder is immoral does not mean everybody else shares your opinion.
So, again: is "I do not recognise this court's right to try me" a valid response to a charge of murder?
In your opinion?
felixk 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 06:41 AM.


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