If a word salad post claims that we need not pay taxes, it goes in the appropriate TP forum. If its author claims that laws don't apply to him/her, it goes in the appropriate Sov forum. Only otherwise unclassifiable word salad goes here.
Have you ever seen this many challenges to the perceived powers that be at any point in time, over on youtube and elsewhere.
Cases regarding mortgages such as the Crawfords case are civil actions. They involve a bank and a homeowner, not the government. Crawford did not challenge TPTB he challenged a bank. Sadly for Crawford the argument he presented was pure bullshit which is why he lost. This thread is about a challenge to a bank, it is not about a challenge to TPTB.
You're not getting it "RUMPY". I don't know whether you are a solicitor, lawyer or bin man and I don't care either way. The way "these" people (banks etc) are perceived by the many is that they are allowed to get away "scott free" by legislation brought about by the "Governments". The people take it as read that the two are in "cahoots" as it were and thus take action. So yes the people see it as an intertwined conspiracy and all you need to do is read the "Brotherhood" by Stephen McKnight to see many of these connections. The people themselves aren't like, they put themselves out there, live on youtube DOING IT, names and identities all on the line because they aren't scared anymore. They have nothing to lose. You on the other hand do have lots to lose if your identity is made open because they may come after you (watch out for that one when "they" grab hold of the ISP companies and find out who you are and what you look like. Go watch "The Road" and see what your future holds for you. Don't whine about me being the same as you as both of us hide behind an on-line presence, they won't want me as I'm agreeing with them and not agreeing with you. They'll be watching this site and others like it like a hawk and when it may all fall down... good God (if there is one) I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the likes of the people they oppose.
So rely on your Government to protect you, rely on "their" agents to protect you. The problem becomes a real thing when these agents are asked to shoot "their" own. Do you think they will? Will there guns turn for when they see it like it really is. No question mark there. That "RUMPY" was a rhetorical question and I think EVEN you know the answer to that.
Cheers.
A first mate and being allowed posting such insurrection. First class "Cap'n". Fish fingers... at the "Captain's table"... "Yaargh". I'm here, my this is a big link BUT it DOES work. Don't write the link of because it may bring back memories to some. Love the link PEOPLE:
I don't think that's a link - more a picture in the wrong format.
Last edited by pigpot on Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
I'd have loved to have jousted with you years ago over on "Icke's" site before my ban there. You and your mates thought I was "Yozhik" somewhere else (what a poster he was, better than I and never bettered by you and your poster mates) but alas, for them, I wasn't him. I've moved on and inspired many, many people over those years to fight against the system through lawful rebellion and I love it.
Can't wait until "they" (the POWERS that are perceived to be) ALL hang. Before or after me. It doesn't matter as you don't know my past or anything to do with me.
Can I not want REVOLUTION? Is it against the law?
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
A "Captain" no less am I these days. Proof is on your screen. It shows it, you see it, it is...
Booooooooooaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzz!
Similar but not the same to the Boo Radleys. Watch them with, "Wake up Boo." on youtube. Ta.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
So you admit to spamming the forum with nonsensical gibberish.
Thank you for your confession.
Is that it? I won't comment on it. I'll just delete it MYSELF if a board moderator wishes it to happen. Would you like me to wear a top hat when I tip as well Sir.
Sh1T a brick. Give me a stand up session with you and I would be going to my cards to give you a right toasting. You're like a bloke who's trying his hardest at about 73 years of age.
Can we just stop this and put your slippers up.
See "comfyslippers"............
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
I wish you would. You should try to make posts that are on topic and are not an attempt to derail threads. You would probably find they would stay where you post them and would not get moved to your sty.
Try it. If you can.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
I'd have loved to have jousted with you years ago over on "Icke's" site before my ban there. You and your mates thought I was "Yozhik" somewhere else (what a poster he was, better than I and never bettered by you and your poster mates) but alas, for them, I wasn't him. I've moved on and inspired many, many people over those years to fight against the system through lawful rebellion and I love it.
Can't wait until "they" (the POWERS that are perceived to be) ALL hang. Before or after me. It doesn't matter as you don't know my past or anything to do with me.
Can I not want REVOLUTION? Is it against the law?
I bet you've helped hundreds of people mate top guy in my book, and very funny too if you don't mind me saying.
I've suggested that one of Toms followers simply goes to the house with the victory judgement and reclaims the house.
Sometimes the obvious is just staring us in the face. Peace
I'd have loved to have jousted with you years ago over on "Icke's" site before my ban there. You and your mates thought I was "Yozhik" somewhere else (what a poster he was, better than I and never bettered by you and your poster mates) but alas, for them, I wasn't him. I've moved on and inspired many, many people over those years to fight against the system through lawful rebellion and I love it.
Can't wait until "they" (the POWERS that are perceived to be) ALL hang. Before or after me. It doesn't matter as you don't know my past or anything to do with me.
Can I not want REVOLUTION? Is it against the law?
I bet you've helped hundreds of people mate top guy in my book, and very funny too if you don't mind me saying.
I've suggested that one of Toms followers simply goes to the house with the victory judgement and reclaims the house.
Sometimes the obvious is just staring us in the face. Peace
Sounds like a start.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
littleFred wrote:
At 11m, Brian Gerrish has noticed that the High Court order merely "requests" that the court show the warrant to Tom. Tom brushes the wording aside, "They've got to do it."
This reminds me of the freeman May = Must, bollocks.
Sounds like ""Courts" and "Judges" can almost perform miracles if not miracles themselves. Wow.
Now I get it. My apologies IF I have been missing it for a while now. "Judges" and "Courts", like unicorns are things that can do stuff that mere mortals can't. They have "powers" but I don't understand how "they" are granted those powers or by who. Would I be correct if I said legislated society grants them these powers?
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
pigpot could you please enlighten us and provide list of the things a unicorn can do that a human can't. Obviously you will be required to provide evidence that shows a unicorn performing those tasks.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
rumpelstilzchen wrote:pigpot could you please enlighten us and provide list of the things a unicorn can do that a human can't. Obviously you will be required to provide evidence that shows a unicorn performing those tasks.
My point "Rumps" is that a unicorn or a fawn is a mythical beast (supposedly something such as "Mr. Tumnus", from The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe)). It has powers (like Elves and such like, still mythical though) that mere mortals do not have. Like a "Judge" in a "Court" (titles are imperative there in such settings), and "they" have the ability to sentence people to do things which the "little people" don't have. Munchkins (Wizard of Oz stuff, See Mr. Bill Still) for example.
So that's a fact "RUMPS"... How does a "Judge" get this power that mere normal folk don't have? Can I sentence somebody to life in prison etc.
PLEASE, Please, please... don't give me the normal stuff like, I'm derailing threads or that I'm off topic. That's a clowns way out. I am asking for dialogue here.
Cheers.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
A judge is not a mythical creature. Ultimately he obtains his power from the population of the country in which he presides.
A unicorn is a mythical creature. It has no powers and cannot do the things a judge can. Even if the population want it to.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
rumpelstilzchen Wrote:
A judge is not a mythical creature. Ultimately he obtains his power from the population of the country in which he presides.
A unicorn is a mythical creature. It has no powers and cannot do the things a judge can. Even if the population want it to.
Jeez, Thanks for that "RUMPY". This is what I want and I want to take this debate further, LOGICALLY.
If we move from the point that the "Judge" is not a "mythical creature" but to he (or she / you missed that you politically incorrect bad boy, who gets his hand smacked, but not so because in political correct land smacking is now wrong)... ultimately obtains his power from the population of the country in which he presides, must we not FIRST identify WHAT that "Country" IS. HOW it IS. WHY it IS. Let alone WHERE it IS. These seem like facts removed from the argument. Nobody cared or cares about them.
Let's not start from a presumption that, "This is how it is because it is..." That approach is factually inaccurate. Sort out that approach.
I do. I want evidence.
Let's start here. With evidence.
Go...
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
At least the "Judiciary" (Mr Justice Peter Smith asked about his lost luggage more than 30 times before being removed from a £3billion case involving British Airways) is looking after everyone. Justify this and I'm done with this site. No threats and no promises to posters here. Just the truth that the disadvantaged WILL be pissed OFF.
pigpot's posts or not. It's 'effing' ridiculous... Planet slave ship. No your place. "F" NO. The "REGULAR'S" ain't happy.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
So everyone knows: pigpot is an acolyte of Marc Stevens. These guys insist that legal propositions must be proven or disproven with "facts" or "evidence". God forbid that anyone suggest the obvious: that legal propositions are supported (or, in their case, unsupported) by, well, law. Can't have that, since on the law they lose every time. So there must be another way.
I recently went 'round and 'round on Stevens' own board about exactly this. Read it if you wish, go there and post if you wish, but we're not rehashing it here. As happened here, Stevens' ultimate riposte was posting a picture of me.
Stevens has posted here in a couple of threads (here and here). It's gibberish.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
wserra wrote:
So everyone knows: pigpot is an acolyte of Marc Stevens. These guys insist that legal propositions must be proven or disproven with "facts" or "evidence". God forbid that anyone suggest the obvious: that legal propositions are supported (or, in their case, unsupported) by, well, law. Can't have that, since on the law they lose every time. So there must be another way.
I'm reminded of a poster on Ickes who demanded to be shown the actual law that states the law is the law. He then went on to say that if no such law exists then the law cannot be the law.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
wserra wrote:
So everyone knows: pigpot is an acolyte of Marc Stevens. These guys insist that legal propositions must be proven or disproven with "facts" or "evidence". God forbid that anyone suggest the obvious: that legal propositions are supported (or, in their case, unsupported) by, well, law. Can't have that, since on the law they lose every time. So there must be another way.
I'm reminded of a poster on Ickes who demanded to be shown the actual law that states the law is the law. He then went on to say that if no such law exists then the law cannot be the law.
I always show these guys the supremacy clause of their constitution.
The often made reply is that a constitution is merely a law written by men, just like every statute and hence does not meet their standards. Ironically many go on to extol common law as a law of the land.
