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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-09-2008, 03:52 PM   #21
malvern
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,393
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
12. I impose a strict peace upon my whole kingdom and command that it bemaintained henceforth.

interresting read .. i like number 12.

freedom is the grandchildren
malvern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 12:13 AM   #22
dondaz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Birmingham, England
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Here's a protest in London against corrupt solicitors, barristers and judges:

__________________
'Just a coincidence dear, nothing to worry about!' - David Icke
dondaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 01:47 AM   #23
dondaz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Birmingham, England
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
V BENCH

(Taken from "THE LAW'S STRANGEST CASES" by Peter Seddon)

THE OLD BAILEY. LONDON, 1670

It’s certainly unusual for a jury to challenge the authority of the learned legal personages on the bench, but that was exactly what happened in the trial of Penn and Mead in London in 1670. The incident changed the course of legal history in favour of a fair trial for the common man.

On Sunday, 14 August 1670, in Gracechurch Street, London, the English Quaker leader William Penn. then a law scholar, teamed up with a former law student. William Mead. for a spot of gentle street preaching. Nothing manic — it’s just not the Quaker way. A crowd soon gathered and presently a couple of London’s city officers sidled up, as they do, and promptly arrested Penn and Mead in full flow.

The indictment put before the court when their trial began at the Old Bailey on 1 September 1670 was for ‘unlawful assembly’. It spoke dramatically of ‘a tumultuous gathering in contempt of the King’ causing ‘great terror of his people and a gross disturbance of the peace’. In an age of religious intolerance, that was Charles II’s way of saying. ‘Cut out that Quaker stuff right sharp.’

The nine high-ups on the bench, including the Mayor of London, Sam Starling, may have known they were in for a rough ride when Penn and Mead refused to remove their Quaker hats in court. They were duly given a hefty fine.

The trial commenced and the officers who had made the arrests gave evidence of ‘talking’ but certainly not of ‘tumult, violence and terror’.

Penn’s defence was that he had done nothing more than preach peaceably and he demanded to know by what exact instrument he was being prosecuted: ‘Upon common law.’ replied the recorder, Thomas Howel, ‘Then show it me,’ challenged Penn.

When Howel failed utterly to cite particular statutes, Penn suggested that he could surely not be expected to plead ‘to an indictment that has no foundation in law’. Howel. now somewhat hot under the collar. promptly called him ‘a saucy fellow’. The jury looked on. Eyebrows were raised.

Not at all impressed by Penn’s continued argument on a ‘point of law’. the recorder ordered him to be put into a squalid lock-up adjacent the courtroom. That left Mead, rather irregularly. holding the fort.

He plugged away in like manner, but still the recorder was unable to quote the relevant legislation. In the end Meal did it for him. explaining in an aside to the jury that an unlawful assembly ‘is when three or more assemble together to do an unlawful act’. Therefore no unlawful assembly, he insisted, had taken place.

The jury mused. Further eyebrows were raised.

For his insolence. Mead too was put in the lock-up and Penn. buoyed up by events, loudly addressed the jury from there. Doors were quickly slammed shut to put an end to that shenanigan as the recorder summed up. He directed the jury that it was a cast-iron case and they retired to consider on 3 September 1670.

Ninety minutes later. just eight of them trooped back into court. The other four refused to come and they were forcibly dragged in. At that point the rebels’ leader, Edward Bushel, took the unprecedented step for a juror of daring to challenge the bench: ‘We don’t countenance the way this whole matter is conducted, sir.’

After labelling him ‘a troublesome and divisive fellow’. Recorder Howel insisted they retire anew to give ‘a proper ver¬dict’. When they returned later, Foreman Bushel pronounced Penn ‘guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street’. Nothing more.

The recorder made it clear that the jury were fudging the issue and that they must say ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ without qualification: ‘Go and consider it once more.’ he thundered. Again the jury returned. This rime they found Mead ‘not guilty’ hut again fudged on Penn. The recorder’s response was to lock the jury up for the night, then a standard practice. until they gave a valid verdict. Or, in truth, one he liked. Namely ‘guilty’ full stop.

They emerged tired and hungry at 7 a.m. the next day but with their resolve intact. Their verdict on Penn was unchanged.

Again they were sent out. Again they came back and again Edward Bushel returned the same verdict.

