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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-02-2012, 12:16 PM   #421
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undeadcreature View Post
My name's not Charlie......

These are the 4 FOTL arguments I am referring to;



Each one was considered and rejected by the judge, not once did he say that her having a license was the reason for his rejection.
So I stand by my opinion that the FOTL fleet (or a sizeable chunk of it at least) has been sent to the bottom of the ocean.
And each one was prtesented by a non-freeman with a license. Not a single one of them would be applicable in such a case. So yes they were rejected in this case.

I find it funny how pathologically desperately you all seek to ignore the most germane fact.
She had a license.

It is like a kid in grade 8, bullying successfully on one younger, and then claiming that is evidence he can do the same to an adult.
I tell people all the time, if you are in their sand box, you must abide by their rules.

Imagine if the someone wanted to undermine the Freeman argument. Would not sending in someone who is in their sand box to make these arguments knowing they would be rejected for that reason, not be a good way to do it? Now although the arguments were not presented by one operating upon a claim and exercising their rights, it is raised and rejected, though in no way applicable to the situation, and now the ignorant will claim that the argument failed. Yes it failed, for one with a license who agreed to be in their equity sandbox.

Now the ignorant will claim it will always fail even for those operating upon a claim, and acting without a license. That is their presumption based upon ignorance and not supported by any facts.

Here is the key fact: SHE HAD A LICENSE. Ignore it all you want, it is still the truth and is germane to the issue.

But you go ahead and ignore it, refuse to give it any weight, accept the JP's opinion as gospel, and shut down the thinking skeptical part of your brain, while claiming to be a thinking skeptic.

She had a license... she had a license... she had a license....
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 12:30 PM   #422
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The HTA applies to the defendant, as it applies to every other individual person using the highway (but only because Dianne-Marie Bydeley has a license. Somehow.)
__________________
What? I need to carry a piece a paper? Slavery!
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 12:45 PM   #423
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

And according to that JP, the definition of the word 'includes' is given by looking at the definition of the word 'including' even though they refer to two opposite concepts in law.

And yes she is an individual person, with a driver's license.

You want me to bow to that ruling when no evidence by her was presented, she was not exercising her rights, nor operating upon a claim of right, her legal arguments were not supported with testimony or submitted evidence, and the JP uses such sleight of word where he points to one word when asked to look at the meaning of another completely different word.

Right.....

Fact remains, she had a license, was not operating upon a claim of right, and id not claim to be a Freeman.

She was clearly playing in their sandbox.

But hey, you all feel free to ignore the key facts in order to support your previously held and defended position.

You realize if the JP is right, then what he is trying to claim is that only those engaging in commerce or prepared to do so may use the public highways, right? Do you think that was the intent of the legislature? Imagine if he tried to claim that public parks can only be accessed or used by those with vendor permits?

Also, make sure you ignore the obvious fact that that JP is paid by the very same people who seek to claim a monopoly on the use of the highways. Cop, Prosecution, JP all paid by whom? Hmmm.... but ignore that obvious fact too.

Ignore also how these things bring the court business, and the fines levied are used by their principal to pay their wages. Yeap just ignore that. Do not be skeptical of ANYTHING, unless it is those who are in fact truly skeptical of the courts, government, state. Then you mock them for being skeptical of that which you embrace without question.

Some of you make me laugh at how utterly willfully ignorant you are, all the while hiding behind a specious claim of being skeptical.

You can't even see that she had a license.

Oh well! Have a good day! I'm hoping to go fishing today!
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 12:52 PM   #424
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

"Including" is a verb. "Includes" is not a different word, it is a different conjugation of the same word.

Jesus, this is elementary school grade stuff.
__________________
What? I need to carry a piece a paper? Slavery!

Last edited by weeman; 06-02-2012 at 03:03 PM.
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 01:02 PM   #425
arayder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
And according to that JP, the definition of the word 'includes' is given by looking at the definition of the word 'including' even though they refer to two opposite concepts in law.

And yes she is an individual person, with a driver's license.

You want me to bow to that ruling when no evidence by her was presented, she was not exercising her rights, nor operating upon a claim of right, her legal arguments were not supported with testimony or submitted evidence, and the JP uses such sleight of word where he points to one word when asked to look at the meaning of another completely different word.

Right.....

Fact remains, she had a license, was not operating upon a claim of right, and id not claim to be a Freeman.

She was clearly playing in their sandbox.

But hey, you all feel free to ignore the key facts in order to support your previously held and defended position.

You realize if the JP is right, then what he is trying to claim is that only those engaging in commerce or prepared to do so may use the public highways, right? Do you think that was the intent of the legislature? Imagine if he tried to claim that public parks can only be accessed or used by those with vendor permits?

Also, make sure you ignore the obvious fact that that JP is paid by the very same people who seek to claim a monopoly on the use of the highways. Cop, Prosecution, JP all paid by whom? Hmmm.... but ignore that obvious fact too.

Ignore also how these things bring the court business, and the fines levied are used by their principal to pay their wages. Yeap just ignore that. Do not be skeptical of ANYTHING, unless it is those who are in fact truly skeptical of the courts, government, state. Then you mock them for being skeptical of that which you embrace without question.

Some of you make me laugh at how utterly willfully ignorant you are, all the while hiding behind a specious claim of being skeptical.

You can't even see that she had a license.

Oh well! Have a good day! I'm hoping to go fishing today!
The changing targets that are fmotl reasoning now moves the discussion to freeman using the claim of right defense ploy.

Having walked into quicksand of his own making, Menard should realize that the instances of freemen unsuccessfully using the constructive notice/claim of right defense are numerous.

This point is important since it is the claim of right trick Rob says he is using preemptively when he says he gets cops to let him go when he gets caught drinking in public.

A good day fishing is better than a day getting your arse handed to you on an internet forum.
arayder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 01:13 PM   #426
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
The changing targets that are fmotl reasoning now moves the discussion to freeman using the claim of right defense ploy.

Having walked into quicksand of his own making, Menard should realize that the instances of freemen unsuccessfully using the constructive notice/claim of right defense are numerous.

This point is important since it is the claim of right trick Rob says he is using preemptively when he says he gets cops to let him go when he gets caught drinking in public.

A good day fishing is better than a day getting your arse handed to you on an internet forum.
I know of many who have used them successfully.

The ones who claim that I got my ass handed to me are also the ones who need to ignore the facts of the case! Little facts like she had a license. Little facts like the issue was about a licensed driver speeding. Little facts like she did not deny consent, nor serve a claim. Yeap all sorts of little facts that you need to willfully ignore, so you can claim I got my ass handed to me, and ignore the fact that you all got seriously pwnd!

Tell me this... did she have a license or not? A simple yes or no suffices. If you say yes, then you admit this had nothing to do with us Freemen claiming the right to use the highways without a license to engage in commerce.

Last edited by weeman; 06-02-2012 at 03:03 PM.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 01:16 PM   #427
arayder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
I know of many who have used them [claims of right] successfully.
Before you go fishing today please document one such case.
arayder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 01:24 PM   #428
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
"Including" is a verb. "Includes" is not a different word, it is a different conjugation of the same word.

Jesus, this is elementary school grade stuff.
Clown now? Already resorting to insulting your opponent instead of addressing the argument?

Maybe in English that is the case. But we are talking about the language of law, you know Legalese, where such constraints are not applicable. After all if it was so basic, they would not need to add definitions would they?

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another.

Includes in a law dictionary has these words as being similar:
absorb, adscribere, be composed of, be formed of, be made up of, begird, boast, bound, bracket, circumscribe, classify, close in, combine, compass, comprehend, comprehendere, consist of, contain, cover, embody, embrace, encircle, engird, envelop, girdle, hold, incorporate, involve, merge, put a barrier around, span, subsume, surround, take in, unify, unite

Whereas including has this to say:
See: also

So the word includes in the language of law means to enclose, contain, exclude other things, while the word including means also. Which is in fact the exact opposite of includes.

But go ahead an ignore that fact too. You all seem very good at that!

Last edited by weeman; 06-02-2012 at 03:04 PM.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 01:30 PM   #429
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
Before you go fishing today please document one such case.
Document? Case? What are you talking about?

If you want examples, I merely have to point to me. After all, YOU personally are trying to destroy me, or so you said, and on other forums you and your 'cult of hatred for those who are skeptical of that which you embrace without question' have stated that you would report me to 'the authorities' for not filling income tax returns, even though having no SIN means I have no obligation to do so.

How has THAT worked out for you and your argument?

I know since you spend your life seeking conflict and trying to destroy others whom you have never met, you do not want me to leave, but to be honest you bore the hell out of me, and I have far better things to do.

Last edited by weeman; 06-02-2012 at 03:02 PM.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 01:34 PM   #430
arayder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
If you want examples, I merely have to point to me.
For the record the constructive notice/claim of right defense failed Eldon Warman, Jean Proteau, Brian Alexander, Lance Thatcher and probably several others Bobby doesn’t want to talk about.

To be fair we do have Bobby’s stories of success:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....94&postcount=1

Last edited by arayder; 06-02-2012 at 01:40 PM.
arayder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 01:41 PM   #431
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I called you a clown in addition to, not in stead of, addressing your "argument" (if you really want to call it that).

What dictionary are you using? Those I have access to don't have those definitions.

Is there no definition? Why would only cite the related words? Funny that.
__________________
What? I need to carry a piece a paper? Slavery!
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 01:47 PM   #432
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
For the record the constructive notice/claim of right defense failed Eldon Warman, Jean Proteau, Brian Alexander, Lance Thatcher and probably several others Bobby doesn’t want to talk about.

To be fair we do have Bobby’s stories of success:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....94&postcount=1
I know you are not referring to me, for I do not go by Bobby and never have. So of whom are you speaking? If you say you are referring to me, we know that is just more of your little games, and you lack the common decency to even address people by their names, choosing instead to substitute something apparently demeaning or condescending.

If you are referring to me, I ask you use the name I have posted here, 'Rob'.

Last edited by weeman; 06-02-2012 at 03:01 PM.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 01:51 PM   #433
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
I called you a clown in addition to, not in stead of, addressing your "argument" (if you really want to call it that).

What dictionary are you using? Those I have access to don't have those definitions.

Is there no definition? Why would only cite the related words? Funny that.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/including

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/include

Wow look at that! They have two separate entries! Almost like they are two distinct and separate words! Wow... what are the chances of them actually having two different meanings, what with them being two different words?

Last edited by weeman; 06-02-2012 at 03:00 PM.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 01:52 PM   #434
arayder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Oh, that’s so sad. . . our subject can’t produce a win and when he gets called out on his oft repeated “I beat a public drunkenness rap” story he decides to go all proper and demand some respect.

I guess nobody ever taught him to earn it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
I know you are not referring to me, for I do not go by Bobby and never have. So of whom are you speaking? If you say you are referring to me, we know that is just more of your little games, and you lack the common decency to even address people by their names, choosing instead to substitute something apparently demeaning or condescending.

If you are referring to me, I ask you use the name I have posted here, 'Rob'. If you refuse to do so, we can all see that this is just more of your immature little 'let's destroy Menard cause I am angry that I did not help my friend when in need' pathology.
arayder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 01:56 PM   #435
solzhenitsyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Don't have time to reply in any detail but I did want to publicly laugh out loud at Menard's revelation that judge's are paid by the state to enforce the laws of the state. Wow! How astute of you to make that observation. That certainly isn't something that 99.9999% of people learn by about age 10.

Good grief. Hey Rob, how about providing one, just one, decision where the court defines "includes" as you have. Don't worry, I will post a dozen later tonight where the court defines it as the exact opposite.
solzhenitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 02:19 PM   #436
weeman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Behind you....... Pulling Faces!
Posts: 6,065
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Exclamation

Moderator Note:

This ego posturing, baiting and pettiness is getting boring.
Any more of this and notices will be forthcoming.

Contribute to the topic or leave the thread.

Weeman.
weeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 03:33 PM   #437
jlord
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
I do not see how his opinions matter when this case was about a licensed driver, who held a DL and was speeding. Every argument she presented was destroyed by her having that DL.
All of her arguments were destroyed without reference to her having a DL. For example she argued that to drive is to engage in commerce. This argument was rejected. To suggest that the answer would have been different if she didn't have a DL is nonsense. The subject never came up. The exact same reasoning on this question could be applied in another case for someone who didn't have a DL who tried to raise the same argument.

Quote:
Since SHE is the one bringing the action, (or so you assume) and the right to a fair trial means we have a right to call and question our accuser, can we call her to the stand or not? If not it is either not her, or we are being denied a fair trial.
Only if the queen was a witness to the offence. You can only call witnesses who have something relevant to say. The queen, government, crown lawyer, jugde, etc., cannot be called as witnesses even though they may be a party to the court process.

Quote:
To drive is to engage in commerce and that is not a right when using public property.
Not according to the de facto courts. You must be stating your position as to what you believe the law should be because you just finished reading a case where the exact opposite was stated by a de facto court without reference to whether or not the driver/traveller had a DL.

Quote:
What about those wins which due to being such a win, never make it to court?
Do they count for you or not?
Not in the same sense. It's great if you can get out of some charges without going to court. But determinations about the law are only made in courts. So if you can talk your way out of a ticket, it wouldn't say anything about whether your arguments have any legal merit. This is why when you are making claims about what the de facto law is, you need to support that by a court decision.

Quote:
Um, when did I use the term conspiracy? Can you show me that or is that you trying to dismiss my position with the 'C" word?

Just show me where I used the term conspiracy, in my post, or admit you cannot.
If you are suggesting that the judge in this case knows about your argument and agrees with it, but is trying to keep it secret and thus avoids dealing with it because this particular person didn't have a DL, then you are alleging that there is a conspiracy whether you use the word or not.

Of course such a claim wouldn't make any sense because judges are already emplowered to determine these questions of law. If a judge thought that the law supported your claim, but for some reason didn't like this fact, then they could just address that in their ruling and say "the Menard argument, while previously a totally valid legal argument, is hereby overturned for the following reasons..." There would be nothing preventing a judge from doing this, and certainly if all judges were in agreement about wanting to do this then it would be law. Previously accepted and longstanding legal arguments have been overturned by the courts many times. It is an accepted part of the court process.

There is no need or reason to believe that judges wanting this result would have to be secretive about it.

Last edited by jlord; 06-02-2012 at 03:35 PM.
jlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 06:34 PM   #438
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default There is no justice..Its just a racket.

So over 400 posts and may be one or two addressed the OP..Wondering if any one actually watched the vid?

And not one post can justify this system of justice not one..

Any way...Your alcaida allies in Libya were at it again today..Forcing their will on defenceless women and children with antiaircraft guns..For the crime of complaining about being kidnapped and raped..children too.

Does it make you all proud to pay your taxes?
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 08:31 PM   #439
msbpunk
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
We are the victims of Crime, they are the criminals.

This guy says what i been trying to say for years really well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eurhq_zJHto
And now after nearly 2000 youtube videos over several years, Ben is still looking for success stories.


Perhaps he's starting to realise it's not quite that simple?
msbpunk 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 03:22 AM.


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