The Freeman Movement and England - Page 128

Mojo · 15th February 2011, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by jeffwode

I only came across UK column while reading about FOTL. They're running a story ('The cat's out of the bag') at the moment which is being touted as another mighty success for the freeloaders.

...snip...

Leaving aside the fact that this is one man's recollection of events, I cannot see how even FTOLs can view this is a triumph. Judge opens case. FTOL spouts rubbish. Judge ignores him. The end. Except it's not the end because, as usual, we don't get to hear what happened next - most likely: FTOL grips the oak. Judge throws book at FTOL.

Wasn't this in a County Court? If so, not usable as a precedent.

And remember that nobody speaks in BLOCK CAPS.

gtm · 15th February 2011, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Wasn't this in a County Court? If so, not usable as a precedent.

And remember that nobody speaks in BLOCK CAPS.

Magistrates Court & there'll be no binding precedent.

jeffwode · 15th February 2011, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Wasn't this in a County Court? If so, not usable as a precedent.

And remember that nobody speaks in BLOCK CAPS.

Roger the tax-dodger was back in court this morning, according to Icke's forum.

Roger Hayes is in court this morning (15/02/2011)for a continuation of the non-payment of council tax saga... now in its 3rd year. Good luck mate!

No word yet on whether his heroic stand has brought down the New World Order.

tsig · 15th February 2011, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

Have you actually viewed the video you posted?
Is that what you saw, the man being set free because he refused to give his name?
Are you sure about that?
I'll tell you what I saw.
Two officers had the man on the ground. The gentleman in question was told he was under arrest and he then started spouting some gibberish which the policemen ignored. As they brought him to his feet he managed to wrestle himself free and promptly ran away as fast as he could.
Is that video (in your opinion) an example of a success? Physically escaping from the police and running like ****?

Running from the law to be hunted down like a dog, that's the freeman way.

Freeman theme song.

(A') Breakin' rocks in the ... hot sun
I Fought the Law and the ... law won
I Fought the Law and the ... law won
I needed money, 'cause I ... had none
I Fought the Law and the ... law won
I Fought the Law and the ... law won

Bobby Fuller Four

Or for this occasion:

My little runaway, run-run-run-run-runaway
A-run-run-run-run-runaway.-

http://www.justsomelyrics.com/869583...Runaway-Lyrics

tsig · 15th February 2011, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by jeffwode

Roger the tax-dodger was back in court this morning, according to Icke's forum.

Roger Hayes is in court this morning (15/02/2011)for a continuation of the non-payment of council tax saga... now in its 3rd year. Good luck mate!

No word yet on whether his heroic stand has brought down the New World Order.

I felt a distourbence in the Farce!

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Nonsense. Californians voted for it on a ballot proposition.

Why the presumption that I'm from California?? I don't understand.

Originally Posted by D'rok

Looks like it is only sort of decriminalized.

norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4546

And the change, such as it is, was enacted by your state legislature. You know, those folks you vote to represent you. In other words, you are governed by consent.

Why the presumption that I vote?

Originally Posted by D'rok

If you are above the law, then there is no rule of law. It's quite simple to understand really. Fortunately, you are not above the law.

The Law states.. I have the freedom of religion. Does it not?? If I'm following God's Law, then what makes you think I'm above it??

Originally Posted by D'rok

Indeed. Education is invaluable. You should try it.

You should try teaching.

Originally Posted by D'rok

If you remove your consent to the laws of your society, that action will have no force or effect. Shucks. If everyone does, that's another story. See Egypt.

Of course it will have an effect. Only a fool would think otherwise. It may not be the "perfect" effect, but perfect is the enemy of the good.

Originally Posted by D'rok

I'm not a lawyer. But even if I didn't have training in law, I would still know utter ******** when I see it.

Take it from the top again and teach us about the Law.

Are Rastafarians allowed to smoke herb??
Are Christian Scientists allowed to let their children die, because they don't believe in "conventional" health remedies??
Are Amish required to get licenses to "drive" their horse and buggies??

Why is it that they get to escape statutory legislation, but you don't??

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by cocana

This has already got rather circular. People don't need "freeman" status (which is totally meaningless in reality anyway) to start saying, "WE AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT!", "WE DON'T ACCEPT YOUR DECISION; THE MAN IS OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT!" etc. They can say what they like now. As to what's legally effective, that's another matter.

They can, but they don't... because they're stupid sheeple!

Originally Posted by cocana

If "freeman" status actually meant something, you'd be able to cite examples of its success in court, as LID has invited. You can't do that and you never will for the simple reasons that it isn't recognised in law and it never will be.

There are a dozen forums for freemen, most all with sub-forums titled "Success Stories".

Originally Posted by cocana

And your point is...?

Well, we were conversing. And that was a response to this....

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

How fortunate we all are, then, that the FOTL understanding of what "corporate" means has no relationship to reality and governments are, in fact, not corporations.

......

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

What about those that cover consumption taxes?
How do you avoid paying taxes on your spending?
Or do you (conveniently) consent to those laws?

You are talking about the Law of the Sea, not the Law of the Land.

In that case, you must do as the captain says or jump overboard.

Originally Posted by brodski

That doesn’t mean that FMOTL know what they are talking about when they talk about “corporate government”, to (many of?) them corporate is just a scary word.

*(some explicitly are corporations, for instance the Corporation of the City of London)

It's not "the Corporation of the City of London".

The corporation's, person's name is, exactly, THE CITY OF LONDON.

Originally Posted by D'rok

All to no effect, naturally. If evidence and reality swayed you, you wouldn't be promoting FOTL garbage in the first place.

Your right to own a gun is constitutional. So are certain laws restricting the use of that gun. Other laws restricting the use of that gun are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm...ns_Act_of_1975

Indeed I do. Unfortunately, FOTLers with overblown senses of personal entitlement do not.

What good do those words do me??

I promise you... if you ring up ANY police officer, deputy, or whatever in MISSISSIPPI... and ask them if they can carry a gun without a permit, they will say no.

If you read them the Mississippi Bill of Rights, even... which states...

Quote:

Article 3, Section 12... Right to Bear Arms

The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

They will not be able to provide you with one single possibility of carrying an "unconcealed weapon". You say, isn't a holster unconcealed? Nope. You say, what about a CLEAR holster... isn't that unconcealed? Nope. You could have your back toward them.

Even with these words, that they SWEAR to protect and defend... they still follow orders from their "higher ups", which ain't "the People".

PLEASE... Find me ONE Mississippi government agent that says I have the right to carry an unconcealed gun without a permit. WRITE HIS CONTACT INFO DOWN and then share.

Seriously, I triple dawg dare ya!

D'rok · 15th February 2011, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

What good do those words do me??

I promise you... if you ring up ANY police officer, deputy, or whatever in MISSISSIPPI... and ask them if they can carry a gun without a permit, they will say no.

If you read them the Mississippi Bill of Rights, even... which states...

They will not be able to provide you with one single possibility of carrying an "unconcealed weapon". You say, isn't a holster unconcealed? Nope. You say, what about a CLEAR holster... isn't that unconcealed? Nope. You could have your back toward them.

Even with these words, that they SWEAR to protect and defend... they still follow orders from their "higher ups", which ain't "the People".

PLEASE... Find me ONE Mississippi government agent that says I have the right to carry an unconcealed gun without a permit. WRITE HIS CONTACT INFO DOWN and then share.

Seriously, I triple dawg dare ya!

Sorry dude. The US Bill of Rights is supreme over the Mississippi Bill of Rights. And the US Supreme Court's decisions are binding over however your local lawmakers interpret the Bill of Rights, and certainly over your personal interpretation of what the law should be.

And, of course, I note that you conveniently ignore the fact that in the case I cited, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a gun control law.

How's the weather in fantasy land?

jargon buster · 15th February 2011, 06:28 AM

grndslm wrote

Quote:

There are a dozen forums for freemen, most all with sub-forums titled "Success Stories".

And everyone totally devoid of any success.
I would love you to show us one, just one story that holds up to scrutiny.

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Sorry dude. The US Bill or Rights is supreme over the Mississippi Bill of Rights. And the US Supreme Court's decisions are binding over however your local lawmakers interpret the Bill of Rights, and certainly over your personal interpretation of what the law should be.

And, of course, I note that you conveniently ignore the fact that in the case I cited, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a gun control law.

How's the weather in fantasy land?

It is not Supreme until you're dealing with Federal Courts.

In State courts, you bring up State Law.

When dealing with State police, you bring up State Law.

WHY NOT just take the CHALLENGE?? Are you afraid to realize the Truth?

Ask them about both the U.S. _and_ MISSISSIPPI Constitutions. Ask them if you can carry a gun without a permit.

They will say no, you cannot. You say... "But the Miss. Constitution states my right shall not be called into question, and the legislature may only regulate concealed carry... what if it's not concealed??"

They will say, if you're turned away from me, it's concealed.

Just try it!!

It's 8:37 AM here. ANY Mississippi government agent, k?? You've got all day.

D'rok · 15th February 2011, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

Why the presumption that I'm from California?? I don't understand.

You responded to a point I made about California's pot laws. There could not be clearer evidence of governance by consent than Proposition 19. The Governator signed it into law over his own personal objections because it was the will of the people.

Oh, but wait. I forgot. We're all slaves. So that obviously couldn't have happened, right?

Quote:

Why the presumption that I vote?

I try to assume the best about people. I guess I was wrong in your case.

Quote:

The Law states.. I have the freedom of religion. Does it not?? If I'm following God's Law, then what makes you think I'm above it??

You don't live in a theocracy. The Constitution is the supreme law, not scripture.

Quote:

You should try teaching.

Doing my best. You should try learning.

Quote:

Of course it will have an effect. Only a fool would think otherwise. It may not be the "perfect" effect, but perfect is the enemy of the good.

You're right. It will have an effect. You will face punishment for disobeying the law. Is that the effect you were hoping for?

Quote:

Take it from the top again and teach us about the Law.

Are Rastafarians allowed to smoke herb??

No. It is illegal, even if only a misdemeanor where you live. The only exceptions I am aware of anywhere are medical exceptions. Can you show me others?

Quote:

Are Christian Scientists allowed to let their children die, because they don't believe in "conventional" health remedies??

No. The state will likely become involved.

Quote:

Are Amish required to get licenses to "drive" their horse and buggies??

I doubt it. But I'm quite sure that act is regulated in some manner in every jurisdiction. You aren't comparing Amish buggies to driving a car, are you?

Quote:

Why is it that they get to escape statutory legislation, but you don't??

They don't. Firstly, in the US, you have the unfortunate complication of 50 different criminal law jurisdictions, so laws regarding the same offence may be different from state to state. Secondly, exceptions provided for by statute (like medical marijuana) are not examples of escaping statutory legislation. They are examples of statutory legislation and the rule of law.

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

grndslm wrote

And everyone totally devoid of any success.
I would love you to show us one, just one story that holds up to scrutiny.

Link me to a forum that you're referring to...

Or are you talking out your boothole again?

D'rok · 15th February 2011, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

It is not Supreme until you're dealing with Federal Courts.

In State courts, you bring up State Law.

When dealing with State police, you bring up State Law.

WHY NOT just take the CHALLENGE?? Are you afraid to realize the Truth?

Ask them about both the U.S. _and_ MISSISSIPPI Constitutions. Ask them if you can carry a gun without a permit.

They will say no, you cannot. You say... "But the Miss. Constitution states my right shall not be called into question, and the legislature may only regulate concealed carry... what if it's not concealed??"

They will say, if you're turned away from me, it's concealed.

Just try it!!

It's 8:37 AM here. ANY Mississippi government agent, k?? You've got all day.

If you think your police or government are applying the law unconstitutionally, take them to court. It worked in DC, as the case I cited showed.

Or, you could flail about helplessly on Internet forums. I'm sure that will continue to be super effective. (Note: when I say super effective, I mean not effective in the slightest).

brodski · 15th February 2011, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

It's not "the Corporation of the City of London".

The corporation's, person's name is, exactly, THE CITY OF LONDON.

You are quite, quite wrong.
The City of London (however capitalised) refers to a geographical boundary. The Corporation of (the City of) London (both names are used) refers to the body corporate responsible for the local governance of the area within that boundary.

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

You responded to a point I made about California's pot laws. There could not be clearer evidence of governance by consent than Proposition 19. The Governator signed it into law over his own personal objections because it was the will of the people.

I dunno... I'd say Mississippi's Bill of Rights makes it fairly clear that the government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed, but like the rest of our rights, they are IGNORED...

Originally Posted by Miss. Article 3

Section 5
Government Originating in the People

All political power is vested in, and derived from, the people; all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Section 6
Regulation of Government; Right to Alter

The people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary to their safety and happiness; provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

As to the Cannabis dealy, it's still ILLLEGAL except for medicinal use. Cannabis has been used as medicine for THOUSANDS of years, yet just recently can Americans use it for those time-tested, medicinal reasons. There is not ONE nation in the world where Cannabis is flat-out legal. Not one. Mexico tried and then THE U.S. made them flip the script, because we can't let people run their own countries and all. World Police and ****...

Originally Posted by D'rok

Oh, but wait. I forgot. We're all slaves. So that obviously couldn't have happened, right?

Yes.. Mexico had to submit to the wishes of a few rich men. Yes they did.

Originally Posted by D'rok

I try to assume the best about people. I guess I was wrong in your case.

I'll vote as soon as there's another option besides the GOLD Party.

Originally Posted by D'rok

You don't live in a theocracy. The Constitution is the supreme law, not scripture.

How does the First Amendment contradict God's Law, or vice-versa??

Originally Posted by D'rok

You're right. It will have an effect. You will face punishment for disobeying the law. Is that the effect you were hoping for?

Lawful Rebellion is no joke.

Originally Posted by D'rok

No. It is illegal, even if only a misdemeanor where you live. The only exceptions I am aware of anywhere are medical exceptions. Can you show me others?

Thanks for proving my point. Decriminalized = Illegal without Jailtime. Learn something knew everyday, don't ya? So they can write me a ticket, but how?? Why would I give them my name??

Originally Posted by D'rok

No. The state will likely become involved.
I doubt it. But I'm quite sure that act is regulated in some manner in every jurisdiction. You aren't comparing Amish buggies to driving a car, are you?

You should try learning. The state cannot interfere with your freedom of religion. There's case law, but you already knew that didn't you??

And, yes I'm comparing Amish buggies to traveling in a car. The latter is FAR SAFER, so why would we need licenses and not the Amish??

Well.. the Amish aren't really apart of American society. They might live here, but they don't submit to statutory law. They submit to God's Law and Common Law.

Originally Posted by D'rok

They don't. Firstly, in the US, you have the unfortunate complication of 50 different criminal law jurisdictions, so laws regarding the same offence may be different from state to state. Secondly, exceptions provided for by statute (like medical marijuana) are not examples of escaping statutory legislation. They are examples of statutory legislation and the rule of law.

That's why Lawful Rebellion is no joke. We can appeal until we're blue in the face. At some point, somebody's going to realize that they swore an oath to protect the RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS to choose their own religion, to protect themselves, to possess property, etc. They will.

How far you're willing to go is only up to you. The lot of you seem to like bending over and taking it, tho.

D'rok · 15th February 2011, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

I dunno... I'd say Mississippi's Bill of Rights makes it fairly clear that the government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed, but like the rest of our rights, they are IGNORED...

As to the Cannabis dealy, it's still ILLLEGAL except for medicinal use. Cannabis has been used as medicine for THOUSANDS of years, yet just recently can Americans use it for those time-tested, medicinal reasons. There is not ONE nation in the world where Cannabis is flat-out legal. Not one. Mexico tried and then THE U.S. made them flip the script, because we can't let people run their own countries and all. World Police and ****...

Yes.. Mexico had to submit to the wishes of a few rich men. Yes they did.

I'll vote as soon as there's another option besides the GOLD Party.

How does the First Amendment contradict God's Law, or vice-versa??

Lawful Rebellion is no joke.

Thanks for proving my point. Decriminalized = Illegal without Jailtime. Learn something knew everyday, don't ya? So they can write me a ticket, but how?? Why would I give them my name??

You should try learning. The state cannot interfere with your freedom of religion. There's case law, but you already knew that didn't you??

And, yes I'm comparing Amish buggies to traveling in a car. The latter is FAR SAFER, so why would we need licenses and not the Amish??

Well.. the Amish aren't really apart of American society. They might live here, but they don't submit to statutory law. They submit to God's Law and Common Law.

That's why Lawful Rebellion is no joke. We can appeal until we're blue in the face. At some point, somebody's going to realize that they swore an oath to protect the RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS to choose their own religion, to protect themselves, to possess property, etc. They will.

How far you're willing to go is only up to you. The lot of you seem to like bending over and taking it, tho.

