THE COURT: I'm not going to find him to have absconded when he's standing here even though he is not making much sense.
That is ace.
THE COURT: I'm not going to find him to have absconded when he's standing here even though he is not making much sense.
solzhenitsyn in italicsSorry, I don't understand. What law? Where is this from? Who made this law (keeping in mind your earlier comments about equality)?
Ok, so you admit to being ignorant of the law. Fine. I will remember this in the future, and use it to claim that you are not qualified to speak on the subject. It will be in fact my new sig.
Again, is this a law? If not, what is it? If so, where is it from and who made it?
It is a function of logic and reason. I do not think you will understand it for that reason, and feel trying to explain to someone who rejects logic an reason in favour of simply doing what they are told is a waste of my time. Sorry. As a teacher I do not wish to waste my time with a purposely ignorant student incapable of thinking for themselves at east a little bit. If you do not wish to learn I can't force you, and it is clear you have no desire to do so, as your questions are feigning in nature and obviously so.
Wait a minute, I thought that Chief Justice McLachlin was just a person, equal to every other person, and has no authority over you or me? How can you claim that her words, apparently spoken at some dinner gala (or something?) have authority, but her words and the words of other judges have no authority when written down for everyone to read as a judgement in court? I don't understand.
You are right she is just another human being, but you continuously bring up opinions of various judges, and try to denigrate a fact as merely ‘my theory’, so I bring to your attention that the head Judge, someone whose opinion based on your past actions you should respect, expressed that fact, and you then try to deny me the right to point out one of her opinions? What twisty dance moves you have! In every single court case you have pointed to, the defendants made appearances and pleaded. And thus consented. Every single one.
I am merely acting as a diversion for you here, and keeping you away from the forums where the discussions are actually happening, and plans being made.
Oh, and we have the promise of the formation of yet another Freeman Valley.
oh..and there are no active freeman forums on the web.
He's only posting on Ickes because he is protected, I have a feeling though his support by the admin on there is waning as seen by the amount of posts going unchallenged.
I really think he has now lost the plot, Im glad, Im sick of his idiocy.
I think he can now be consigned to the loony bin.
I saw a post on this forum regarding telling someone who thinks he's Napoleon he's wrong.
Whats the point?
He is too far gone to listen.
Sums up Menard perfectly
Rob:Menard has finally fessed up why he continues to post on the Icke forum even though he has no apparent support on there:
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059944029&postcount=26
Bless him
Oh, and we have the promise of the formation of yet another Freeman Valley.![]()
Rob:
As for claiming my bond, there is a right time for everything, and I wanted and still want to get more public awareness and attention to this, which is happening. It will come in time and I am in no rush.
Seems like claiming and getting millions? of dollars would get a lot of public awareness.
yup..
Rob believes the law is anything he says is the law, in other words he is imposing his theory as law, which ironically is the very thing he is opposed to.
the guys a dick.
You didn't write that with plaid ink....<cue Pythonesque bobby....>Whilst I can not approve of calling the conman Robert Menard a dick or a limp nub, despite him being both of those things, I feel the urge to step in and say this:
Robert Menard is a conman who some may call a dick or or a limp nub.
/Disclaimer: For Comedy/Entertainment purposes only.
^ That's me off the hook then![]()
![]()
--
Comfy: of the Slippers family
You didn't write that with plaid ink....<cue Pythonesque bobby....>
To me, since I know he entered a plea, and then got sentenced, it proves that consent was in fact needed and given, and that he would have been better off not giving it.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059966195&postcount=17Well, I laugh at them, and as am in the second week of setting up my Freeman Valley III I have little time to argue with them about how they refuse to believe that one human needs consent of another to lawfully govern another.
I have about 4 acres cleared and ready to plant, chickens and pigs to prepare for ( Just got 7 layers a couple days ago!) and the FMOTL Movement is growing by leaps and bounds.