The bench lost patience: ‘I’ll fine you. Edward Bushel,’ raged Recorder Howel; ‘Cut off his nose!’ chipped in the mayor, warming to the fray.

Penn seized his chance to say his bit: ‘What hope is there of ever having justice done when juries are threatened and their verdicts rejected?’

Howel was unmoved: ‘The jury will go out again.’ he warned. ‘and deliver another verdict, else they will starve and will be dragged around the city as in Edward III’s time.’

Out they went for the fourth time and after yet another night locked up without food and water they returned next morning, 5 September 1670, to deliver a historic pronouncement: ‘Our verdict is changed, sir,’ said Foreman Bushel.

The recorder must have thought they’d cracked, but not a bit of it: ‘Both men are not guilty.’ said Bushel.

That signalled the end of a bizarre trial, but not of the story, for the jury was fined heavily and put in Newgate Prison. Penn and Meal were fined for contempt of court and sent to join them but they were freed when Penn’s father paid the fines.

Edward Bushel, meanwhile, the most defiant juror of all time, appealed to the Chief Justice and ably told the full sorry saga of the bench bullies.

Chief Justice Vaughan found entirely in the jury’s favour:

‘A jury must be independently and inscrutably responsible for its verdict fire from any threat from the court,’ he pronounced. before releasing the heroic twelve forthwith.

Bushel and his fellow jurors had stood steadfastly against the worst excesses of kangaroo-court justice and all who have been tried since have something to thank them for. In the hall of London’s Central Criminal Court. the world-famous Old Bailey, is a plaque paying tribute to that trusty jury of 1670, ensuring that this strange but seriously pivotal case will never be forgotten.
.
__________________
'Just a coincidence dear, nothing to worry about!' - David Icke
dondaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 10:23 AM   #24
boots
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 15,676
Likes: 432 (307 Posts)
Default

Bump

I dont want to see this Thread fade into the back ground.

IT IS TO IMPORTANT.

The only way to defeat them is to play them at their own game.

What other way is there?
boots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 07:21 PM   #25
dondaz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Birmingham, England
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
I dont want to see this Thread fade into the back ground.

IT IS TO IMPORTANT.

The only way to defeat them is to play them at their own game.

What other way is there?
There is no other way! They can stick their Statutes and Acts when they pulled them from in the first place. It's just shit from the bankers arseholes, nothing more!
__________________
'Just a coincidence dear, nothing to worry about!' - David Icke
dondaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 09:37 PM   #26
Firewand
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,390
Likes: 3,456 (1,961 Posts)
Default

Bump.. i'm with yu guys

there is some informative stuff on this site guys.

http://www.thetruthwillout.com/common_law.html
__________________
The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are. Marcus Aurelius.

Last edited by Firewand; 10-09-2008 at 09:45 PM.
Firewand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 09:52 PM   #27
Firewand
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,390
Likes: 3,456 (1,961 Posts)
Default

The u.k statute law database..

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tdocid=3312735
__________________
The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are. Marcus Aurelius.
Firewand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 10:27 PM   #28
Firewand
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,390
Likes: 3,456 (1,961 Posts)
Default

Here's another good website.

http://presys.com/~ekklesia/lvl.htm
__________________
The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are. Marcus Aurelius.
Firewand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 06:54 PM   #29
malvern
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,393
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

hi all ..... just to let you know , mother board is not playing the game ...so system will be down for a few days........



freedom is the grandchildren
malvern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 06:56 PM   #30
steevo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 13,863
Likes: 7 (7 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malvern View Post
hi all ..... just to let you know , mother board is not playing the game ...so system will be down for a few days........



freedom is the grandchildren
Ok mate, good luck with that, hope you sort it out soon.
steevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2008, 03:09 PM   #31
dondaz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Birmingham, England
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default The credit river case

This is very important folks, not many people actually are aware of this monumental court case that blew the whole lid off credit money and the fractal banking scam:

"Banks will and do create credit (money) out of thin air like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat."

Quote:
THE CREDIT RIVER CASE

The Credit River Case was conducted in the township of Credit River, Minnesota, USA, on 12th December 1968.

Before a jury of 12 and Justice Mahoney, it was established that the money we are loaned by banks is created out of thin air with nothing of value behind it. The case, between the First National Bank of Montgomery (plaintiff) vs Jerome Daly - the defendant, established a monumental precedent in law that put the cat amongst the pigeons. This precedent has become the Achilles heel of all credit creation banks around the world.

In a case similar to ours, the plaintiff sought Common Law action for the recovery of the defendant’s home due to default of mortgage payments. The defendant, acting as a self-litigant, stated that the plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books (meaning out of thin air), by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage, and alleged failure of consideration for the Mortgage Deed. (Gold or Silver is the consideration the defendant speaks of, i.e. he is saying that the bank had no Gold or Silver to back the loan in the first instance). He also stated that the Sheriff’s sale, passed no title to plaintiff.

The president of the bank Lawrence V. Morgan, appearing as the plaintiff’s only witness, admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books and that ‘this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or law that gave the plaintiff the authority to do this.” The bank manager admitted that the bank had created the money (credit) out of thin air and loaned it to the defendant, without first explaining to the defendant, where the money came from.

Even though it was not challenged or determined in this court case, we believe that the bank had conducted fraud. There was no money for the bank to loan in the first instance and yet the bank cheated the defendant by lying to him that they had loaned him money.

The jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defendant and Justice Mahoney carried out the will of the jury. The judge ordered the return of the defendant’s home as his rightful and lawful property and the mortgage contract was made null and void. Jerome Daly got to keep his home with no debt hanging over him and the bank walked away with nothing because they loaned nothing in the first place.

Two weeks later Justice Mahoney was murdered. Who would have benefited from such an attack? Obviously the bank and those who benefit from the credit creation/debt finance system.

The case was buried for a long time to ensure there wasn’t a flood of cases using the precedent set.


Read the full document, it's great, quite long and worth the effort: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/67
__________________
'Just a coincidence dear, nothing to worry about!' - David Icke
dondaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2008, 03:26 PM   #32
dondaz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Birmingham, England
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Bump!
__________________
'Just a coincidence dear, nothing to worry about!' - David Icke
dondaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2009, 12:18 PM   #33
tracker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,347
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malvern View Post
One of the why's the legal system does not want us to understand our rights;

it is laid down that......

" to no man will we sell, to no man deny, to no man delay, justice or right."

The fact is that this so called "honourable profession of the law" is in the business to sell, delay and deny justice ... to sell to those who can afford, to delay it if the client has money, and deny it if they have not.... so there most be a strong presumption that the whole legal system has been ... Obtaining money on false pretences and obstucting the law..For the Lord Chief Justice of Engalnd and all before, who have allowed this to happen have done themselfs and the people a great injustice, and have done it in the name of thier own gain and greed.... do they swear an oath to up hold the law ??????




freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers
ner saw it that way before
tracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2009, 02:31 PM   #34
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malvern View Post

how true......

it's a shame that other do not understand what are our rights, but just of late this section is turning into a myspace sheeple area....and they want others to do the thinking for them.... no wonder we have a so called nanny state for these children, just a shame they post on the icke site, hoping others will do the work for them..


the law is an area were we have let others nannystate our rights so we do not understand the law let alone know when it apllies


freedom is the grandchildren...we are just the caretakers
Brilliant. I was thinking the same. Even when respectfully pointing out that they do nothing to aid their prejudices or assumptions they keep on making inane sideswipes at any attempt people put up to be free. This isn't sheeple; this is deliberate.

I can understand a newbie in a desperate, conditioned, mindcontrolled, confused state but when they've been on for well over a year it's a disgrace. If you read the subtext of their messages they are loaded with codes to put off the fainthearted. They are even using this very forum for ideas. How many of us have had letters of bailiffs now saying they are going to break into our homes. The one I received yesterday from Rossendale said he was going to do it any time he felt like! F off.
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2009, 02:36 PM   #35
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dondaz View Post
This is very important folks, not many people actually are aware of this monumental court case that blew the whole lid off credit money and the fractal banking scam:

"Banks will and do create credit (money) out of thin air like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat."

[SIZE=3]

Read the full document, it's great, quite long and worth the effort: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/67
Yeah doesn't frigging surprise.

This is how evil operates:-

I know lets murder judgey wudgey.

Yeah Good idea.

That way these terrorists will arm themselves and then we can call them real terrorists and kill them or torture them.

Yeah great idea. Let's roll em.
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 12:18 PM.


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