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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-04-2011, 12:15 AM   #1
dansan
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 78
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default A judge forcing/creating Joinder

For those who recognize the concepts of Man and Person:

If a Man, who does not give the name of his Person, or admits to being said person is charged as a Person by a judge for... (example) contempt of court and thusly sentencing the Man to jail time. In this case, the judge is the one who creates joinder, am I right? (Stop me here if I am not right, please).

In the event that what I said is the case (judge creating joinder)... if a US judge creates joinder--and has at one point admitted to having an oath to uphold the constitution of the US--wouldn't him forcing joinder of Man and Person be in conflict with the 13th amendment of the US: involuntary slavery/servitude, or the like.


I'm interested in hearing any/all views, so long as it's on topic, to the point and constructive.
__________________
"Corporeal existence is but a temporary prison for the soul."

"Just because I don't understand everything, doesn't mean I can't understand something."

None of us asked to be born, but we were. Christ is the remedy for God's law.

Last edited by dansan; 05-04-2011 at 01:19 AM. Reason: 14 -> 13
dansan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 12:22 AM   #2
brianthebrain
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,883
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansan View Post
-wouldn't him forcing joinder of Man and Person be in conflict with the 14th amendment of the US: involuntary slavery/servitude, or the like.


.
NO
brianthebrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 01:10 AM   #3
moobs
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Are you talking about the Fourteenth Amendment or the Thirteenth? The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery/involuntary inservitude (except as the lawful punishment of a crime). The Fourteenth Amendment is a little bit different.

In any case, courts don't agree with freemen in the argument that a flesh-and-blood person is different to a "legal fiction" or whatever, so joinder is not necessary.
moobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 01:17 AM   #4
dansan
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 78
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post
Are you talking about the Fourteenth Amendment or the Thirteenth? The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery/involuntary inservitude (except as the lawful punishment of a crime). The Fourteenth Amendment is a little bit different.

In any case, courts don't agree with freemen in the argument that a flesh-and-blood person is different to a "legal fiction" or whatever, so joinder is not necessary.
errr, yeah. 13th. My mistake. Thanks for correcting me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianthebrain View Post
NO
You were right. But you simply didn't take time enough to read as thoroughly as the other gentleman.

Plus you added nothing to the conversation.
__________________
"Corporeal existence is but a temporary prison for the soul."

"Just because I don't understand everything, doesn't mean I can't understand something."

None of us asked to be born, but we were. Christ is the remedy for God's law.

Last edited by dansan; 05-04-2011 at 01:19 AM.
dansan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 03:08 AM   #5
brianthebrain
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,883
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansan View Post


You were right. But you simply didn't take time enough to read as thoroughly as the other gentleman.
i read it, you said you wanted answers to be to the point, you had the wrong ammendment but if you had got the right one, youd still be wrong, it difficult to be wronger than that, so i though no covered it
brianthebrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 05:29 AM   #6
dansan
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 78
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianthebrain View Post
i read it, you said you wanted answers to be to the point, you had the wrong ammendment but if you had got the right one, youd still be wrong, it difficult to be wronger than that, so i though no covered it

k thx
__________________
"Corporeal existence is but a temporary prison for the soul."

"Just because I don't understand everything, doesn't mean I can't understand something."

None of us asked to be born, but we were. Christ is the remedy for God's law.
dansan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 08:34 AM   #7
britishnick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

DansDan - I follow your logic and it makes sense to me...

Trouble is it turns out that the US DOllar is also unconstitutional. Only currencies backed by silver and gold are legal. there are 3 states that have bills they are trying to get through to bring back the metals as legal tender though

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=164612

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post
In any case, courts don't agree with freemen in the argument that a flesh-and-blood person is different to a "legal fiction" or whatever, so joinder is not necessary.
This is a false claim... Certainly in the UK anyways.

Roger Hayes (UKCOlumn and British Constitution Group) in a council tax case in Feb 2011 had the judge admit that Roger was in court representing ME ROGER HAYES in the same way the some bloke was representing THE COUNCIL...

My legal dictionary (Oxford Dictionary of Law) clearly states that there are 2 different types of person... Anatural person and a juristic person (artificial person)

My Blacks law dictionary state there is a person (natural person / human being) and a different thing called an artificial person.

The claim that a man is the legal fiction created with the registration of his birth (and or other govt issued doc's) is false, plain and simple. Logic shows it they are seperate and so does the law books.

Enjoinder is entirely necessary for the courts to legally / lawfull send a man down for the misgivings of his artifical person. if there is no enjoinder, then logic follows only th elegal fiction can 'go down'
__________________
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; 05-04-2011 at 08:35 AM.
britishnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 09:07 AM   #8
danster82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 3,923
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dansan View Post
For those who recognize the concepts of Man and Person:

If a Man, who does not give the name of his Person, or admits to being said person is charged as a Person by a judge for... (example) contempt of court and thusly sentencing the Man to jail time. In this case, the judge is the one who creates joinder, am I right? (Stop me here if I am not right, please).

In the event that what I said is the case (judge creating joinder)... if a US judge creates joinder--and has at one point admitted to having an oath to uphold the constitution of the US--wouldn't him forcing joinder of Man and Person be in conflict with the 13th amendment of the US: involuntary slavery/servitude, or the like.


I'm interested in hearing any/all views, so long as it's on topic, to the point and constructive.
By joinder do you mean claiming that you as a person are a corporation? You are still responsible for your person and all it commercial contracts, you cannot supply your vessel so to speak with the energy for it to engage in commerce and then turn around and say no it wasnt me, You take responsibility for all contracts your person is in because you as the natural person was the only one who could authorise it. But you never allow them to assume that you are the person, and so they should never beable to imprison you when dealing with a commercial matter only sue the person(corporation) or negotiate new deals.
__________________
http://danster82.com//

Last edited by danster82; 05-04-2011 at 09:07 AM.
danster82 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 03:15 AM.


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