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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-11-2011, 06:43 AM   #41
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn View Post
^ A google search of the phrase "equity makes the law" returns exactly three hits. Two of those hits are from the same .pdf document which contains the sentence: "It should be clear that equity makes the law and legal outcomes more ambiguous and harder to predict." The only other hit is from thread on the world freeman society forum:



Need I even say who was the author of that post?

What am I trying to infer? That cecil1 is apparently the only person in the english-speaking world who has ever used the expression "equity makes the law" or has any idea of what it means (I now suspect that this is what he means by "firsthand information"). Therefore it is a completely useless and meaningless bit of nonsense to anyone who is actually trying to solve their real (rather than imaginary) legal problems.
+1
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 12:03 PM   #42
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottmurray View Post



Does a prince of say saudi studying at oxford have to tax his car?of course not.When the prince of a certain country in Asia was caught with enough cocaine to do 20 years was he prosecuted???no he was sent home....while our warships maintain a regional presence in his fathers gulf.
Freeman immunity certainly exists but not for the likes of us.
There is a thing called diplomatic immunity. All diplomats enjoy this status, not just visiting princes / royal's
__________________
The Person
The Common Law

Last edited by jon galt; 10-11-2011 at 12:05 PM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 12:25 PM   #43
bjornyvan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
There is a thing called diplomatic immunity. All diplomats enjoy this status, not just visiting princes / royal's
Very naive.

Did you hear what happened to Gaddafi? Written laws regarding "diplomatic immunity", treatment of POWs and military commanders etc. aren't always respected.

What was it Mao said... Something like "justice comes out from the barrel of a gun"? Or was it law/power. Doesn't matter - you get my point, I presume.
bjornyvan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 12:32 PM   #44
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Not really. Because gaddafi was killed by revolutionarys in Libya that means that we don't have a policy of not arresting foreign diplomats in the UK. I do not see the connection perhaps you can enlighten me?
__________________
The Person
The Common Law

Last edited by jon galt; 10-11-2011 at 12:41 PM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 06:13 PM   #45
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Lots of opinions based on secondhand information, but no links such as the ones on my previous posts directing to dep. justice acts.

Opinion is personal speculation,
speculation is guess work,
no one with brains wants your guesswork micklemus or solz,
when you educate up on some firsthand information then you'll have some weight with your words and not simply secondhand opinion speculating into nothingness with your guesswork...trolol.
peace.
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 09:01 PM   #46
aulus agerius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cecil1 View Post
Lots of opinions based on secondhand information, but no links such as the ones on my previous posts directing to dep. justice acts.

Opinion is personal speculation,
speculation is guess work,
no one with brains wants your guesswork micklemus or solz,
when you educate up on some firsthand information then you'll have some weight with your words and not simply secondhand opinion speculating into nothingness with your guesswork...trolol.
peace.
You have not posted any links in this thread, only your conclusory opinion that "equity makes the law". I would rather rely on Micklemus' or solz reasoning than on your unsupported and unreasoned posts.
aulus agerius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 09:13 PM   #47
cecil1
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aulus agerius View Post
You have not posted any links in this thread, only your conclusory opinion that "equity makes the law". I would rather rely on Micklemus' or solz reasoning than on your unsupported and unreasoned posts.
Not in this thread perhaps, but seeing as you troll through these fmotl threads hard I figured you would have seen it in micklemus's first thread regarding equity where he claimed to be interested in learning about equity but upon receiving the link to the dept. of justice all of a sudden his keen interest faded faster than a mirage on a rainy day. You opinion matters not it's what the policy states, which you refuse to educate on. trolol. Enjoy your second hand info.

peace.
cecil1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 06:35 AM   #48
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
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.
Just look at your court rules.
Minors can enter into a contract with or without a guardian.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 06:40 AM   #49
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

“But indeed, no person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breech of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact (contract), but he is not a party to it. The States are a party to it…” (emphasis added). [Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854)]

So if the Constitution is the basis of the law, and it is a compact, or a contract, then it would appear that all law, at least in the States, is founded upon contract.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 06:41 AM   #50
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aulus agerius View Post
You have not posted any links in this thread, only your conclusory opinion that "equity makes the law". I would rather rely on Micklemus' or solz reasoning than on your unsupported and unreasoned posts.
Pretty well all courts around the globe run under the premise of when law collides with equity, law gives way to equity.
Law does not set a precedent.
Equity does.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 06:52 AM   #51
jackieg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon Canada
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
Not really. Because gaddafi was killed by revolutionarys in Libya that means that we don't have a policy of not arresting foreign diplomats in the UK. I do not see the connection perhaps you can enlighten me?
Gaddafi was murdered by International Jewish bankers backed by NATO.
If NATO's no fly zone hadn't turned into a bombing campaign Gaddafi would still be in his tent.
If I was Lloyd Blankfien I would be very careful of where my next bowl of soup comes from.
And no more stepping out in the back yard to take a leak either.
jackieg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 03:05 PM   #52
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

But what does this have to do with our diplomatic immunity policy's in the UK? the point was made that a Saudi prince got deported instead of being charged with possession of vast amounts of cocaine and that this is proof of some fmotl theorys.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law

Last edited by jon galt; 11-11-2011 at 03:08 PM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 03:16 PM   #53
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackieg View Post
Just look at your court rules.
Minors can enter into a contract with or without a guardian.
It is a presumption at law that every person is entitled to enter into a contract unless an exception applies. One of those exceptions is for minors. The age of contractual capacity for individuals is the age of 21 at common law, however this was reduced to the age of 18 in 1969 by Act of Parliament. Reaching the age of 18 is known as attaining 'majority'. Minors are those who have not attained the age of 18.

Minors are permitted to enter into contracts for limited purposes, and the test is one that focuses on the nature of the transaction, and whether the minor is of an age such that they capable of understanding it.

The general law states that contracts entered into by children that are for 'necessaries' are binding on children, as are those for apprenticeship, employment, education and service where they are rightly said to be for the benefit of the child. Contracts for necessaries are for the supply of food, medicines, accommodation, clothing, amongst other things but generally excludes conveniences, and products and services for comfort or pleasure. Commercial or 'trading' contracts are excluded. These latter contracts are voidable at the option of the minor, and whether the minor may avoid the contract depends on the nature of the contract.

Contracts where the minor may avoid the affect of the contract are for the acquisition of a legal or equitable interest in property of a permanent nature, such as shares, land, marriage and partnerships. Other contracts require positive ratification in order to be enforceable, which includes contracts for debts and the sale of goods that are not for necessaries. The ratification must take the form of an acknowledgement that the debt is binding after attaining the age of 18. Fresh consideration is not required for the ratification to be complete.

Restraints of trade may be unenforceable against a minor, even if they would be enforceable against an adult.


http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/444.cfm
__________________
The Person
The Common Law
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 03:52 PM   #54
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Also if according to fmotl our laws are fictional and each individual has to consent to be governd by them , and if the state and judicial system are just other parties to contract with. What then enforces the contract? Law must be a precursor to contracts.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law

Last edited by jon galt; 11-11-2011 at 04:01 PM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 01:48 PM   #55
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

bump, to see if we can get a proper explanation as to why contracts make the law as it seem essential to fmotl beliefs
__________________
The Person
The Common Law
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 03:57 PM   #56
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
bump, to see if we can get a proper explanation as to why contracts make the law as it seem essential to fmotl beliefs
Because all men are created equal.
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 04:09 PM   #57
undeadcreature
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,679
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
Because all men are created equal.
And what difference does that make?
__________________
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 02-12-2011, 04:47 PM   #58
rob menard
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undeadcreature View Post
And what difference does that make?
Contracts require agreement between two parties, and if that is the basis of law, it is based upon consent.

Did you wish to argue that I personally have the right to bind you to the terms of my contract without your consent? Is that the situation you argue for?
rob menard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 04:56 PM   #59
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
Contracts require agreement between two parties,
Indeed.
Quote:
and if that is the basis of law
No, rob, not all law is contract law.
Quote:
it is based upon consent.
Flawed premise.
Not all law is contract law.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 04:58 PM   #60
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

rob what enforces contracts if contracts make the law. the law must be a precurser to contracts.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law
jon galt 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 10:52 AM.


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