The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
dudalb said:
I admit I would LOVE to see a FOTL loon try this crap on a company owned by members of a certain Italian American Fraternal Organization, and have a couple of big guys name Guido and Luigi show up to talk with him about it.....
Click to expand...

They would be better off sending a couple of plumbers named Mario and Luigi. At least they have experience with alternate realities already :D
 
I was quite pleased with these two posts:

jimbob said:
Stacey Grove said:
jargon buster quoted a TPUC nutter:

They cannot even understand that £1000 inclusive of vat @ 17.5% does not equate to £175.00 of vat.
Click to expand...

I do not contract to use the laws of mathematics...

:boxedin:
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

jimbob said:
It usually is included in the price, and in certain situations one can claim it back.

Actually I have just bought a £650 bicycle for £553, which works out at 12 monthly installments of £32.

Cycle to work scheme, so I gave the shop the £650 pound voucher of collection, it was VAT-free, and then came out of my gross salary before tax
Click to expand...
 
BobHaulk said:
you need a laugh, well you asked for it
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058826569#post1058826569
Click to expand...

"I think its because he knows, and the top powers that be know, that if they killed him, he can cause more trouble in the next dimension for them here, than he can here alive.

This is my opinion, from my own experience."

I sorta want to register over there so I can ask if David Icke's supporters, therefore, shouldn't kill him to increase his powers in the battle against the Top Powerz.
 
Oh, my undiluted industrial strength woo of the first order - which can corrode logic and reason at 17 1/2 paces
 
Horatius said:
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

-A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There you are: even the Law Dictionary you cite admits it's a scam. ;)
 
patchbunny said:
I sorta want to register over there so I can ask if David Icke's supporters, therefore, shouldn't kill him to increase his powers in the battle against the Top Powerz.
Click to expand...


If they strike him down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
 
Last edited:
gtm said:
I've no doubt there are umpteen FMOTL legal 'theoreticians' researching this troubling scenario. My guess is the answer must lie with Magna Carta (it always does doesn't it?) or perhaps sending a 'Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right' will do the trick? ...snip...
Click to expand...

You forgot to specify that it has to be red ink!
 
Horatius said:
Well played, sir, well played.






But, oh, so sorry, ]
Click to expand...

How about the Rob Mennard 'Neo' Defence:-

The famous movie The Matrix illustrates the point. In a somber future, human beings are enslaved by machines, kept in captivity in a deep hypnotic sleep to supply energy to the machines, but are led to believe that they live normal lives. The illusion is virtually perfect – humans genuinely believe they are walking freely in the streets, or eating a juicy steak. But that is merely a virtual reality – called "the Matrix" – which the machines generate by pumping electrical stimuli into humans’ brains. The machines, originally created to serve humans, have turned against and enslaved them.

In the movie, some individuals – those that take the red pill – succeed in seeing reality as it is: that the Matrix is in fact a prison – the concoction of a well-devised delusion – and that their bodies are in captivity without their knowledge. But even those that take the red pill cannot escape the virtual reality’s elaborate chains. Some refuse to reflect upon what is really happening; others know they live a delusion, but rationalize their status – they conjecture that it is tough to change it, that it was always like this, and end up opting to live under the comfort of their bondage.

But, as I said before, nothing needs to be taken from the tyrants – one needs only to cease giving them what is his own! In the movie, this would take place if he desires to wake up from the hypnotic sleep, and proceed to sever the wires that fill his brains with the Matrix, stand up on his feet and walk, free.

Outside Hollywood, it is simpler to end the bondage. You must become aware that no one may rule your life without your consent, no matter what the excuse or argument, smoke and mirrors notwithstanding. You must recognize that no one knows better than you what is best for yourself; that there is no political authority above you; that you don’t have any owners, and therefore, that you don’t need to pay tribute to obtain your liberty or tranquility. And when that realization comes, you will say to yourself: I am a sovereign individual!

In The Matrix, this insight comes in a scene, in virtual reality, where countless machine guns are fired against the hero, Neo. He looks at the guns and realizes that the explicit violence has no effectiveness without his own consent – the bullets dissolve into digital zeroes and ones. Neo grabs one floating bullet between his fingers, and the whole apparatus of the enemy tumbles, powerless.

Tyranny ends when we cease to support voluntarily our own serfdom
 
Rob Menards rattled
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112968
I wrote
As long as you know it was "just a story".

Robs unemployed so the tax people wouldnt be interested in him anyway.

asky
Click to expand...

