The Freeman Movement and England - Page 122

cocana · 27th January 2011, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Grassy Knowlington

And the FOTL process for collecting/enforcing debts is......

Mind you could be some useful information here. If I ask my wife is it ok for me to have an affair I shall take the following days of silence and disgusted/incredulous looks to mean agreement.

Brilliant! Loved that.

tobjai · 30th January 2011, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by tobjai

Here's a good (subject related) read for those of you who are always looking for new ebook material

Cheers.

...the addendum to the above (which is to be found here) holds the conclusion.

Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh

Greetings,
Res Nullius

jargon buster · 30th January 2011, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh

care to explain what gives "Gods law" jurisdiction?

tobjai · 30th January 2011, 12:10 PM

"God's Law" is just another interpretation by men. The champions of positive law have always tried to use it for the purpose of legitimizing state law. Not for no reason is "god" mentioned in pretty much all constitutions around the world (which has nothing to do with religion btw). So I maintain: When it comes down to it, there is absolutely nothing do derive jurisdiction from. No god's law, no ius gentium, and no ius non scriptum!

The system would not exist without our beliefs, which is why it is nothing but a state of mind!

A little side note: I was quite surprised to see the (mostly positive) debate you guys had going on the last page of this thread (I've been used to collective shoulder padding for the best -inept- ridicule). I'm hoping you'll be able to uphold this standard, for it can only bring positive. I'll be back in a few weeks. We'll see what will happen till then.

Horatius · 30th January 2011, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by tobjai

Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh

But not as straightforward as "Jurisdiction exists Quia Ego Sic Dico" - which is ultimately the source of all law among men.

Grassy Knowlington · 31st January 2011, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by tobjai

...the addendum to the above (which is to be found here) holds the conclusion.

Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh

Greetings,
Res Nullius

Going somewhat off-thread here - perhaps I have missed something in your reference (and my apologies if I have) but why should anyone take this seriously when the addendum contains a statement such as:

"In addition quantum physics has shown us that all matter is essentially non-existent at the fundamental level the only thing which actually exists is electro-magnetic energy, which science remains unable to properly break down and explain in any comprehensive way."

IMHO physics has not shown this at all.

jargon buster · 31st January 2011, 12:43 AM

Quote:

IMHO physics has not shown this at all.

Dont forget, this will be "freeman" physics where anything is possible.
Statute law for example cannot pass through a car window.

Grassy Knowlington · 31st January 2011, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Dont forget, this will be "freeman" physics where anything is possible.

Well I suppose if there's mutual consent that's ok then and Nature is wrong.

Grassy Knowlington · 31st January 2011, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Dont forget, this will be "freeman" physics where anything is possible.
Statute law for example cannot pass through a car window.

The "freeman" physics will have to ditch quantum mechanics to prevent entry of Statute Law through closed windows; qm allows tunneling of an object in a lower energy state through a higher energy barrier.

Sledge · 31st January 2011, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by tobjai

...the addendum to the above (which is to be found here) holds the conclusion.

Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh

Greetings,
Res Nullius

Hmm, what would be an appropriate response? Wait, someone I respect greatly had the perfect one to your original post.

Originally Posted by Sledge

What points does this book make that you feel are relevant to the discussion?

No doubt, that guy's a genius.

tobjai · 1st February 2011, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

But not as straightforward as "Jurisdiction exists Quia Ego Sic Dico" - which is ultimately the source of all law among men.

Are you suggesting that governance is based on despotism, blasphemy and contempt of man kind? Let me tell you: If that was the case, there would be no need for legal philosophy. Most governments actually do want to appear legitimate, which is why phrases such as the quoted one above have no place in jurisprudence whatsoever. And just because you write something in Latin doesn't make it a declarative of substance.

Originally Posted by Sledge

What points does this book make that you feel are relevant to the discussion?

I can't really comment the book, simply because I haven't read it yet. Since I posted the first volume on this thread, I figured some of you may want to find out about the author's conclusion (even if it's just for the sake of ridicule if thats what it takes to make you feel content).

Grassy Knowlington · 1st February 2011, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by tobjai

I can't really comment the book, simply because I haven't read it yet. Since I posted the first volume on this thread, I figured some of you may want to find out about the author's conclusion (even if it's just for the sake of ridicule if thats what it takes to make you feel content).

Tobjai,

Have you at least read the conclusion to the book?

Captain_Swoop · 1st February 2011, 05:09 AM

Why would you want comments on a book you can't comment on yourself?

Horatius · 1st February 2011, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by tobjai

Are you suggesting that governance is based on despotism, blasphemy and contempt of man kind? Let me tell you: If that was the case, there would be no need for legal philosophy. Most governments actually do want to appear legitimate, which is why phrases such as the quoted one above have no place in jurisprudence whatsoever. And just because you write something in Latin doesn't make it a declarative of substance.

Ignoring your inflammatory language, the answer is, essentially, "Yes". All governments, from the earliest city-states of Mesopotamia, up to our modern nations, ultimately derive their jurisdiction through their ability to physically control their territory, using force if necessary. In fact, "That entity which has sole right to legitimate use of force" is a good operating definition of "government" accepted by many people.

The issue of "appearing legitimate" that you bring up is secondary to that. How you appear legitimate has changed over time. It once was, "I'm the toughest Bastard in Town", became over time, "I'm Divinely selected to be King!", and is now, in our case at least, "I was elected by a majority of the people!", but those various mechanisms for determining who has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force don't change the fact that they still, ultimately, have that monopoly.

But even in our case, remember that the tyranny of the majority still exists. If you engage in activities that a majority of your society deem to be reprehensible, they can (and often will) create laws to compel you to act differently, and use force to apply those laws to you.

And you can whine about "despotism" all you like, but that won't change the essential facts of how the world really operates.

Grassy Knowlington · 1st February 2011, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Why would you want comments on a book you can't comment on yourself?

Nunc Ille Est Magicus

(Thank you Horatius for the link)

jargon buster · 1st February 2011, 05:30 AM

Quote:

If you engage in activities that a majority of your society deem to be reprehensible, they can (and often will) create laws to compel you to act differently, and use force to apply those laws to you.

As lordbobhalk wrote (before he fell under the spell of Icke

)
"You can do whatever you want to in life, but if other people dont like what you are doing they will stop you."
It really is that simple, no amount of human rights, laws,statutes, rules or jurisdiction will have any impact on that at all.

gtm · 1st February 2011, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

As lordbobhalk wrote (before he fell under the spell of Icke ) "You can do whatever you want to in life, but if other people dont like what you are doing they will stop you."
It really is that simple, no amount of human rights, laws,statutes, rules or jurisdiction will have any impact on that at all.

We haven't lost 'Lordbobhaulk' to the evil 'Ickian' empire. I think he's saying (not wanting to speak for the man himself) that we should play the 'ball rather than then man'. If this is indeed his stance I'm inclined to agree.

There are skeptics who have remained on the Icke forum for significant periods of time without being banned - Mickelmas, Rumpole, Rumpelstiltskin & Solzhenitsyn spring to mind. you might want to ask yourself why they've survived whereas you & your various 'nome de plume' have been consistently banned?

Jake Dale · 1st February 2011, 07:19 AM

the ball is the man when it's what the man believes.

and even if the ball and man are separate, they still don't like someone pointing out their ball doesn't bounce.

jargon buster · 1st February 2011, 12:25 PM

Quote:

There are skeptics who have remained on the Icke forum for significant periods of time without being banned - Mickelmas, Rumpole, Rumpelstiltskin & Solzhenitsyn spring to mind. you might want to ask yourself why they've survived whereas you & your various 'nome de plume' have been consistently banned?

You are quite right gtm, I have been banned far more times than the other skeptics, maybe it is my approach, but I have varied my approach in the past and been banned anyway.
I even posted as a staunch freeman (steven1) and was banned.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135068
Did I do anything wrong in that thread?
I seem to get under Menard's skin more than most, probably because of my approach so should I really change it.
With regards playing the ball rather than the man, the ball has been dealt with already, its the man that now needs removing because he keeps bringing the same ball back again.
I think of him as a cancer thats been reduced with chemo , now its time for surgery to remove it completely.

LightinDarkness · 1st February 2011, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by gtm

We haven't lost 'Lordbobhaulk' to the evil 'Ickian' empire. I think he's saying (not wanting to speak for the man himself) that we should play the 'ball rather than then man'. If this is indeed his stance I'm inclined to agree.

There are skeptics who have remained on the Icke forum for significant periods of time without being banned - Mickelmas, Rumpole, Rumpelstiltskin & Solzhenitsyn spring to mind. you might want to ask yourself why they've survived whereas you & your various 'nome de plume' have been consistently banned?

To be fair, that's because the people you named have not really angered the inmates in the asylum by demonstrating to them on a daily basis why they are wrong. JB is banned because he does so - the people you mention certain provide rational skepticism but they are rather restrained. JB hasn't done anything to break any of the rules of the forum from what I've seen, he just provides a bit to much truth for the Robert Menard who has a bit of a personal crusade against him and him alone.

JB's posting style has been so marvelously obvious in terms of highlighting why FOTL fails that they simply can't take it. Thats all there is to it.

Stacey Grove · 1st February 2011, 01:25 PM

You were banned from Icke's weren't you LiD?
Your posts were always courteous and never broke any forum rules did they?
Or did I miss some?

jargon buster · 1st February 2011, 01:58 PM

jake dale who posted as thomas j did more in his short time on Ickes to destroy Menard as anyone.
he did not break any forum rules at all, not one.
The mods at Ickes could see Menard unraveling in front of their eyes so put a stop to it.
thats another reason why I go back, its the corruption on the site.

LightinDarkness · 1st February 2011, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

You were banned from Icke's weren't you LiD?
Your posts were always courteous and never broke any forum rules did they?
Or did I miss some?

Yeah, I got banned because I gave them my Political Science 101 example of why "I don't consent" fails in reality: fire protection. I made a long post highlighting how, in FOTL utopia where people could decline to pay for fire protection by not paying taxes and that ACTUALLY MEANT we wouldn't put out their house fires that in a urban setting it would lead to the entire neighborhood on fire (since fire spreads when not put out). It demonstrated that FOTL utopia cannot exist because decisions to "decline consent" are not in vacuum. If I remember correctly they got hysterical rather quick on that one and I was banned in short order after I demonstrated the same thing AGAIN with the "community fishing pool" (tragedy of the commons example).

All it takes is freshmen college level concepts to debunk FOTL, and they don't like it when you do...if you easily dismiss one of their core concepts with something that they can't refute Rob and girlgye go crying to the moderators until your banned.

Vladd · 2nd February 2011, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

All it takes is freshmen college level concepts to debunk FOTL, and they don't like it when you do...if you easily dismiss one of their core concepts with something that they can't refute Rob and girlgye go crying to the moderators until your banned.

The problem is you are working under the false assumption that the FOTL forum exists as a place for free debate and discussion about the ideas of FOTL and their validity when acted on in a real life situation, when in fact the whole reason for the forums existence is to entice the gullible into the world of FOTL, to advertise the wares of RM and to boost the egos of the senior members some of who have suffered for their beliefs and now feel the need to tell the world of their 'successes'. So by pointing out in simple terms how their beliefs are false you are breaking the unwritten rule of the forum, the truth is out there and out there it will stay there is no place for it in the FOTL forum.

Stacey Grove · 2nd February 2011, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

Yeah, I got banned because I gave them my Political Science 101 example of why "I don't consent" fails in reality: fire protection.

Yes, I remember that.
But I saw no contravention of forum rules in your posts.

Quote:

I was banned in short order after I demonstrated the same thing AGAIN with the "community fishing pool" (tragedy of the commons example).

Again, there were no contraventions.
Did you receive continual warnings previously, or was it similar to my own situation? When I was banned (the same night as you and others) I had no points but they just said that I was banned for "no reason given". I assume it was because I disagreed with them too, and they don't like that.

Quote:

if you easily dismiss one of their core concepts with something that they can't refute Rob and girlgye go crying to the moderators until your banned.

Yeah, Menard has the mods under his control.
I did find that when Menard was logged on and I clicked on his profile to see his "current activity" it said with an alarming frequency: "reporting a post".

cocana · 2nd February 2011, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

Yes, I remember that.
But I saw no contravention of forum rules in your posts.

Again, there were no contraventions.
Did you receive continual warnings previously, or was it similar to my own situation? When I was banned (the same night as you and others) I had no points but they just said that I was banned for "no reason given". I assume it was because I disagreed with them too, and they don't like that.

Yeah, Menard has the mods under his control.
I did find that when Menard was logged on and I clicked on his profile to see his "current activity" it said with an alarming frequency: "reporting a post".

I never saw any contraventions either, but there is a definite correlation between warnings/bannings and those who don't toe the party line. I bear direct witness to it as well.

Makes even more of a mockery of it. If their response to robust points of argument is to get people banned rather than address the issues, it shows how weak their position is to start with

cocana · 2nd February 2011, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

You are quite right gtm, I have been banned far more times than the other skeptics, maybe it is my approach, but I have varied my approach in the past and been banned anyway.
I even posted as a staunch freeman (steven1) and was banned.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135068
Did I do anything wrong in that thread?
I seem to get under Menard's skin more than most, probably because of my approach so should I really change it.
With regards playing the ball rather than the man, the ball has been dealt with already, its the man that now needs removing because he keeps bringing the same ball back again.
I think of him as a cancer thats been reduced with chemo , now its time for surgery to remove it completely.

I've just been reading that thread again. Absolute classic!

The freeman dribblers are sullen as well as stupid.

You need to make a return....

gtm · 3rd February 2011, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

Another hapless fotl has performed his woo in court. Only it didn't go down quite how the experts on the internet say it will:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=147145

To maintain his dignity he is now promising to make the mag a "film star" on youtube. This can only go one way......

Remember this wally? The chickens have come home to roost.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...post1059653362

He'll be LOL'ing his way for prolonged visit to one of HM's Prisons before long.

Stacey Grove · 3rd February 2011, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by gtm

Remember this wally? The chickens have come home to roost.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...post1059653362

He'll be LOL'ing his way for prolonged visit to one of HM's Prisons before long.

I assume by his response to rumpole's advice when he says:

Quote:

well all i see there is the word Act so we will have to watch this space

he's probably decided he's going to tell the court he does not consent to Acts, perform the magic woo with oodles and oodles of oofle dust and watch the judge run terrified from the court crying "Abandon ship!"

cocana · 3rd February 2011, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

I assume by his response to rumpole's advice when he says:

he's probably decided he's going to tell the court he does not consent to Acts, perform the magic woo with oodles and oodles of oofle dust and watch the judge run terrified from the court crying "Abandon ship!"

Oh PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let that happen! And please also could his mate video that one too so we can watch it AND wait for another round of contempt proceedings.

jargon buster · 3rd February 2011, 11:24 AM

set up a new log on 15 minutes ago on Ickes and then this happened

Quote:

You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

It would appear they are banning all new people signing up with a proxy

good luck with the site guys.

gtm · 3rd February 2011, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by cocana

Oh PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let that happen! And please also could his mate video that one too so we can watch it AND wait for another round of contempt proceedings.

Menard has loaded & cocked the gun, handed it to Mr Bonds & invited him to blow his brains out.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...84&postcount=9

Needless to say there are no common law defences available for Mr Bonds and certainly not the one of 'show me the party or contract is still applicable' (whatever that is). His best chance is a grovelling apology.

Menard of course is sitting pretty 3,000 + miles away while this chump is looking at prison time. His imput is grossly irresponsible. As far as I'm aware he know nothing of Criminal Law in England & Wales & has no place giving advice to a foolish young man who has got himself in serious trouble.

jargon buster · 3rd February 2011, 12:44 PM

and you wonder why I go for the man rather than the ball

Stacey Grove · 3rd February 2011, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by gtm

Menard has loaded & cocked the gun, handed it to Mr Bonds & invited him to blow his brains out.

And if gynet does end up in prison it will reinforce his belief that the courts are corrupt and that FOTL theory is correct.
There is no way to help these people. For some unknown reason they read a few suspect websites on t'internet and fall for it hook line and sinker without any evidence whatsoever and refuse to see reality.
There's some strange people about....

cocana · 3rd February 2011, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

And if gynet does end up in prison it will reinforce his belief that the courts are corrupt and that FOTL theory is correct.
There is no way to help these people. For some unknown reason they read a few suspect websites on t'internet and fall for it hook line and sinker without any evidence whatsoever and refuse to see reality.
There's some strange people about....

There certainly are. This forum doesn't allow swearing, but I'd call call them ****wits.

Captain_Swoop · 3rd February 2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Contempt of court always makes me laugh. There are 2 forms of contempt, criminal and civil. Now, if it’s criminal contempt there needs to be an injured party. “Mr Agent of the Bank, where is the injured party?” Now, if it’s civil contempt there must be an agreement that obligates performance. “Mr Agent of the Bank, where is the contract that obligates me to perform here today?”

Although of course courts are places for private business and so the Banks can change the law to suit the Banks needs, so it’s all ridiculous anyway.

Now the Bank can do what they want to the NAME because it’s their property in their system and they claim the Title to the Event of the birth. So, what would happen if that Title was contested?

Sound advice here.

tsig · 3rd February 2011, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

and you wonder why I go for the man rather than the ball

Would it be wrong to sign up over there and encourage the idiots to immolate themselves?

BobHaulk · 4th February 2011, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by gtm

We haven't lost 'Lordbobhaulk' to the evil 'Ickian' empire. I think he's saying (not wanting to speak for the man himself) that we should play the 'ball rather than then man'. If this is indeed his stance I'm inclined to agree.

There are skeptics who have remained on the Icke forum for significant periods of time without being banned - Mickelmas, Rumpole, Rumpelstiltskin & Solzhenitsyn spring to mind. you might want to ask yourself why they've survived whereas you & your various 'nome de plume' have been consistently banned?

you can't play ball with menard because he keeps changing the off side rule.

Tolls · 4th February 2011, 03:46 AM

Originally Posted by gtm

As far as I'm aware he know nothing of Criminal Law in England & Wales...

Considering how little he appears to know about Canadian law I think this one's a safe bet.

cocana · 4th February 2011, 05:40 AM

Changing the subject - and this will please JB I'm sure - I see that merlincove has returned as a moderator on Ickes. That'll keep things nicely balanced I'm sure.

That should please Gob Menard, who I see has just reported a perfectly OK post - http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...6&postcount=55. I wonder if another round of bannings is just around the corner.

The lunatics need to keep in charge of the asylum after all.

30th January 2011, 09:51 AM	#4842
tobjai Scholar Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 95	Originally Posted by tobjai Here's a good (subject related) read for those of you who are always looking for new ebook material Cheers. ...the addendum to the above (which is to be found here) holds the conclusion. Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh Greetings, Res Nullius
tobjai Scholar Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 95	Last edited by tobjai; 30th January 2011 at 10:05 AM. Reason: forgot one particular point I was trying to make.

30th January 2011, 10:14 AM	#4843
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,060	Quote: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh care to explain what gives "Gods law" jurisdiction?
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

30th January 2011, 12:10 PM	#4844
tobjai Scholar Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 95	"God's Law" is just another interpretation by men. The champions of positive law have always tried to use it for the purpose of legitimizing state law. Not for no reason is "god" mentioned in pretty much all constitutions around the world (which has nothing to do with religion btw). So I maintain: When it comes down to it, there is absolutely nothing do derive jurisdiction from. No god's law, no ius gentium, and no ius non scriptum! The system would not exist without our beliefs, which is why it is nothing but a state of mind! A little side note: I was quite surprised to see the (mostly positive) debate you guys had going on the last page of this thread (I've been used to collective shoulder padding for the best -inept- ridicule). I'm hoping you'll be able to uphold this standard, for it can only bring positive. I'll be back in a few weeks. We'll see what will happen till then.
tobjai Scholar Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 95	__________________ Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, for there is no man made law without jurisdiction!

30th January 2011, 12:55 PM	#4845
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by tobjai Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh But not as straightforward as "Jurisdiction exists Quia Ego Sic Dico" - which is ultimately the source of all law among men.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

31st January 2011, 12:43 AM	#4847
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,060	Quote: IMHO physics has not shown this at all. Dont forget, this will be "freeman" physics where anything is possible. Statute law for example cannot pass through a car window.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

27th January 2011, 02:34 PM	#4841
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 444	Originally Posted by Grassy Knowlington And the FOTL process for collecting/enforcing debts is...... Mind you could be some useful information here. If I ask my wife is it ok for me to have an affair I shall take the following days of silence and disgusted/incredulous looks to mean agreement. Brilliant! Loved that.

31st January 2011, 12:38 AM	#4846
Grassy Knowlington Muse Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: HAARP Command & Control Posts: 505	Originally Posted by tobjai ...the addendum to the above (which is to be found here) holds the conclusion. Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh Greetings, Res Nullius Going somewhat off-thread here - perhaps I have missed something in your reference (and my apologies if I have) but why should anyone take this seriously when the addendum contains a statement such as: "In addition quantum physics has shown us that all matter is essentially non-existent at the fundamental level the only thing which actually exists is electro-magnetic energy, which science remains unable to properly break down and explain in any comprehensive way." IMHO physics has not shown this at all.

31st January 2011, 12:47 AM	#4848
Grassy Knowlington Muse Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: HAARP Command & Control Posts: 505	Originally Posted by jargon buster Dont forget, this will be "freeman" physics where anything is possible. Well I suppose if there's mutual consent that's ok then and Nature is wrong.

31st January 2011, 01:01 AM	#4849
Grassy Knowlington Muse Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: HAARP Command & Control Posts: 505	Originally Posted by jargon buster Dont forget, this will be "freeman" physics where anything is possible. Statute law for example cannot pass through a car window. The "freeman" physics will have to ditch quantum mechanics to prevent entry of Statute Law through closed windows; qm allows tunneling of an object in a lower energy state through a higher energy barrier.

31st January 2011, 05:36 AM	#4850
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by tobjai ...the addendum to the above (which is to be found here) holds the conclusion. Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh Greetings, Res Nullius Hmm, what would be an appropriate response? Wait, someone I respect greatly had the perfect one to your original post. Originally Posted by Sledge What points does this book make that you feel are relevant to the discussion? No doubt, that guy's a genius.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

1st February 2011, 04:23 AM	#4851
tobjai Scholar Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 95	Originally Posted by Horatius But not as straightforward as "Jurisdiction exists Quia Ego Sic Dico" - which is ultimately the source of all law among men. Are you suggesting that governance is based on despotism, blasphemy and contempt of man kind? Let me tell you: If that was the case, there would be no need for legal philosophy. Most governments actually do want to appear legitimate, which is why phrases such as the quoted one above have no place in jurisprudence whatsoever. And just because you write something in Latin doesn't make it a declarative of substance. Originally Posted by Sledge What points does this book make that you feel are relevant to the discussion? I can't really comment the book, simply because I haven't read it yet. Since I posted the first volume on this thread, I figured some of you may want to find out about the author's conclusion (even if it's just for the sake of ridicule if thats what it takes to make you feel content).
tobjai Scholar Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 95	__________________ Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, for there is no man made law without jurisdiction!

1st February 2011, 04:52 AM	#4852
Grassy Knowlington Muse Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: HAARP Command & Control Posts: 505	Originally Posted by tobjai I can't really comment the book, simply because I haven't read it yet. Since I posted the first volume on this thread, I figured some of you may want to find out about the author's conclusion (even if it's just for the sake of ridicule if thats what it takes to make you feel content). Tobjai, Have you at least read the conclusion to the book?

1st February 2011, 05:09 AM	#4853
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,917	Why would you want comments on a book you can't comment on yourself?

1st February 2011, 05:15 AM	#4854
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by tobjai Are you suggesting that governance is based on despotism, blasphemy and contempt of man kind? Let me tell you: If that was the case, there would be no need for legal philosophy. Most governments actually do want to appear legitimate, which is why phrases such as the quoted one above have no place in jurisprudence whatsoever. And just because you write something in Latin doesn't make it a declarative of substance. Ignoring your inflammatory language, the answer is, essentially, "Yes". All governments, from the earliest city-states of Mesopotamia, up to our modern nations, ultimately derive their jurisdiction through their ability to physically control their territory, using force if necessary. In fact, "That entity which has sole right to legitimate use of force" is a good operating definition of "government" accepted by many people. The issue of "appearing legitimate" that you bring up is secondary to that. How you appear legitimate has changed over time. It once was, "I'm the toughest Bastard in Town", became over time, "I'm Divinely selected to be King!", and is now, in our case at least, "I was elected by a majority of the people!", but those various mechanisms for determining who has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force don't change the fact that they still, ultimately, have that monopoly. But even in our case, remember that the tyranny of the majority still exists. If you engage in activities that a majority of your society deem to be reprehensible, they can (and often will) create laws to compel you to act differently, and use force to apply those laws to you. And you can whine about "despotism" all you like, but that won't change the essential facts of how the world really operates.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

1st February 2011, 05:16 AM	#4855
Grassy Knowlington Muse Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: HAARP Command & Control Posts: 505	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Why would you want comments on a book you can't comment on yourself? Nunc Ille Est Magicus (Thank you Horatius for the link)

1st February 2011, 05:30 AM	#4856
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,060	Quote: If you engage in activities that a majority of your society deem to be reprehensible, they can (and often will) create laws to compel you to act differently, and use force to apply those laws to you. As lordbobhalk wrote (before he fell under the spell of Icke ) "You can do whatever you want to in life, but if other people dont like what you are doing they will stop you." It really is that simple, no amount of human rights, laws,statutes, rules or jurisdiction will have any impact on that at all.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

1st February 2011, 07:08 AM	#4857
gtm Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 598	Originally Posted by jargon buster As lordbobhalk wrote (before he fell under the spell of Icke ) "You can do whatever you want to in life, but if other people dont like what you are doing they will stop you." It really is that simple, no amount of human rights, laws,statutes, rules or jurisdiction will have any impact on that at all. We haven't lost 'Lordbobhaulk' to the evil 'Ickian' empire. I think he's saying (not wanting to speak for the man himself) that we should play the 'ball rather than then man'. If this is indeed his stance I'm inclined to agree. There are skeptics who have remained on the Icke forum for significant periods of time without being banned - Mickelmas, Rumpole, Rumpelstiltskin & Solzhenitsyn spring to mind. you might want to ask yourself why they've survived whereas you & your various 'nome de plume' have been consistently banned?
gtm Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 598	Last edited by gtm; 1st February 2011 at 07:19 AM.

1st February 2011, 07:19 AM	#4858
Jake Dale Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 132	the ball is the man when it's what the man believes. and even if the ball and man are separate, they still don't like someone pointing out their ball doesn't bounce.
Jake Dale Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 132	Last edited by Jake Dale; 1st February 2011 at 07:31 AM.

1st February 2011, 12:25 PM	#4859
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,060	Quote: There are skeptics who have remained on the Icke forum for significant periods of time without being banned - Mickelmas, Rumpole, Rumpelstiltskin & Solzhenitsyn spring to mind. you might want to ask yourself why they've survived whereas you & your various 'nome de plume' have been consistently banned? You are quite right gtm, I have been banned far more times than the other skeptics, maybe it is my approach, but I have varied my approach in the past and been banned anyway. I even posted as a staunch freeman (steven1) and was banned. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135068 Did I do anything wrong in that thread? I seem to get under Menard's skin more than most, probably because of my approach so should I really change it. With regards playing the ball rather than the man, the ball has been dealt with already, its the man that now needs removing because he keeps bringing the same ball back again. I think of him as a cancer thats been reduced with chemo , now its time for surgery to remove it completely.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

1st February 2011, 01:17 PM	#4860
LightinDarkness Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 2,554	Originally Posted by gtm We haven't lost 'Lordbobhaulk' to the evil 'Ickian' empire. I think he's saying (not wanting to speak for the man himself) that we should play the 'ball rather than then man'. If this is indeed his stance I'm inclined to agree. There are skeptics who have remained on the Icke forum for significant periods of time without being banned - Mickelmas, Rumpole, Rumpelstiltskin & Solzhenitsyn spring to mind. you might want to ask yourself why they've survived whereas you & your various 'nome de plume' have been consistently banned? To be fair, that's because the people you named have not really angered the inmates in the asylum by demonstrating to them on a daily basis why they are wrong. JB is banned because he does so - the people you mention certain provide rational skepticism but they are rather restrained. JB hasn't done anything to break any of the rules of the forum from what I've seen, he just provides a bit to much truth for the Robert Menard who has a bit of a personal crusade against him and him alone. JB's posting style has been so marvelously obvious in terms of highlighting why FOTL fails that they simply can't take it. Thats all there is to it.

1st February 2011, 01:25 PM	#4861
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 831	You were banned from Icke's weren't you LiD? Your posts were always courteous and never broke any forum rules did they? Or did I miss some?

1st February 2011, 01:58 PM	#4862
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,060	jake dale who posted as thomas j did more in his short time on Ickes to destroy Menard as anyone. he did not break any forum rules at all, not one. The mods at Ickes could see Menard unraveling in front of their eyes so put a stop to it. thats another reason why I go back, its the corruption on the site.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

1st February 2011, 03:19 PM	#4863
LightinDarkness Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 2,554	Originally Posted by Stacey Grove You were banned from Icke's weren't you LiD? Your posts were always courteous and never broke any forum rules did they? Or did I miss some? Yeah, I got banned because I gave them my Political Science 101 example of why "I don't consent" fails in reality: fire protection. I made a long post highlighting how, in FOTL utopia where people could decline to pay for fire protection by not paying taxes and that ACTUALLY MEANT we wouldn't put out their house fires that in a urban setting it would lead to the entire neighborhood on fire (since fire spreads when not put out). It demonstrated that FOTL utopia cannot exist because decisions to "decline consent" are not in vacuum. If I remember correctly they got hysterical rather quick on that one and I was banned in short order after I demonstrated the same thing AGAIN with the "community fishing pool" (tragedy of the commons example). All it takes is freshmen college level concepts to debunk FOTL, and they don't like it when you do...if you easily dismiss one of their core concepts with something that they can't refute Rob and girlgye go crying to the moderators until your banned.

2nd February 2011, 12:29 AM	#4864
Vladd Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 138	Originally Posted by LightinDarkness All it takes is freshmen college level concepts to debunk FOTL, and they don't like it when you do...if you easily dismiss one of their core concepts with something that they can't refute Rob and girlgye go crying to the moderators until your banned. The problem is you are working under the false assumption that the FOTL forum exists as a place for free debate and discussion about the ideas of FOTL and their validity when acted on in a real life situation, when in fact the whole reason for the forums existence is to entice the gullible into the world of FOTL, to advertise the wares of RM and to boost the egos of the senior members some of who have suffered for their beliefs and now feel the need to tell the world of their 'successes'. So by pointing out in simple terms how their beliefs are false you are breaking the unwritten rule of the forum, the truth is out there and out there it will stay there is no place for it in the FOTL forum.
Vladd Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 138

2nd February 2011, 12:54 AM	#4865
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 831	Originally Posted by LightinDarkness Yeah, I got banned because I gave them my Political Science 101 example of why "I don't consent" fails in reality: fire protection. Yes, I remember that. But I saw no contravention of forum rules in your posts. Quote: I was banned in short order after I demonstrated the same thing AGAIN with the "community fishing pool" (tragedy of the commons example). Again, there were no contraventions. Did you receive continual warnings previously, or was it similar to my own situation? When I was banned (the same night as you and others) I had no points but they just said that I was banned for "no reason given". I assume it was because I disagreed with them too, and they don't like that. Quote: if you easily dismiss one of their core concepts with something that they can't refute Rob and girlgye go crying to the moderators until your banned. Yeah, Menard has the mods under his control. I did find that when Menard was logged on and I clicked on his profile to see his "current activity" it said with an alarming frequency: "reporting a post".

2nd February 2011, 02:38 AM	#4866
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 444	Originally Posted by Stacey Grove Yes, I remember that. But I saw no contravention of forum rules in your posts. Again, there were no contraventions. Did you receive continual warnings previously, or was it similar to my own situation? When I was banned (the same night as you and others) I had no points but they just said that I was banned for "no reason given". I assume it was because I disagreed with them too, and they don't like that. Yeah, Menard has the mods under his control. I did find that when Menard was logged on and I clicked on his profile to see his "current activity" it said with an alarming frequency: "reporting a post". I never saw any contraventions either, but there is a definite correlation between warnings/bannings and those who don't toe the party line. I bear direct witness to it as well. Makes even more of a mockery of it. If their response to robust points of argument is to get people banned rather than address the issues, it shows how weak their position is to start with

2nd February 2011, 02:57 AM	#4867
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 444	Originally Posted by jargon buster You are quite right gtm, I have been banned far more times than the other skeptics, maybe it is my approach, but I have varied my approach in the past and been banned anyway. I even posted as a staunch freeman (steven1) and was banned. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135068 Did I do anything wrong in that thread? I seem to get under Menard's skin more than most, probably because of my approach so should I really change it. With regards playing the ball rather than the man, the ball has been dealt with already, its the man that now needs removing because he keeps bringing the same ball back again. I think of him as a cancer thats been reduced with chemo , now its time for surgery to remove it completely. I've just been reading that thread again. Absolute classic! The freeman dribblers are sullen as well as stupid. You need to make a return....

3rd February 2011, 09:04 AM	#4868
gtm Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 598	Originally Posted by Stacey Grove Another hapless fotl has performed his woo in court. Only it didn't go down quite how the experts on the internet say it will: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=147145 To maintain his dignity he is now promising to make the mag a "film star" on youtube. This can only go one way...... Remember this wally? The chickens have come home to roost. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...post1059653362 He'll be LOL'ing his way for prolonged visit to one of HM's Prisons before long.
gtm Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 598

3rd February 2011, 09:24 AM	#4869
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 831	Originally Posted by gtm Remember this wally? The chickens have come home to roost. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...post1059653362 He'll be LOL'ing his way for prolonged visit to one of HM's Prisons before long. I assume by his response to rumpole's advice when he says: Quote: well all i see there is the word Act so we will have to watch this space he's probably decided he's going to tell the court he does not consent to Acts, perform the magic woo with oodles and oodles of oofle dust and watch the judge run terrified from the court crying "Abandon ship!"
	Last edited by Stacey Grove; 3rd February 2011 at 09:25 AM.

3rd February 2011, 09:40 AM	#4870
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 444	Originally Posted by Stacey Grove I assume by his response to rumpole's advice when he says: he's probably decided he's going to tell the court he does not consent to Acts, perform the magic woo with oodles and oodles of oofle dust and watch the judge run terrified from the court crying "Abandon ship!" Oh PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let that happen! And please also could his mate video that one too so we can watch it AND wait for another round of contempt proceedings.

3rd February 2011, 11:24 AM	#4871
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,060	set up a new log on 15 minutes ago on Ickes and then this happened Quote: You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified. Date the ban will be lifted: Never It would appear they are banning all new people signing up with a proxy good luck with the site guys.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

3rd February 2011, 12:17 PM	#4872
gtm Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 598	Originally Posted by cocana Oh PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let that happen! And please also could his mate video that one too so we can watch it AND wait for another round of contempt proceedings. Menard has loaded & cocked the gun, handed it to Mr Bonds & invited him to blow his brains out. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...84&postcount=9 Needless to say there are no common law defences available for Mr Bonds and certainly not the one of 'show me the party or contract is still applicable' (whatever that is). His best chance is a grovelling apology. Menard of course is sitting pretty 3,000 + miles away while this chump is looking at prison time. His imput is grossly irresponsible. As far as I'm aware he know nothing of Criminal Law in England & Wales & has no place giving advice to a foolish young man who has got himself in serious trouble.
gtm Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 598

3rd February 2011, 12:44 PM	#4873
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,060	and you wonder why I go for the man rather than the ball
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

3rd February 2011, 12:56 PM	#4874
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 831	Originally Posted by gtm Menard has loaded & cocked the gun, handed it to Mr Bonds & invited him to blow his brains out. And if gynet does end up in prison it will reinforce his belief that the courts are corrupt and that FOTL theory is correct. There is no way to help these people. For some unknown reason they read a few suspect websites on t'internet and fall for it hook line and sinker without any evidence whatsoever and refuse to see reality. There's some strange people about....

3rd February 2011, 02:24 PM	#4875
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 444	Originally Posted by Stacey Grove And if gynet does end up in prison it will reinforce his belief that the courts are corrupt and that FOTL theory is correct. There is no way to help these people. For some unknown reason they read a few suspect websites on t'internet and fall for it hook line and sinker without any evidence whatsoever and refuse to see reality. There's some strange people about.... There certainly are. This forum doesn't allow swearing, but I'd call call them ****wits.