Here's my advice:

1. Go ahead and try your foolproof "I'm not telling you my name" defence when a police officer tries to give you a ticket for something. Film it. Put it on youtube. Laughing at idiots is what the internet is for.

2. Emigrate to a country where individual rights are NOT protected by the rule of law and see how you get on. Go ahead. I'll wait.

cocana · 15th February 2011, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

They can, but they don't... because they're stupid sheeple!

So, if you accept that you don't need to be a freeman to change the system, it makes the whole thing rather daft doesn't it, even if we assume that there is something in it? It has no practical benefit except to make fools look clever to the totally mentally vacant on the internet.

Also you might want to think about your attitude to others, it says rather a lot about you and not in a good way. It probably also explains why you rally against your peers in society.

Originally Posted by grndslm

There are a dozen forums for freemen, most all with sub-forums titled "Success Stories".

As per JB's post, there is not one verifiable case of a link between "freeman" status and success in court. Show me one, just one. While you're at it, show LID just one such case as well and you may even be in line for some money.

Originally Posted by grndslm

The corporation's, person's name is, exactly, THE CITY OF LONDON.

Before we head down a blind alley (as I can certainly think of three ways that this one could go) what is the basis for this view of yours?

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

If you think your police or government are applying the law unconstitutionally, take them to court. It worked in DC, as the case I cited showed.

Thank you for proving that Lawful Rebellion most definitely has its place.

And I don't think it. I know it.

Why don't you call and just figure it out yourself...

This isn't about me. This is about YOU, claiming that pieces of paper are going to protect anyone. That people OBVIOUSLY have the "Right" to do something, just because it's written down. YOU made that claim and stated that I was full of it and then listed some Supreme Court cases, did you not??

So why don't you call ANY Miss. Gov't Agency and tell me the name of one person who says I have the right to carry an unconcealed weapon without a permit??

I don't understand why you just don't settle it instead of talking about things you're unaware of...

It's blatantly obvious that virtually everything our government does is unconstitutional. And your idea is, to sit back and take it?? .. or to lawfully rebel? Which one?

Originally Posted by D'rok

Or, you could flail about helplessly on Internet forums. I'm sure that will continue to be super effective. (Note: when I say super effective, I mean not effective in the slightest).

The only person flailing is yourself and j-busted.

Call THE MAN and ask him if Mississippians can carry an UNCONCEALED GUN without a permit.

Originally Posted by brodski

You are quite, quite wrong.
The City of London (however capitalised) refers to a geographical boundary. The Corporation of (the City of) London (both names are used) refers to the body corporate responsible for the local governance of the area within that boundary.

Look up the definitions of a "state" in a law dictionary.

Look to this thread, where Buster was officially busted for the FIRST time...
http://freemen.freeforums.org/statute-t50.html

What was I wrong about, again???

THE CITY OF LONDON is a corporation. That's the person's name.
It *is* a corporation.

A body politic, a state, a corporation... all refer to the same thing -- a collective group of people. It has NOTHING to do with fictitious walls. Or you're at least not speaking in legalese anymore, and you're speaking modern English. We're gonna have to use a law dictionary here, however, since that's what we're talking about, right??

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Here's my advice:

1. Go ahead and try your foolproof "I'm not telling you my name" defence when a police officer tries to give you a ticket for something. Film it. Put it on youtube. Laughing at idiots is what the internet is for.

2. Emigrate to a country where individual rights are NOT protected by the rule of law and see how you get on. Go ahead. I'll wait.

1. You think he'll throw me on the ground and kick my teeth in?? You think he'll throw me in jail for 3 days under the name John Doe?? For smoking an herb, while not harming anybody or damaging anybody's property??

2. Why should I? Why don't you just worry about yourself? You don't know me.

You don't even know what a state, body politic, society are... so why would you immediately jump to GTFO??

Originally Posted by cocana

So, if you accept that you don't need to be a freeman to change the system, it makes the whole thing rather daft doesn't it, even if we assume that there is something in it? It has no practical benefit except to make fools look clever to the totally mentally vacant on the internet.

You people have some amazingly daft jumps to conclusions...

I don't need to be a freeman to change the system, so it makes being a freeman pointless??
Well... it's NOT pointless.. because I cannot change the system by myself, and especially as long as the GOLD Party rules.
I have no interest in remaining in a society that does not benefit me in any way.

It is pointless for me to REMAIN in the system without seeing any benefit, don't you think?? Especially a system where obvious fraud is perpetuated... such as the right to carry an unconcealed weapon.

Originally Posted by cocana

Also you might want to think about your attitude to others, it says rather a lot about you and not in a good way. It probably also explains why you rally against your peers in society.

When have I rallied against my peers?? Just one example, please.

Why do you people just make this junk up in your heads??

THE MAN is not a peer of mine, he is a legal fiction that is using fraud to deceive my peers. Do you UNDERSTAND?

Originally Posted by cocana

As per JB's post, there is not one verifiable case of a link between "freeman" status and success in court. Show me one, just one. While you're at it, show LID just one such case as well and you may even be in line for some money.

Any success that Freemen, Nationals, State citizens, Sovereigns, Constitutional citizens, might see... will likely be dismissed and no court record. Take this one for example... http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm

There are many paths to freedom. You've just gotta open your eyes to see them.

http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

Originally Posted by cocana

Before we head down a blind alley (as I can certainly think of three ways that this one could go) what is the basis for this view of yours?

The basis is that it's all TRUE.

I have the same rights as someone in China and everyone else in the world for that matter. Our rights do NOT come from pieces of paper.

The basis is in law dictionaries, it's in history, it's in supreme court cases, but most importantly... it's in our Spirit.

cocana · 15th February 2011, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

I don't need to be a freeman to change the system, so it makes being a freeman pointless??
Well... it's NOT pointless.. because I cannot change the system by myself, and especially as long as the GOLD Party rules.
I have no interest in remaining in a society that does not benefit me in any way.

So we come back to the core "freeman" principles in that case don't we? Prove that being a "freeman" actually works and extracts you from the society that you so despise. Come on.

Originally Posted by grndslm

When have I rallied against my peers?? Just one example, please.

I commented on your attitude towards your peers -

Quote:

... because they're stupid sheeple!

Your attitude speaks volumes.

On 'successes' you state -

Quote:

Any success that Freemen, Nationals, State citizens, Sovereigns, Constitutional citizens, might see... will likely be dismissed and no court record. Take this one for example... http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm

There are many paths to freedom. You've just gotta open your eyes to see them.

http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm

That classic CT chestnut once again of no evidence = evidence. And you wonder why people like us laugh at this stuff!!

I then asked you about your grounds for your conclusions about the City of London Corporation. You said-

Quote:

The basis is that it's all TRUE.

I have the same rights as someone in China and everyone else in the world for that matter. Our rights do NOT come from pieces of paper.

The basis is in law dictionaries, it's in history, it's in supreme court cases, but most importantly... it's in our Spirit.

Come on, that doesn't even begin to give me a straight answer does it?

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 07:32 AM

The Spirit can be partially revealed @ Freemen.Freeforums.org

If you want to uncover the "Systems" of Law & Money... that's the place to go.

Only you can uncover the FULL "Revelation" by doing your own research.

It's obvious that you people don't have a Law Dictionary, so you might want to get a few of those for starters.

You also might want to start fixing that disconnect in your logic skills.

Repeatedly, you people have fabricated some steps to reach insane conclusions. WHY??

You're not trying to hide anything, are you??

Jake Dale · 15th February 2011, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

Well... it's NOT pointless.. because I cannot change the system by myself, and especially as long as the GOLD Party rules.

see the identical attitude?

Quote:

I have no interest in remaining in a society that does not benefit me in any way.

cocana · 15th February 2011, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

The Spirit can be partially revealed @ Freemen.Freeforums.org

If you want to uncover the "Systems" of Law & Money... that's the place to go.

Only you can uncover the FULL "Revelation" by doing your own research.

It's obvious that you people don't have a Law Dictionary, so you might want to get a few of those for starters.

You also might want to start fixing that disconnect in your logic skills.

Repeatedly, you people have fabricated some steps to reach insane conclusions. WHY??

You're not trying to hide anything, are you??

You're very funny. You've clearly been to the Menard school of posting....

As regards Law Dictionaries, let's just say I've seen a few in my time. And very many court cases, more than you could conceive of. I think my understanding of the law is just fine thank you.

If you can explain how I've reached "insane" conclusions on your posts, I'll revisit what I've said. I'll look forward to that.

I'll also look forward to getting that missing explanation about the City of London Corporation.

D'rok · 15th February 2011, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

The Spirit can be partially revealed @ Freemen.Freeforums.org

If you want to uncover the "Systems" of Law & Money... that's the place to go.

Only you can uncover the FULL "Revelation" by doing your own research.

It's obvious that you people don't have a Law Dictionary, so you might want to get a few of those for starters.

You also might want to start fixing that disconnect in your logic skills.

Repeatedly, you people have fabricated some steps to reach insane conclusions. WHY??

You're not trying to hide anything, are you??

You caught me. I'm actually a shape-shifting lizard. Curse you, David Icke! Now I must leave and try to cull the sheeple herd in another part of the galaxy.

Or maybe an early edition law dictionary interpreted by ignorant trolls will sort me right out.

jargon buster · 15th February 2011, 07:44 AM

Quote:

The Spirit can be partially revealed @ Freemen.Freeforums.org

If you want to uncover the "Systems" of Law & Money... that's the place to go.

You cant get past the first hurdle (having your withdrawal of consent theory accepted as lawful excuse)
http://freemen.freeforums.org/withdr...nked-t127.html

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by cocana

So we come back to the core "freeman" principles in that case don't we? Prove that being a "freeman" actually works and extracts you from the society that you so despise. Come on.

Prove that Missisippians have the right to carry an unconcealed gun without a permit, even tho it's written down in two different Constitutions... and then you will have your answer.

Originally Posted by cocana

I commented on your attitude towards your peers -

That's "rallying against my peers"??

Do you people really speak English, or what?

Originally Posted by cocana

Your attitude speaks volumes.

My attitude, eh??

So that means you side with j-buster on which of his posts?? ... in regards to his attitude over mine?? Point them out for us.

You only side with him to prove my point, that MOST of you are sheeple, just like Americans. In fact, I'd say this group is far more sheepish than any Mississippians I've ever met.

Originally Posted by cocana

On 'successes' you state -

That classic CT chestnut once again of no evidence = evidence. And you wonder why people like us laugh at this stuff!!

You're NOT going to find an answer in a TITLE, like "Freeman". OK? I have previously said this, and I will say it repeatedly until you stop asking it.

You have to assert your reality in order to "become free".

If your reality is that you are invincible because you have a title, then I'm sorry I've been wasting my time here. You're not grasping the concept that you're not FREE because you're a FREEMAN.

You're FREE because you ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS!!

Originally Posted by cocana

I then asked you about your grounds for your concludions about the City of London Corporation. You said-

Come on, that doesn't even begin to give me a straight answer does it?

Are you braindead, or what??? Nobody ever taught you how to research? It took me less than 3 seconds to find this link...

the city of london is a corporation

The answer is right under your noses.

Do you know what a municipality is??

jargon buster · 15th February 2011, 07:50 AM

I

Quote:

'd say this group is far more sheepish than any Mississippians I've ever met.

I would wager you have never met any Mississippians

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Jake Dale

see the identical attitude?

Were you trying to make a point?

What was it??

Originally Posted by cocana

You're very funny. You've clearly been to the Menard school of posting....

Whatever the frick that means...

Originally Posted by cocana

As regards Law Dictionaries, let's just say I've seen a few in my time. And very many court cases, more than you could conceive of. I think my understanding of the law is just fine thank you.

Your understanding is a big FAIL.

Originally Posted by cocana

If you can explain how I've reached "insane" conclusions on your posts, I'll revisit what I've said. I'll look forward to that.

Well.. you see... I quote you all whenever you make an insane jump to conclusion. Pull that quote back into the present, and I will point it out step by step.

Originally Posted by cocana

I'll also look forward to getting that missing explanation about the City of London Corporation.

You missed it, alright.

Originally Posted by jargon buster

You cant get past the first hurdle (having your withdrawal of consent theory accepted as lawful excuse)
http://freemen.freeforums.org/withdr...nked-t127.html

I don't think you've been there recently. You should watch PHOSPHENE's video and you'll get an idea of what your argument is.

jargon buster · 15th February 2011, 07:53 AM

Quote:

You should watch PHOSPHENE's video and you'll get an idea of what your argument is.

he actually validates my point, but I will get to that later.

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

I

I would wager you have never met any Mississippians

How much??

The admin can likely tell you where I'm posting from. (No city, tho, please

I'm not ready to die just yet.)

You can also see that I post the link to Freemen.Freeforums.org at all the forums I frequent.

Here's a guide I wrote about motorized bicycles, to empower people...
http://www.motoredbikes.com/showthread.php?t=10392

(sig is disabled for that initial post, but the rest have the link)

EDIT: Oh, and in case you think sparky @ motoredbikes.com isn't me... http://www.motoredbikes.com/showthread.php?t=9225

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

he actually validates my point, but I will get to that later.

Think as long and as hard as you need to, j-busted.

I honestly don't believe you understand what your point is.

I believe you are a troll, and that's a shame that people would listen to anything you have to say.

Jake Dale · 15th February 2011, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

Were you trying to make a point?

What was it??

it's right in front of your eyes. read post 5102 again

jargon buster · 15th February 2011, 07:58 AM

Remember this?

Quote:

My first major thread here. Greetings from London, England !

That was you as well, so if you are in the states then was that a lie?

jargon buster · 15th February 2011, 07:59 AM

Quote:

I believe you are a troll

define troll, I have been called that before but all the definitions i have come across fail to include what I do.

Jake Dale · 15th February 2011, 08:03 AM

so let's get back to this consent issue grndslm.

what do your policies, rules, etc. have to do with me?

cocana · 15th February 2011, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

Your understanding is a big FAIL.

Oh, right, Mr Anonymous on the internet says I don't know what I'm talking about. He supports freeman theories, has acknowledged that they have no proof of success, but I am the one who is ignorant. Urr, OK!

Originally Posted by grndslm

Well.. you see... I quote you all whenever you make an insane jump to conclusion. Pull that quote back into the present, and I will point it out step by step.

You've definitely been trained well by Darth Menard. I don't need to give you quotes to criticise, if you disagree with anything I've said, however, you're welcome to state your reasons and we'll look into the detail. That's how it works.

Til then I shall note that you have nothing but plenty of spare time.

Originally Posted by grndslm

You missed it, alright.

Indeed, I certainly did miss your teachings about the City of London Corporation. They aren't there.

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Jake Dale

it's right in front of your eyes. read post 5102 again

I'm looking, but I don't see what the POINT is??

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Remember this?

That was you as well, so if you are in the states then was that a lie?

Why don't you link to that "QUOTE"??

That is the definition of a troll right there. Somebody who fabricates crap like that. Unbelievable.

Do you people actually side with somebody who spouts lies??

You're about as honest as Faux News. I guess it's ok to lie here, too... because this is just entertainment, right?

Originally Posted by cocana

Oh, right, Mr Anonymous on the internet says I don't know what I'm talking about. He supports freeman theories, has acknowledged that they have no proof of success, but I am the one who is ignorant. Urr, OK!

Remember how I said you make false jumps to conclusions.

I bet you can't LINK me to a QUOTE where I acknowledged that "freeman theories" have no proof of success.

You people have serious comprehension issues.

Also, you remember how we keep talking about RE-search??

You can dig thru all my posts and you will find me talk about no other state, for at least 5 years.

Discredit me all you might, but you will not succeed.

Originally Posted by cocana

You've definitely been trained well by Darth Menard. I don't need to give you quotes to criticise, if you disagree with anything I've said, however, you're welcome to state your reasons and we'll look into the detail. That's how it works.

See here --> Freemen.Freeforums.org

Originally Posted by cocana

Til then I shall note that you have nothing but plenty of spare time.

OK.

Originally Posted by cocana

Indeed, I certainly did miss your teachings about the City of London Corporation. They aren't there.

Yes it is. I provided a link *and* the means for you to continue your research.

Define a municipality...

"Definitions of municipality on the Web:

* an urban district having corporate status and powers of self-government"

DON'T STOP SEARCHING!!!

jargon buster · 15th February 2011, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Why don't you link to that "QUOTE"??

That is the definition of a troll right there. Somebody who fabricates crap like that. Unbelievable.

Do you people actually side with somebody who spouts lies??

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155358

There you go

Sort of come full circle

grndslm · 15th February 2011, 08:51 AM

Your assumption is completely false.

Like I suggested, ask the admin what state I'm posting from.
Like I suggested, review the posts of "grndslm" on the Internet, and you'll see that I am the same person, telling nothing but the Truth.

tsig · 15th February 2011, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by grndslm

They can, but they don't... because they're stupid sheeple!

There are a dozen forums for freemen, most all with sub-forums titled "Success Stories".

Well, we were conversing. And that was a response to this....
......
You are talking about the Law of the Sea, not the Law of the Land.

In that case, you must do as the captain says or jump overboard.

It's not "the Corporation of the City of London".

The corporation's, person's name is, exactly, THE CITY OF LONDON.

What good do those words do me??

I promise you... if you ring up ANY police officer, deputy, or whatever in MISSISSIPPI... and ask them if they can carry a gun without a permit, they will say no.

If you read them the Mississippi Bill of Rights, even... which states...

They will not be able to provide you with one single possibility of carrying an "unconcealed weapon". You say, isn't a holster unconcealed? Nope. You say, what about a CLEAR holster... isn't that unconcealed? Nope. You could have your back toward them.

Even with these words, that they SWEAR to protect and defend... they still follow orders from their "higher ups", which ain't "the People".

PLEASE... Find me ONE Mississippi government agent that says I have the right to carry an unconcealed gun without a permit. WRITE HIS CONTACT INFO DOWN and then share.

Seriously, I triple dawg dare ya!

Foul, you can't go to I triple dawg dare ya! til you've gone to double dawg dare

15th February 2011, 05:24 AM	#5081
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,066	Originally Posted by jeffwode I only came across UK column while reading about FOTL. They're running a story ('The cat's out of the bag') at the moment which is being touted as another mighty success for the freeloaders. ...snip... Leaving aside the fact that this is one man's recollection of events, I cannot see how even FTOLs can view this is a triumph. Judge opens case. FTOL spouts rubbish. Judge ignores him. The end. Except it's not the end because, as usual, we don't get to hear what happened next - most likely: FTOL grips the oak. Judge throws book at FTOL. Wasn't this in a County Court? If so, not usable as a precedent. And remember that nobody speaks in BLOCK CAPS.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

15th February 2011, 05:40 AM	#5082
gtm Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 598	Originally Posted by Mojo Wasn't this in a County Court? If so, not usable as a precedent. And remember that nobody speaks in BLOCK CAPS. Magistrates Court & there'll be no binding precedent.
gtm Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 598

15th February 2011, 05:43 AM	#5083
jeffwode Student Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 33	Originally Posted by Mojo Wasn't this in a County Court? If so, not usable as a precedent. And remember that nobody speaks in BLOCK CAPS. Roger the tax-dodger was back in court this morning, according to Icke's forum. Roger Hayes is in court this morning (15/02/2011)for a continuation of the non-payment of council tax saga... now in its 3rd year. Good luck mate! No word yet on whether his heroic stand has brought down the New World Order.
jeffwode Student Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 33

15th February 2011, 06:12 AM	#5086
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Originally Posted by D'rok Nonsense. Californians voted for it on a ballot proposition. Why the presumption that I'm from California?? I don't understand. Originally Posted by D'rok Looks like it is only sort of decriminalized. norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4546 And the change, such as it is, was enacted by your state legislature. You know, those folks you vote to represent you. In other words, you are governed by consent. Why the presumption that I vote? Originally Posted by D'rok If you are above the law, then there is no rule of law. It's quite simple to understand really. Fortunately, you are not above the law. The Law states.. I have the freedom of religion. Does it not?? If I'm following God's Law, then what makes you think I'm above it?? Originally Posted by D'rok Indeed. Education is invaluable. You should try it. You should try teaching. Originally Posted by D'rok If you remove your consent to the laws of your society, that action will have no force or effect. Shucks. If everyone does, that's another story. See Egypt. Of course it will have an effect. Only a fool would think otherwise. It may not be the "perfect" effect, but perfect is the enemy of the good. Originally Posted by D'rok I'm not a lawyer. But even if I didn't have training in law, I would still know utter ******** when I see it. Take it from the top again and teach us about the Law. Are Rastafarians allowed to smoke herb?? Are Christian Scientists allowed to let their children die, because they don't believe in "conventional" health remedies?? Are Amish required to get licenses to "drive" their horse and buggies?? Why is it that they get to escape statutory legislation, but you don't??
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249

15th February 2011, 06:14 AM	#5087
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Originally Posted by cocana This has already got rather circular. People don't need "freeman" status (which is totally meaningless in reality anyway) to start saying, "WE AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT!", "WE DON'T ACCEPT YOUR DECISION; THE MAN IS OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT!" etc. They can say what they like now. As to what's legally effective, that's another matter. They can, but they don't... because they're stupid sheeple! Originally Posted by cocana If "freeman" status actually meant something, you'd be able to cite examples of its success in court, as LID has invited. You can't do that and you never will for the simple reasons that it isn't recognised in law and it never will be. There are a dozen forums for freemen, most all with sub-forums titled "Success Stories". Originally Posted by cocana And your point is...? Well, we were conversing. And that was a response to this.... Originally Posted by LightinDarkness How fortunate we all are, then, that the FOTL understanding of what "corporate" means has no relationship to reality and governments are, in fact, not corporations. ...... Originally Posted by Stacey Grove What about those that cover consumption taxes? How do you avoid paying taxes on your spending? Or do you (conveniently) consent to those laws? You are talking about the Law of the Sea, not the Law of the Land. In that case, you must do as the captain says or jump overboard. Originally Posted by brodski That doesn’t mean that FMOTL know what they are talking about when they talk about “corporate government”, to (many of?) them corporate is just a scary word. (some explicitly are corporations, for instance the Corporation of the City of London) It's not "the Corporation of the City of London". The corporation's, person's name is, exactly, THE CITY OF LONDON. Originally Posted by D'rok* All to no effect, naturally. If evidence and reality swayed you, you wouldn't be promoting FOTL garbage in the first place. Your right to own a gun is constitutional. So are certain laws restricting the use of that gun. Other laws restricting the use of that gun are not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm...ns_Act_of_1975 Indeed I do. Unfortunately, FOTLers with overblown senses of personal entitlement do not. What good do those words do me?? I promise you... if you ring up ANY police officer, deputy, or whatever in MISSISSIPPI... and ask them if they can carry a gun without a permit, they will say no. If you read them the Mississippi Bill of Rights, even... which states... Quote: Article 3, Section 12... Right to Bear Arms The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. They will not be able to provide you with one single possibility of carrying an "unconcealed weapon". You say, isn't a holster unconcealed? Nope. You say, what about a CLEAR holster... isn't that unconcealed? Nope. You could have your back toward them. Even with these words, that they SWEAR to protect and defend... they still follow orders from their "higher ups", which ain't "the People". PLEASE... Find me ONE Mississippi government agent that says I have the right to carry an unconcealed gun without a permit. WRITE HIS CONTACT INFO DOWN and then share. Seriously, I triple dawg dare ya!
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249

15th February 2011, 06:00 AM	#5084
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,642	Originally Posted by Stacey Grove Have you actually viewed the video you posted? Is that what you saw, the man being set free because he refused to give his name? Are you sure about that? I'll tell you what I saw. Two officers had the man on the ground. The gentleman in question was told he was under arrest and he then started spouting some gibberish which the policemen ignored. As they brought him to his feet he managed to wrestle himself free and promptly ran away as fast as he could. Is that video (in your opinion) an example of a success? Physically escaping from the police and running like ***? Running from the law to be hunted down like a dog, that's the freeman way. Freeman theme song. (A') Breakin' rocks in the ... hot sun I Fought the Law and the ... law won I Fought the Law and the ... law won I needed money, 'cause I ... had none I Fought the Law and the ... law won I Fought the Law and the ... law won Bobby Fuller Four* Or for this occasion: My little runaway, run-run-run-run-runaway A-run-run-run-run-runaway.- http://www.justsomelyrics.com/869583...Runaway-Lyrics

15th February 2011, 06:04 AM	#5085
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,642	Originally Posted by jeffwode Roger the tax-dodger was back in court this morning, according to Icke's forum. Roger Hayes is in court this morning (15/02/2011)for a continuation of the non-payment of council tax saga... now in its 3rd year. Good luck mate! No word yet on whether his heroic stand has brought down the New World Order. I felt a distourbence in the Farce!

15th February 2011, 06:25 AM	#5088
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,233	Originally Posted by grndslm What good do those words do me?? I promise you... if you ring up ANY police officer, deputy, or whatever in MISSISSIPPI... and ask them if they can carry a gun without a permit, they will say no. If you read them the Mississippi Bill of Rights, even... which states... They will not be able to provide you with one single possibility of carrying an "unconcealed weapon". You say, isn't a holster unconcealed? Nope. You say, what about a CLEAR holster... isn't that unconcealed? Nope. You could have your back toward them. Even with these words, that they SWEAR to protect and defend... they still follow orders from their "higher ups", which ain't "the People". PLEASE... Find me ONE Mississippi government agent that says I have the right to carry an unconcealed gun without a permit. WRITE HIS CONTACT INFO DOWN and then share. Seriously, I triple dawg dare ya! Sorry dude. The US Bill of Rights is supreme over the Mississippi Bill of Rights. And the US Supreme Court's decisions are binding over however your local lawmakers interpret the Bill of Rights, and certainly over your personal interpretation of what the law should be. And, of course, I note that you conveniently ignore the fact that in the case I cited, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a gun control law. How's the weather in fantasy land?
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC Last edited by D'rok; 15th February 2011 at 06:42 AM.

15th February 2011, 06:28 AM	#5089
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,046	grndslm wrote Quote: There are a dozen forums for freemen, most all with sub-forums titled "Success Stories". And everyone totally devoid of any success. I would love you to show us one, just one story that holds up to scrutiny.
	__________________ ^{^{“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

15th February 2011, 06:37 AM	#5090
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Originally Posted by D'rok Sorry dude. The US Bill or Rights is supreme over the Mississippi Bill of Rights. And the US Supreme Court's decisions are binding over however your local lawmakers interpret the Bill of Rights, and certainly over your personal interpretation of what the law should be. And, of course, I note that you conveniently ignore the fact that in the case I cited, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a gun control law. How's the weather in fantasy land? It is not Supreme until you're dealing with Federal Courts. In State courts, you bring up State Law. When dealing with State police, you bring up State Law. WHY NOT just take the CHALLENGE?? Are you afraid to realize the Truth? Ask them about both the U.S. _and_ MISSISSIPPI Constitutions. Ask them if you can carry a gun without a permit. They will say no, you cannot. You say... "But the Miss. Constitution states my right shall not be called into question, and the legislature may only regulate concealed carry... what if it's not concealed??" They will say, if you're turned away from me, it's concealed. Just try it!! It's 8:37 AM here. ANY Mississippi government agent, k?? You've got all day.
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249

15th February 2011, 06:40 AM	#5091
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,233	Originally Posted by grndslm Why the presumption that I'm from California?? I don't understand. You responded to a point I made about California's pot laws. There could not be clearer evidence of governance by consent than Proposition 19. The Governator signed it into law over his own personal objections because it was the will of the people. Oh, but wait. I forgot. We're all slaves. So that obviously couldn't have happened, right? Quote: Why the presumption that I vote? I try to assume the best about people. I guess I was wrong in your case. Quote: The Law states.. I have the freedom of religion. Does it not?? If I'm following God's Law, then what makes you think I'm above it?? You don't live in a theocracy. The Constitution is the supreme law, not scripture. Quote: You should try teaching. Doing my best. You should try learning. Quote: Of course it will have an effect. Only a fool would think otherwise. It may not be the "perfect" effect, but perfect is the enemy of the good. You're right. It will have an effect. You will face punishment for disobeying the law. Is that the effect you were hoping for? Quote: Take it from the top again and teach us about the Law. Are Rastafarians allowed to smoke herb?? No. It is illegal, even if only a misdemeanor where you live. The only exceptions I am aware of anywhere are medical exceptions. Can you show me others? Quote: Are Christian Scientists allowed to let their children die, because they don't believe in "conventional" health remedies?? No. The state will likely become involved. Quote: Are Amish required to get licenses to "drive" their horse and buggies?? I doubt it. But I'm quite sure that act is regulated in some manner in every jurisdiction. You aren't comparing Amish buggies to driving a car, are you? Quote: Why is it that they get to escape statutory legislation, but you don't?? They don't. Firstly, in the US, you have the unfortunate complication of 50 different criminal law jurisdictions, so laws regarding the same offence may be different from state to state. Secondly, exceptions provided for by statute (like medical marijuana) are not examples of escaping statutory legislation. They are examples of statutory legislation and the rule of law.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

15th February 2011, 06:40 AM	#5092
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Originally Posted by jargon buster grndslm wrote And everyone totally devoid of any success. I would love you to show us one, just one story that holds up to scrutiny. Link me to a forum that you're referring to... Or are you talking out your boothole again?
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249

15th February 2011, 06:44 AM	#5093
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,233	Originally Posted by grndslm It is not Supreme until you're dealing with Federal Courts. In State courts, you bring up State Law. When dealing with State police, you bring up State Law. WHY NOT just take the CHALLENGE?? Are you afraid to realize the Truth? Ask them about both the U.S. _and_ MISSISSIPPI Constitutions. Ask them if you can carry a gun without a permit. They will say no, you cannot. You say... "But the Miss. Constitution states my right shall not be called into question, and the legislature may only regulate concealed carry... what if it's not concealed??" They will say, if you're turned away from me, it's concealed. Just try it!! It's 8:37 AM here. ANY Mississippi government agent, k?? You've got all day. If you think your police or government are applying the law unconstitutionally, take them to court. It worked in DC, as the case I cited showed. Or, you could flail about helplessly on Internet forums. I'm sure that will continue to be super effective. (Note: when I say super effective, I mean not effective in the slightest).
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

15th February 2011, 06:49 AM	#5094
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066	Originally Posted by grndslm It's not "the Corporation of the City of London". The corporation's, person's name is, exactly, THE CITY OF LONDON. You are quite, quite wrong. The City of London (however capitalised) refers to a geographical boundary. The Corporation of (the City of) London (both names are used) refers to the body corporate responsible for the local governance of the area within that boundary.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,066

15th February 2011, 06:57 AM	#5095
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Originally Posted by D'rok You responded to a point I made about California's pot laws. There could not be clearer evidence of governance by consent than Proposition 19. The Governator signed it into law over his own personal objections because it was the will of the people. I dunno... I'd say Mississippi's Bill of Rights makes it fairly clear that the government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed, but like the rest of our rights, they are IGNORED... Originally Posted by Miss. Article 3 Section 5 Government Originating in the People All political power is vested in, and derived from, the people; all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. Section 6 Regulation of Government; Right to Alter The people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary to their safety and happiness; provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States. As to the Cannabis dealy, it's still ILLLEGAL except for medicinal use. Cannabis has been used as medicine for THOUSANDS of years, yet just recently can Americans use it for those time-tested, medicinal reasons. There is not ONE nation in the world where Cannabis is flat-out legal. Not one. Mexico tried and then THE U.S. made them flip the script, because we can't let people run their own countries and all. World Police and **... Originally Posted by D'rok Oh, but wait. I forgot. We're all slaves. So that obviously couldn't have happened, right? Yes.. Mexico had to submit to the wishes of a few rich men. Yes they did. Originally Posted by D'rok I try to assume the best about people. I guess I was wrong in your case. I'll vote as soon as there's another option besides the GOLD Party. Originally Posted by D'rok You don't live in a theocracy. The Constitution is the supreme law, not scripture. How does the First Amendment contradict God's Law, or vice-versa?? Originally Posted by D'rok You're right. It will have an effect. You will face punishment for disobeying the law. Is that the effect you were hoping for? Lawful Rebellion is no joke. Originally Posted by D'rok No. It is illegal, even if only a misdemeanor where you live. The only exceptions I am aware of anywhere are medical exceptions. Can you show me others? Thanks for proving my point. Decriminalized = Illegal without Jailtime. Learn something knew everyday, don't ya? So they can write me a ticket, but how?? Why would I give them my name?? Originally Posted by D'rok No. The state will likely become involved. I doubt it. But I'm quite sure that act is regulated in some manner in every jurisdiction. You aren't comparing Amish buggies to driving a car, are you? You should try learning. The state cannot interfere with your freedom of religion. There's case law, but you already knew that didn't you?? And, yes I'm comparing Amish buggies to traveling in a car. The latter is FAR SAFER, so why would we need licenses and not the Amish?? Well.. the Amish aren't really apart of American society. They might live here, but they don't submit to statutory law. They submit to God's Law and Common Law. Originally Posted by D'rok** They don't. Firstly, in the US, you have the unfortunate complication of 50 different criminal law jurisdictions, so laws regarding the same offence may be different from state to state. Secondly, exceptions provided for by statute (like medical marijuana) are not examples of escaping statutory legislation. They are examples of statutory legislation and the rule of law. That's why Lawful Rebellion is no joke. We can appeal until we're blue in the face. At some point, somebody's going to realize that they swore an oath to protect the RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS to choose their own religion, to protect themselves, to possess property, etc. They will. How far you're willing to go is only up to you. The lot of you seem to like bending over and taking it, tho.
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249

15th February 2011, 07:03 AM	#5096
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,233	Originally Posted by grndslm I dunno... I'd say Mississippi's Bill of Rights makes it fairly clear that the government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed, but like the rest of our rights, they are IGNORED... As to the Cannabis dealy, it's still ILLLEGAL except for medicinal use. Cannabis has been used as medicine for THOUSANDS of years, yet just recently can Americans use it for those time-tested, medicinal reasons. There is not ONE nation in the world where Cannabis is flat-out legal. Not one. Mexico tried and then THE U.S. made them flip the script, because we can't let people run their own countries and all. World Police and ****... Yes.. Mexico had to submit to the wishes of a few rich men. Yes they did. I'll vote as soon as there's another option besides the GOLD Party. How does the First Amendment contradict God's Law, or vice-versa?? Lawful Rebellion is no joke. Thanks for proving my point. Decriminalized = Illegal without Jailtime. Learn something knew everyday, don't ya? So they can write me a ticket, but how?? Why would I give them my name?? You should try learning. The state cannot interfere with your freedom of religion. There's case law, but you already knew that didn't you?? And, yes I'm comparing Amish buggies to traveling in a car. The latter is FAR SAFER, so why would we need licenses and not the Amish?? Well.. the Amish aren't really apart of American society. They might live here, but they don't submit to statutory law. They submit to God's Law and Common Law. That's why Lawful Rebellion is no joke. We can appeal until we're blue in the face. At some point, somebody's going to realize that they swore an oath to protect the RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS to choose their own religion, to protect themselves, to possess property, etc. They will. How far you're willing to go is only up to you. The lot of you seem to like bending over and taking it, tho. Here's my advice: 1. Go ahead and try your foolproof "I'm not telling you my name" defence when a police officer tries to give you a ticket for something. Film it. Put it on youtube. Laughing at idiots is what the internet is for. 2. Emigrate to a country where individual rights are NOT protected by the rule of law and see how you get on. Go ahead. I'll wait.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

15th February 2011, 07:07 AM	#5097
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 441	Originally Posted by grndslm They can, but they don't... because they're stupid sheeple! So, if you accept that you don't need to be a freeman to change the system, it makes the whole thing rather daft doesn't it, even if we assume that there is something in it? It has no practical benefit except to make fools look clever to the totally mentally vacant on the internet. Also you might want to think about your attitude to others, it says rather a lot about you and not in a good way. It probably also explains why you rally against your peers in society. Originally Posted by grndslm There are a dozen forums for freemen, most all with sub-forums titled "Success Stories". As per JB's post, there is not one verifiable case of a link between "freeman" status and success in court. Show me one, just one. While you're at it, show LID just one such case as well and you may even be in line for some money. Originally Posted by grndslm The corporation's, person's name is, exactly, THE CITY OF LONDON. Before we head down a blind alley (as I can certainly think of three ways that this one could go) what is the basis for this view of yours?

15th February 2011, 07:08 AM	#5098
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Originally Posted by D'rok If you think your police or government are applying the law unconstitutionally, take them to court. It worked in DC, as the case I cited showed. Thank you for proving that Lawful Rebellion most definitely has its place. And I don't think it. I know it. Why don't you call and just figure it out yourself... This isn't about me. This is about YOU, claiming that pieces of paper are going to protect anyone. That people OBVIOUSLY have the "Right" to do something, just because it's written down. YOU made that claim and stated that I was full of it and then listed some Supreme Court cases, did you not?? So why don't you call ANY Miss. Gov't Agency and tell me the name of one person who says I have the right to carry an unconcealed weapon without a permit?? I don't understand why you just don't settle it instead of talking about things you're unaware of... It's blatantly obvious that virtually everything our government does is unconstitutional. And your idea is, to sit back and take it?? .. or to lawfully rebel? Which one? Originally Posted by D'rok Or, you could flail about helplessly on Internet forums. I'm sure that will continue to be super effective. (Note: when I say super effective, I mean not effective in the slightest). The only person flailing is yourself and j-busted. Call THE MAN and ask him if Mississippians can carry an UNCONCEALED GUN without a permit. Originally Posted by brodski You are quite, quite wrong. The City of London (however capitalised) refers to a geographical boundary. The Corporation of (the City of) London (both names are used) refers to the body corporate responsible for the local governance of the area within that boundary. Look up the definitions of a "state" in a law dictionary. Look to this thread, where Buster was officially busted for the FIRST time... http://freemen.freeforums.org/statute-t50.html What was I wrong about, again??? THE CITY OF LONDON is a corporation. That's the person's name. It is a corporation. A body politic, a state, a corporation... all refer to the same thing -- a collective group of people. It has NOTHING to do with fictitious walls. Or you're at least not speaking in legalese anymore, and you're speaking modern English. We're gonna have to use a law dictionary here, however, since that's what we're talking about, right??
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249

15th February 2011, 07:21 AM	#5099
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Originally Posted by D'rok Here's my advice: 1. Go ahead and try your foolproof "I'm not telling you my name" defence when a police officer tries to give you a ticket for something. Film it. Put it on youtube. Laughing at idiots is what the internet is for. 2. Emigrate to a country where individual rights are NOT protected by the rule of law and see how you get on. Go ahead. I'll wait. 1. You think he'll throw me on the ground and kick my teeth in?? You think he'll throw me in jail for 3 days under the name John Doe?? For smoking an herb, while not harming anybody or damaging anybody's property?? 2. Why should I? Why don't you just worry about yourself? You don't know me. You don't even know what a state, body politic, society are... so why would you immediately jump to GTFO?? Originally Posted by cocana So, if you accept that you don't need to be a freeman to change the system, it makes the whole thing rather daft doesn't it, even if we assume that there is something in it? It has no practical benefit except to make fools look clever to the totally mentally vacant on the internet. You people have some amazingly daft jumps to conclusions... I don't need to be a freeman to change the system, so it makes being a freeman pointless?? Well... it's NOT pointless.. because I cannot change the system by myself, and especially as long as the GOLD Party rules. I have no interest in remaining in a society that does not benefit me in any way. It is pointless for me to REMAIN in the system without seeing any benefit, don't you think?? Especially a system where obvious fraud is perpetuated... such as the right to carry an unconcealed weapon. Originally Posted by cocana Also you might want to think about your attitude to others, it says rather a lot about you and not in a good way. It probably also explains why you rally against your peers in society. When have I rallied against my peers?? Just one example, please. Why do you people just make this junk up in your heads?? THE MAN is not a peer of mine, he is a legal fiction that is using fraud to deceive my peers. Do you UNDERSTAND? Originally Posted by cocana As per JB's post, there is not one verifiable case of a link between "freeman" status and success in court. Show me one, just one. While you're at it, show LID just one such case as well and you may even be in line for some money. Any success that Freemen, Nationals, State citizens, Sovereigns, Constitutional citizens, might see... will likely be dismissed and no court record. Take this one for example... http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm There are many paths to freedom. You've just gotta open your eyes to see them. http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf Originally Posted by cocana Before we head down a blind alley (as I can certainly think of three ways that this one could go) what is the basis for this view of yours? The basis is that it's all TRUE. I have the same rights as someone in China and everyone else in the world for that matter. Our rights do NOT come from pieces of paper. The basis is in law dictionaries, it's in history, it's in supreme court cases, but most importantly... it's in our Spirit.
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Last edited by grndslm; 15th February 2011 at 07:23 AM.

15th February 2011, 07:30 AM	#5100
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 441	Originally Posted by grndslm I don't need to be a freeman to change the system, so it makes being a freeman pointless?? Well... it's NOT pointless.. because I cannot change the system by myself, and especially as long as the GOLD Party rules. I have no interest in remaining in a society that does not benefit me in any way. So we come back to the core "freeman" principles in that case don't we? Prove that being a "freeman" actually works and extracts you from the society that you so despise. Come on. Originally Posted by grndslm When have I rallied against my peers?? Just one example, please. I commented on your attitude towards your peers - Quote: ... because they're stupid sheeple! Your attitude speaks volumes. On 'successes' you state - Quote: Any success that Freemen, Nationals, State citizens, Sovereigns, Constitutional citizens, might see... will likely be dismissed and no court record. Take this one for example... http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm There are many paths to freedom. You've just gotta open your eyes to see them. http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm That classic CT chestnut once again of no evidence = evidence. And you wonder why people like us laugh at this stuff!! I then asked you about your grounds for your conclusions about the City of London Corporation. You said- Quote: The basis is that it's all TRUE. I have the same rights as someone in China and everyone else in the world for that matter. Our rights do NOT come from pieces of paper. The basis is in law dictionaries, it's in history, it's in supreme court cases, but most importantly... it's in our Spirit. Come on, that doesn't even begin to give me a straight answer does it?
	Last edited by cocana; 15th February 2011 at 07:39 AM.

15th February 2011, 07:32 AM	#5101
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	The Spirit can be partially revealed @ Freemen.Freeforums.org If you want to uncover the "Systems" of Law & Money... that's the place to go. Only you can uncover the FULL "Revelation" by doing your own research. It's obvious that you people don't have a Law Dictionary, so you might want to get a few of those for starters. You also might want to start fixing that disconnect in your logic skills. Repeatedly, you people have fabricated some steps to reach insane conclusions. WHY?? You're not trying to hide anything, are you??
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249

15th February 2011, 07:37 AM	#5102
Jake Dale Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 132	Originally Posted by grndslm Well... it's NOT pointless.. because I cannot change the system by myself, and especially as long as the GOLD Party rules. see the identical attitude? Quote: I have no interest in remaining in a society that does not benefit me in any way.
Jake Dale Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 132

15th February 2011, 07:38 AM	#5103
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 441	Originally Posted by grndslm The Spirit can be partially revealed @ Freemen.Freeforums.org If you want to uncover the "Systems" of Law & Money... that's the place to go. Only you can uncover the FULL "Revelation" by doing your own research. It's obvious that you people don't have a Law Dictionary, so you might want to get a few of those for starters. You also might want to start fixing that disconnect in your logic skills. Repeatedly, you people have fabricated some steps to reach insane conclusions. WHY?? You're not trying to hide anything, are you?? You're very funny. You've clearly been to the Menard school of posting.... As regards Law Dictionaries, let's just say I've seen a few in my time. And very many court cases, more than you could conceive of. I think my understanding of the law is just fine thank you. If you can explain how I've reached "insane" conclusions on your posts, I'll revisit what I've said. I'll look forward to that. I'll also look forward to getting that missing explanation about the City of London Corporation.

15th February 2011, 07:39 AM	#5104
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,233	Originally Posted by grndslm The Spirit can be partially revealed @ Freemen.Freeforums.org If you want to uncover the "Systems" of Law & Money... that's the place to go. Only you can uncover the FULL "Revelation" by doing your own research. It's obvious that you people don't have a Law Dictionary, so you might want to get a few of those for starters. You also might want to start fixing that disconnect in your logic skills. Repeatedly, you people have fabricated some steps to reach insane conclusions. WHY?? You're not trying to hide anything, are you?? You caught me. I'm actually a shape-shifting lizard. Curse you, David Icke! Now I must leave and try to cull the sheeple herd in another part of the galaxy. Or maybe an early edition law dictionary interpreted by ignorant trolls will sort me right out.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

15th February 2011, 07:44 AM	#5105
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,046	Quote: The Spirit can be partially revealed @ Freemen.Freeforums.org If you want to uncover the "Systems" of Law & Money... that's the place to go. You cant get past the first hurdle (having your withdrawal of consent theory accepted as lawful excuse) http://freemen.freeforums.org/withdr...nked-t127.html
	__________________ ^{^{“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

15th February 2011, 07:46 AM	#5106
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Originally Posted by cocana So we come back to the core "freeman" principles in that case don't we? Prove that being a "freeman" actually works and extracts you from the society that you so despise. Come on. Prove that Missisippians have the right to carry an unconcealed gun without a permit, even tho it's written down in two different Constitutions... and then you will have your answer. Originally Posted by cocana I commented on your attitude towards your peers - That's "rallying against my peers"?? Do you people really speak English, or what? Originally Posted by cocana Your attitude speaks volumes. My attitude, eh?? So that means you side with j-buster on which of his posts?? ... in regards to his attitude over mine?? Point them out for us. You only side with him to prove my point, that MOST of you are sheeple, just like Americans. In fact, I'd say this group is far more sheepish than any Mississippians I've ever met. Originally Posted by cocana On 'successes' you state - That classic CT chestnut once again of no evidence = evidence. And you wonder why people like us laugh at this stuff!! You're NOT going to find an answer in a TITLE, like "Freeman". OK? I have previously said this, and I will say it repeatedly until you stop asking it. You have to assert your reality in order to "become free". If your reality is that you are invincible because you have a title, then I'm sorry I've been wasting my time here. You're not grasping the concept that you're not FREE because you're a FREEMAN. You're FREE because you ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS!! Originally Posted by cocana I then asked you about your grounds for your concludions about the City of London Corporation. You said- Come on, that doesn't even begin to give me a straight answer does it? Are you braindead, or what??? Nobody ever taught you how to research? It took me less than 3 seconds to find this link... the city of london is a corporation The answer is right under your noses. Do you know what a municipality is??
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249

15th February 2011, 07:50 AM	#5107
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,046	I Quote: 'd say this group is far more sheepish than any Mississippians I've ever met. I would wager you have never met any Mississippians
	__________________ ^{^{“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

15th February 2011, 07:51 AM	#5108
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Originally Posted by Jake Dale see the identical attitude? Were you trying to make a point? What was it?? Originally Posted by cocana You're very funny. You've clearly been to the Menard school of posting.... Whatever the frick that means... Originally Posted by cocana As regards Law Dictionaries, let's just say I've seen a few in my time. And very many court cases, more than you could conceive of. I think my understanding of the law is just fine thank you. Your understanding is a big FAIL. Originally Posted by cocana If you can explain how I've reached "insane" conclusions on your posts, I'll revisit what I've said. I'll look forward to that. Well.. you see... I quote you all whenever you make an insane jump to conclusion. Pull that quote back into the present, and I will point it out step by step. Originally Posted by cocana I'll also look forward to getting that missing explanation about the City of London Corporation. You missed it, alright. Originally Posted by jargon buster You cant get past the first hurdle (having your withdrawal of consent theory accepted as lawful excuse) http://freemen.freeforums.org/withdr...nked-t127.html I don't think you've been there recently. You should watch PHOSPHENE's video and you'll get an idea of what your argument is.
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249

15th February 2011, 07:53 AM	#5109
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,046	Quote: You should watch PHOSPHENE's video and you'll get an idea of what your argument is. he actually validates my point, but I will get to that later.
	__________________ ^{^{“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

15th February 2011, 07:55 AM	#5110
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Originally Posted by jargon buster I I would wager you have never met any Mississippians How much?? The admin can likely tell you where I'm posting from. (No city, tho, please I'm not ready to die just yet.) You can also see that I post the link to Freemen.Freeforums.org at all the forums I frequent. Here's a guide I wrote about motorized bicycles, to empower people... http://www.motoredbikes.com/showthread.php?t=10392 (sig is disabled for that initial post, but the rest have the link) EDIT: Oh, and in case you think sparky @ motoredbikes.com isn't me... http://www.motoredbikes.com/showthread.php?t=9225
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Last edited by grndslm; 15th February 2011 at 08:02 AM.

15th February 2011, 07:56 AM	#5111
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249	Originally Posted by jargon buster he actually validates my point, but I will get to that later. Think as long and as hard as you need to, j-busted. I honestly don't believe you understand what your point is. I believe you are a troll, and that's a shame that people would listen to anything you have to say.
grndslm Banned Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 249

15th February 2011, 07:56 AM	#5112
Jake Dale Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 132	Originally Posted by grndslm Were you trying to make a point? What was it?? it's right in front of your eyes. read post 5102 again
Jake Dale Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 132

15th February 2011, 07:58 AM	#5113
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,046	Remember this? Quote: My first major thread here. Greetings from London, England ! That was you as well, so if you are in the states then was that a lie?
	__________________ ^{^{“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

15th February 2011, 07:59 AM	#5114
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,046	Quote: I believe you are a troll define troll, I have been called that before but all the definitions i have come across fail to include what I do.
	__________________ ^{^{“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

15th February 2011, 08:03 AM	#5115
Jake Dale Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 132	so let's get back to this consent issue grndslm. what do your policies, rules, etc. have to do with me?
Jake Dale Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 132