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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-03-2010, 11:29 AM   #21
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asky View Post
Right now Ive got your attention with a FMOTL buzzword would anyone care to speculate(Yozhik esp)on the popular theory that the lawyers and judges and the law society are oblivious to the scam that the Elite are pulling over their eyes regarding the Commercial Courts and Admiralty Law.

I would be interested to know at what level the forum members think this deception starts/ends.

Are the high level Judges aware or is it high ranking members of government.

I wonder if Cherie Blair is in on it?
You dont get much higher than her do you (with her contacts)

Over to you

asky
Well, I'll try to bring it back on topic.

My personal point of view is that arguments about lawyers generally, ie solicitors and barristers (in the UK) are total COCK.

To be honest, I think it's also wankybollocks to argue about a corrupt judiciary. HOWEVER there IS evidence of senior judges being involved in shaping legal policy on occasion. For example the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has its roots in the Scarman Enquiry, as I recall. Similarly the forthcoming debate on legal costs has been prompted by a report by Judge Rupert Jackson. There are countless other examples, but the costs issue could be interesting current one because a review of his report will reveal striking parallels with points made by lobbyists on behalf of major institutions and, to a lesser extent, parallels with how costs are handled in other European jurisdictions.

So, at this point one could conclude that maybe, just maybe, there is evidence of some members of the judiciary not being entirely independent or alternatively (and this is presently my point of view) that they listen to all arguments and make a decision, which will naturally take one or more positions into account. It just so happens that sometimes views are taken which do not reflect the hopes of the alternative media.

IF someone could produce evidence of one or more senior members of the judiciary being members of institutions which are quite possibly steering events in a particular direction (eg Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations etc etc, maybe even Common Purpose at a senior level) then I will sit up and take notice of that fact. However, I would then still need to consider what those judges are actually doing. At present I've seen no such evidence, therefore in my opinion there is nothing to substantiate a theory about the legal system being 'in on it'.

Also (and I've said this before on another thread) I am personally acquainted with dozens and dozens of lawyers of various rank and only one of them is a freemason (just to quash that particular theory as well). He also happens to be one of the nicest, most principled people I know and I would trust him completely.

So, my personal view, based on the current evidence, is that there isn't much of a rabbit hole in this area. When one understands constitutional law and the notion of separation of powers, there is a logic to this being the position as well. The judiciary serves the legal system, it does not create it. Yes the judiciary may at times apply common law principles, but when you appreciate that, in UK law, statute takes precedence over common law and European law takes precedence over statute then it becomes blindingly obvious that conspiracy theorists might just be pointing the finger at the wrong people when it comes to condemning the entire legal system.

Last edited by micklemus; 05-03-2010 at 01:35 PM. Reason: Spelling
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 05:14 PM   #22
arty2000
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Michigan,USA
Posts: 4,239
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prajna View Post
Oh Arty, perfect question. My previous homepage noted at the bottom:

Perhaps all the answers are obvious once you answer the first question completely. If you're stuck for where to begin then try "Who am I?"
__________________
peace and love my friends
arty2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 05:15 PM   #23
tracker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,347
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asky View Post
Right now Ive got your attention with a FMOTL buzzword would anyone care to speculate(Yozhik esp)on the popular theory that the lawyers and judges and the law society are oblivious to the scam that the Elite are pulling over their eyes regarding the Commercial Courts and Admiralty Law.

I would be interested to know at what level the forum members think this deception starts/ends.

Are the high level Judges aware or is it high ranking members of government.

I wonder if Cherie Blair is in on it?
You dont get much higher than her do you (with her contacts)

Over to you

asky
it starts from birth

ends with death.

tracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 07:48 PM   #24
asky
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,661
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Yes it does and its all about enjoying the bit in between

Not stressing and worrying over every conspiracy theory thats posted on the net.

asky
asky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 11:27 PM   #25
arty2000
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Michigan,USA
Posts: 4,239
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asky View Post
Yes it does and its all about enjoying the bit in between

Not stressing and worrying over every conspiracy theory thats posted on the net.

asky
who said anything about stress or worrying,,quiet the mind and relax
__________________
peace and love my friends
arty2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 01:36 PM   #26
angelthecat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inverselogic View Post
How deep is the rabbit hole?

