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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-04-2011, 09:43 PM   #21
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gladys View Post


Or maybe they should just get a room. One can be "Mr Right" (and yield the whip), and the other one can be "Mr Wrong" (and bare the arse).
That I do not consider all that funny.
You are maybe trying too hard I think.
Or having been in such a situation, to you it is funny.

But nice try!
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 09:47 PM   #22
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
I see no benefit. No benefit, that is, in the stuff you sell.

No I have no intention of discrediting anybody.
However I will point out what I believe to be untruths when I see them.
I don't see disagreeing with somebody as discrediting them.
Actually I find that a very strange idea.
I ventured into the religious forum here the other day to attempt to make them see it was all bollocks.
I soon got bored...
theabominablephenomenon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 09:51 PM   #23
theabominablephenomenon
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The flightpath estate
Posts: 15,095
Likes: 4 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
And yes you have a right of free speech. Does not explain WHY you choose to exercise it in forums where topics you do not agree with are discussed. Says quite a bit about you and your mindset I think.
Exactly...
theabominablephenomenon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 10:41 PM   #24
thoreau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 291 (137 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
I am curious as to why some people feel the need, a pathological drive if you will, to either discredit the freeman movement or people within it.

interesting question. I do not feel a 'need' to discredit anyone within the freeman movement purely for believing in the freemen movement. Nor do I feel a need to discredit the movement itself. What I do feel a need to do is partake in healthy skepticism and open discussion about the movement itself and to point out inconsistancies, hypocrisy and misleading information where i believe I see it.

They take great pleasure in thinking someone else is wrong, or has 'fucked up', but rarely do they wish to examine WHY it is so very important to them that they be right and someone else is seen as wrong. They are often apparently desperate

Bearing in mind such actions are very useful for stopping proper adult discussion, and is often employed by trolls for that very purpose, I am still curious as to the mindset that must be necessary in order to even try and prove someone is 'wrong' on a forum such as this.

Why do some people seem so desperate to prove someone with whom they do not agree as 'wrong'? Do they invest so much in their paradigm that they are frightened of how a new perspective might affect it?

They obviously care, as they invest so much time and energy trying to 'prove' some other party is 'wrong' they can't claim they do not care, for clearly they do.

But WHY do they care?
And why do they care so very much?
Is it only immature EGO?
Is it a spiritual need?

Do they get something from it and if so what? And if not WHY so much energy?

I am hopeful that those who have tried to prove me or others 'wrong' or who have claimed I was, (and apparently found much joy in believing I was/am wrong) will shed some light on their motivations and share what they feel they get out of such endeavors.

They have even often used the word 'win' and 'lose'. But what is being won? What is being lost? Is it merely an attack to try and discredit those who share information in the hopes of discrediting the movement?

Lets discuss why some people come here with the only goal of proving someone else wrong and study the mindset of those afflicted with such a pathology.

My wish to discuss freemanery is neither to inflate my ego or to prove anyone wrong but because I strongly believe that the system we live in is unfair and I believe that by discussing rationally and pragmatically all suggestions for change is a step towards change. I believe that in order to achieve real, lasting and cohesive change alternatives need to be discussed from both sides otherwise you just end up with a load of people all congratulating eachother pre-emptively for the idea rather then an idea that can bring about tangible change.

I hope this answers your questions
thoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 10:47 PM   #25
moobs
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

As I've said before, I wouldn't care about this if it was just a political or social theory - in fact, I might agree with some of it. My problem is with snake oil salesmen like Menard telling gullible people on the Internet that they can just throw away their driver's licenses, never obey statutes again, and then inevitably get squashed once they go to court.
moobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 10:59 PM   #26
wise haven
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK-Forest of Dean
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post
As I've said before, I wouldn't care about this if it was just a political or social theory - in fact, I might agree with some of it. My problem is with snake oil salesmen like Menard telling gullible people on the Internet that they can just throw away their driver's licenses, never obey statutes again, and then inevitably get squashed once they go to court.
I find that a very strange concept.
You are happy to be told what you can't do by a government but have a problem when someone points out what you can do.
Your thinking pre-supposes that you must do what you are told without question whenever the government orders so.
Sounds like a conditioned response, a child or slave mentality.
Don't you ever ask why?
wise haven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 11:08 PM   #27
lizardlover
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: At The Lounge
Posts: 648
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wise haven View Post
I find that a very strange concept.
You are happy to be told what you can't do by a government but have a problem when someone points out what you can do.
Your thinking pre-supposes that you must do what you are told without question whenever the government orders so.
Sounds like a conditioned response, a child or slave mentality.
Don't you ever ask why?
The problem is the person telling us what we "can do" is wrong and based on false logic, word games and cheesy youtube videos and then they ask for money for this false logic.

Just because in the criminal code of Canada it mentions "color of right" in VERY SPECIFIC circumstances, Rob twists it to mean that ANYONE has the right to disobey any law they want, because it even mentions it. He ignores that the fact that its only mentioned in regards to certain laws and thinks just because its mentioned, it can be applied anywhere he wants.

By that logic, murder is fine, rape, anything you want to do, because the CC mentions the right to break the law, so why not go all out.
lizardlover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 11:17 PM   #28
bornfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 368
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

A few people are winning.

JREFer's are trying their best to maintain the status quo. Oh dear! It seems that an increasing amount of people are starting to "get" the jig.

The 10 O clock show on channel 4 for instance. The rhetoric is becoming incredibly anti-establishment and more so with every progress.

There has been a vast amount of embaressments for the magistrates.

You wont ever hear of this because the establishment wont tolerate it and the JREFer's will denigrate all and any progress.
__________________
You yourself are even another little world and have within you the sun and the moon and also the stars
bornfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 11:21 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 bornfree View Post
There has been a vast amount of embaressments for the magistrates.

You wont ever hear of this
because the establishment wont tolerate it and the JREFer's will denigrate all and any progress.
Well here's your chance.

Enlighten us regarding this "vast amount of embarrasments".

We're all ears.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 01-04-2011 at 11:22 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 11:22 PM   #30
bornfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 368
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

JeeZ

Sometimes you just have to post something because I gaurantee GCHQ will add something.

If this post has got laid without any then there is a slight chance that these posts anr not being observed. Although I doubt it because paranoia is rife.
__________________
You yourself are even another little world and have within you the sun and the moon and also the stars

Last edited by bornfree; 01-04-2011 at 11:24 PM.
bornfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 11:26 PM   #31
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 bornfree View Post
JeeZ

Sometimes you just have to post something because I gaurantee GCHQ will add something.

If this post has got laid without any then there is a slight chance that these posts anr not being observed. Although I doubt it because paranoia is rife.
Indeed, as your post testifies.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 01-04-2011 at 11:26 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 12:15 AM   #32
solzhenitsyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

For the record, I don't claim to be "right". Indeed, I'm a random person on the internet just like Rob, rumpelstilzchen et al and whether my opinion is right or wrong is fairly irrelevant. Frankly, I would strongly discourage anyone seeking legal knowledge or information from relying on any of us or our opinions. Instead, I would strongly encourage them to rely on the opinions of the judges in their jurisdiction (which can be found of course in their decisions.) Those opinions are the only ones that matter. Those opinions are the ones which may have a profound consequence on your life. Those are the opinions which are "right" (in terms of setting out what "the law" is). I think its fair to say however that any opinion which is inconsistent with those judicial opinions is necessarily "wrong" (again, in terms of setting out what "the law" is).

Further, I would also strongly encourage people seeking legal knowledge or information to retain and instruct a lawyer. This has a number of benefits. First, one can be sure that a lawyer has had at least three or four years of intensive legal training and has at least maintained a standard of competency for the years that they have been practicing law. There are no such assurances with respect to random people on the internet like myself or Rob Menard.

Second, if a lawyer gives you negligent advice and you suffer damages as a result, you can sue that lawyer and can be sure that you will recover those damages from his or her insurance. Again, you will be able to recover nothing from random people on the internet like myself or Rob Menard.

Lastly, if a lawyer gives you negligent advice or behaves unethically he or she will be held accountable by the law society. There is no such accountability from random people on the internet.

Anyway, that's my opinion (irrelevant though it may be!)
solzhenitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 12:19 AM   #33
moobs
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wise haven View Post
I find that a very strange concept.
You are happy to be told what you can't do by a government but have a problem when someone points out what you can do.
Your thinking pre-supposes that you must do what you are told without question whenever the government orders so.
Sounds like a conditioned response, a child or slave mentality.
Don't you ever ask why?
I never said anything like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bornfree View Post
A few people are winning.

JREFer's are trying their best to maintain the status quo. Oh dear! It seems that an increasing amount of people are starting to "get" the jig.

The 10 O clock show on channel 4 for instance. The rhetoric is becoming incredibly anti-establishment and more so with every progress.

There has been a vast amount of embaressments for the magistrates.

You wont ever hear of this because the establishment wont tolerate it and the JREFer's will denigrate all and any progress.
That doesn't make any sense at all. In our current system, the legal validity of any claims or defenses is exactly what is decided by judges. If a judge doesn't want to rule in favor of respecting any freeman argument, then they don't have to. There is no hidden rule saying that if someone says the right words, judges have no choice but to let them go. If a judge ever ruled in favor of any freeman argument, it would be because they wanted to, not because they are forced to.
moobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 12:26 AM   #34
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post
I never said anything like that.



That doesn't make any sense at all. In our current system, the legal validity of any claims or defenses is exactly what is decided by judges. If a judge doesn't want to rule in favor of respecting any freeman argument, then they don't have to. There is no hidden rule saying that if someone says the right words, judges have no choice but to let them go. If a judge ever ruled in favor of any freeman argument, it would be because they wanted to, not because they are forced to.
If this is true or you feel it is, then you are essentially saying a judge rules not on evidence or law, but simply on what he likes or dislikes.

You are apparently saying the courts are corrupt.
At least that is what it looks like.
Is that what you meant, or am I misinterpreting?
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 12:29 AM   #35
solzhenitsyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
If this is true or you feel it is, then you are essentially saying a judge rules not on evidence or law, but simply on what he likes or dislikes.

You are apparently saying the courts are corrupt.
At least that is what it looks like.
Is that what you meant, or am I misinterpreting?
Brace yourself Rob. I actually agree. Although I expect moobs will say that we are misunderstanding him or that he misspoke or something.
solzhenitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 12:32 AM   #36
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn View Post
For the record, I don't claim to be "right". Indeed, I'm a random person on the internet just like Rob, rumpelstilzchen et al and whether my opinion is right or wrong is fairly irrelevant. Frankly, I would strongly discourage anyone seeking legal knowledge or information from relying on any of us or our opinions. Instead, I would strongly encourage them to rely on the opinions of the judges in their jurisdiction (which can be found of course in their decisions.) Those opinions are the only ones that matter. Those opinions are the ones which may have a profound consequence on your life. Those are the opinions which are "right" (in terms of setting out what "the law" is). I think its fair to say however that any opinion which is inconsistent with those judicial opinions is necessarily "wrong" (again, in terms of setting out what "the law" is).

Further, I would also strongly encourage people seeking legal knowledge or information to retain and instruct a lawyer. This has a number of benefits. First, one can be sure that a lawyer has had at least three or four years of intensive legal training and has at least maintained a standard of competency for the years that they have been practicing law. There are no such assurances with respect to random people on the internet like myself or Rob Menard.

Second, if a lawyer gives you negligent advice and you suffer damages as a result, you can sue that lawyer and can be sure that you will recover those damages from his or her insurance. Again, you will be able to recover nothing from random people on the internet like myself or Rob Menard.

Lastly, if a lawyer gives you negligent advice or behaves unethically he or she will be held accountable by the law society. There is no such accountability from random people on the internet.

Anyway, that's my opinion (irrelevant though it may be!)
Everything you say I would agree with, mostly, save that which I bolded.

My position is that man or woman acting as a judge, is just another human being, and the only TRUE opinion anyone should follow when it comes to determining the path they take in their life should be theirs.

Anything less, ANYTHING, is an abandonment of determining for themselves what they do with their own lives.

Either your opinion will have the more profound effect upon YOUR life, or someone else's opinion will.
That is our choice.

Sometimes it is up to US to move the courts, and to tell them what their opinion should be, because it is the only one the community will accept.

The existing courts are in fact bound and judged by a higher court. That is the court of public opinion.

They must bow to it.

Edit to add:
That in Italics is where your advice kinda fails. It can be likened to telling someone who is drowning "Learn to swim!" See, the thing is, your suggestion COSTS A LOT OF MONEY!!! You completely fail to factor in the costs or the fact that so many in situations of need, do not have enough to pay a lawyer. Wanna know why? Because other lawyers have already (from their perspective) sucked them dry! Furthermore, just to share with you the perspective from this side of the fence, the problems we face are a result of a bunch of words that lawyers have made, claim the monopoly to interpret, and charge an arm and a leg to share their opinion of, and then do so while disavowing any liability if they are wrong. And if they are wrong, or cause harm as you expressed, who do you go see? Other lawyers!!!

Your suggestion to take it up with a lawyer, although certainly more sound then 'listen to some guy on the internet and decide without investigation', simply sucks, because to such a large degree people think the problems being faced are a result of doing just that. More of the same is not going to fix it.

Last edited by rob menard; 02-04-2011 at 12:45 AM.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 01:03 AM   #37
theabominablephenomenon
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The flightpath estate
Posts: 15,095
Likes: 4 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post


That doesn't make any sense at all. In our current system, the legal validity of any claims or defenses is exactly what is decided by judges. If a judge doesn't want to rule in favor of respecting any freeman argument, then they don't have to. There is no hidden rule saying that if someone says the right words, judges have no choice but to let them go. If a judge ever ruled in favor of any freeman argument, it would be because they wanted to, not because they are forced to.
i tort i tor a puddy cat...
i did, i did.. i tor a puddy cat!

Last edited by theabominablephenomenon; 02-04-2011 at 01:03 AM.
theabominablephenomenon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 02:04 AM   #38
moobs
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
If this is true or you feel it is, then you are essentially saying a judge rules not on evidence or law, but simply on what he likes or dislikes.

You are apparently saying the courts are corrupt.
At least that is what it looks like.
Is that what you meant, or am I misinterpreting?
No, judges do rule on evidence and the law. But the ruling that they give is their interpretation of the law or the evidence. In court, a freeman says, "I believe that people have the right to not obey statutes."

And the judge says, "In my opinion, no, people do not."

If the judge said, "In my opinion, yes, people do have the right to not obey statutes," then things would be different.
moobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 11:56 AM   #39
outofstate
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: LOGGED OUT.
Posts: 766
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post
No, judges do rule on evidence and the law. But the ruling that they give is their interpretation of the law or the evidence.

ahh yes, decisions based on the preponderance of evidence


We've been spending most our lives
Living in the Gangsta's Paradise
Power and the money, money and the power
Minute after minute, hour after hour
Everybody's runnin, but half of them ain't lookin
It's goin on in the kitchen, but I dont know what's cookin
They say I got ta learn, but nobody's here to teach me
outofstate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 04:28 PM   #40
solzhenitsyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
Everything you say I would agree with, mostly, save that which I bolded.

My position is that man or woman acting as a judge, is just another human being, and the only TRUE opinion anyone should follow when it comes to determining the path they take in their life should be theirs.

Anything less, ANYTHING, is an abandonment of determining for themselves what they do with their own lives.

Either your opinion will have the more profound effect upon YOUR life, or someone else's opinion will.
That is our choice.
Sorry, it's not clear to me exactly what you're arguing here. Are you saying that people have a choice whether or not the courts have authority over them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
Sometimes it is up to US to move the courts, and to tell them what their opinion should be, because it is the only one the community will accept.

The existing courts are in fact bound and judged by a higher court. That is the court of public opinion.

They must bow to it.
I agree with you to a certain extent. Indeed, so do the courts. They often consider the standards of the community when making their decisions (especially the very difficult decisions). And of course one of the court's primary roles is to enforce the legislation enacted by Parliament or the Legislatures which is, as far as the courts are concerned I think, the clear expression of the will of the community.

At the same time, the courts also have an important role in protecting the rights of minority groups or individuals against the so-called tyranny of the majority (a role I imagine you of all people would encourage them to fulfill). In that sense, its a bit of a delicate balance, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
Edit to add:
That in Italics is where your advice kinda fails. It can be likened to telling someone who is drowning "Learn to swim!" See, the thing is, your suggestion COSTS A LOT OF MONEY!!! You completely fail to factor in the costs or the fact that so many in situations of need, do not have enough to pay a lawyer. Wanna know why? Because other lawyers have already (from their perspective) sucked them dry! Furthermore, just to share with you the perspective from this side of the fence, the problems we face are a result of a bunch of words that lawyers have made, claim the monopoly to interpret, and charge an arm and a leg to share their opinion of, and then do so while disavowing any liability if they are wrong. And if they are wrong, or cause harm as you expressed, who do you go see? Other lawyers!!!

Your suggestion to take it up with a lawyer, although certainly more sound then 'listen to some guy on the internet and decide without investigation', simply sucks, because to such a large degree people think the problems being faced are a result of doing just that. More of the same is not going to fix it.
Of course these are valid concerns, and many other people, including many lawyers I think, share these concerns. However, every province in Canada has a legal aid program for people who really require the services of a lawyer (i.e., facing criminal charges where the Crown may seek custody or facing custody battle for their children etc.) but can't afford one. Most communities also have free legal advice clinics where lawyers donate their time to meet with people for at least an initial discussion re: their legal problems. Further, many lawyers do a substantial amount of pro bono work (and are especially willing to work pro bono where they feel a client has a particularly important or meritorious claim etc.).

Frankly, most of the legal questions that people on this forum have could be answered in a ten minute conversation with a lawyer. Even if one made an appointment with a very experienced lawyer who charged $300/hr, that would only be a $50 investment (and I imagine most lawyers wouldn't even charge a fee for that type of very short consultation). I would encourage everyone here to make that very small investment or visit a local free legal advice clinic if they would to have their questions about the "freemanism" and the legal system answered by a qualified professional.

All that being said, the sort of legal information which most people are seeking on this forum is more or less freely available in free databases of reported judicial decisions like Canlii. And in the spirit of my earlier post about the opinions of judges being far more important than the opinions of random internet people, I'll provide yet another clear and unequivocal rejection of several "freeman" arguments. This is an Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision reported as Mercedes-Benz Financial (DCFS Canada Corp.) v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON S.C.) and available here: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...canlii9368.pdf. In it, the Court holds as follows:

Quote:
H.1 Jurisdiction over Mr. Kovacevic: the Sovereign Man explanation for non-compliance

[39] From his conduct and submissions Mr. Kovacevic made it clear that he denied any right of this court to exercise authority over him. When, on February 19, 2009, I asked Mr. Kovacevic whether he wanted to make any submissions, he replied:

Your Honour, if you can address me as beneficiary, I’d be more than happy to respond. I cannot respond to Mr. or any kind of legal fiction name that you may apply or presume or assume I am and clearly not.

That position was in line with the one taken by Mr. Kovacevic in his Claim-of-Right where he professed that his “volition and relationship with the Creator supersedes the fictitious language(s) of this world”. It was also consistent with the document Mr. Kovacevic attached to his affidavit entitled, “Denial of Corporate Existence”. In it he denied participating “in any commercial activity in de facto corporate Canada”, stated that he was “not liable for any debts, charges or liabilities imposed by the Crown upon its own creation”, and asserted that he was “not subject to the jurisdiction of the corporate, administrative Courts of Canada or the United States of America, or of a Province of Canada or a State of the United States in any civil, criminal or contractual mater arising from a Statute of the Federal or Provincial de facto governments of Canada and or the United States of America”.

[40] Whatever may be the role of legal fictions in Canadian law, our law is clear on one point: once a person is born alive, the law accords recognition to, and imposes legal obligations on, the person by reference to the legal name the parents give to the person, or by reference to any change of name the person makes in accordance with the law. In his Commercial-Security-Agreement Mr. Kovacevic purported to divide himself into two – the real, “flesh and blood living man”, and the fictitious, “juristic person\strawman\legal entity”. Our law does not recognize any such distinction – the flesh and blood person is one and the same as the legally recognized person.
Quote:
[51] As noted, Mr. Kovacevic stamped on the MBF pay-out statement the language “accepted for value, returned for value without dishonour.” That language also appeared on Mr. Kovacevic’s admissions of service of the motion records. It surfaced again during the February 19 hearing when I read to Mr. Kovacevic the several forms of relief sought by MBF in its Notice of Motion and asked whether he wanted to make any submissions on each. In response he replied:

“Your Honour, I accept it for value and return it for value for settlement closure in this matter.”

His responses prompted the following exchange:

THE COURT: Sir, in response to paragraphs four, five, six, seven and eight of the notice of motion that I read to you and asked for your submissions on, you responded in each case that you accepted for value and return for value for settlement closure in this matter. I must confess that that’s not a phrase that I’m familiar with. Is there anything that you’d like to say to me? You are not obliged to, but is there anything that you’d like to say to me by way of explanation as to what you understand that phrase to mean?

MR. KOVACEVIC: Hum. Your Honour…

THE COURT: As I say, you are under no obligation. The Court of Appeal has made it clear. You are under no obligation to say anything, but if you do wish to say something, I’m affording you an opportunity now sir to do so.

MR. KOVACEVIC: I’m not here to testify or submit any admissions for that, Your Honour.

[52] The phrase, “accept for value and return for value for settlement closure” has no recognized meaning or effect under our law. Nor do the documents signed by Mr. Kovacevic extinguish his debt to MBF or relieve him of his obligation to return the car or inform the Sheriff of its location.
Quote:
H.5 Conclusion

[58] In conclusion, the Claim-of-Right, Commercial Security Agreement, Bonded Promissory Note, Acceptance (and attached documents), Peace Bonds and Bills of Exchange (Documentary Draft) created and signed by Mr. Kovacevic have no legal effect.

Last edited by solzhenitsyn; 02-04-2011 at 04:29 PM.
solzhenitsyn 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 02:28 AM.


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