Page 4 of 5

Re: Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst .vs. 'Them'

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:06 am
by Veronica
dannyw is talking about an Act ... a Statute ... a 'legislated rule of a Society' ... a Society we don't belong to, if we choose not to, and where we choose to remain solely under Common Law jurisdiction. So who gives a shit?

This is the problem we seem to have all the time. As soon as someone quotes "Act" it's time to say: "Listen: YOU might be acting in a play, but I'm not. Go put your play on somewhere else ... here we are not thesbians"

You have to get away from the Statute Hived Mind.

(Yes ... I know it's ingrained ... but I can do it ... Irene can do it ... so why do so many others have such a problem?)

Re: Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst .vs. 'Them'

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:28 am
by huntingross
V....there is no problem with my mind.

dannyw is indeed talking about statute....that is why I kept emphasising the REGISTERED.....copyright declaration does not involve Statute....it is common law....it is why I went down the DECLARATION route.

He has repeated the claims of someone else as if they are fact....and as far as I have demonstrated.....if that is his belief in that world....he is wrong.

I believe Irene has gone down the registered route (but I'm not certain) if others choose to do this, I believe they can, and the claim that dannyw has levelled are groundless in my opinion.

If Irene has gone down the registered route, then she CAN NOT differentiate between one and the other, she is playing their game and she must answer to it. If this claim was correct, her Copyright Claim would be in pieces right now. So Irene should "give a shit" because she would be operating under Statute.

I could have just said - ACT = Bullshit - and left it at that.....but instead i took his bat off him and hit him with it...so now he has no standing in Statute or Common Law....personally I think that is a stronger case than saying bullshit.

I may have ingrained issues, but I'm able to differentiate between them....

I cant understand why people cant perceive the difference either.

Re: Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst .vs. 'Them'

PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:48 am
by dannyw
Here is how Irene Mas Gravenhorst works with her Copyright as I studied her workshop once. She makes the claim in what they call "Common Law" then hold those within the other jurisdiction accountable for it and bills them for the "infringement" of the use of her trademark for $9 Trillion per use. So it looks like jurisdictional hoping to a few of my friends who have discussed this with me... your thoughts?

Re: Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst .vs. 'Them'

PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:11 am
by huntingross
Thanks for the info dannyw....I don't see how that is jurisdiction hopping, different jusrisdictions exist all over the world, and unless there is an agreement to allow cross 'border' communication, no communication would be possible.

in what they call "Common Law"

I take it you don't agree with this in some way. What is it that you think is suspect about what it is 'actually' that they are doing.

And if 'they' (Irene ?) are operating under Common Law, why did/do you feel the Trade Marks Act applies to her....and even if it did apply, what was your interpretatin of Section 9 that you highlighted.

I assume, perhaps wrongly that you are disallusioned by some or all aspects of the copyright trademark area or is it the freeman movement generally.

Re: Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst .vs. 'Them'

PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:40 pm
by Highspirit
The Copyright and Trademark approach is something I am also really interested in. If anyone has any info they can send me on the subject or somewhere they can direct me for more info I will be eternally grateful.

Thank you :sun:

[EDIT : High HS....Here's a link to get you started.

Re: Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst .vs. 'Them'

PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:11 pm
by BaldBeardyDude
Highspirit wrote:The Copyright and Trademark approach is something I am also really interested in. If anyone has any info they can send me on the subject or somewhere they can direct me for more info I will be eternally grateful.

Thank you :sun:


Not wishing to add to Marks workload, but he is the main contender for me! (sorry Mark)

Also - big HI to you again Highspirit - how goes it on the lovely sunny isle, m8 ?

Re: Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst .vs. 'Them'

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:06 am
by Sophia
Greetings!

Wondering how Irene got into the courtroom in the first place! My understanding is that once you have walked into the court room you have contracted/consented to admiralty law.
A judge here in England barred a colleague from entering the court room after he told the usher that he would be representing his fiction on common law standing. What did he do wrong?
bb,
Sophia

Re: Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst .vs. 'Them'

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:51 am
by Freeman-B
I could have just said - ACT = Bullshit - and left it at that.....but instead i took his bat off him and hit him with it...so now he has no standing in Statute or Common Law....personally I think that is a stronger case than saying bullshit.


WTG Mark - and great work too.

Respect
:peace: :love:
B

Re: Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst .vs. 'Them'

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:38 pm
by Sophia
Bump. Could somebody explain how she got to say her stuff and folk here are not even getting into the court room?

Re: Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst .vs. 'Them'

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:49 pm
by the trojan
methinks that irene was one of the first to sock it to them and they were not prepared for her.
Has anyone mentioned her intention to open a bank ?
Irene was one of the first examples I came across while randomly surfing .
I was really confused with what she was doing but I soon sussed it out.
She is a ROCK!