Rob Wrote
It was a true story. But you and truth do not really know each other do you?


I am self employed, not UNEMPLOYED. Unlike you I can make my way in the world without sucking on the government tit like you must do. You are lying and slandering me and I am bringing it to the mods attention. I think you need to go now asky, and not come back.

The tax people would love to make an example out of me. However I have no SIN and so no account with them.

asky we can see that you are now scrapping the bottom of the troll barrel, having to slander those whom you have never met, whose daily existence and routine you are unaware of, and whose perspective you refuse to examine.

MODS: We can see by asky's post that he is here not to discuss but to only slander and spread malicious lies. Banning him is well within the province of your authority, it is needed for the life of the forum, and he can't say that we are seeking to silence his opinions, for he has nothing but insults and has eschewed true discussion. Unless of course you think what he said here is in line with the topic of the thread... IS it? Does not appear to be... why is he so obsessed with me that even a post like this he has to insult me? I have the ****er on ignore, but will have to sign in to avoid seeing his insults.

If I went to your home, and there was a big pile of stinking **** in the corner, giving off a horrendous odor which you have become used to, but which was repelling all the visitors you were seeking, would you not want someone to point it out to you? Asky is that pile of **** stinking up this place. HE does it so others do not come, and you need to do something about it immediately and permanently. In this post he implies that I am a liar and unemployed. Is this how you allow your guests to be treated by your pet idiot?

Please email me when he is permanently banned, so that adults can discuss here without having the children constantly insult and denigrate and deny discussion.
Click to expand...

JB/asky
 
FMOTL trial continued

The trial that went part heard a couple of weeks ago resumed this week. Even more supporters turned up this time (prompting several of my colleagues to enquire whether the common law forbids soap and water).
The defendant began this time by standing in the doorway and demanding to know whether his inalienable rights would be preserved if he entered the courtroom. The chair (thoroughly fed up after last time) told him he would get a fair trial and his human rights would be upheld. This didn't satisfy chummy who didn't want his human rights he wanted his inalienable rights (even if he couldn't pronounce them).
Magistrates tell him that if he doesn't come in and get on with it the case will proceed in his absence.
He decides to come in and gets a bit theatrical about where he's going to stand. The usher not standing for any nonsense tells him to stand where anyone else would.
The police officer is still waiting patiently to be cross examined.
The prosecutor says "I presume there are no questions for this officer?"
This provokes a long spiel where the defendant tells the court that if they prove the case in his absence they will be acting ultra vires and appeals to his claque as witnesses. He then says he wants to read the Fraud Act 2006 into the record.
The usher calls security and the chair tells him he is in contempt.
"Is that civil or criminal contempt?"
Defendant is handcuffed and physically removed from the courtroom. The claque shout "Shame on you" and "Court of injustice".
Most of them surge outside to argue. One remains declaring that "You can't be arrested for contempt!"
And "The court aren't flesh and blood.
The defendant is let back in and apologises.
He is asked again if he wants to engage with the court and says he doesn't fully understand and wants to ask a few questions. He starts spouting the courts written policy on being nice to people. Court tell him no more dialogue.
However he again starts asking if he can claim common law jurisdiction.
Then he demands to know if this is a private court and begins reading out a definition of jurisdiction. Basically he is told politely to shut up.
Then he starts demanding the magistrates oath of office and declaring that the magistrates have committed fraud under the Fraud Act and should be removed.
Security are called. The audience start screaming "Assault" and insults at the Bench. Police enter and remove most of them.
Those remaining start trying to get the police to arrest the magistrates for fraud. They refuse to do so. One tells them bluntly that in order to arrest someone they need reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. One harpy in particular gets really upset about the heavy emphasis he puts on the word "reasonable" and threatens to report him.
Since the defendant isn't there officer number one is released and number two is called.
During his evidence the defendant is let back in.
Asked if he wants to ask this officer any questions he says he does have a few questions. But first he needs to ask about all the other things he has already asked about. Told firmly "No".
Demands the magistrates' oath of office, demands to know "for and on the record" if they are refusing to answer questions.
[While this is going on the rest of the court gets on with the trial the officer is released and the prosecution case concludes]
The defendant is interrupted and asked if he wishes to give or call any evidence. He replies that if all persons present don't answer questions they are in commercial liability.

The prosecutor points out that the defendant is not entitled to try and impose conditions on the court.

The defendant asks if the magistrates have something to hide.
Chair "Do you wish to give evidence?"
Yes... But before I proceed I want to ask questions.. Does the Court recognise the Fraud Act 2006?
Legal Advisor : Yes
Are all parties standing under the Fraud Act 2006?
Chair "We are not here to be judged"
Defendant "The Judge has just acted ultra vires!"
Defendant is temporarily removed again (this time by the usher telling hin to get out)
When he's let back in the prosecutor invites the court to retire and consider their verdict.
The defendant calls into question the prosecutor's competence and is removed again.
The magistrates retire and consider their verdict.

The gallery decide that the magistrates will have to dismiss the case as they haven't got jurisdiction.

The magistrates return find him guilty and impose a largish fine and grant a huge application for costs.

The defendant claims that he hasn't been given any kind of opportunity to address the court and calls the chair corrupt. Objects to everything.
As I left he was borrowing a red pen to write a promissory note...
 
The defendant claims that he hasn't been given any kind of opportunity to address the court and calls the chair corrupt. Objects to everything.
As I left he was borrowing a red pen to write a promissory note...
Click to expand...

A red pen? he should use a quill pen or his promissory note won't er.... be worth the paper it's written on :D
 
Last edited:
Pikachu said:
FMOTL trial continued

The trial that went part heard a couple of weeks ago resumed this week. Even more supporters turned up this time (prompting several of my colleagues to enquire whether the common law forbids soap and water).
The defendant began this time by standing in the doorway and demanding to know whether his inalienable rights would be preserved if he entered the courtroom. The chair (thoroughly fed up after last time) told him he would get a fair trial and his human rights would be upheld. This didn't satisfy chummy who didn't want his human rights he wanted his inalienable rights (even if he couldn't pronounce them).
Magistrates tell him that if he doesn't come in and get on with it the case will proceed in his absence.
He decides to come in and gets a bit theatrical about where he's going to stand. The usher not standing for any nonsense tells him to stand where anyone else would.
The police officer is still waiting patiently to be cross examined.
The prosecutor says "I presume there are no questions for this officer?"
This provokes a long spiel where the defendant tells the court that if they prove the case in his absence they will be acting ultra vires and appeals to his claque as witnesses. He then says he wants to read the Fraud Act 2006 into the record.
The usher calls security and the chair tells him he is in contempt.
"Is that civil or criminal contempt?"
Defendant is handcuffed and physically removed from the courtroom. The claque shout "Shame on you" and "Court of injustice".
Most of them surge outside to argue. One remains declaring that "You can't be arrested for contempt!"
And "The court aren't flesh and blood.
The defendant is let back in and apologises.
He is asked again if he wants to engage with the court and says he doesn't fully understand and wants to ask a few questions. He starts spouting the courts written policy on being nice to people. Court tell him no more dialogue.
However he again starts asking if he can claim common law jurisdiction.
Then he demands to know if this is a private court and begins reading out a definition of jurisdiction. Basically he is told politely to shut up.
Then he starts demanding the magistrates oath of office and declaring that the magistrates have committed fraud under the Fraud Act and should be removed.
Security are called. The audience start screaming "Assault" and insults at the Bench. Police enter and remove most of them.
Those remaining start trying to get the police to arrest the magistrates for fraud. They refuse to do so. One tells them bluntly that in order to arrest someone they need reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. One harpy in particular gets really upset about the heavy emphasis he puts on the word "reasonable" and threatens to report him.
Since the defendant isn't there officer number one is released and number two is called.
During his evidence the defendant is let back in.
Asked if he wants to ask this officer any questions he says he does have a few questions. But first he needs to ask about all the other things he has already asked about. Told firmly "No".
Demands the magistrates' oath of office, demands to know "for and on the record" if they are refusing to answer questions.
[While this is going on the rest of the court gets on with the trial the officer is released and the prosecution case concludes]
The defendant is interrupted and asked if he wishes to give or call any evidence. He replies that if all persons present don't answer questions they are in commercial liability.

The prosecutor points out that the defendant is not entitled to try and impose conditions on the court.

The defendant asks if the magistrates have something to hide.
Chair "Do you wish to give evidence?"
Yes... But before I proceed I want to ask questions.. Does the Court recognise the Fraud Act 2006?
Legal Advisor : Yes
Are all parties standing under the Fraud Act 2006?
Chair "We are not here to be judged"
Defendant "The Judge has just acted ultra vires!"
Defendant is temporarily removed again (this time by the usher telling hin to get out)
When he's let back in the prosecutor invites the court to retire and consider their verdict.
The defendant calls into question the prosecutor's competence and is removed again.
The magistrates retire and consider their verdict.

The gallery decide that the magistrates will have to dismiss the case as they haven't got jurisdiction.

The magistrates return find him guilty and impose a largish fine and grant a huge application for costs.

The defendant claims that he hasn't been given any kind of opportunity to address the court and calls the chair corrupt. Objects to everything.
As I left he was borrowing a red pen to write a promissory note...
Click to expand...

:eek:

:eye-poppi

:boggled:

Keep 'em coming! This is priceless insight into a really bizarre sub-culture.
 
Pikachu said:
FMOTL trial continued

The trial that went part heard a couple of weeks ago resumed this week. Even more supporters turned up this time (prompting several of my colleagues to enquire whether the common law forbids soap and water).
The defendant began this time by standing in the doorway and demanding to know whether his inalienable rights would be preserved if he entered the courtroom. The chair (thoroughly fed up after last time) told him he would get a fair trial and his human rights would be upheld. This didn't satisfy chummy who didn't want his human rights he wanted his inalienable rights (even if he couldn't pronounce them).
Magistrates tell him that if he doesn't come in and get on with it the case will proceed in his absence.
He decides to come in and gets a bit theatrical about where he's going to stand. The usher not standing for any nonsense tells him to stand where anyone else would.
The police officer is still waiting patiently to be cross examined.
The prosecutor says "I presume there are no questions for this officer?"
This provokes a long spiel where the defendant tells the court that if they prove the case in his absence they will be acting ultra vires and appeals to his claque as witnesses. He then says he wants to read the Fraud Act 2006 into the record.
The usher calls security and the chair tells him he is in contempt.
"Is that civil or criminal contempt?"
Defendant is handcuffed and physically removed from the courtroom. The claque shout "Shame on you" and "Court of injustice".
Most of them surge outside to argue. One remains declaring that "You can't be arrested for contempt!"
And "The court aren't flesh and blood.
The defendant is let back in and apologises.
He is asked again if he wants to engage with the court and says he doesn't fully understand and wants to ask a few questions. He starts spouting the courts written policy on being nice to people. Court tell him no more dialogue.
However he again starts asking if he can claim common law jurisdiction.
Then he demands to know if this is a private court and begins reading out a definition of jurisdiction. Basically he is told politely to shut up.
Then he starts demanding the magistrates oath of office and declaring that the magistrates have committed fraud under the Fraud Act and should be removed.
Security are called. The audience start screaming "Assault" and insults at the Bench. Police enter and remove most of them.
Those remaining start trying to get the police to arrest the magistrates for fraud. They refuse to do so. One tells them bluntly that in order to arrest someone they need reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. One harpy in particular gets really upset about the heavy emphasis he puts on the word "reasonable" and threatens to report him.
Since the defendant isn't there officer number one is released and number two is called.
During his evidence the defendant is let back in.
Asked if he wants to ask this officer any questions he says he does have a few questions. But first he needs to ask about all the other things he has already asked about. Told firmly "No".
Demands the magistrates' oath of office, demands to know "for and on the record" if they are refusing to answer questions.
[While this is going on the rest of the court gets on with the trial the officer is released and the prosecution case concludes]
The defendant is interrupted and asked if he wishes to give or call any evidence. He replies that if all persons present don't answer questions they are in commercial liability.

The prosecutor points out that the defendant is not entitled to try and impose conditions on the court.

The defendant asks if the magistrates have something to hide.
Chair "Do you wish to give evidence?"
Yes... But before I proceed I want to ask questions.. Does the Court recognise the Fraud Act 2006?
Legal Advisor : Yes
Are all parties standing under the Fraud Act 2006?
Chair "We are not here to be judged"
Defendant "The Judge has just acted ultra vires!"
Defendant is temporarily removed again (this time by the usher telling hin to get out)
When he's let back in the prosecutor invites the court to retire and consider their verdict.
The defendant calls into question the prosecutor's competence and is removed again.
The magistrates retire and consider their verdict.

The gallery decide that the magistrates will have to dismiss the case as they haven't got jurisdiction.

The magistrates return find him guilty and impose a largish fine and grant a huge application for costs.

The defendant claims that he hasn't been given any kind of opportunity to address the court and calls the chair corrupt. Objects to everything.
As I left he was borrowing a red pen to write a promissory note...
Click to expand...

You have a great career ahead of you writing for sitcoms. You won't even have to make anything up!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom