Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:09 am

You have already admitted you don’t have any case law on the issue, were the bureaucrats have specifically said that’s what they assume, and neither can you be bothered to look for it ?, so how is it you know what they are assuming ?, you don’t have their legal opinions, so what exactly do you have ?.

As far as actual cases go, not only have I not looked for evidence in case law, I think it would be a complete waste of time to do so. Why? If you were looking for evidence that someone, who has never been charged with murder, is a murderer - would you expect to find evidence that they are a murderer in case law?

I will say I think you’re full of crap, based on the fact you still have not presented anything on this issue, as far as verifiable evidence is concerned.

I offered you the opportunity for direct evidence and you wouldn't take it... so who's full of crap?

I don’t have to force somebody into partaking in a wager or deliberately provoke a bureaucratic attack, to prove what I am saying is true, and self evident, so why can’t you ?.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, I'm merely posting on a forum. So far you have not proven, or even provided evidence, that your claim that I'm talking crap is true or self evident.

I gave you your challenge, you implied you wanted me, or anybody else with half a brain, because maybe it’s not an issue for them in the first place, and they won’t have clue what you’re talking about ?, as is demonstrated in many of the freeman concepts.

I don’t give credit to anybody to continues to promote, and give credit themselves; to a system that forces people against their will to turn up in court or else, and then bleat, and/or behave, in the manner, and way they prescribe and demand, because they say so; no matter how ridiculous or irrational it may be ?.

You call that gobbledegook English?

I can’t believe or maybe I can, how other people posting on this thread, have tip-toed around you on this, and still won’t hold your feet to the fire.

No one on this forum tip-toes around me. Many people disagree with me frequently and I them. We settle our differences like mature adults. You should try it sometime. Doesn't the fact that no one else has accused me of talking crap where capacity is concerned tell you anything? Both Musashi and Busta - who have both disagreed with me in the past on various things - agree with me on this. I suppose by extension they're both full of crap too? Do you honestly believe you know more than everyone else on this forum?

Last chance put up or shut up,

If you can’t or won’t, or reply to this in your usual insulting and evasive manner, I’ll show why I know your wrong, and full of crap, and present the evidence; no one will have to be forced into a parking ticket fight with their council either, how’s that ?.


Fine by me. You made the initial claim so the onus is on you to prove it, even though I was willing to take the evidential burden upon myself. So go ahead, show me why I'm wrong, I love a good laugh.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby wanabfree » Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:41 pm

you said,

"As far as actual cases go, not only have I not looked for evidence in case law, I think it would be a complete waste of time to do so. Why? If you were looking for evidence that someone, who has never been charged with murder, is a murderer - would you expect to find evidence that they are a murderer in case law?"


I am absolutely dumfounded by such a reply?

Talk about appeal to ignorance, red herrings, slippery slope, and a lame attempt at a Hypnotic Bait and Switch tactic.

I had something more written up to prove my point about how you’re totally full of shit, but based on this statement, I clearly, don’t need to bother.

For a start you are making a statement about something you claim the courts assume, and act upon, not what they don’t assume, i.e. somebody not being accused of something, murder or otherwise.

So what your saying is, an issue that you claim the courts make an assumption about is, not going to be found in their opinions, i.e. case law, but as you stated “The "authorities" assume a capacity (role) for us which places us in their "corporate arenas". ?

So according to you it’s a waste of time to look for such evidence of their assumptions, via their own case law or transcripts, because you cannot expect to find something they don’t make an issue of, mention or ever speak about, or have any evidence of its existence, and yet at the same time, it’s such an important element, they assume it, but never speak of it, at least in a way that could be recorded. ?, so somehow you have the ability to read minds ? hmm.

Does anybody else care to point out the complete bullshit of your statement?

If the courts are assuming this concept you keep peddling, as if it were fact, then let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth, i.e. from the very same courts you claim are assuming it, but according to you, we can’t expect to find such evidence ?.

Could you please try and get more irrational, because you’re not cuckoo enough yet, to be making any sense to the bureaucratically indoctrinated insane?

You can continue with your limited depth fallacies all you like, and your continuous reverse burdens, but it’s not going to change a thing, If you wasn’t forcing me into participating in your pathetic challenge, then you have no right to then try and use it against me, in an ad hominine attack.

saying I therefore am full of crap for not accepting your so called challenge,, if I am not being forced, then I am free to refuse to take part without née negative inference being drawn from it, because you should be able to prove your case regardless, of any participation on my part.

I won’t have my time wasted by you; do you just assume I have such an amount of money being set aside to play your game? Even if I did, I still would not take part, why because if you are so sure of yourself, you should not have to use it, to the disadvantage or detriment of another.

I was asking you to present evidence, not take part in some stacked experiment, and neither am I obliged to,

You’re full of shit because you continue to evade the questions, just be honest and admit you don’t have it.

The courts make no mention of the issue, in the context you say,

Defendant’s capacity
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&datehigh=&query="defendants%20capacity"&method=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=/eu/cases%20/ew/cases%20/ie/cases%20/nie/cases%20/scot/cases%20/uk/cases
Accused capacity
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&datehigh=&query="accused%20capacity"&method=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=/eu/cases%20/ew/cases%20/ie/cases%20/nie/cases%20/scot/cases%20/uk/cases
Defendant’s capacity in the court
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&datehigh=&query="defendants%20capacity%20in%20the%20court"&method=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=/eu/cases%20/ew/cases%20/ie/cases%20/nie/cases%20/scot/cases%20/uk/cases
Defendant’s role in the court
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&datehigh=&query="defendants%20role%20in%20the%20court"&method=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=/eu/cases%20/ew/cases%20/ie/cases%20/nie/cases%20/scot/cases%20/uk/cases
Representing the legal person
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&datehigh=&query="representing%20the%20legal%20person"&method=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=/eu/cases%20/ew/cases%20/ie/cases%20/nie/cases%20/scot/cases%20/uk/cases

Maybe I haven’t yet asked or posted in the right phrase or question, but it’s clear from a quick search, the courts mention nothing as to your claims, and yet you insist, they do?

You may want to bother reading this, as well ?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_in_English_law

Restrictions on Active Legal Capacity

http://www.juridicainternational.eu/index/2004/vol-ix/restrictions-on-active-legal-capacity/

This is just a small part of what’s easily available via the net, and nothing is said about your claims ?.

there is a term that often gets used in a fallacious manner against conspiracy theorist etc, under a strawman attack, it’s called “hyper competence”, and this is basically what you’re doing in claiming the courts make an issue of something, they are fully aware of and yet, keep hidden, because they possess hidden knowledge etc, and if someone brought before them is unaware of such, then more fool them, as they have somehow through their own lack of understanding given the court jurisdiction over them ?.

Its complete bull, and not only have you avoided answering the issues on capacity, but have continued to ignore the issue of how a not proper court, can magically get jurisdiction ?. Did you forget that one ?, or are you hoping I wouldn’t bring it up again ?.

You’re so full of contradiction, fallacies, ego, flawed beliefs, biases, and outright arrogance, with a healthy dose of wilful ignorance, it’s a waste of my time, to go any further on this.

40 posts still no evidence, and all you want to do is argue, and insult all the time, wasn’t there some sort of rule forbidding such behaviour ?, hmm, so much for rules aye, guess no one takes them seriously anymore, maybe it should have been an oath instead ?.

if people can’t see you for what you are, and how you behaved in this thread, then more fool them, and likely they are beyond being able to be helped or capable of critical thinking, but fortunately there are very few people like that, and they can finally see reason.

Your turn to start the insults now, but remember stay away from the issues, as you may have to inherit a burden of proof, and we wouldn’t want that now, would we?
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:12 pm

Well you did manage to make me smile, so thanks for that.

Still waiting for you to show everyone why I'm wrong... all you've done so far is show that what I've been saying has gone waaaaay over your head. :clap:

Read the thread again, pay attention to what I've said and try and understand it. Maybe someone else will be kind enough to explain to you what I'm saying, if you ask them. As for myself, I'm quite happy for you to remain dumbfounded and ignorant - no skin off my nose.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby wanabfree » Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:40 pm

Is that the best you can do?

Say it’s all gone way over my head, and I somehow missed your evidence?

So I have to read back over your nonsense, to find what exactly?

Was your evidence so subtle, so clever that it passed by us lesser mortals?

Give it a rest already, and stop trying to insult my, and everybody else’s intelligence on this forum you haven’t presented anything, but your continuous stream of bull.

I should have known it was going to end up like this before I started the thread, but I have to accept I could be wrong on occasion, and someone one day may be able to come along and show me why, but obviously that’s never going to be you.
You will continue to be an annoyance to me, or anyone else trying to get to the truth on these issues, and your bullshit will continue to poison the minds of all it touches until that is; they too realise your either a shill or a just another pretentious, self righteous arrogant prick being a retard.

And before you all try to jump on me for saying that, I mean retard, as defining someone who hinders, impedes or obstructs the progress of others, since you all love your definitions so much.

You really outdid yourself on that last quote, and I can’t imagine anyone taking you seriously anymore after that performance, you haven’t even attempted to bullshit your way out of that one, why not, I wonder?

And to keep repeating I haven't proven you wrong, like a broken record, does not prove you are right.

for a start you still have not presented any evidence for me to even begin to contradict, except for your opinions, the courts assume the concept your peddling as a fact, and you haven't proven it to be a fact or that the courts makes an issue about it, in the way your claiming that's all I have been able to show so far, because you have presented nothing else.

It’s the same as saying God wrote the bible, and nobody can challenge you on the existence of god, they have to prove you wrong, that god never wrote it, and because you won't entertain the premise god had to exist prior to him writing the bible. all anyone can do, as far as your concerned is prove you wrong that he didn't write it, and if they can't do that, then your declared the winner in your own mind, and to hell with the rest of ya, and your logic.

Someone like you cannot be reasoned with, nor can anybody have a genuine logical, and rational discussion with you, because you will insist that, white is black, and black is white, no matter what the evidence says.


so That’s it I’m done with this thread.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby Dreadlock » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:13 am

Lol. You really are funny. I can't thank treeman enough for not permanently banning you!
I offer you the chance to receive hard evidence, you refuse it and then blame me for not providing evidence - priceless.

You then state...
I’ll show why I know your wrong, and full of crap, and present the evidence..

...and of course fail to do so while continuing with your rhetoric and lies against me, all the while trying to make out that I'm the bad guy who started all this and you're the poor little victim - hilarious! Let the record show who started all this, who made the initial claim (wanabefree) and who the aggressor is (wanabefree):
http://forum.fmotl.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=10087&start=40
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby wanabfree » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:33 am

The elders of the internet have officially re-named you as “DODGEBULL” work that one out for yourself,
And here it is again so as you don’t miss it
Good luck dodging this one pass the buck dodgers,
I did vote for that one personally, but the elders said No, you’re just too full of it, to leave out the bull ?



wanabfree wrote:you said,

"As far as actual cases go, not only have I not looked for evidence in case law, I think it would be a complete waste of time to do so. Why? If you were looking for evidence that someone, who has never been charged with murder, is a murderer - would you expect to find evidence that they are a murderer in case law?"


I am absolutely dumfounded by such a reply?

Talk about appeal to ignorance, red herrings, slippery slope, and a lame attempt at a Hypnotic Bait and Switch tactic.

I had something more written up to prove my point about how you’re totally full of shit, but based on this statement, I clearly, don’t need to bother.

For a start you are making a statement about something you claim the courts assume, and act upon, not what they don’t assume, i.e. somebody not being accused of something, murder or otherwise.

So what your saying is, an issue that you claim the courts make an assumption about is, not going to be found in their opinions, i.e. case law, but as you stated “The "authorities" assume a capacity (role) for us which places us in their "corporate arenas". ?

So according to you it’s a waste of time to look for such evidence of their assumptions, via their own case law or transcripts, because you cannot expect to find something they don’t make an issue of, mention or ever speak about, or have any evidence of its existence, and yet at the same time, it’s such an important element, they assume it, but never speak of it, at least in a way that could be recorded. ?, so somehow you have the ability to read minds ? hmm.

Does anybody else care to point out the complete bullshit of your statement?

If the courts are assuming this concept you keep peddling, as if it were fact, then let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth, i.e. from the very same courts you claim are assuming it, but according to you, we can’t expect to find such evidence ?.

Could you please try and get more irrational, because you’re not cuckoo enough yet, to be making any sense to the bureaucratically indoctrinated insane?

You can continue with your limited depth fallacies all you like, and your continuous reverse burdens, but it’s not going to change a thing, If you wasn’t forcing me into participating in your pathetic challenge, then you have no right to then try and use it against me, in an ad hominine attack.

saying I therefore am full of crap for not accepting your so called challenge,, if I am not being forced, then I am free to refuse to take part without née negative inference being drawn from it, because you should be able to prove your case regardless, of any participation on my part.

I won’t have my time wasted by you; do you just assume I have such an amount of money being set aside to play your game? Even if I did, I still would not take part, why because if you are so sure of yourself, you should not have to use it, to the disadvantage or detriment of another.

I was asking you to present evidence, not take part in some stacked experiment, and neither am I obliged to,

You’re full of shit because you continue to evade the questions, just be honest and admit you don’t have it.

The courts make no mention of the issue, in the context you say,

Defendant’s capacity
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&datehigh=&query="defendants%20capacity"&method=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=/eu/cases%20/ew/cases%20/ie/cases%20/nie/cases%20/scot/cases%20/uk/cases
Accused capacity
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&datehigh=&query="accused%20capacity"&method=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=/eu/cases%20/ew/cases%20/ie/cases%20/nie/cases%20/scot/cases%20/uk/cases
Defendant’s capacity in the court
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&datehigh=&query="defendants%20capacity%20in%20the%20court"&method=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=/eu/cases%20/ew/cases%20/ie/cases%20/nie/cases%20/scot/cases%20/uk/cases
Defendant’s role in the court
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&datehigh=&query="defendants%20role%20in%20the%20court"&method=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=/eu/cases%20/ew/cases%20/ie/cases%20/nie/cases%20/scot/cases%20/uk/cases
Representing the legal person
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&datehigh=&query="representing%20the%20legal%20person"&method=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=/eu/cases%20/ew/cases%20/ie/cases%20/nie/cases%20/scot/cases%20/uk/cases

Maybe I haven’t yet asked or posted in the right phrase or question, but it’s clear from a quick search, the courts mention nothing as to your claims, and yet you insist, they do?

You may want to bother reading this, as well ?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_in_English_law

Restrictions on Active Legal Capacity

http://www.juridicainternational.eu/index/2004/vol-ix/restrictions-on-active-legal-capacity/

This is just a small part of what’s easily available via the net, and nothing is said about your claims ?.

there is a term that often gets used in a fallacious manner against conspiracy theorist etc, under a strawman attack, it’s called “hyper competence”, and this is basically what you’re doing in claiming the courts make an issue of something, they are fully aware of and yet, keep hidden, because they possess hidden knowledge etc, and if someone brought before them is unaware of such, then more fool them, as they have somehow through their own lack of understanding given the court jurisdiction over them ?.

Its complete bull, and not only have you avoided answering the issues on capacity, but have continued to ignore the issue of how a not proper court, can magically get jurisdiction ?. Did you forget that one ?, or are you hoping I wouldn’t bring it up again ?.

You’re so full of contradiction, fallacies, ego, flawed beliefs, biases, and outright arrogance, with a healthy dose of wilful ignorance, it’s a waste of my time, to go any further on this.

40 posts still no evidence, and all you want to do is argue, and insult all the time, wasn’t there some sort of rule forbidding such behaviour ?, hmm, so much for rules aye, guess no one takes them seriously anymore, maybe it should have been an oath instead ?.

if people can’t see you for what you are, and how you behaved in this thread, then more fool them, and likely they are beyond being able to be helped or capable of critical thinking, but fortunately there are very few people like that, and they can finally see reason.

Your turn to start the insults now, but remember stay away from the issues, as you may have to inherit a burden of proof, and we wouldn’t want that now, would we?
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby Dreadlock » Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:39 am

wanabfree wrote:so That’s it I’m done with this thread.

Then you promptly posted yet again. I wasn't surprised. Lying is after all your forte.

And besides being evidence that my comments on capacity have gone waaaay over your head, all those links that you posted are supposed to prove what exactly?
Would you post about oranges if we were talking about apples? Hmm I think you probably would... and then promptly berate me for dodging the subject. :giggle:

Like I said before, try READING and UNDERSTANDING what I've said in previous posts. You're making yourself look more and more stupid - as you always do.

Oh yeah, say "hi" to the "elders of the internet" for me. :ouch:
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby wanabfree » Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:53 pm

I’ll tell ya what; let’s put this to vote on the forum shall we?

You did ask the admins on here to referee the discussion that should have taken place, and you should have produced your evidence, so let’s see if they can identify, without contradiction the so called evidence you claim has gone waaay over my head shall we ?.

Let’s see if they spotted it, were I allegedly didn’t?

Let’s see if they can quote you on your so called evidence? and show it to be verifiable evidence, and not just your opinions ?.

Let’s see if they can justify, you trying to move the goal posts, by turning the challenge back against me, and to your wanting to control the debate, also your fallacy, of trying to force me into a wager, that I couldn’t decline or else, because if I did, therefore it somehow proves I am not interested in the truth, and full of crap etc...But at the same time I wasn’t being coerced, into anything, as you claimed?.

Let’s see were you have answered to/and or proven that a “not proper court, can magically gain jurisdiction” ?.

Let’s see if they can make any rational sense of this one:
"As far as actual cases go, not only have I not looked for evidence in case law, I think it would be a complete waste of time to do so. Why? If you were looking for evidence that someone, who has never been charged with murder, is a murderer - would you expect to find evidence that they are a murderer in case law?"

Let’s see, if they agree, with your rational, and opinion, that it’s a waste of time looking for evidence in case law, for an issue the courts allegedly make such a big deal about, as an assumption; but you could never expect to find it ever raised in a reported hearing ?.

Let’s see, if anybody else here can take an objective, and unbiased stand on this, and show they actually give a dam about the truth?.

I won’t be holding my breath though.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby Dreadlock » Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:13 pm

Let's see if you can quote where I have stated that evidence has been presented or that evidence has gone over your head. I won't hold my breath though.
As for a debate, I wasn't aware that there had been one let alone that I'm trying to control one.

The rest of your rant just shows your lack of understanding (again) interspersed with rhetoric and false accusation. All part of the course where you are concerned unfortunately.

Now I'm getting rather bored :yawn: as I've seen all this from you before. As I said earlier, if you want to remain ignorant that's fine by me. I won't be posting in this thread again in response to you
and unlike you I'm a man of my word.

Feel free to continue posting though. I do quite enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself - without even realising it.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Challenge to DREADLOCK prove capacity matters ?

Postby wanabfree » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:57 pm

double
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Freeman related questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest