Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby wanabfree » Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:27 pm

Dreadlock wrote:Hi wanabfree, it's so nice to have you back.

So In summary, you said, at the beginning “what you attended was not a proper court but merely an administrative hearing”,

So one minute your saying, this isn’t a proper court, but then you say “Unfortunately you did give the "court" jurisdiction” ?

So how can it automagically acquire “jurisdiction” if it wasn’t a proper court ?

Please make your mind up ? It was either a proper court or it wasn’t ?

even administrative hearings have to be “proper” to have jurisdiction don’t they ?, Or are you simply overlooking the obvious, or ignoring the contradiction in your statement, because you’re trying to prove how clever you think you are, when in fact, you’re talking complete bollox ?.


You see what I said as a contradiction because you clearly do not fully understand how jurisdiction works.

And where did you get all that crap about “capacity “ from , women’s weekly ?.


I'm afraid if you don't understand the importance of capacity/role/position in court, you'll never understand fully how court works.

It worries me that you are offering advice to people without even a grasp of these basics. I watched the Marc Stevens video you linked and he makes no mention of capacity either, despite the fact that it is intrinsically linked to jurisdiction which is the main topic of his presentation. It's not that what he said was wrong, rather he has missed a very important piece of the puzzle which is probably why he holds some of the opinions that he stated and approaches court cases in the way that he does. He might have some success with his method because his approach is certainly logical, but he is making a mountain out of a molehill.

If you want to discuss this further please start a new thread. I offer you ONE chance for a civil discussion. If you stoop to your usual tactics, elements of which are already evident in your previous post, I will end the discussion immediately. If you don't want a discussion that's fine by me. Maybe someone else will be kind enough to explain jurisdiction and capacity to you.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby wanabfree » Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:56 pm

1. instead of attacking me personally and saying I don’t understand.

How about answer the question, Q1. So how can it automagically acquire “jurisdiction” if it wasn’t a proper court?

2. I saw a contradiction, because you cannot logically claim to be something and yet not be something at the same time, it’s nothing to do with my understanding jurisdiction, and I don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a non-rocket, can’t suddenly become a rocket, and blast off for the moon. Do you expect NASA to talk such nonsense, “well you just don’t understand rocket science”?

3. Also What? “Basics”? Do you mean, I don’t grasp allegedly? Are you referring to the legal opinions regarding jurisdiction or something independent of that, such as the facts, such opinions should be based on?.

4. All you did was make a sweeping statement about something, as if it were fact, and presented no evidence to support your claims, so if you have it, show us factually what “capacity” is, then link it Scorpio’s case ? .

5. Given the bizarre analogy you gave, it sounds more like, because Scorpio, never had a schizophrenic episode, and didn’t enter in the court building as a snivelling, begging coward, playing the “role” they were allegedly told in their summons to be ?, according to the way you put it, somehow magically gave this non-court jurisdiction to do as they pleased ?.

6. You said,
“I watched the Marc Stevens video you linked and he makes no mention of capacity either, despite the fact that it is intrinsically linked to jurisdiction which is the main topic of his presentation”.

Marc didn't mention it, because he has never come across it in all his research, or if he did, considers it a moot issue? Based on the fact, there has to be evidence presented by the prosecution of jurisdiction first, and so the opinions of the court are irrelevant at that stage.

7. So you can confirm, that there are facts, proving “capacity”, intrinsically linked to jurisdiction, yes or no ?, if yes, apart from your opinion, or some bureaucrats, what are those facts ?.


8. by the way I think you missed the point of Marc’s video completely, as it was not about how courts gain, or have jurisdiction, but demonstrating, how all courts never have evidence of jurisdiction from the very beginning, but you continue to assert, that courts do in fact gain jurisdiction, at some point, based on the accused behaviour, or conduct, or role playing/acting in court ?.

9. Which by the way this effectivelly, strips the prosecution of having to prove anything, if you’re taking the attitude the courts can somehow acquire jurisdiction, even in a non legitimate court ?, you can't have it both ways.


10. So how is he making a mountain out of a molehill ?, Marc is not adding, anything to the issue, He has broken the issue down into its constituent parts, it's called Reductionism.

It’s a sound method of identifying the issues you’re dealing with, and isn’t adding more things to it, like the freemen concept apologist, do so often, i.e. 1 thing becomes 3, then 3 becomes 6, and so on.

11. There are basic principles of logic, and reason at play here, not bureaucratic opinions, and freeman concepts, which continue to confuse the two issues.

12. Doesn’t a court have to have jurisdiction prior to any issues of capacity being raised ?.

Such as first of all having a valid complaint in front of them to begin with, so it can issue a summons, and be able to hear the case, Hmm.

13. Does it not have to have a justifiable case before it?

14. I think you’re ignoring important issues that bureaucrats say must be in place beforehand?

15. But if you can prove me wrong, your free to try, and do so, not just for my benefit and humiliation, but for everyone else’s, if you can do it ?

16. I don’t want baseless opinions, but facts that the prosecution should or would have had. to prove jurisdiction, in this somehow, not “proper court”?.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby Dreadlock » Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:29 pm

Before we start I'm going to lay down some ground rules which are not open to debate. If you don't agree with them this ends now.

Also this debate has nothing to do with Scorpio's case which is why I asked you to start a new thread. This is about capacity/role/position, words which may be used interchangeably for the purposes of this discussion, and jurisdiction. The video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNuFxsBow8k is also the topic of conversation.

The rules are as follows:

1. When we quote one another we will use the quote function and ACTUALLY QUOTE what was said using cut and paste. No paraphrasing. Quotes will be supplied in the context in which they were originally written.

2. Neither of us will accuse the other of writing or believing something without backing up the accusation with a quote that actually supports the accusation.

3. Neither of us will deliberately lie. If one of us is accused by the other of lying the accuser must provide proof of the lie in the form of a quote. The accused then has one opportunity, which must be in their next post, to withdraw their lie or support their position with a quote of their own. Failure to do one or the other of these things results in forfeiture of the debate.

4. If one or the other of us wishes to edit a post we made (as you just did for example), for whatever reason, the changes made will be supplied by addendum to the end of the post or by a new post. Changes made without notification of the changes results in forfeiture of the debate.

5. The first person to break the rules looses the debate. Admins/moderators will decide when the rules have been broken and by whom by majority vote, if they are agreeable. 5 admin/moderator votes are required. If a moderator indicates that a rule has been broken they will state which rule and where the violation took place.

Neither of us will post until the vote is finished.

6. Either of us may waive an instance of a rule violation by the other.

There is the problem of what a "fact" is. From previous posts you have made it clear that you do not put much weight in dictionary definitions. This poses a serious impediment to any discussion we might have as you clearly want "facts" but I have absolutely no idea what you would consider to be a "fact" or what words I can use to describe such a "fact" as you may not agree with the dictionary definitions of any words I might use.

I therefore require from you a clear and concise definition of what a "fact" is to you and one I can agree to. I also require a list of dictionaries that you find acceptable for use in defining words - if there are any. Hopefully I will have access to one or more of them.

Finally let's keep these posts short to aid understanding. You ask a question, I'll answer it. I ask a question, you answer it. One question at a time.

If we cannot agree to the above then there is no point in continuing.

When we've finished our discussion/presentation the admins/moderators, as many as want to, can decide who made the most sense by way of vote.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby Too Far Gone » Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:46 am

I'll give him 2 posts before he is either banned or you abandon the thread.
User avatar
Too Far Gone
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:59 pm

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby wanabfree » Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:45 pm

I’ll play along with your game for the purposes of this “debate, but before I do, as supposedly I can’t have any say in the rules? Let me raise some concerns regarding this.

To say this has nothing to do with Scorpio’s case, is in my view trying the dodge the issue, but in some ways it doesn’t only involve Scorpio’s case, but anybodies, so there is no harm using them as an example, given I want answers to comments you made about “non-proper courts” ?.

Also before we even begin you’re attempting to control the conversation, it would appear to try, and gain an upper hand ?, and also passing over further control to the admins, based on a vote? How can I possibly get a fair and impartial decision or yourself for that matter, given the persuasion, and previous history I have with the admins on this forum ?.

truth is not subject to majority vote, you can try to stack the cards against me all you like, it won't help you, if you can't produce the evidence, you can throw at me whatever you like, or try to create conditions, were you can claim to be the winner, because a petty rule was broken ?, it won't prove your right and i'm wrong, only verifiable evidence is going to achieve that.

The only rules that should apply here are the “rules of logic” No.1= the rule of non-contradiction P is not non-P., No.2= The rule of identity: P is P., No.3= The rule of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P


This doesn’t have to be a debate or discussion anyhow, as you either have the evidence, and the facts that should flow rationally from it, or you don’t? it’s that simple.

I have an issue with dictionary definitions when they are used as the only definition for any given word, when in fact a word/s can have multiple meanings.
So let’s keep it to layman’s terms, I don’t mind a dictionary quote if it’s relevant, but not as a be all, and end all, as I have stated a few times on this forum, it can be a logical fallacy, i.e. “the appeal to definition”.

`As for facts, here is what I define a fact as being: “Fact/s defined: an identified and/or identifiable, measured body of knowledge that is non-contradictory.

Think of a fact as being spherical, meaning, that from whatever angle it’s viewed from, it looks the same, to everyone, a sphere is measured using three points, so think of these three points as being the trivium model, if that helps ?.

What do I mean by “identify” It’s the result of the process of elimination resulting in the non-contradictory label. In other words rational conclusion or observation.
This means I expect from you or anyone else wishing to join in, to hold an objective standard of truth, that means evidence independent of your whims, wants or opinions, or some other bureaucrats, it also means dropping any emotional baggage, and prejudice, is that clear enough for you ?.

So I’ll agree to the conditions, on which you wish to continue this, but under no illusions, that I can somehow expect to be viewed or treated fairly, or impartially by the admins or anyone else.

Logic and reason doesn’t care either way, because a fact is simply, that which is ?.

So whenever you’re ready to start, how about answering my first question ?.
Last edited by wanabfree on Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby treeman » Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:06 pm

I will remain impartial on this debate, but the first individaul to start using insulting diatribe will be deleted from this forum for good.
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby wanabfree » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:07 pm

saying your going to be impartial, dosen't make it true, so i am sure you can understand, when i say; i can't trust you on that one, it's not like we have a mutually respectful relationship is it ?.

this is a freeman based forum, defending freeman beliefs, including the spin off fads, and crazes,that follow from it.

Like i said i ain't expecting fairness or independance from such beliefs, and it's axiomatic i won't get it.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby treeman » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:24 pm

:ouch: We will see.
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:40 pm

Wanabfree,

I was starting a post in order to reply to you and as usual it was getting long and taking up too much of my time. Furthermore it is clear that you aren't entirely satisfied with this forum, so I have another proposal for you. An idea that will save us both time and will provide you and everyone else with very strong evidence that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to capacity and jurisdiction. The proposal is as follows:

1. I will send to you wanabefree, by recorded delivery, a cheque for £100 payable to any admin/moderator who volunteers for the job I am about to describe.

2. You wanabefree will send to me, by recorded delivery, a cheque for £100 payable to the same admin/moderator.

3. We will notify the forum when the cheques have been delivered. Both cheques will be dated 30/6/14 (30th June 2104).

4. The volunteer will go to their local town/city and get a parking ticket by parking on a yellow line at the wrong time, being careful not to cause obstruction.

5. Upon receiving the PCN the volunteer will send the details of it to me and I will provide them with detailed yet simple instructions on how to deal with the charge. The instructions involve the services of a solicitor which will cost £10 max. The volunteer will have to bear this initial burden.

6. On 30/6/14 the volunteer will post on the forum the details of what transpired and how I failed, or succeeded, in dealing with the PCN.

7. If the PCN has not been dropped by 30/4/14, wanabfree will send my cheque to the volunteer to be cashed. I will return wanabfree's cheque to him by recorded delivery.

8. If the PCN has been dropped by 30/4/14, either quietly (no response from the local council) or formally, I will send wanabfree's cheque to the volunteer to be cashed. Wanabfree will return my cheque to me by recorded delivery.

As everyone can see, the volunteer stands to loose nothing and potentially earns at least £90, if I succeed, and around £90 minus the PCN charge if I fail.

Any admins/mods out there want some easy promisory notes? :yes:

I'm prepared to put my notes where my mouth is. Now the big question is, wanabfree, are you? :thinks:
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:14 pm

One final thing. Should wanabfree accept this challenge and should he dishonour his cheque, I will cover it - but he will be permanently banned from this forum and the reason clearly posted for all to see.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Next

Return to General Freeman related questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest