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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-10-2011, 06:44 PM   #21
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the raging sea View Post
I was under the impression the Freeman movement has been around for a number of years now. If it worked then there would be ample verifiable evidence available for all to see. The fact that we are having this discussion at all tells me there is none.

If someone would go to court and rely on the unproven word of some random guy on the internet and then come a cropper when it doesn't work out how they expected, well, excuse me for thinking they got what they deserve.
+1
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2011, 07:02 PM   #22
angelthecat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Who has the onus to prove their claims ?
it appears that the onus is nothing to do with the claim and has more to do with who has ward over who? ward [in this case] meaning has been to war and won. to the victor goes the spoils [when they move a motion forward what they appear to mean is to move a motion for ward over you, leaving you as a prisoner of war, thus having only basic rights, always object on the grounds that you are people, and no thing has ward over you] people were given ward of all things, and a thing is anything with a title, as all things were named by man with the exception of those called [your God given name] PEOPLE. now remember who you are. you are people and you have a god given right to ward over all things, and you have a Queen who draws from the public purse to defend Gods law [whether you are a believer or not, as she took the oath] , but no one ever calls her to court to see if she will do what she is paid to do.

Just thinking out loud no need to shout, [it is a forum you know and there can be more than one differing opinion, but only one truth and you have been taught to fear the truth as you can't handle it]
__________________
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 28-10-2011, 07:11 PM   #23
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 the raging sea View Post
I was under the impression the Freeman movement has been around for a number of years now. If it worked then there would be ample verifiable evidence available for all to see. The fact that we are having this discussion at all tells me there is none.
You're quite right. There is none.
And how ironic it is that the OP, a major player in the world of FOTL, after continually being asked both on here and the randi forum for proof of his wares working, and having failed to produce any proof whatsoever of his claims, now questions whether or not he has any obligation to provide proof and suggests that maybe the burden of proof lies with those that doubt the validity of his beliefs. It's madness.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 28-10-2011 at 07:13 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 12:38 PM   #24
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
One more thing that I forgot to add, Rob - you are subject to the rule of law. Prove that you're not....!

And you owe me $2000 for that "guidance". Prove that you don't.
The rule of law states we are all equal, and therefore no one may govern another without their consent, and I agree we are all bound by that.

You claim I owe you, and then ask me to prove I do not, when you have not established that there is a contract, performance, or agreement, or consideration. That is the standard position of you statists, yet if you were truly a lawyer, you would know I do not have to prove anything to you, the onus is yours to prove I do. Can you show me a contract?

But of course, for you statists lovers, the onus is on us to prove a negative right?

There is NO WAY you are really a lawyer. Not if you think that you can claim I owe you, AND the onus is on me to prove I do not. The law simply does not work that way. Can I simply use words like you did? NO I DON'T. There is proof right? It is after all of the same quality and type as your 'proof' and the rule of law says we are equal.

PS- Thanks for admitting that we are all bound by the rule of law, and that chief amongst them is the requirement for equality, and that therefore I do not have a right to govern you without your consent, and no one has a right to govern me without mine. That is the rule of law. Deal with it.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 12:40 PM   #25
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

So, still no proof of your BS working, Rob?
No?
Thought not.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 12:50 PM   #26
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,909
Likes: 425 (247 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
So, still no proof of your BS working, Rob?
No?
Thought not.
We are surrounded by BS. One has the color of law, and one doesn't. While we may percieve that one's philosophy is BS, can we not concede that what it apposes is BS also?

But of course you can prove that 'your BS' does work...... It is on record, after all.

But, because it works doesn't mean it is any less bullshit, just that it has the weight of force behind it.

It is BS that a force can be applied to create revenue through taxation without the consent of those who are taxed. It is BS that a force can be applied to enforce claims of 'contempt' in a court room when people choose not to recognise a courts authority. It is BS to apply force upon people living peaceably to evict them from land that they own. But still, BS triumphs in many instances.

OC you can't fight BS with BS - there has to be a better way.

Last edited by merlincove; 29-10-2011 at 12:51 PM.
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 12:55 PM   #27
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 merlincove View Post

But of course you can prove that 'your BS' does work...... It is on record, after all.
Well, at least it is verifiable evidence.
There is not one verifiable instance of fotl working.
Hence this thread; an attempt to reverse the burden of proof.
Quote:
But, because it works doesn't mean it is any less bullshit, just that it has the weight of force behind it.
I would agree with that.
But the BS that is enforced does have the backing of a large number within society.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 29-10-2011 at 12:58 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 01:18 PM   #28
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

So prior to see it you label it as BS, thus demonstrating a closed mind on your part, a prejudice if you will.

And, since proof is a collection of evidence, and you reject all evidence which does not constitute proof in your mind all on its own, it is impossible to show you any proof, as it is you who gets to define what is and is not proof, and your admitted prejudice stops you from looking at the evidence piece by piece. Instead you reject one piece, for it is not proof, and then demand more proof. You reject all evidence, then demand proof.

Hey have YOU established that YOU have the right or power to govern even ONE other man without their consent? NO? See there is some evidence, which if you collected sufficient, instead of rejecting cause it does not constitute proof to you, would add up to a preponderance of evidence. Even then it would not be proof, per se. Just sufficient evidence to support a reasonable beleif. But you and your belief are not reasonable, and you reject any evidence before sufficient can be collected to act as proof.

Imagine a court of law, where all evidence is rejected, because on its own it does not constitute proof. That is what you and your type do here.

Give us proof, but do not bother showing us individual pieces of evidence, as we will reject that if it does not constitute complete proof.

The information often works to avoid court, and due to that there is no court case. But what is the ONLY thing you will accept as proof? Court records. According to you, unless there is a court record, that someone avoided court (thus no records being made) it did not happen.

So, any proof that you can LAWFULLY govern me without my consent? Or that you can elect someone and give them power you do not have?

Thought not.
Many would look at that fact as evidence.
You will reject it cause it is not 'proof'.


When you look at what you consider proof, we see you demanding to see that SOMEONE else has agreed with our belief. You have abandoned your own critical thinking skills in favour of confirmation from someone acting as a 'judge'.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 01:59 PM   #29
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
]And, since proof is a collection of evidence, and you reject all evidence which does not constitute proof in your mind all on its own, it is impossible to show you any proof, as it is you who gets to define what is and is not proof, and your admitted prejudice stops you from looking at the evidence piece by piece. Instead you reject one piece, for it is not proof, and then demand more proof. You reject all evidence, then demand proof.
I don't reject evidence.
You see, you fail to grasp the fact that your belief is not evidence.
Yes, you can go through laws and interpret them how you do and indeed you may present a compelling argument that you are correct. But that is all academic. It is not evidence. Perhaps one day you will understand that.
Quote:
Hey have YOU established that YOU have the right or power to govern even ONE other man without their consent? NO?
No one has ever claimed here or over at jref that they as an individual can govern another individual.
Quote:
See there is some evidence,
But, it is not evidence. Your analogy is fatally flawed. This country (or yours) is not some perfumed hippy garden where two people live peacefully side by side, it is made up of millions of people most of whom accept the concept of having a government. Until such time you convince enough people to change that system you will contine to be governed by your government whether you like it or not.
Quote:
which if you collected sufficient, instead of rejecting cause it does not constitute proof to you, would add up to a preponderance of evidence. Even then it would not be proof, per se. Just sufficient evidence to support a reasonable beleif. But you and your belief are not reasonable, and you reject any evidence before sufficient can be collected to act as proof.
Rob, you present ideas, not evidence.
FFS if you had any verifiable evidence I am sure you would have posted it up by now. But you haven't. You just repeat the same old arguments over and over again. Perhaps if a court agreed with your take on the law you would have some credibility. Until a court does agree with you, you are just some bloke on the internet repeating his beliefs.
Quote:
Imaguine a court of law, where all evidence is rejected, because on its own it does not constitute proof. That is what you and your type do here.
Again, you fail to see it.
You do not ever provide any evidence even though you have been repeatedly asked for it.
For instance, give us proof of A4V working.
Give us proof af 96 is the fix.
You sell these ideas but cannot back them up with anything.
Quote:
Give us proof, but do not bother showing us individual pieces of evidence, as we will reject that if it does not constitute complete proof
You are quite welcome to give individual pieces of evidence. In fact I am sure everybody on here and jref await it eagerly.
But, your beliefs are not evidence.
Give us these pieces of evidence that can be checked out.
Not your interpretation of the law.
Quote:
The information often works to avoid court, and due to that there is no court case. But what is the ONLY thing you will accept as proof? Court records. According to you, unless there is a court record, that someone avoided court (thus no records being made) it did not happen.
And I'm calling bullshit on that one.
Why on earth would it not make it to court?
You see, if you have discovered a "secret" the best method to stamp it out would be to get a fotl in court and find against him. Not leave him to go tell everybody. So BS, Rob.

Quote:
So, any proof that you can LAWFULLY govern me without my consent? Or that you can elect someone and give them power you do not have?

Thought not.
Many would look at that fact as evidence.
You will reject it cause it is not 'proof'.
The proof that you are being governed without your consent is the presence of the Canadian government.
When you buy fags, fuel or whatever, they are taxing you.
Quote:
When you look at what you consider proof, we see you demanding to see that SOMEONE else has agreed with our belief. You have abandoned your own critical thinking skills in favour of confirmation from someone acting as a 'judge'.
Well, until the judiciary do agree with your belief your minions will continue to lose in court and go to jail.
How is Lance by the way?

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 29-10-2011 at 02:59 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 02:45 PM   #30
undeadcreature
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,679
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
So, any proof that you can LAWFULLY govern me without my consent? Or that you can elect someone and give them power you do not have?
You are right, one person cannot govern you without your consent. The rest of society on the other hand can and do, through an elected government.

For the record I am not saying the voting system of the UK is perfect, far from it, otherwise we wouldn't be in the shit we are in now.
All I am saying is although one person cannot give power to someone else, a society can give it's collective power away and give you an arse kicking for driving too fast.
__________________
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 29-10-2011, 03:19 PM   #31
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Well, until the judiciary do agree with your belief yoiur minions will continue to lose in court and go to jail.
How is Lance by the way?
Do you have any proof that I have minions, oh minion of the court? Please provide proof of the same level you demand from me.
As for Lance, are you claiming he is a minion of mine? If he states publicly he is not, and does not hold me responsible for the defacto court and its minions jailing him, would you then direct your ire and anger at those actually responsible for jailing him, or would you, as a court minion, refuse to do so?

Admit it, YOU are the minion, and YOU do not like how so many are starting to see you as one, and your master as defacto, and unlawful, do you bootlicker?

How do those boots taste, minion?
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 03:28 PM   #32
jason_c
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 152
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
Do you have any proof that I have minions, oh minion of the court? Please provide proof of the same level you demand from me.
As for Lance, are you claiming he is a minion of mine? If he states publicly he is not, and does not hold me responsible for the defacto court and its minions jailing him, would you then direct your ire and anger at those actually responsible for jailing him, or would you, as a court minion, refuse to do so?

Admit it, YOU are the minion, and YOU do not like how so many are starting to see you as one, and your master as defacto, and unlawful, do you bootlicker?

How do those boots taste, minion?
Rob, let us try to stay above the fray. An entire ad hominem post does not strengthen your plea. How about addressing the content of their posts.

You have proposed some very interesting ideas that I think philosophically need to be looked at to change our society. The key word there is change because its not like that now.

You have provided no "proof" or "evidence" other than anecdotal stories. These are not peices to be put together to prove your point. That is how charlatans sell products. By that I am not claiming that is what you are doing but rather pointing out that that is the method that many scammers use to sell there goodies. So if I was trying to be above board I would stay away from anecdotal testimonies just to avoid the appearence of "scaminess".
jason_c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 03:40 PM   #33
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_c View Post
Rob, let us try to stay above the fray. An entire ad hominem post does not strengthen your plea. How about addressing the content of their posts.

You have proposed some very interesting ideas that I think philosophically need to be looked at to change our society. The key word there is change because its not like that now.

You have provided no "proof" or "evidence" other than anecdotal stories. These are not peices to be put together to prove your point. That is how charlatans sell products. By that I am not claiming that is what you are doing but rather pointing out that that is the method that many scammers use to sell there goodies. So if I was trying to be above board I would stay away from anecdotal testimonies just to avoid the appearence of "scaminess".
I will try to rise above the fray the bootlicking de facto court minions bring.
I would argue I have provided evidence, which was then summarily dismissed by the minions, as it was not agreed to by their masters.

All we have to do is READ the criminal code, certain sections dealing with a claim of right establishing lawful excuse. But to the DCMs, since it has not been reviewed and accepted by their masters, it is rejected as not constituting proof.

How about sworn testimonies, of the type used in courts of law? Those are not anecdotal are they?

The minions will never accept that their masters are not masters over everyone without consent, even though they clearly consented, are clearly minions, and their masters have admitted to operating a defacto court system. The reason is it is in this way the DCM (Defacto Court Minions) justify using force against their fellow man, and the defacto courts will no more admit they need consent than a rapist would.

And the minions will continue to defend their masters, cause that is how they find empowerment and control over their fellow man.

The only thing they will accept as proof is words from their masters, for they are such total and mindless minions. Weighing the evidence themselves is out of the question, if it wasn't I could easily establish that a claim of right establishes lawful excuse to disobey.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 04:19 PM   #34
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

All we have to do is READ the criminal code, certain sections dealing with a claim of right establishing lawful excuse. But to the DCMs, since it has not been reviewed and accepted by their masters, it is rejected as not constituting proof.

No, that is incorrect.
To say "all we do have to do is read the criminal code" is wrong.
What you need is a court to agree with you that your interpretation of the criminal code is correct.
The courts do not agree with you.
Now, you may say that still you are right and the courts are wrong.
But, do you possess the amount of force required to enforce your version?
Until such time that you do, the courts interpretation will be enforced.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 29-10-2011 at 04:21 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 04:20 PM   #35
solzhenitsyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
I will try to rise above the fray the bootlicking de facto court minions bring.
I would argue I have provided evidence, which was then summarily dismissed by the minions, as it was not agreed to by their masters.

All we have to do is READ the criminal code, certain sections dealing with a claim of right establishing lawful excuse. But to the DCMs, since it has not been reviewed and accepted by their masters, it is rejected as not constituting proof.

How about sworn testimonies, of the type used in courts of law? Those are not anecdotal are they?

The minions will never accept that their masters are not masters over everyone without consent, even though they clearly consented, are clearly minions, and their masters have admitted to operating a defacto court system. The reason is it is in this way the DCM (Defacto Court Minions) justify using force against their fellow man, and the defacto courts will no more admit they need consent than a rapist would.

And the minions will continue to defend their masters, cause that is how they find empowerment and control over their fellow man.

The only thing they will accept as proof is words from their masters, for they are such total and mindless minions. Weighing the evidence themselves is out of the question, if it wasn't I could easily establish that a claim of right establishes lawful excuse to disobey.
Rob, as far as I understood, you have for several years now claimed that your methods are effective in the "de facto courts". If that is true (and please correct me if I am wrong), then the only possible evidence of that claim is "words from the de facto courts." My personal "weighing of the evidence" is irrelevant because I am sadly not a "de facto court" with a "de facto police force" and "de facto army" enforcing my opinion.

Now, if you do not claim that your methods are effective in "de facto court", but are claiming something else, then perhaps a different sort of evidence is required. Anyway, perhaps you could clarify?
solzhenitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 04:24 PM   #36
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
Do you have any proof that I have minions, oh minion of the court?
No, not minions of the court.
I am referring to those who are gullible enough to follow your "teachings".
You know, those that do the stuff that you teach that you don't actually do yourself.
Lance Thatcher
Josh Novak
Terry Bouffard
Many more.
And they all lose.
Sucks doesn't it?

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 29-10-2011 at 04:29 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 04:39 PM   #37
suninmyeyes
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Doomed to wander
Posts: 71
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Blueprints do not build the house, but they help make a better one.
Those who tear things down are usually not inclined to rebuild.

"Scaminess"...great word Jason_c....love it!
suninmyeyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 04:39 PM   #38
the raging sea
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
So, any proof that you can LAWFULLY govern me without my consent? Or that you can elect someone and give them power you do not have?


Thought not.
Many would look at that fact as evidence.
You will reject it cause it is not 'proof'.


When you look at what you consider proof, we see you demanding to see that SOMEONE else has agreed with our belief. You have abandoned your own critical thinking skills in favour of confirmation from someone acting as a 'judge'.
Whether or not one regards the judicial system as lawful or not is irrelevant to me. The only question worth considering in relation to Freeman interpretations of the law is, do they work? Like it or not, we are all subject to the laws of the country in which we reside, if we break the rules and are caught by agents of the State then the State will punish us, that's just the way it is.

Proponents of Freeman philosophy claim that judicial rulings can be side-stepped, making us immune to the punishments of the State. If this were possible and had been achieved in a court of law there would be a paper trail with records showing the judgements, where are they? It has also been suggested that Freemen can use their interpretaion of the law to avoid court completely, obviously leaving no paper trail, how is this done exactly? If we knew the precise method, it's merit as a real-world application could be tested.

To reiterate, without either evidence in the form of court rulings or a tested method of avoiding court, why should people believe the Freeman interpretation of the law has any real-world application?

Last edited by the raging sea; 29-10-2011 at 04:46 PM.
the raging sea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 09:32 PM   #39
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
The rule of law states we are all equal, and therefore no one may govern another without their consent, and I agree we are all bound by that.

You claim I owe you, and then ask me to prove I do not, when you have not established that there is a contract, performance, or agreement, or consideration. That is the standard position of you statists, yet if you were truly a lawyer, you would know I do not have to prove anything to you, the onus is yours to prove I do. Can you show me a contract?

But of course, for you statists lovers, the onus is on us to prove a negative right?

There is NO WAY you are really a lawyer. Not if you think that you can claim I owe you, AND the onus is on me to prove I do not. The law simply does not work that way. Can I simply use words like you did? NO I DON'T. There is proof right? It is after all of the same quality and type as your 'proof' and the rule of law says we are equal.

PS- Thanks for admitting that we are all bound by the rule of law, and that chief amongst them is the requirement for equality, and that therefore I do not have a right to govern you without your consent, and no one has a right to govern me without mine. That is the rule of law. Deal with it.
You crack me up you really do! You've just debunked your own thread. Top work Menard!

As regards all people being equal you miss out the second bit as usual - equal before the law. That means you're subject to the law just like the rest of us. Which in turn means your crazy suggestion that the likes of you don't have to prove anything while the rest us us have to prove everything is worth dick all.

So, having debunked yourself and brought up the fact that all are equal before the law, I assume you are willing to concede that you're subject to the law after all? If not, I have a few other questions to ask which I note you have pretty consistently avoided....

I own you Rob, prove that I don't!

Last edited by micklemus; 29-10-2011 at 09:36 PM.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2011, 11:20 PM   #40
undeadcreature
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,679
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
I own you Rob, prove that I don't!
How much do you want for him? I could do with another Jester in my court, I had the last one killed........ he just wasn't funny enough.
__________________
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
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 05:25 PM.


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