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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-11-2010, 05:53 PM   #221
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
You're approaching this far too literally. Yes, the judiciary swear an oath to the Queen but that doesn't fetter their independence.
Irrelevant.
If there is a conflict of interest, there is a conflict of interest.
Whether or not it is acted on is irrelevant; that goes to impropriety.
The conflict either exists or it doesn't; if it does, the foundation of independence does not exist.
As I am sure you well know, conflict of interest is only concerned with the possibility of corruption, not whether the corruption has taken place.

Quote:
A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization
is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation
for an act in the other. A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony
is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it.
The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety.
There is no burden of proof of it having been "used".

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
The fact that Judges regularly find against the CPS & other government agencies. Whilst there is no formal separation of powers in the UK de facto there is.
Side issue.
Happy to take it up elsewhere.
Doesn't answer the core questions.
__________________
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; 02-11-2010 at 06:04 PM.
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2010, 03:13 AM   #222
swiftex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
Irrelevant.
If there is a conflict of interest, there is a conflict of interest.
Whether or not it is acted on is irrelevant; that goes to impropriety.
The conflict either exists or it doesn't; if it does, the foundation of independence does not exist.
As I am sure you well know, conflict of interest is only concerned with the possibility of corruption, not whether the corruption has taken place.



There is no burden of proof of it having been "used".



Side issue.
Happy to take it up elsewhere.
Doesn't answer the core questions.

yoz, ...
__________________
*all swiftex posts are the property of this poster and not to be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without the express consent of it's author either directly or indirectly, over and under, in or out, in perpetuity;
swiftex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 01:36 AM   #223
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

yes?
__________________
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 04-11-2010, 01:38 AM   #224
swiftex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
yes?
thanks, keep up the good work!


__________________
*all swiftex posts are the property of this poster and not to be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without the express consent of it's author either directly or indirectly, over and under, in or out, in perpetuity;
swiftex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 11:11 PM   #225
jillza
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 57
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottishryan View Post
What a lovely twist of words

Analysis and critical observation of information posted is a must everyone should apply. You telling me you have not been critical in this section of the forum toward posters...That's rather hypocritical in stance is it not?

I do not wish you to have time for me either, I am not here to look for acceptance not am I hear to be a smart arse...I am here to search out the nuggets of information on this forum board that add to my research and study. I also like to partake in discussions and call out anybody who displays hypocritical behaviour...Pseudo-Sceptical account holders love to ask for evidence, proof or other documentation but them make sweeping statements and provide none of the aforementioned. I like to make that noticeable in topics for people reading and taking everything in...gives them a full picture for their own needs and not half stories et al.

Why you may ask......

I am sick and tired of people feeling powerless and being distracted by people with bad agendas of wishing to play one-upmanship, discrediting people, insulting behaviour, judgemental false accusations and steering topics to cause anger and confusion.

This is not to say you are doing it but it is done frequently..I went through 5 years of Pseudo-sceptics pulling the wool over my eyes...I like to assit those so they dont waste the time that I did.

SO ignore me..put me on your list! Dont expect to shut me up though or for me to go crawling under a stone. I'm here and will always analyse and be critical as people will do the same with me...its life!!
BEAUTIFULLY PUT FIFER!!!! Couldnt do it better myself! hey btw is Tally Ho a Satanists incantation?
jillza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2010, 11:09 AM   #226
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
That's lovely.
However, the questions remain unanswered.

How is The Crown an interested party in proceedings?
What is the nature of their interest?
How was it assigned?
By whom?
For what purpose?

In criminal proceedings, who or what is named as the Claimant?

We can dance the dance for as long as we can be bothered Rumpole ... but the question, at its core, is a very, very simple one.

If Party A murders Party B ... i.e. does harm ... then how does The Crown become the Claimant in a matter which they were not the harmed party?

What interest does The Crown hold in this relation from which to claim rights and seek remedy as an interested party?

So you state The Queen is the "fount of justice"; awesome.



It sideswipes the questions and glosses over the underlying issues.
So justice is carried out in her name. Fantastic.
That does not give any explanation as to how The Crown is established as the Claimant and assumes a position of being an interested party to the matter.

Regina v [............]

How has that interest been established?
By whom has it been granted?
From whence is it derived?

Your explanation of The Queen [Regina] being the "fount of justice", in whose name justice is carried out, actually creates an obvious issue, that being, a conflict of interest.
For, if The Queen is the Claimant and an interested party in proceedings, then to also be the party in whose name justice is carried out, would raise the question of impartiality and independence of justice.

How can justice be independent and impartial if it is carried out in the name of the named Claimant?
How is that not a conflict of interest?

If you then factor in that the Judge has sworn an oath to The Queen, in which her interests will be protected, then for the Judge to be administering Justice in a court in which the person he has taken an oath to serve and protect the interests of, appears before him as Claimant with a very real interest in proceedings, then how can that be seen or claimed as being fair and equitable?
Still waiting for the questions and issues to be directly addressed ...
__________________
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 07-11-2010, 12:06 PM   #227
wise haven
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK-Forest of Dean
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

How can members of The Law Society rule anything over someone who is not a member??

Do they own the courts? If they claim so surely that is what Rob was always pointing out - that it is all a private money making scheme for lawyers.

This just proves that Canada does not have lawfully constituted courts - ipso facto.

Duh!
wise haven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 04:42 PM   #228
niskalasekala
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 668
Likes: 136 (118 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
It's an old case.
Basically it is to prevent Menard acting as a lawyer, because he isn't one.
Point of Order: A "lawyer" is defined as one who is "learned in the law".

An attorney is ONLY allowed to "practice AT law" and is ONLY allowed to "represent" corporations id est "persons" (ALL persons IN law are dead things) id est dead things because corporations cannot physically "appear" in "court" and the owners/officers of corporations are PROHIBITED from "representing" their respective corporations. Mr. Menard, whom I have known of for at least 12 years, is one whom is extremely learned in the law. Also over there in America slightly below Canada there is an urban myth "attorneys" are required to be "licensed" because, as the myth and mind worm goes, "you can't practice law with out a license". Funny thing is I personally challenged over 20 California and other state attorneys to produce their alleged "license to practice law" and NOT A ONE OF THEM could produce one. Pity they never got my license to practice law on my behalf.

Do a search of any and all codes of the American states and you will see in those CORPORATE codes ONLY "attorneys" are mentioned. Because corporations are fictional they sit outside of law and must be "represented" by those who have the privilege to operate "at", around, along side, below, maybe ABOVE BUT NOT IN law.

Do you have (if you are married) a "mother at law" or a mother "in" law? Because marriage sits IN law, either under Biblical, Common or other substantive law, you have a mother IN law.

In the notes in Title 18 USC - the so called "criminal" code of the UNITED STATES (a federal corporation as defined in Title 28 USC section 3002 at para 15a) - it is noted since 1948 Judges and District Attorneys are no longer required to be "learned IN the law."

Why? Because, at least in America, the courts no longer sit IN law. Rather it is all corporate hockus pockus smoke 'n' mirrors "court" with out a judge and with no rules of court and many times with no certifiable record being kept.

So several years ago, in an effort to warn folks in America of the EXTREME danger of these "courts", I sent a letter to all the "judges" - county/state/federal - in America and I ORDERED each of these "judges" to, upon arriving for work each morning, take down the American flag (red/white/blue as EXPLICITLY specified in Title 4 USC) in each of their respective court rooms, lay it on the floor and PISS on it DAILY and then put it back up before each "court" day. As a result ALL of the red/white/blue flags in American corporate "courts" now have a smelly pissy yellowy fringe which serves as a warning to all who enter ... http://www.flagguys.com/img/35set.jpg

The Right Brain wonderfully connects the dots!

Cheers David Icke and ciao
niskalasekala 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 06:08 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.