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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-11-2011, 04:29 PM   #1
solzhenitsyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Question "Contracts make the law"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
Um, contracts make the law between two parties, and everyone has the right to contract.
What on earth are you talking about? This is a nonsense. Let's look at it this way: What happens if the government (those nasty people with the army) don't agree to your "contracts make the law" proposition (which they explicitly and unequivocally do not). What happens? First of all, according to your own nonsensical proposition, "contracts make the law" would not be law because the government has not agreed to it. Secondly, even if you are going to say "well, 'contracts make the law' is special because these are magical words delivered by God" (or whatever), so what? What happens to the government when they brazenly break that law (again, which they apparently do with great frequency)? There are absolutely no consequences. So who cares?

Let me try to explain it to you another way as well:

You are suggesting that there is nothing special about the government, yes?

You are suggesting that they are just another "party" to a contract, yes?

You are stating that the government and I and Tim who works at my health club are all in exactly the same position (in terms of our abilities to contract), yes?

You are further suggesting that the government is able to form a contract, a contract whose terms I have absolutely no knowledge of, a contract whose terms permit the government to order me around and imprison me, by convincing me (tricking me really) to sign an application for a SIN or a driver's license, yes?

And so if all of this is true, the necessary conclusion is that if Tim who works at my health club were as nefarious as the government, he is able to form a contract with me, a contract whose terms I have absolutely no knowledge of, a contract whose terms permit Tim (who works at my health club) to order me around and imprison me (in the same way the government does now), by convincing me (tricking me really) to sign an application for a health club membership.

I'm sorry, but that is completely absurd.

Here is my theory:

I have no contract with the government. They tell me what to do and I do it (well, more or less; I admit that I am a chronic offender when it comes to jay-walking laws) because I don't want to be fined or have my property seized by sheriffs or be put in prison (or whatever other nasty things the Canadian government might threaten to do with me.) You might think that his is oppression. To some people I suppose it is. However, because I think that the Canadian government is relatively reasonable and fair (even though I may not agree with every policy or decision), I don't think of it as oppression. Therefore, I don't spend my time plotting revolutions with Robespierre.



Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
Incidentally since it is the law which existed previous to the parliament which allows it to exist, clearly they do not make 'The Law'.
Fascinating. So when did "the law" (I will use "the law" to denote when I am referring to your theory of what law is) come into existence? Who created it?

Was it the First Nations people of Canada (keeping in mind that there are hundreds of different nations) who created the law?

Or does it predate them as well? Was it Homo Erectus who created "the law"?

Was it when we were mingling around with the great apes?

Was it "God" who created "the law" (you know, the one which permits Tim who works at my health club to trick me into that contract and order me around and put me in his prison)?

I will be fascinated to hear your answer to these questions (if you feel like answering of course.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
What came first, The Law, or Parliament?
Parliament. Obviously. Of course prior to the creation of Canadian Parliament (by enactment of the Constitution of Canada), the law of the various first nations in Canada governed the various territories of Canada, but their laws were very different then the laws we live by today. I'm far from an expert on this topic (first nations concepts of law, etc.) but I thought that perhaps you will find this excerpt interesting:

Quote:
When the white man first seen us, when they first said, “Well, there’s something wrong with these people here. They don’t have no religion. They have no judicial system. We have to do something for these people.” I guess that must have been what they thought because they totally screwed up what we already had.

They introduced new religion and there was nothing wrong with our old religion. They just didn’t understand it. We had our own ways of teaching our children, like the Elders and everything. There was nothing wrong with that way of teaching children. They just didn’t understand it.

The same thing with our judicial system. We had that judicial system and the white people, when they came here, they didn’t see that. They said, “These guys have nothing. We have to introduce all these different things to them so they can be one of us.” That’s exactly the problem that we have.

Chief Philip Michel

Brochet
Aboriginal peoples have always had governments, laws and some means of resolving disputes within their communities. North American Aboriginal societies were dynamic cultures that adapted constantly to meet changing circumstances. Aboriginal people were influenced by their relations with one another in migrations, warfare, conquest, and in commercial and/or political unions.

They had vast, complicated, intertribal trading systems that covered the continent. They developed sophisticated external relationships between and among tribes that cemented these commercial and political relations. Later, with the coming of Europeans, they extended similar trade and diplomatic relations to various countries in Europe.
SOURCE: http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter2.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
What came first, The Law, or Parliament?
If the first, whatever Parliament enacts is not Law, but Acts with the force of law.
If the second, then Parliament was not created lawfully, and anything they do is not lawful, as they never had lawful authority to begin with.
I've already answered this question above. Parliament came first (with respect to our current laws). Before that, there were various first nations legal systems.

I'm not sure I understand which conclusion you are suggesting logically must follow from my answer. In any event, let me ask you this:

(1) If, according to you, Parliament acts with "the force of law" (whatever that means), so what? What does that mean (practically speaking)? Does it mean that if a police officer points his gun at me, I don't have to do what he tells me to do?

(2) If, according to you, Parliament has never had lawful authority to begin with, so what? What does that mean (practically speaking)? Does it mean that if a police officer points his gun at me, I don't have to do what he tells me to do?

Last edited by solzhenitsyn; 05-11-2011 at 11:10 PM.
solzhenitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2011, 01:27 AM   #2
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Sol wrote;
I'm not sure I understand which conclusion you are suggesting logically must follow from my answer. In any event, let me ask you this:

(1) If, according to you, Parliament acts with "the force of law" (whatever that means), so what? What does that mean (practically speaking)? Does it mean that if a police officer points his gun at me, I don't have to do what he tells me to do?
Only if the cop has a very good reason to pointing his gun at me will I do as I'm told.
Besides, if only 10% of the population begins carrying a 30:06 we still out number the cops 90 to 1
And I am sure they know that too.


(2) If, according to you, Parliament has never had lawful authority to begin with, so what? What does that mean (practically speaking)? Does it mean that if a police officer points his gun at me, I don't have to do what he tells me to do?
Same as above
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2011, 01:35 AM   #3
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

No one is implying we drop the ball and begin driving like they do in Baghdad.
Where everyone cruises at 90 mph and stop signs are a myth, all the while proceeding in a cautionary manner.(allegedly)
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2011, 01:38 AM   #4
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I have it from a very reliable sourse that the RCMP consider the "citizens" in their territory to be their "subjects".
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2011, 01:39 AM   #5
solzhenitsyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackieg View Post
Sol wrote;

Only if the cop has a very good reason to pointing his gun at me will I do as I'm told.
Besides, if only 10% of the population begins carrying a 30:06 we still out number the cops 90 to 1
And I am sure they know that too.
Yes, I agree with you to an extent (I have no idea what a 30:06 is but I'm just going to presume that it is some sort of weapon.) The only problem is that you left out one other fundamental element: the 10% of the population you are referring to would all have to reject the state like fmotl do. The possibility of that happening any time in the near future seems highly remote to me. But I suppose its always possible.

In any event, if that is what fmotl want, they should spend their time trying to convince other people to reject the state (like Robespierre or Ghandi did) rather than spending it making up stories about silly legal loopholes that do not exist. That's my advice, for whatever it is worth.
solzhenitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2011, 06:58 AM   #6
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I can not think of a more supreme rush than taking the state by the ears and rubbing their nose in their own dung.
You begin by back handing the crown with their own stupid (law) acts.
And you continue slapping them till they come to their senses.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 12:49 AM   #7
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The governments #1 "obsession" is to reduce any risk to its own power to zero.
Do I need to elaborate on this?
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 12:53 AM   #8
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Contract+ precedent=absolute power.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 01:00 AM   #9
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

It matters not who sits in the House, Congress, legislature, etc.
What matters, is who is put in charge of the interpretation of what comes out of the House.
That, is who controls the keys to wherever it is you wish to go.
Just ask Jesse Ventura.
Ordinarily there are no opposing parties to a contract in court.
Just the appearance of such a thing.
One of them has conceded and is merely going along for the ride.

Last edited by jackieg; 07-11-2011 at 01:05 AM.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 11:15 PM   #10
solzhenitsyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I'm just going to bump this to see if anyone wants to actually address the point of the original post. I was going to make this as a follow-up point but perhaps I will make it now in an attempt to drum up some discussion of what I consider to be some of the inherent and fundamental consistencies in the entire fmotl theory:

If "THE LAW" does allow party A to trick party B into a contract in which party B submits to the authority of party A, how is that consistent with the supposed "no fraud in your contracts" principle of "THE LAW"?
solzhenitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:03 AM   #11
lotusrose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 907
Likes: 20 (16 Posts)
Default

Contracts are only for those ppl who do not trust anyone. Just take a look who uses contracts....landlords, bank, moneylenders, and yes law even to get married both man and woman dont need a contract to state their love only the law says they have too. So those who use contracts are greedy parasites and the law and those who work in it everyone of them have or had used a contract it keeps them making more money. even you phone etc hooks you in a cheap deal and yeah another contract to hold you to your word, NO just to tie you up incase you might find it cheaper the next day and keep paying or else the law will deal with you.

Gee even one race of ppl claim to have a contract with god... did they not trust him, maybe that contract should go before the law and let law site gods signature... one contract that will finish every other contract on this earth.
lotusrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:51 AM   #12
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Contract law started around 6000 years ago.
Its had a lot of refining since then.
The Jews (as a tribal group) have refined commercial law to a razors edge.
They have worked all the nuisances and subtlety's out of the way.
The individual Jew does not even have a contract with his G-d.
His tribe does.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 07:07 AM   #13
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn View Post
I'm just going to bump this to see if anyone wants to actually address the point of the original post. I was going to make this as a follow-up point but perhaps I will make it now in an attempt to drum up some discussion of what I consider to be some of the inherent and fundamental consistencies in the entire fmotl theory:

If "THE LAW" does allow party A to trick party B into a contract in which party B submits to the authority of party A, how is that consistent with the supposed "no fraud in your contracts" principle of "THE LAW"?
I see you are not familiar with the term "waiver".
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 07:21 AM   #14
lotusrose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 907
Likes: 20 (16 Posts)
Default

Forgive me sweety .. To start with I just dont understand. You will read something and yes just like the rest of us it goes threw ya head and yet you pretend not just to speak his name but reading it does go through ya head...and yet you mock by living out a letter..how does that work!
lotusrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 07:34 AM   #15
lotusrose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 907
Likes: 20 (16 Posts)
Default

Bypass you mean.. every law in the western court uses moses laws... a man climbed up the mountain and spoke with G-D and yet his heart was not full of joy and love but hate after meeting G-d.. Yeah If I ever spoke to g-d my heart would be full of joy and love.. I would not shout and be voilent. western law is based on moses law..God did not make laws he asked us to make a promise not a law...how much rent do you collect. yes they claim to have a contract with god and you know it.. take that to any court and see where it get you!!
lotusrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 07:40 AM   #16
lotusrose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 907
Likes: 20 (16 Posts)
Default

should read again what you post jackg.. cos you dont understand yaself LOL.. or the class room you are sitting in!
lotusrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 08:47 AM   #17
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lotusrose View Post
should read again what you post jackg.. cos you dont understand yaself LOL.. or the class room you are sitting in!
Only a fool drags religion onto court these days where the Christian gets a 30 day psych exam for claiming stuff like you do.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 08:51 AM   #18
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lotusrose View Post
should read again what you post jackg.. cos you dont understand yaself LOL.. or the class room you are sitting in!
In case you forgot, you signed a contract in order to get on this site.
Remember clicking the mouse to agreement?
Thats your signature traceable back through your IP address

Last edited by jackieg; 08-11-2011 at 08:51 AM.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 11:22 AM   #19
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Does this mean that all people under 18 (in the UK you can not enter in to a contract under this age) are exempt from all law? I think not the age of criminal responsiblity in england is ten. Kinda throws ' contracts make law' out of the window I think.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law

Last edited by jon galt; 08-11-2011 at 11:24 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:50 PM   #20
weeman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Behind you....... Pulling Faces!
Posts: 6,065
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
Does this mean that all people under 18 (in the UK you can not enter in to a contract under this age) are exempt from all law? I think not the age of criminal responsiblity in england is ten. Kinda throws ' contracts make law' out of the window I think.
I wouldn't mind seeing this explained.
weeman 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 02:12 AM.


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