I'll let you know once I stop falling.
you are right. The mindset is how deep is the rabbit hole and how deep do you want to go, but the reality says how deep are we into the rabbit hole and how much do we want to come out. In wonderland everything is in reverse
__________________
no politicians were hurt in the making of this war
http://www.davidicke.com/forum overcome the hypnosis
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Government of this Church to continue without any Alteration to the People of this Land in all succeeding Generations [this was the creation of the UK Government 1706 act of union]
angelthecat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 12:25 AM   #27
lightindarkness
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 813
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vladmir View Post
What does that even mean? "If FMOTL was real"?
It means just what it says it means - all evidence says FMOTL is not real in that the concepts do not produce results. Sometimes practicing FMOTL rituals produces what appears to be results but thats not because FMOTL works, its because you've sufficiently barraged a court with paperwork/confused clerical staff on legal matters so insignificant that they let it go. I can do that without FMOTL.

But, its still a good scenario based question to ask to learn more about people who believe it. Unfortunately, the thread got derailed by 9/11 for some reason...but so far it looks like the consensus that the conspiracy is appropriately huge. I'd like to see more detail though: Who is involved and why? Why is it no person with legal training has ever exposed the system?
lightindarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 02:25 AM   #28
vladmir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: भारत
Posts: 1,849
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightindarkness View Post
Unfortunately, the thread got derailed by 9/11 for some reason...but so far it looks like the consensus that the conspiracy is appropriately huge. I'd like to see more detail though: Who is involved and why? Why is it no person with legal training has ever exposed the system?
Why indeed. What do you think?
vladmir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 09:32 AM   #29
wolfhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 960
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asky View Post
Right now Ive got your attention with a FMOTL buzzword would anyone care to speculate(Yozhik esp)on the popular theory that the lawyers and judges and the law society are oblivious to the scam that the Elite are pulling over their eyes regarding the Commercial Courts and Admiralty Law.

I would be interested to know at what level the forum members think this deception starts/ends.

Are the high level Judges aware or is it high ranking members of government.

I wonder if Cherie Blair is in on it?
You dont get much higher than her do you (with her contacts)

Over to you

asky
I would suggest that everyone involved in the 'legal system' eventually becomes aware of what a total scam it is but, like most people, they have far too much invested in the system that they'll never bite the hand that feeds them so well.

Its blatently plain that 'The Law' is the foundation of the entire current 'top down, elitist' system because of the fact that none of us learn anything about it at school - not even our basic human rights! If basic law was on the curiclum then they'd never have gotten away with it. It's time we started lobbying for that point.

The one positive is that this very complex matrix was built by other humans hence why the FMOTL movement is starting to find weaknesses in it.

We have to move very quickly to consolidate our position before they bring in new laws to plug the holes.

Last edited by wolfhead; 07-03-2010 at 09:32 AM.
wolfhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 09:37 AM   #30
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Well said Wolfhead and as a newcomer once myself I bought into 'they can just plug the holes conpsiracy and quackery'. I'm glad you haven't fallen for the disinformation given by these hum hum hum. You know whats.

They can invent whatever law they like. THEY DO NOT HAVE MY CONSENT

PERIOD!!!!
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 09:55 AM   #31
consciousness
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: To Infinity and Beyond
Posts: 3,308
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

I'll say that the universe and the rabbit hole are one and the same. It never ends.
consciousness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 10:06 AM   #32
wolfhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 960
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Bluddy hell! A compliment from GirlGye!!!

The Law is the key to freeing ourselves - and to beating them. They are as scared of it as we are, maybe not the extreme top elite but certainly all the levels below them. You only have to look at the Israeli murderers being scared to travel for fear of arrest, Pinochet and the Spanish writ and now Rumsfeld is shitting himself about torture writs.

I'd be surpised if any lawyer, barrister or judge will ever work for us as a movement so we should take a leaf out of the US union movements methods and educate our own people. Greg Palast is someone who springs to mind, he was sent to the School of Americas, funded by the unions.

At the moment we are just another talkiing shop. We need to get organised like a political party (maybe become one), get secure like a terrorist movement and get funded like a charity......
wolfhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 10:10 AM   #33
from beyond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 423
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfhead View Post

At the moment we are just another talkiing shop. We need to get organised like a political party (maybe become one), get secure like a terrorist movement and get funded like a charity......
your spot on.....this needs to move into action!
from beyond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 10:20 AM   #34
wolfhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 960
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Here ya go, Rumsfeld must be papping it!


http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog...ant-duck-trial


Use the law against them!
wolfhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 10:42 PM   #35
ms hope
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,634
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

It will be interesting to see what replies come back

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...incoming-73476

Training of Judges
Dear Judicial Studies Board,

According to your website, The Lord Chief Justice is responsible
for judicial training. Yet when I tried to search on it for any
reference to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 I
found no results, so does he accept the blame for this?

Can you please therefor inform me of what training or advice, if
any, has been issued to judges in the UK since 1949 regarding their
obligations to respect these rights under the UN Charter?

In addition to that Declaration, which this Member State of the UN
pledged to uphold there have been two International Covenants dated
1966, although it took 10 years even to get those ratified.

What additional training and advice has been issued to judges
regarding those, which this State has also failed to comply with?
Surely the failure of the Courts and Parliament to respect all
those rights and freedoms has undermined every judicial decision
since 1949 at least?

Does the Judicial Studies Board, for example, require all judges to
report the number of decisions which they have reached, or the
number of Court Orders issued, without any hearing? In particular I
am concerned with the treatment of 'litigants in person'. So what
information does any alleged authority involved with the courts
hold, which could prove that they are given 'fair and public
hearings' to which they have the right?

Do you,or others, have records of how many 'hearings' are heard 'in
camera' when the public are excluded, to compare with the number of
other hearings?

The 'Fairness guide 2007' gives them advice, which I believe they
are ignoring. Another issue on this, is the provision of reasons
for their decisions. Again what data is collected to show that
these are ever given any significance or observance?

How can the commonly used phrase "having considered all the
evidence" be justified as a reason, if the the defendant has had no
hearing at all or otherwise has not been allowed a defence against
any claim?

If no records of such violations exist, then how can the system
claim to be respecting human rights at all?

Yours faithfully,

J Wilson

JSB Publications
Judicial Studies Board

23 February 2010
Thank you for your email. The Judicial Studies Board is responsible for
the training of judges. Human rights is not treated as a stand-alone
subject for training, but rather a subject that is embedded in UK law,
and therefore in the other courses that are held for judges. More
details of those courses can be found in the JSB's Annual Reports at:
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/aboutus/annualr....

No statistics or data on the work of the courts is held by the JSB.

I hope that this is of some help.

Dear JSB Publications,

Thank you for replying, but this does not answer my questions,
apart for the confirmation that the JSB does not hold statics about
legal decisions by courts. I would like to know who does and why
you did not ask them for that information?

As for the Annual Reports which you referred me to, I did a quick
search through them for references to the "Universal Declaration"
and found none.

There was one mention in the latest one, to a lecture being given
by some Lord, on the 'Universality of Human Rights' which is a
feature of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration and the 2
International Covenants, but not part of UK Law and clearly hasn't
been since 1949 for the following reasons.

General Comment No.16 (2005) issued by the UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, on the 11th Aug 2005 said in
its introduction:-
"The equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all human
rights is one of the fundamental principles recognized under
international law and enshrined in the main international human
rights instruments. The International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) protects human rights that are
fundamental to the dignity of every person. In particular, article
3 of this Covenant provides for the equal right of men and women to
the enjoyment of the rights it articulates. This provision is
founded on Article 1, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter
and article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Except
for the reference to ICESCR, it is identical to article 3 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which
was drafted at the same time".

However, the same Committee said in 2002, in reply to the UK's 4th
periodic report on its implementation of the International Covenant
on these rights stated:-
"The Committee deeply regrets that, although the State party has
adopted a certain number of laws in the area of economic, social
and cultural rights, the Covenant has still not been incorporated
in the domestic legal order and that there is no intention by the
State party to do so in the near future. The Committee reiterates
its concern about the State party’s position that the provisions of
the Covenant, with minor exceptions, constitute principles and
programmatic objectives rather than legal obligations that are
justiciable, and that consequently they cannot be given direct
legislative effect (see paragraph 10 of the Committee’s concluding
observations of December 1997 (E/C.12/1/Add.19))".

They repeated those concerns on the 12th June 2009 in paragraph 13
of their next report, again stating:-
"the Covenant has still not been incorporated into
the domestic legal order of the State party and cannot be directly
invoked before the courts. It also regrets the statement made by
the State party’s delegation that economic, social and cultural
rights are mere principles and values and that most of the rights
contained in the Covenant are not justiciable".

The CCPR Committee has also repeatedly made similar comments on
Civil and Political Rights, including stating as recently as 30th
July 2008:-
"The Committee notes that the Covenant is not directly applicable
in the State party. In this regard, it recalls that several
Covenant rights are not included among the provisions of the
European Convention on Human Rights which has been incorporated
into the domestic legal order through the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Committee also notes that the State party is the only Member
State of the European Union not to be a party to the Optional
Protocol to the Covenant. (art.2)". This also justly criticizes the
European Convention, only parts of which are included in the Human
Rights Act 1998.

This clearly constitutes a universal violation of those rights, as
the States position is simply illogical and untenable. In 1949,
this State was involved in ensuring that the Universal Declaration
rights were incorporated into German Basic Law, so why have we in
the UK been denied them and still are?

So, although the United Nations has emphasised the importance of
equality of men and women and the universality of all human rights
and freedoms, it is a fact that UK law is still not compatible with
that, so does the JSB accept any responsibility for this?

The Universal Declaration itself stated only one 'aspiration' which
was:-
" to the end that every individual and every organ of society,
keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by
teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and
freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international,
to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance,
both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the
peoples of territories under their jurisdiction".

Clearly the JSB is an organ of society so had an obligation to play
its part in complying with this pledge. What records are held of
the part the JSB played in the decision to ignore it in 1949 or
since?

Your reply to my enquiries seems to imply that even the JSB (whom I
assume was around in 1948) ignored this part of the pledge by this
State to educate its citizens of all their rights and to 'secure'
them through progressive 'national and international' measures
including laws and educating judges.

Will you please therefore ask the Lord Chief Justice himself, to
confirm that there are no records held whatsoever, since 1949 or
later, of any discussions with Government, including internal
memos, or any guidance or advice issued to judges concerning the
Universal Declaration or the 2 International Covenants which the
State signed with the UN over the last 61 years?

Or else, if there is anything at all, please let me have copies of
them and publish them for everyone else to see too, as it is in the
national interest for all citizens to know who has denied us our
rights and why?

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson


http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...incoming-71792

UK Laws and Human Rights
J Wilson

20 February 2010
Dear Ministry of Justice,

This State signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
in 1948, yet in Jan 1949, the then Prime Minister stated in
Hansard, ref HC Deb 18 January 1949 vol 460 cc16-8, that:-
"There is no question of any separate act of accession by States,
or of an obligation to give early legislative effect to any
provision with which Kingdom or Colonial laws may at the moment be
at variance. Nevertheless, His Majesty's Government subscribe
generally to the ideal embodied in the Declaration and will
continue to work towards it.".

However, this is contrary to the pledge in that Declaration which
was " to the end that every individual and every organ of society,
keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by
teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and
freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international,
to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance,
both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the
peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.".

So my question to you is this - What steps, if any, were taken
after Jan 1949 to educate the people of their rights or to "expound
and publicise" the Declaration itself in order to 'promote'
universal respect for these rights?

Can you also clarify this States Interpretation of "every organ of
society"? Does that concur with any interpretations issued by the
UN?

I would also like an explanation of how my right "To know, seek,
obtain, receive and hold information about all human rights and
fundamental freedoms, including having access to information as to
how those rights and freedoms are given effect in domestic
legislative, judicial or administrative systems", has been complied
with under Article 6 of Resolution 53/144 of the General Assembly
on the 9th Dec 1998?

It is clear from that and other UN documents, that this State has
failed to comply with its sworn obligations to respect human rights
fully as declared. What excuse does the State offer for these
failures? Is it the fall back of 'Parliamentary Sovereignty'?

Do they not serve us? It seems like we are enslaved to them, in my
opinion if they can ignore these rights.

Yours faithfully,

J Wilson
ms hope 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 07:03 AM.


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