The A4V of Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

Re: The A4V of Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

Postby Farmer » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:49 pm

I'm not sure what is meant by "credit card remittance slip"?
If you're scared of 'them' poisoning 'us' with some shit then maybe you haven't noticed the shit they are already poisoning us with.
- prajna - fmotl.co.uk forum 2011
User avatar
Farmer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:07 am

Re: The A4V of Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

Postby free_spirit » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:03 pm

Farmer wrote:I'm not sure what is meant by "credit card remittance slip"?


I think it's the giro slip mate. The bit at the bottom you tear off.
WAKE UP PEOPLE OR ELSE ON YOUR DEATH BED YOU WILL BE THINKING, WHAT THE F**K WAS ALL THAT ABOUT
User avatar
free_spirit
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:48 pm

Re: The A4V of Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

Postby Farmer » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:23 pm

In part 2 of the thread under Goodnight Vienna for the fourth set of 3rd party interlopers... you write:

perpetrated a fraud in the factum against MISS STRAWMAN,


Does the use of the word 'factum' mean 'An act or deed' or 'A statement of the facts and law to be referred to which is filed by each party in a legal application'.
If you're scared of 'them' poisoning 'us' with some shit then maybe you haven't noticed the shit they are already poisoning us with.
- prajna - fmotl.co.uk forum 2011
User avatar
Farmer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:07 am

Re: The A4V of Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

Postby Farmer » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:43 pm

Micheal, in your latest update you mix Biblical text with statute law; why do you feel that Biblical text has standing, standing beside commercial law, or visa versa?
If you're scared of 'them' poisoning 'us' with some shit then maybe you haven't noticed the shit they are already poisoning us with.
- prajna - fmotl.co.uk forum 2011
User avatar
Farmer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:07 am

Re: The A4V of Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

Postby The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael » Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:49 pm

Farmer wrote:In part 2 of the thread under Goodnight Vienna for the fourth set of 3rd party interlopers... you write:

perpetrated a fraud in the factum against MISS STRAWMAN,


Does the use of the word 'factum' mean 'An act or deed' or 'A statement of the facts and law to be referred to which is filed by each party in a legal application'.

It means that there was a faud committed in the actof executing the agreement.

Peace
Nothing, except the truth, is like it seems to be.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
User avatar
The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:38 am

Re: The A4V of Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

Postby The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael » Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:58 pm

Farmer wrote:Micheal, in your latest update you mix Biblical text with statute law; why do you feel that Biblical text has standing, standing beside commercial law, or visa versa?

Commercial law derives from the new testament, which is why the courts ask witnesses/claimants/defendants to swear on the King James version. This makes citing its contents very difficult to rebut.

Peace
Nothing, except the truth, is like it seems to be.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
User avatar
The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:38 am

Re: The A4V of Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

Postby U.wazcallywabbit » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:55 pm

OUTSTANDING Micheal ! outstanding. Permission to adapt and use as appropriate please.
U.wazcallywabbit
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: The A4V of Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

Postby gepisar » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:55 pm

The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael wrote:
Farmer wrote:Micheal, in your latest update you mix Biblical text with statute law; why do you feel that Biblical text has standing, standing beside commercial law, or visa versa?

Commercial law derives from the new testament, which is why the courts ask witnesses/claimants/defendants to swear on the King James version. This makes citing its contents very difficult to rebut.

Peace


@Michael, I know we've been here before. And indeed, i hope we've forgiven those who trespass against us, (sorry). When "we" swear on the bible in court, "we" are not attesting to the truth in the good book, but swearing that we will tell the truth or that our soul will be in peril if we dont. And to demonstrate our most seriousness about it, we put the hand on the bible. (Presumably for God to witness?) We are not attesting anything about the accuracy of the contents. Indeed: "turn the cheek, be forgiving" is hardly what i understand to be commercial law! Seem that dog eat dog is more like it, and that if them in power need a new law to keep the surf/plebs/slaves out, they will make one.

There is of course a wider general question about the accuracy of the transcriptions, interpretations etc...

Having said all this, ive not read the bible.

I suppose the fundamental question IS: EVEN if commercial law derives on the tenants of the new testament, is it still relevant? Maybe it was used as a starting point, but unless there is some authority that says commercial law must come from the new testament, then there is no reason why is should continue to do so. That being the case, new laws can be made, by those with authority and jurisdiction to do so, without any reference to anything except that it suits "their" purpose.

When we as freemen claim our rights, we dont necessarily have to quote or base it on the bible, we just declare sovereignty and publish our rules as we see fit.

How are the commercial bandits any different?

Of course, if what your saying works, for no other reason that the judges and clerks and justices believe it works, then thats a different matter: it just works -> belief!

Is this then just a linguistic slight of mind, that exposes a conflict: a double bind if you will?

Rgds
Poor is the man whose pleasures depend upon the permission of another.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value - Zero" - Voltaire 1729
User avatar
gepisar
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Near Surrey

Re: The A4V of Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

Postby The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael » Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:42 pm

gepisar wrote:
The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael wrote:
Farmer wrote:Micheal, in your latest update you mix Biblical text with statute law; why do you feel that Biblical text has standing, standing beside commercial law, or visa versa?

Commercial law derives from the new testament, which is why the courts ask witnesses/claimants/defendants to swear on the King James version. This makes citing its contents very difficult to rebut.

Peace


@Michael, I know we've been here before. And indeed, i hope we've forgiven those who trespass against us, (sorry). When "we" swear on the bible in court, "we" are not attesting to the truth in the good book, but swearing that we will tell the truth or that our soul will be in peril if we dont. And to demonstrate our most seriousness about it, we put the hand on the bible. (Presumably for God to witness?) We are not attesting anything about the accuracy of the contents. Indeed: "turn the cheek, be forgiving" is hardly what i understand to be commercial law! Seem that dog eat dog is more like it, and that if them in power need a new law to keep the surf/plebs/slaves out, they will make one.

There is of course a wider general question about the accuracy of the transcriptions, interpretations etc...

Having said all this, ive not read the bible.

I suppose the fundamental question IS: EVEN if commercial law derives on the tenants of the new testament, is it still relevant? Maybe it was used as a starting point, but unless there is some authority that says commercial law must come from the new testament, then there is no reason why is should continue to do so. That being the case, new laws can be made, by those with authority and jurisdiction to do so, without any reference to anything except that it suits "their" purpose.

When we as freemen claim our rights, we dont necessarily have to quote or base it on the bible, we just declare sovereignty and publish our rules as we see fit.

How are the commercial bandits any different?

Of course, if what your saying works, for no other reason that the judges and clerks and justices believe it works, then thats a different matter: it just works -> belief!

Is this then just a linguistic slight of mind, that exposes a conflict: a double bind if you will?

Rgds


Take away the foundations of any contruction, whether material or fiction, and it will soon crumble. This is not a method of claiming our rights as freemen; this is about using the rules of THEIR system to achieve remedies that already exist within the law for the benefit of the people.

Whether you or I believe the new testament is relevant is irrelvant; it is the foundation of commercial law, which has been corrupted beyond recognition by the ignorance and self-interest of those who help maintain the common practice of fraud, rather than a just and fair judicial system. When confronted with these undeniable facts, even the lower courts begin to act appropriately, otherise the Mighty Oshun would not have been named as a creditor in his claim against a mortgage bandit that has already failed to enforce a repossession order of the same court.

Peace
Nothing, except the truth, is like it seems to be.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
User avatar
The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:38 am

Re: The A4V of Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

Postby nameless » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:59 pm

What does this mean:

"Void where prohibited by law"

I have searched the web but don't seem to get any real meaning of the term. The pages I have found relate to advertising, and predominately in the States. Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, I have searched.
“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy."

Lord Denning
nameless
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Credit cards

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron