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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 13-03-2012, 04:33 PM   #1
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default unrebutted Affidavits/NOTICe.CALIM stand as law

The process of sending off affidavits to the queen / cheif of police / Prime minister is worth considering IMO.

The practice is established in law:

http://www.contactlaw.co.uk/acquiescence.html

"The two main doctrines of acquiescence are estoppel by acquiescence, and acquiescence by silence. The common-law doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence is similar to estoppel by laches. It applies where one person gives legal notice of a fact or claim to another person, and that person fails to challenge that claim within a reasonable time. The second party is said to have acquiesced to the claim, and is estopped from later challenging it."
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-2012, 11:16 PM   #2
georggearless
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 392
Likes: 6 (6 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by britishnick View Post
The process of sending off affidavits to the queen / cheif of police / Prime minister is worth considering IMO.

The practice is established in law:

http://www.contactlaw.co.uk/acquiescence.html

"The two main doctrines of acquiescence are estoppel by acquiescence, and acquiescence by silence. The common-law doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence is similar to estoppel by laches. It applies where one person gives legal notice of a fact or claim to another person, and that person fails to challenge that claim within a reasonable time. The second party is said to have acquiesced to the claim, and is estopped from later challenging it."
I haven't attempted to look up the relevant laws, but I'm pretty sure that people (as well as the authorities) have some protection in the law against frivolous and/or obvious fraudulent claims.

For instance, if you sent me a letter claiming that I owe you $100 breathing tax (from your signature) and I cant be bothered to respond to such a claim, I doubt very much that I would somehow, in the eyes of the law, have aknowledged your claim by simply not responding to it.

In any case, getting me to aknowledge the claim and getting me to pay it, are two seperate issues. You would still have to prove your claim in a courtroom. You would be faced with the same problem with the chief of police/prime minister/queen. If it even went that far. And as I said, I feel confident (without checking, I'll admit) that people are protected from stuff like that and neither you nor your counterpart would ever see the inside of a courtroom on that account.
__________________
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own concience.
georggearless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-2012, 11:19 PM   #3
freedom2020
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 965
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

well what kind of court would that happen in???which does make the difference between lawfull and legal
freedom2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-2012, 11:55 PM   #4
georggearless
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 392
Likes: 6 (6 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom2020 View Post
well what kind of court would that happen in???which does make the difference between lawfull and legal
Not sure if the question was directed at me. But if it was:

I pressume the same kind of court that britishnick has envisioned would enforce his claim.

Wether this is debters-court or criminal-court, or whatever you call the different courts, I have no idea. Better ask britishnick which kind of court he meant. I make no distinction when I say "court" because I didn't find it relevant to the acquiescence by silence.
__________________
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own concience.
georggearless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 12:37 AM   #5
freedom2020
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 965
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

well there only two types of court!!! a common law court and a corporation court that rules on statutes
freedom2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 01:15 AM   #6
georggearless
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 392
Likes: 6 (6 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom2020 View Post
well there only two types of court!!! a common law court and a corporation court that rules on statutes
Do you mean that there should be two types of courts, or that there are in fact two types of courts?
__________________
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own concience.

Last edited by georggearless; 15-03-2012 at 01:16 AM.
georggearless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 10:52 AM   #7
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by georggearless View Post
I haven't attempted to look up the relevant laws, but I'm pretty sure that people (as well as the authorities) have some protection in the law against frivolous and/or obvious fraudulent claims.

For instance, if you sent me a letter claiming that I owe you $100 breathing tax (from your signature) and I cant be bothered to respond to such a claim, I doubt very much that I would somehow, in the eyes of the law, have aknowledged your claim by simply not responding to it.

In any case, getting me to aknowledge the claim and getting me to pay it, are two seperate issues. You would still have to prove your claim in a courtroom. You would be faced with the same problem with the chief of police/prime minister/queen. If it even went that far. And as I said, I feel confident (without checking, I'll admit) that people are protected from stuff like that and neither you nor your counterpart would ever see the inside of a courtroom on that account.
Claiming ones freedom is pretty much the polar opposite of a "frivolous and/or obvious fraudulent claim" in my opinion.

...but yes one might have to prove the claim was agreed to by silence in a court room.

This would most likely involve the freedom lover showing that their claims were understood by the other party, that they read them, heard them... but chose not to rebutt them/ to ignore them... If the other party (govt) at a later date tries to force rules against the freedom lover (where there is no injured party) the govt would have to explain to the court (by that I mean a fair court) why they chose NOT to rebutt the fredom lovers claims and why their claim of being able to forces their rules against their rules against the freedom lovers, and why the freedom lovers claims are null and void.
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."

Last edited by britishnick; 15-03-2012 at 10:53 AM.
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 11:13 AM   #8
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

O God, here we go again, back round the freeman bush. We dealt with estoppel by acquiescence 2-3 years ago but it looks like it needs to be explained again to those who believe that selective references create solid arguments.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 11:26 AM   #9
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Try looking up the cases of Willmott v Barber (1880) L.R. 15 Ch. D. 96 and
Habib Bank Ltd v Habib Bank AG [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1265 for a start (re the latter, look at the judgment of Oliver LJ).

Just in case you find those authorities difficult to follow (it's real law, not random internet stuff), it is not simply the case of declaring something and it becoming cast in stone if no one says otherwise. If you think it is, why not go the whole hog and write to the Queen, tell her you're the true King of England and she's out of a job? After she puts your letter in the bin and doesn't bother replying you will find that you're sill Britishnick and those guys with the big furry hats at Buckingham Palace won't be letting you in.

Last edited by micklemus; 15-03-2012 at 11:26 AM.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 11:34 AM   #10
undeadcreature
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,679
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom2020 View Post
well there only two types of court!!! a common law court and a corporation court that rules on statutes
Don't you mean criminal and civil?
__________________
The problem with a revolution is that you always end up back where you started and ultimately........ bugger all changes....
undeadcreature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 12:14 PM   #11
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

apreciate that Mick. Will have a look later hopefully.

in the mean time could you enlighten me as to when you think estopple can be used. pre-existing contractual relationship etc? others?

Funny - I always thought freemen grew on tree's not bushes
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."

Last edited by britishnick; 15-03-2012 at 12:15 PM.
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 01:05 PM   #12
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Nick,

Estoppel is a big subject but cutting down to some important points relevant to the present context:

1. Classic estoppel situation - Person 1, by his words or conduct, wilfully causes Person 2 to believe in a certain state of affairs and induces Person 2 to act on that belief to his detriment. Person 1 is estopped from arguing that a different state of affairs applied at the time of his estoppel.
2. Illustration - Habib Bank Ltd v Habib Bank AG -
"Where the defendant bank had been set up under the name of "Habib" with the express consent of the plaintiffs' predecessors and had carried on business unchanged since nationalisation there had been no misrepresentation giving rise to a claim for passing off; even if there had been, the plaintiffs' claim would be barred by their acquiescence, laches and estoppel."
As per 1 above, Person 1 (the Plaintiff) had caused Person 2 (the Defendant) to believe that Person 2 had Person 1's authority to use the name "Habib". Person 2 acted in reliance. Person 1 would therefore be estopped from overlooking this point to run a claim by way of damages for passing off.
Strictly speaking, the estoppel point is obiter (not directly relevant) in terms of the court's final decision because passing off could not be established anyway. However, the court was saying that even if passing off could be established the claim would fail because of the estoppel point.

Estoppel is basically a defensive remedy, not an offensive one (as FOTL times like to believe). FOTL types also overlook the necessary components for estoppel to be established, in particular detrimental reliance.

I covered this before (I seem to recall it was with Yozhik) yonks ago on this forum.

The freeman approach to estoppel is totally wrong and has been thoroughly debunked.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 01:24 PM   #13
jayen4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Yorkshire . U.K.
Posts: 847
Likes: 195 (120 Posts)
Default

[QUOTE=micklemus;1060688122]Nick,

Estoppel is a big subject but cutting down to some important points relevant to the present context:

1. Classic estoppel situation - Person 1, by his words or conduct, wilfully causes Person 2 to believe in a certain state of affairs and induces Person 2 to act on that belief to his detriment. QUOTE]



Hmmm.....interesting....

So.....Could the above argument be used against the police/courts etc to 'dis-empower' their 'statute' law ?? I'm specifically looking at the 'to his detriment' bit....
They are after all,trying to play a con trick on everyone,by trying to make us believe that we are all 'subject' to their rules and regs (legislation).
(And no,I'm still not a 'Freeman'......just looking to trip them up,using their own convoluted thinking.)
jayen4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 01:36 PM   #14
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

[quote=jayen4;1060688185]
Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
Nick,

Estoppel is a big subject but cutting down to some important points relevant to the present context:

1. Classic estoppel situation - Person 1, by his words or conduct, wilfully causes Person 2 to believe in a certain state of affairs and induces Person 2 to act on that belief to his detriment. QUOTE]



Hmmm.....interesting....

So.....Could the above argument be used against the police/courts etc to 'dis-empower' their 'statute' law ?? I'm specifically looking at the 'to his detriment' bit....
They are after all,trying to play a con trick on everyone,by trying to make us believe that we are all 'subject' to their rules and regs (legislation).
(And no,I'm still not a 'Freeman'......just looking to trip them up,using their own convoluted thinking.)
I'm afraid I don't have time for a full legal clinic right now but the short answer is "no".

Statutes are not contracts, they are the law (or part of it). We are all subject to the rule of law. Everyone.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 01:37 PM   #15
jlord
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Statutes typically do not allow people to opt out of them in any way. So even if a police officer or some government official explicitly told you that the statute no longer applied to you, they have no authority to do such a thing.

The question of when silence can amount to acquiescence is a very specific instance of estoppel. As gearless pointed out, it would obviously be ridiculous if the de facto law forced you to respond to any letter sent to you with the alternative being that your silence would amount to acquiescence. If this were allowed I would guess the next day you would be getting hundreds of letters in the post from every business in town and would have to spend all your time replying to letters to avoid agreeing to contracts by your silence. This is why silence can only amount to acquiescence in very specific circumstances.
jlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 01:37 PM   #16
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlord View Post
Statutes typically do not allow people to opt out of them in any way. So even if a police officer or some government official explicitly told you that the statute no longer applied to you, they have no authority to do such a thing.

The question of when silence can amount to acquiescence is a very specific instance of estoppel. As gearless pointed out, it would obviously be ridiculous if the de facto law forced you to respond to any letter sent to you with the alternative being that your silence would amount to acquiescence. If this were allowed I would guess the next day you would be getting hundreds of letters in the post from every business in town and would have to spend all your time replying to letters to avoid agreeing to contracts by your silence. This is why silence can only amount to acquiescence in very specific circumstances.
+1
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 05:17 PM   #17
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
[

Statutes are not contracts, they are the law (or part of it). We are all subject to the rule of law. Everyone.
This is an opinion.

It is an opinion shared by men in suit and men with guns but it is still only an opinion.

It is not an opinion shared by millions of people.

It is a fact that stautes are the opinion of a few (largely unaccountable) men and women about how everyone should live their lifes backed by guns.

I look forward to the day that those who seek to impose their will upon others who have caused no harm are looked at by ALL as in need of help rather than followers.
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 05:31 PM   #18
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 britishnick View Post

It is not an opinion shared by millions of people.
If you are one of those "millions", perhaps you would present us with your argument why you believe statute law is in fact contract law?
Maybe, first you should present your evidence that millions disagree?
But I would be most interested to see what makes you believe statute law is contract law.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 15-03-2012 at 05:39 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 06:14 PM   #19
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
If you are one of those "millions", perhaps you would present us with your argument why you believe statute law is in fact contract law?
Maybe, first you should present your evidence that millions disagree?
But I would be most interested to see what makes you believe statute law is contract law.
Read my post again - I said "It is a fact that stautes are the opinion of a few (largely unaccountable) men and women about how everyone should live their lifes backed by guns." I didn't mention contracts, I mentioned FORCE... statutes are the will of a handful of criminals who chose to FORCE their will upon others who cause no harm (and on to some who do cause harm)

STAUTES require FORCE (or aquiessance/consent to follow them and be punished for not following them) to be enFORCED. Contract usualy have 2 CONSENTING parties. If one party does not consent and the other party still enFORCES their will then it's not contracts, it a criminal act by the initiator of the FORCE.

In reality - Statutes are enFORCED with either consent or FORCE. Doesn't sound like a contract, sounds like a violation of someones freedom. This does not make stautes lawful. FORCING people to follow your will does not make it lawful.

He who initiates FORCE is a nawty little boy and should have a time out.

That being said Cumface did post an offer to contract on his website before the last election (you remember the one where the party that got it wasn't on the ballot paper and received zero votes)... interesting that he puts up the pretence of it being a contractual relationship. Almost as though he he puts that up there for those who WANT to contract with him and then he uses the guns to FORCE eveyone else to copmply with his will.

huh...
__________________
You all owe me a breathing tax - please pay up: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103303
freemanpete: "Freedom can't be spoon fed."
vladmir "Being a Freeman [for me] dosent mean one supports anarchy or no government, but a legitimate and limited form of Lawful government is actually what freemen are seeking, not a corporate dictatorship that is currently hijacked into place."
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2012, 06:24 PM   #20
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 britishnick View Post
Read my post again
In your post you quoted micklemus who wrote: statutes are not contracts. That is why I thought you were saying staute law is contract law.
Obviously statutes are laws because the courts of England and Wales enforce them.
I would still be interested to see your evidence that millions disagree.
rumpelstilzchen 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 06:10 AM.


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