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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 15-12-2011, 06:07 AM   #21
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post
Are there any situations where you can inadvertently agree on terms to a contract without even knowing that there was a contract in the first place?
You can not be party to a contract you have no knowledge of. You can sign a contract with out reading the small print or all terms tho, but when you sign you say you agree to or accept the terms and conditions. It's your own fault if you do not read all the terms and conditions. This is why you need certain mental capacity to enter a contract, ie understand the contract.
__________________
The Person
The Common Law

Last edited by jon galt; 15-12-2011 at 06:11 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2011, 02:08 PM   #22
jlord
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by syawedis View Post
Right, because most people think income tax is totally fair and not corrupt which is why they pay it, not because they don't want force used against them. Eureka! So That's why I've been paying income tax my whole life, because it's fair and the rainbows and butterflies it creates are so pretty!

...Do you honestly think that people pay income tax because they truly believe in it's cause and think it's fair to Donate 30-50% of their wages? o.0
People of course wouldn't pay if they didn't have to. And I never said most people consider the amount of tax they pay to be fair, although there appears to be some evidence that this is the case. What I said was "for most part people do not consider a system of mandatory tax payment to be inherently corrupt." So people could disagree with the amount of tax they pay but still agree that there is nothing inherently corrupt about a mandatory system of paying tax.
jlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 07:55 PM   #23
moobs
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

I'm bumping this thread to save me from making a new one, because I really would like to get an answer from a freeman on this, and I've seen the explanation of "Look, this is where he accidentally contracted" being thrown around on this forum recently. If statutes and regulations are only contracts, then they are utterly and thoroughly fraudulent. Isn't that a violation of The Law?
moobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 08:34 PM   #24
jlord
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

In terms of de facto law, we already have the answer. You can't accidentally enter a contract.

But in freeman law the word "contract" means something totally different from what it means in de facto law. Look at all the examples. In freeman law you can accidentally enter into a contract without knowing about it. In freeman law the court cannot impose its rulings on you unless you enter into a contract with them. In freeman law statutes do not apply to people who do not agree to them. In freeman law the police need to trick you into agreeing to enter into a contract before they can arrest you or tow your car or whatever.

So I think the better question to ask is what exactly the word contract means under freeman law and point out the ways that the freeman definition differs from the de facto definition.

Last edited by jlord; 20-03-2012 at 08:37 PM.
jlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 08:45 PM   #25
loveisthelaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,721
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post
Are there any situations where you can inadvertently agree on terms to a contract without even knowing that there was a contract in the first place?
187 a4 pages of fine print tz&cz was used for long enough.. though am not sure what the q has to do with "freeman".
__________________
All things by immortal power, near and far.
Hiddenly, to each other linked are.
Thou canst not stir a flower, without troubling of a star!

wouldn't it be terrible to never in your life have had anything important enough to risk it all for.

Last edited by loveisthelaw; 20-03-2012 at 08:46 PM.
loveisthelaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 09:14 PM   #26
jlord
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Certainly you can agree to a contract without reading all the terms and conditions if you are willing to take that risk. But that is not an example of someone agreeing to a contract without their knowledge. In this example the person is knowingly entering into a contract but choosing to take the risk of agreeing to terms they may not be aware of. That is different from the freeman concept where a person can enter a contract unknowingly by giving their name, standing up in court, responding when their name is called, etc.
jlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 09:26 PM   #27
loveisthelaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,721
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlord View Post
Certainly you can agree to a contract without reading all the terms and conditions if you are willing to take that risk. But that is not an example of someone agreeing to a contract without their knowledge. In this example the person is knowingly entering into a contract but choosing to take the risk of agreeing to terms they may not be aware of. That is different from the freeman concept where a person can enter a contract unknowingly by giving their name, standing up in court, responding when their name is called, etc.
well, from my understanding here is a probably totally lame example:

you get a letter through the door from some debt collection agency for some minor issue;

if you then contact them about the issue, you are essentially challenging or accepting what they wrote to you about, and that is that you are due them money; even if you state you do not, your activity in contacting them creates a weird "verbal contract" as you are now either doing two things on top of preventing a county court judgement against you:

1) calling them liars
2) lying

if you are calling them liars, it will end upon you, unless you are very smart with the words you use, to be responsible for proving they are liars.

if you are lying, then it will end upon you, unless you are very smart with the words you use, to convince them or force them to commit to something that would be termed illegal under contractual or business or general law to get away with the lying.

there is no such thing, except when you start to break laws and then you are screwed; as such, it is a kind of contract, but it is not one. i realise that makes no sense and I agree with you there is no "contract" but there is "something" which i'm personally happy to call a contract
__________________
All things by immortal power, near and far.
Hiddenly, to each other linked are.
Thou canst not stir a flower, without troubling of a star!

wouldn't it be terrible to never in your life have had anything important enough to risk it all for.

Last edited by loveisthelaw; 20-03-2012 at 09:30 PM.
loveisthelaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 09:35 PM   #28
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 loveisthelaw View Post

you get a letter through the door from some debt collection agency for some minor issue;

if you then contact them about the issue, you are essentially challenging or accepting what they wrote to you about, and that is that you are due them money; even if you state you do not, your activity in contacting them creates a weird "verbal contract" as you are now either doing two things on top of preventing a county court judgement against you:

1) calling them liars
2) lying
In those circumstances there is no contract.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 20-03-2012 at 09:37 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 09:38 PM   #29
loveisthelaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,721
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
In those circumstances there is no contract formed.
i know it was me who wrote that but I agree with you. perhaps I should have used the word obligation but you will likely, and correctly say there is none, which I also agree with as I said, contract is just the way I label it in my head because it needs negotiation and work to resolve successfully.
__________________
All things by immortal power, near and far.
Hiddenly, to each other linked are.
Thou canst not stir a flower, without troubling of a star!

wouldn't it be terrible to never in your life have had anything important enough to risk it all for.

Last edited by loveisthelaw; 20-03-2012 at 09:38 PM.
loveisthelaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 09:43 PM   #30
freedom2020
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 965
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

there are many different types of contracts,now entering a contract needs both sides to form the contract do they not??some people get duped into contracts by not knowing they are entering into one but that is deception on one side or perhaps ignorance on the other but its all about business at the end of the day and whom or who is liable to pay in one way or another!!
freedom2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 09:45 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

I should point out however, the original contract when the money was borrowed (if that is the case) is good enough. There is no need for a DCA to trick you into "contracting", the original agreement is enough to allow it to be enforced by the courts.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 20-03-2012 at 09:46 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 09:47 PM   #32
moobs
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loveisthelaw View Post
you get a letter through the door from some debt collection agency for some minor issue;

if you then contact them about the issue, you are essentially challenging or accepting what they wrote to you about, and that is that you are due them money; even if you state you do not, your activity in contacting them creates a weird "verbal contract" as you are now either doing two things on top of preventing a county court judgement against you:

1) calling them liars
2) lying

if you are calling them liars, it will end upon you, unless you are very smart with the words you use, to be responsible for proving they are liars.
That's not true at all. If you want to assert new information about the case, then yes, you do have the burden of proof in proving that your new information is true, but for simply proving that you owe the creditor the money, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. You contacting the creditor to dispute the debt in no way shifts the burden to you.
moobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 09:57 PM   #33
loveisthelaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,721
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moobs View Post
That's not true at all. If you want to assert new information about the case, then yes, you do have the burden of proof in proving that your new information is true, but for simply proving that you owe the creditor the money, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. You contacting the creditor to dispute the debt in no way shifts the burden to you.
thanks for clarifying that for me because I was under the impression that contacting them was acceptance or denial of liability; had a tax disk issue a while back and their repeated statement was that it was my job to prove there was tax on the vehicle, which i dealt with. after asking them not to contact me again, their next step was to threaten me with legal action. my assumption was that since they were not the company i did business with, ie, the DVLA, i had no need to even talk to them and certainly not a need to provide these "random strangers" demanding i call them, with money, unless they could prove i was lawfully required to do so. surely to pay them money, i have to have a contract of agreement, which is what paying the value would have been, no?
__________________
All things by immortal power, near and far.
Hiddenly, to each other linked are.
Thou canst not stir a flower, without troubling of a star!

wouldn't it be terrible to never in your life have had anything important enough to risk it all for.

Last edited by loveisthelaw; 20-03-2012 at 10:00 PM.
loveisthelaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 10:02 PM   #34
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 loveisthelaw View Post
thanks for clarifying that for me because I was under the impression that contacting them was acceptance or denial of liability; had a tax disk issue a while back and their repeated statement was that it was my job to prove there was tax on the vehicle, which i dealt with. after asking them not to contact me again, their next step was to threaten me with legal action. my assumption was that since they were not the company i did business with, ie, the DVLA, i had no need to even talk to them and certainly not a need to provide these "random strangers" demanding i call them, to pay them money. surely to pay them money, i have to have a contract of agreement, which is what paying the value would have been, no?
You are quite right. In those circumstances you are not obliged to have any dealings with that DCA, but even if you did you would not be entering into a contract. But, the "debt" would have been an out of court settlement offer by DVLA. The DCA is simply pursuing this out of court offer. DVLA may still, if they wish, prosecute for no VED.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 10:05 PM   #35
loveisthelaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,721
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
You are quite right. In those circumstances you are not obliged to have any dealings with that DCA, but even if you did you would not be entering into a contract. But, the "debt" would have been an out of court settlement offer by DVLA. The DCA is simply pursuing this out of court offer. DVLA may still, if they wish, prosecute for no VED.
thanks for clarifying that whole issue and keeping me honest rumpelstilzchen
__________________
All things by immortal power, near and far.
Hiddenly, to each other linked are.
Thou canst not stir a flower, without troubling of a star!

wouldn't it be terrible to never in your life have had anything important enough to risk it all for.

Last edited by loveisthelaw; 20-03-2012 at 10:06 PM.
loveisthelaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #36
undeadcreature
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,679
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

One thing that has always puzzled me when it comes to FOTL and the consent/contract argument, particularly traffic stops.
If they believe that the law doesn't apply to them as they don't consent to it, why stop at all if the police ask you to? It seems to me that they do it just to cause trouble.
__________________
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 20-03-2012, 11:27 PM   #37
freedom2020
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 965
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

first of all if you have a driving license you have given consent to abide by the rules of the road!!! everyone has the right to travel on any road without hinderence by any highwayman trying to steal there goods or property!!! it is the law and it called common law!!!why dont you learn it instead of posting your clever thoughts and musings of what you think
freedom2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 11:44 PM   #38
undeadcreature
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,679
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I don't think you read what I posted.....
__________________
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 20-03-2012, 11:49 PM   #39
freedom2020
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 965
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

yes i read it and if you had any idea you would know what i said so whats the point???as you have no clue
freedom2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 11:57 PM   #40
undeadcreature
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,679
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I understand what you said perfectly, but it has buger all to do with what I said.

If you do not consent to the law and therefore believe it does not applies to you, why would you stop for the police when they ask you to if you have no wish to contract with them?

If you have a right to travel without hindrance, why then would you stop for someone who you don't know just because they flash some lights at you?
__________________
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
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 09:10 AM.


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