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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 27-10-2010, 07:57 AM   #61
lighthouse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zagreb, Croatia.
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 17 (11 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lizardlover View Post
He has a name, the gov't of Canada knows he has a name, his parent know he has a name, the Canadian Military he served in knows he has a name, he chooses to pretend he doesn't.

Just because you pretend something, it doesn't means it true. O wait, in freeman land, anything is possible. Societies would run forever without any tax money, highways would magically build themselves out of puppydog tails and wishes, electricity and internet and telephones would be powered on love for another fellow freeman.
+1

Second paragraph..
__________________
"Einsicht – dass jeder seine Fehler hat,
und Weitsicht – das Leben findet nicht nur heute statt,
und Vorsicht – dass man den andern nicht zerbricht."
lighthouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 10:47 AM   #62
lesactive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 75 (46 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lizardlover View Post
He has a name, the gov't of Canada knows he has a name, his parent know he has a name, the Canadian Military he served in knows he has a name, he chooses to pretend he doesn't.
Folks, this is what happens when you presuppose a logical conclusion based on pretense and which is supported by repetition: opinion coloured as fact. Liz wrote the word but fails to grasp the ideas of choice and even the concept of the verb, 'has', which may apply in the case of a name referring to a man if the conditions are right. IMO, the name itself is the pretension in this instance.

So let's see, briefly, if these conditions can be met. The following are a few def's from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/has that I thought were most relevant but feel free to see if you can find a more suitable one for your purpose, whatever that is.

Quote:
–verb
a 3rd pers. sing. pres. indic. of have.

1-to possess; own; hold for use; contain: He has property. The work has an index.

2-to hold, possess, or accept in some relation, as of kindred or relative position: He wanted to marry her, but she wouldn't have him.

7-to be related to or be in a certain relation to: She has three cousins. He has a kind boss. *He has a cute little mole on his left...

13-to assert, maintain, or represent as being: Rumor has it that she's going to be married.

21-to exercise, display, or make use of: Have pity on him.

* not in the actual definition but may still be true
# 7 is the only definition wherein I find that the use of 'has' (specifically) has a (somewhat strained) sense of obligatory attachment to a body. Unless you count features on or of his body then 'has' has no truck here without the element of choice.

Rob's choice, get it? Or do I have to look up the word 'entitlement' for you too?

Quote:
Just because you pretend something, it doesn't means it true. O wait, in freeman land, anything is possible. Societies would run forever without any tax money, highways would magically build themselves out of puppydog tails and wishes, electricity and internet and telephones would be powered on love for another fellow freeman.
You have no idea how I benefit my fellow man or my thoughts regarding Rob's ideas so deal with the content of my posts if you wish to reply to them or stfu, please

I swear, the presumptuous, snarky nature of some folk around here...
__________________
It's very simple. You posit spirits, I posit nothing, as in neutral, as in no position on the matter; not a vested interest in the outcome, couldn't care less either way even if it was really really real. I don't have to prove nothing, nor can I and nor do I care. Who in this situation has the burden of proof?
If demons control this realm and you want help in defeating them then you'd better be able to convince non-believers that they exist.

Last edited by lesactive; 27-10-2010 at 10:52 AM. Reason: forgot to be polite
lesactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 12:23 PM   #63
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lesactive View Post
Rob's choice, get it? Or do I have to look up the word 'entitlement' for you too?

You have no idea how I benefit my fellow man or my thoughts regarding Rob's
That's quite amusing, letsactive.
You post all of that bumph in an desperate attempt to prove that rob doesn't in fact have a name unless he chooses to, and then at the end of the post you refer to rob using the very name you are trying to prove is not his unles he chooses to.
Priceless.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 27-10-2010 at 12:34 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 12:31 PM   #64
eternal_spirit
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 31,206
Likes: 7 (7 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lesactive View Post
The name is a note of the thing and not the thing itself. His name is called Robert Arthur Menard but he himself is not a name. It would be contrary to reason think otherwise.

It is a reference point in the vernacular but something else entirely when used in legal land.
Well if he falls foul of the law be sure that his name will be how he is tracked down and found, then prosecuted in a court of law same as anyone else with a name (oh wait there are no nameless ones) only that YHWH thingymajig (removed vowels for the superstitious Jews who dare not pronounce the name of their G-D, Yahweh so say or write YHWH isntead)

Maybe he could try pleading Judaism and doesn't use vowels...therefore cannot be addressed by his full name..

Rbrt rthr Mnrd
there!

Last edited by eternal_spirit; 27-10-2010 at 12:33 PM.
eternal_spirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 02:29 PM   #65
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

If anyone wants to actually READ the order, they will easily see it is applicable against 'The Defendant Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver' and not 'Robert Arthur Menard' or 'Freeman-on-the-Land Robert-Arthur: Menard'.

Remember, if we start to question, and fail to allow banks to earn interest on the money in circulation, we will be unable to build roads. Or so the skeptics would have you think.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 02:36 PM   #66
lizardlover
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: At The Lounge
Posts: 648
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
If anyone wants to actually READ the order, they will easily see it is applicable against 'The Defendant Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver' and not 'Robert Arthur Menard' or 'Freeman-on-the-Land Robert-Arthur: Menard'.

Remember, if we start to question, and fail to allow banks to earn interest on the money in circulation, we will be unable to build roads. Or so the skeptics would have you think.
What order are you looking it? It doesn't mention North Vancouver or the word defendant anywhere in the order. If you have one that is different than the one posted in the OP, please post it.

Last edited by lizardlover; 27-10-2010 at 02:37 PM.
lizardlover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 03:09 PM   #67
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

My Bad. I meant 'Respondent'. They mention the order is applicable against 'The Respondent, Robert Arthur Menard'. Must be some other Robert Arthur Menard (there are several in Canada) as I am NOT 'The Respondent'. Furthermore, even if the order was applicable to me, (which it is not) it only says certain things cannot be done for a fee, gain or reward, not that they can't be done at all.

Additionally, unless you have gone to the court registry and seen a signed original, you do not know that the order was endorsed. They may have only made copies and signed those, leaving the original unsigned.

Finally, unless you sought or gave the order, you are not qualified to determine who is affected by it, and I repeat neither the people who sought or gave it wish to claim it affects me.

So who is anyone else to make those claims?

Immature and snide comments such as this:
Quote:
O wait, in freeman land, anything is possible. Societies would run forever without any tax money, highways would magically build themselves out of puppydog tails and wishes, electricity and internet and telephones would be powered on love for another fellow freeman.
do not change the facts either, and it works both ways. Saying the order affects me does not make it so. If it affects me, why have they not secured payment from me? order me to pay, which I won't and then jail me for contempt? There is a reason I have not paid. The order has NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.

And the only people claiming otherwise are ignorant beyond belief, and have no evidence to support their claims. Not even the people who sought or gave the order are willing to claim what some very ignorant and misinformed fools here are willing to claim.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 03:12 PM   #68
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
My Bad. I meant 'Respondent'. They mention the order is applicable against 'The Respondent, Robert Arthur Menard'. Must be some other Robert Arthur Menard (there are several in Canada) as I am NOT 'The Respondent'.
It just oozes out of you doesn't it, rob?
You may fool the numpties but, seriously rob, do you expect anybody with an ounce of sense to take you seriously after such a display of buffoonery?

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 27-10-2010 at 03:15 PM. Reason: spelling
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 03:26 PM   #69
theabominablephenomenon
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The flightpath estate
Posts: 15,095
Likes: 4 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
It just oozes out of you doesn't it, rob?
You may fool the numpties but, seriously rob, do you expect anybody with an ounce of sense to take you seriously after such a display of buffoonery?
If I were to address you; The Despondent rumpelstilzchen,
does that then mean it applies to you?
theabominablephenomenon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 03:48 PM   #70
lesactive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 75 (46 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
That's quite amusing, letsactive.
You post all of that bumph in an desperate attempt to prove that rob doesn't in fact have a name unless he chooses to, and then at the end of the post you refer to rob using the very name you are trying to prove is not his unles he chooses to.
Priceless.
What's priceless here is your inability to follow along with reason: a name is a name is a name; it is not him. Whether it's "rob", "respondent", "guru", "crackpot" or other name.

I'm not the desperate one here, I have seen and used this logic with the legal system and I have no desire to prove it to you or anyone else how effective it IS.

ya try and help some people.... oh wait, no you don't.
__________________
It's very simple. You posit spirits, I posit nothing, as in neutral, as in no position on the matter; not a vested interest in the outcome, couldn't care less either way even if it was really really real. I don't have to prove nothing, nor can I and nor do I care. Who in this situation has the burden of proof?
If demons control this realm and you want help in defeating them then you'd better be able to convince non-believers that they exist.
lesactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 03:51 PM   #71
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theabominablephenomenon View Post
If I were to address you; The Despondent rumpelstilzchen,
does that then mean it applies to you?
OK, so a defendant named in a court order can claim that the order doesn't apply because he is not called the defendant?
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 03:52 PM   #72
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lesactive View Post
I'm not the desperate one here, I have seen and used this logic with the legal system and I have no desire to prove it to you or anyone else how effective it IS.
Don't worry you're not alone. No one on here has the desire to provide proof, they just provide anecdotes.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 27-10-2010 at 03:53 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 04:00 PM   #73
lesactive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 75 (46 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eternal_spirit View Post
Well if he falls foul of the law be sure that his name will be how he is tracked down and found, then prosecuted in a court of law same as anyone else with a name (oh wait there are no nameless ones) only that YHWH thingymajig (removed vowels for the superstitious Jews who dare not pronounce the name of their G-D, Yahweh so say or write YHWH isntead)

Maybe he could try pleading Judaism and doesn't use vowels...therefore cannot be addressed by his full name..

Rbrt rthr Mnrd
there!
Tell me something es, can something be attached to you without your consent? Seriously now, can a court attach a legal name/title to an entity NOT under your control and have it stick/be liable in a court, especially if you have PROOF that the name is not the sole property of the one to whom it is alleged to belong? It has nothing to do with letters or trickery. It's a stance one takes. Convictions are far more than just words.

Of course, you'll likely say the courts can do what they want and that's just so sad and expected.

I will try to be patient....I will try to be patient....I will try to be patient....
__________________
It's very simple. You posit spirits, I posit nothing, as in neutral, as in no position on the matter; not a vested interest in the outcome, couldn't care less either way even if it was really really real. I don't have to prove nothing, nor can I and nor do I care. Who in this situation has the burden of proof?
If demons control this realm and you want help in defeating them then you'd better be able to convince non-believers that they exist.
lesactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 04:10 PM   #74
lesactive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 75 (46 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
Don't worry you're not alone. No one on here has the desire to provide proof, they just provide anecdotes.
We provide the anecdotes, you provide the thorns and the rest will figure it out for themselves. That's the purpose of this forum because PROOF IS NOT ACCEPTABLE HERE. Any proof,

I'm not really trying to convince anyone, per se. I know now that is neither possible nor is it the reason I'm posting here. You must believe in what you espouse and then act on it and only then will you have proof. But I'm sure it's easier (and much more fun for you) to sit back and poke sticks.
__________________
It's very simple. You posit spirits, I posit nothing, as in neutral, as in no position on the matter; not a vested interest in the outcome, couldn't care less either way even if it was really really real. I don't have to prove nothing, nor can I and nor do I care. Who in this situation has the burden of proof?
If demons control this realm and you want help in defeating them then you'd better be able to convince non-believers that they exist.
lesactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 04:12 PM   #75
lesactive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 75 (46 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
Don't worry you're not alone. No one on here has the desire to provide proof, they just provide anecdotes.
And you provide what, exactly? Finish this sentence, please: "I am here posting on the Freeman-on-the-Land forum at the David Icke site because...."

Give us an idea of the value you add.
__________________
It's very simple. You posit spirits, I posit nothing, as in neutral, as in no position on the matter; not a vested interest in the outcome, couldn't care less either way even if it was really really real. I don't have to prove nothing, nor can I and nor do I care. Who in this situation has the burden of proof?
If demons control this realm and you want help in defeating them then you'd better be able to convince non-believers that they exist.
lesactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 04:13 PM   #76
lesactive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 75 (46 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
OK, so a defendant named in a court order can claim that the order doesn't apply because he is not called the defendant?
Close, but no cigar.
__________________
It's very simple. You posit spirits, I posit nothing, as in neutral, as in no position on the matter; not a vested interest in the outcome, couldn't care less either way even if it was really really real. I don't have to prove nothing, nor can I and nor do I care. Who in this situation has the burden of proof?
If demons control this realm and you want help in defeating them then you'd better be able to convince non-believers that they exist.
lesactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 04:14 PM   #77
realview
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 147
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I think the point here,that is hard for some people to grasp, is that the Judiciary is intentionally devious in what they do. They are, in a sense bluffing and trying to sucker Rob into thinking it applies to him. Really, that is their only weapon against someone who is not willing to play by their rules. They are not willing to be accountable and honest because they know they are criminals operating in fraud. They violate the basics of Common Law everyday by deceiving people. This is the nature of the Judiciary today. It is very, very corrupt and tries to pretend it has real authority and stands for "justice" when, for the average judge, it is about padding their retirement fund or bank account.

All humans are equals. A judge is only an authority over you if you buy into the court system. Courts are stage plays. Roles are fabricated and when you enter that world you are expected to take on a role of the defendant, a proxy for the strawman. This is the sick mindset indoctrinated into the judges. Name deceptions, wording deceptions are all part of the courts bag of fraud tricks. The key point is that unspoken in the judiciary is an understanding that this equality is logically true and conforms to the Maxims of law. Therefore they "assume" for their advantage that if you don't state otherwise you are in agreement to play a part on their stage. If people stand up and say no and stick to their convictions and make it clear that they are Sui Juris and do so in non threatening manner then the judges have no authority. IE they have no political jurisdiction.

The current court system is a fraud perpetrated by the NWO to spread a network of control. Judges get kickbacks for convictions and for incarcerations, so do cities, states, and the IMF. The judges personal gain makes courts highly prejudice. Lawyers are officers of the court. Hiring a lawyer immediately makes a declaration to the court that you are incompetent to conduct your own defense. Their public ration is they have to protect you by doing what is best for you. In reality you are now in their malevolent grasp.
realview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 04:18 PM   #78
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lesactive View Post
And you provide what, exactly? Finish this sentence, please: "I am here posting on the Freeman-on-the-Land forum at the David Icke site because...."

Give us an idea of the value you add.
Oh right, so to add value to the forum is a condition of membership?
Perhaps you should point that question to certain individuals on here who only ever post one liners calling people "fucktards", "cunts", and "ignorant fuckers"?

So, your position is because I disagree with a lot it adds no value?
What you're forgetting is my position may be correct and those I disagree with incorrect. So it is debatable who is adding any value.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 27-10-2010 at 04:23 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 04:20 PM   #79
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lesactive View Post
Close, but no cigar.
True, no cigar because it's not correct.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 27-10-2010 at 04:20 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 04:20 PM   #80
theabominablephenomenon
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The flightpath estate
Posts: 15,095
Likes: 4 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
OK, so a defendant named in a court order can claim that the order doesn't apply because he is not called the defendant?
Swerve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theabominablephenomenon
If I were to address you; The Despondent rumpelstilzchen,
does that then mean it applies to you?
If somebody addressed me;
The Entirely and Ultimately Incontrovertible Indomitable Abominable Phenomenon,
I may consider a response...
The pre-supposition is 'respondent.'

1. One who responds.
2. Law A defendant, especially in a divorce or equity case.
theabominablephenomenon 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 04:18 PM.


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