The Freeman Movement and England

[Stacey Grove]

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

 

[jargon buster]

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

 

[LightinDarkness]

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

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

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

 

[Vladd]

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

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

 

[Stacey Grove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cocana The Second]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cocana The Second]

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

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

The freeman dribblers are sullen as well as stupid.

You need to make a return....

 

[gtm]

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

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

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

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

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1059653362#post1059653362

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

 

[Stacey Grove]

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

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1059653362#post1059653362

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

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

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

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

 

[Cocana The Second]

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


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

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

 

[jargon buster]

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

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

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

It would appear they are banning all new people signing up with a proxy
good luck with the site guys.

 

[gtm]

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

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

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059653584&postcount=9

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

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

 

[jargon buster]

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

 

[Stacey Grove]

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

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

 

[Cocana The Second]

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

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

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

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

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

Sound advice here.

 

[tsig]

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

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

 

[BobHaulk]

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

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

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

 

[Tolls]

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

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

 

[Cocana The Second]

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

That should please Gob Menard, who I see has just reported a perfectly OK post - http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059655546&postcount=55. I wonder if another round of bannings is just around the corner.

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