the link.

Need help and support? Post here and we will do our best.

Re: the link.

Postby Freeman Stephen » Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:55 pm

he could be wrong about it or he could know something and is waiting for the right time to present it fully. if you want to push ahead on some tax issue before this happens youll need to find the information to present for yourself. he could be right and cqv could be an avenue worth investigating to find the info you need but im no wiser than you on this. as far as i can see, the uk claims the right because they have a unique ability to intimidate slaves with violence. i wouldnt presume rh is wrong though just because he is too busy chewing on other stuff right now but bear in mind he could be and hence the moto: do your own research.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: the link.

Postby ineverknewthat » Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:07 pm

Freeman Stephen wrote:
he could be wrong about it or he could know something and is waiting for the right time to present it fully.

That had crossed my mind too stephen.

if you want to push ahead on some tax issue before this happens youll need to find the information to present for yourself.

I don't seem to be able to push on anything at this moment in time stephen. I need to know how this act is being used for purposes other than it's original intent. and how he has linked it to the Legal fiction. And it seems only roger knows that.

he could be right and cqv could be an avenue worth investigating to find the info you need but im no wiser than you on this.

But roger is stephen.

as far as i can see, the uk claims the right because they have a unique ability to intimidate slaves with violence. i wouldnt presume rh is wrong though just because he is too busy chewing on other stuff right now but bear in mind he could be and hence the moto: do your own research.

well stephen, I have already explained three times now , that I have done my research and have found the the ACT still stands, nothing changed only the preamble roger mentions. this is a fact.
Last edited by ineverknewthat on Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
ineverknewthat
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:42 pm

Re: the link.

Postby Freeman Stephen » Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:24 pm

interesting dichotomy between roger saying its unlawful because of the lack of knowledge/consensus and yourself that its unlawful because of coersive threat of violence. possible useful dichotomy. wear a different tie pin and present your case in opposition to roger. this could spark a debate where the basic premise is that its unlawful whichever party the audience vote for. everyone wins except the real opposition: the ptb.

keep respect though for your opponent who is afterall on your side in the bigger picture.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: the link.

Postby ineverknewthat » Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:53 pm

Freeman Stephen wrote:interesting dichotomy between roger saying its unlawful because of the lack of knowledge/consensus and yourself that its unlawful because of coersive threat of violence. possible useful dichotomy. wear a different tie pin and present your case in opposition to roger. this could spark a debate where the basic premise is that its unlawful whichever party the audience vote for. everyone wins except the real opposition: the ptb.keep respect though for your opponent who is afterall on your side in the bigger picture.



I am sorry I have given you the idea of "opposition" stephen. I am just bewildered by rogers actions and believe me, I have a lot of respect for roger. He has at least shown in court that summonses are fraud etc but I will add here, at the stoke conference roger admitted that he was bluffing when he was asked "what would you have done had the judge said he WAS indeed on oath?" rogers reply was that he wouldn't have known what to do!. I heard that myself. That question was put to him by none other than John Hurst!! his reply was the same when asked " what would you have done had the judge said that he was indeed familiar the c'est que vie act?" rogers reply was to haunch his shoulders and purse his lip saying "I don't have a clue! " so now maybe stephen you can appreciate my dilemma. I have roger on the one hand saying that he has discovered the act is now being used for something else and is tied to the legal fiction but on the other hand I have roger saying he would have been stumped had the judge replied YES to his own c'est que vie act question to the judge?
all intriguing to say the least.
anyway, there are many people on here who might have an answer for me yet. I have only just asked it havn't I?
ineverknewthat
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:42 pm

Re: the link.

Postby Freeman Stephen » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:10 pm

i dont know if saying i dont know means stumped. i dont know what i would do if i hit the jackpot in the lottery but i wouldnt be stumped.

mind id be stumped at how i came to win the lottery as i never buy a ticket.

if rh is wrong in your opinion why bother with that avenue of investigation. he might know something we dont but theres little use we can make of that info until he finds the time to present it. if you dont feel it will be worthwhile following that line of enquiry then dont. try a different avenue of research rather than cajoling rh to present the info haphazardly.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: the link.

Postby rebelwithoutaclue » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:22 pm

Doestn the judge admit rh is right by not saying he is on oath?
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
rebelwithoutaclue
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: the link.

Postby ineverknewthat » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:36 pm

Freeman Stephen wrote:.



if rh is wrong in your opinion why bother with that avenue of investigation.

stephen, I have said nowhere that roger is wrong, I have told you exactly what was said in court and what was said at stoke and what I have found concerning the act. What you make of that is your affair. I am simply asking does anyone know what it was that roger "discovered" after all the hard work and research he had done?


. he might know something we dont

yes he must do, he says so doesn't he!


but theres little use we can make of that info until he finds the time to present it.

this is another one of my points, this info as you put it, is worthless to anybody except roger because he hasn't shared it as of this moment in time.

if you dont feel it will be worthwhile following that line of enquiry then dont

what do you mean? it is worthwhile following up on this line because this is exactly where I am at!.

try a different avenue of research rather than cajoling rh to present the info haphazardly

it could hardley be called hapazard stephen can it? remember this is research ALREADY DONE! tried and tested by roger himself. and please do not accuse me of cajoling anyone. I have simply asked if anyone knows what was discovered!!! and so far only you have takcled it
(in a fashion). If you don't know , then you don't know. but some one else on here just might do. give them a chance for gods sake , i have only just asked the question
!
.
ineverknewthat
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:42 pm

Re: the link.

Postby kevin » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:44 pm

ineverknewthat wrote: I have simply asked if anyone knows what was discovered!!! and so far only you have takcled it
(in a fashion). If you don't know , then you don't know. but some one else on here just might do. give them a chance for gods sake , i have only just asked the question
.


i've made my position clear (I hope) I do not know what roger has said so can not comment on it
kevin
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: the link.

Postby ineverknewthat » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:48 pm

kevin wrote:
ineverknewthat wrote: I have simply asked if anyone knows what was discovered!!! and so far only you have takcled it
(in a fashion). If you don't know , then you don't know. but some one else on here just might do. give them a chance for gods sake , i have only just asked the question
.



i've made my position clear (I hope) I do not know what roger has said so can not comment on it



Hi kevin
I know what roger has said,I have posted part of the transcript on page 4 of this topic. I just want to know does anyone know what it was he discovered.

thank you so much for you swift and direct reply.
Tony
ineverknewthat
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:42 pm

Re: the link.

Postby pedawson » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:07 pm

ineverknewthat wrote:
Hi kevin
I know what roger has said,I have posted part of the transcript on page 4 of this topic. I just want to know does anyone know what it was he discovered.

thank you so much for you swift and direct reply.
Tony

Just imagine -

You are in possession of something but have to keep it close to your chest; yes let it out but only to the right people.
WHY? Well suppose if it got out to those who wish to know what you are up to.
Remember the whole story is only just starting.

You do seminars, knowing full well there are spies among the crowd, sounds like Bond; James Bond. Doesn't it? But this is how it works in reality.
And there is, as always, the usual question - the tired same old question. Everybody asks the same old question.

I am sure it gets a little tiring. SO! why not publish it, why not indeed.

Start from the beginning and read this again; continue until you get it!

phil wrote: I am not being sarcastic by this. It is, that some people have reasons for doing what they do, some know, some don't and some will never know. Not because they are not 'TOLD' just that even when the answer is given and all is revealed they would not hear the message

I believe and have faith, that, in this, all will be revealed in the fullness of time.
There is really only one person who can answer this and it is roger, YES! I know you have asked, however there MUST be a reason 'YOU' have not received an answer. I don't mean that in a bad way, by the way.

Namaste, phil;
Don't be surprised to discover that luck favours those who are prepared
User avatar
pedawson
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Help Wanted

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron