Is Pot lawful in australia?

[GeneralExecutor]

In case there is a problem with the link above, here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX0GtdVQ26E

 

[GeneralExecutor]

We tried to find the best version of the above presentation when we posted above but had a bit of problem locating it. We finally found it.

Though all versions are good, we believe this one to be the better for those watching this form of seminar for the first time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDrscByKEUQ

 

[Tonygreen]

Who is we btw?

 

[hard rain]

I hope you look at the above video I recommended for you. I'm trying to be as polite as possible.

I don't think you understand irony too well. But thanks, video was funny. I hope you use that link every time GE bangs on about the freeman rubbish.

There has been so much misinformation and lies in this thread. You could pull apart most of the posts if you so wanted. I guess people will believe what they want. The thread has been used IMO as a way for some to present their nutjob conspiracy theories. I hope no one here turns to one of these individuals for actual legal advice. I also hope that they don't part with any money. It is a shame these threads appear on pot sites as they make us look stupid. Again just my opinion.

As Legal Week noted, "These ideas are most attractive to desperate, vulnerable people who are going through terrible times in their lives."[13] If someone is selling a simple explanation of why your life is messed up, the false hope it offers is extremely attractive — even if the explanation is complete rubbish and the suggested actions consistently just don't work.

Robert Menard in particular sells his DVD and book packs for C$250, but notably doesn't use freeman legal tactics himself[18] — he leaves that to his victims

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

I have spent too much time with this so knock yourselves out. Hope you all stay free and that if you get busted your court cases are like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Yg_6NP8Iw

 

[gaiusmarius]

people know it's not legal advise.

some where deep down we all think that people just like us might well have tried to leave some form of remedy open to people such as them selves so to speak. i mean if i'd just won a fucking great war and could implement a new system, i'd try and make it as fair and un corruptible as possible. making people sovereigns seems a good way to do it. so while the system has gotten so corrupt that they will fight tooth and nail to find a way to take your rights, money, freedom, doesn't mean it's just or good. today people don't even remember how it originally was set up to work. including the judges and lawyers. so yes it wouldn't surprise me if there are supposed to be ways to keep your freedom and rights no matter what as long as there is no actual victim. so even if these systems are flawed, they shouldn't be, they feel right, all this arbitrary senseless regulation none of us ever agreed to, that we are supposed to live under on the other hand, feels oppressive and unjust. making victimless crimes was the biggest crime imo.

 

[isaih520]

It is lawful advice and I will stand behind it.
If anyone says otherwise , they're shysters.

misinformation my arse hardrain

Whether you appreciate the fact I have seen through false history and understand the way the world really works ,is not too important in court.
You can wallow in ignorance and still use the treason defence successfully.

I shared the bigger picture so that you may know how right you are on several different levels.
I did make an effort to point that out. But I'll make it again just to be 100% clear.

I offered the history of the law and what law is based on so you might have a stronger resolve when you are tested. And they will test your resolve.

But you need not know the historical perspective ,to win in court.
Ignore it if you're too lazy or limited to verify it .

***Because the treason defence states simply that the people in court trying to prosecute you are not constitutional government but a counterfeit of it. A foreign corporation pretending to be government.***

If you can dispute that hardrain, you're doing better than the judges/police I've so far made my stand with.
I have never had to offer proof, they never dispute that point. They bloody well know it.

 

[GeneralExecutor]

hardrain, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sES6_OXPwOU

 

[hard rain]

hardrain, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sES6_OXPwOU

You really have to be kidding? A speech from a loony Lord Monckton launch? Monckton is complete idiot; that is being polite. You have pretty much proved my point that this thread is being used to push various conspiracy theories.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/20/denniss-my-tactics-for-debating-monckton/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton

 

[GeneralExecutor]

We appreciate your adherence to unrebuttable proof, problem is, that so do "they".

 

[GeneralExecutor]

... and "they", control all forms of media, and not to your or my benefit.

 

[GeneralExecutor]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[GeneralExecutor]

"They" have the ability to make CERTAIN that any form of unrebuttable proof which may destroy them is NOT available through mass media outlets, which include the net. If any such proof occasional would appear in the initial stage/s of an event, it is soon removed never to be seen or found again, and that, we have seen occur numerous times over the last decade just on the net. It boils down to what one is able to discern by disseminating what is allowed to be there.

What you ask for is a form of proof whereby once having acquired such proof THEIR entire game could be destroyed overnight. We think they would NEVER allow such thing to exist publicly, but then again, what would we know?

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Just look at the way the Syrian situation is being manipulated.

The Stratfor leaks back in 2012 PROVE their was a plan to create a false flag chemical attack to be blamed on Assad. But all we hear from the ABC and the BBC etc are the war drums pounding.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/assad-syria-is-a-sovereign-country-fighting-al-qaeda.html
http://www.drudgereport.com/

Thank god for the alternative media.

91% of the USA public are AGAINST any military action.

Pray for peace as the shit is flying.

 

[GeneralExecutor]

Just look at the way the Syrian situation is being manipulated.

The Stratfor leaks back in 2012 PROVE their was a plan to create a false flag chemical attack to be blamed on Assad. But all we hear from the ABC and the BBC etc are the war drums pounding.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/assad-syria-is-a-sovereign-country-fighting-al-qaeda.html
http://www.drudgereport.com/

Thank god for the alternative media.

91% of the USA public are AGAINST any military action.

Pray for peace as the shit is flying.

Point well made SilverSurfer, the manner in which news of any sort is presented leaves a lot of room for subjectivity thereby making it biased towards those presenting it wish to achieve, when in truth, news or any event is objective from the perspective of the masses. There is more to those words than meets the eyes.

Another recent event which some or many may say was a complete distortion of the truth was the oust of Gaddafi, but the list is as long as recorded his-story itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XorKTwkFPDU

 

[mcsamuels]

amazing and interesting thread...still working my way through, about halfway there

Is the injunction of common law applicable in other commonwealth countries as well or just Oz?

 

[GeneralExecutor]

[FONT=&quot]Common and General laws are today's foundational laws and in usage in all of H.M. Commonwealth for those capable/competent enough to invoke and verbally enforce them.

Even Uniform Commercial Code permits one the right to common law protection through UCC 1-308 because it is through clever/sinister manipulation of common and civil law that they used to create UCC to intertwine/enjoin all with Admiralty. As there is a MAXIM of law which implies that the "created" CANNOT be greater than its CREATOR, then to remain in honor, they MUST allow for the invocation of common law whilst within UCC or without; hence 1-308 is the remedy to the controversy they raised/created.

[/FONT]

 

[hard rain]

"They" have the ability to make CERTAIN that any form of unrebuttable proof which may destroy them is NOT available through mass media outlets, which include the net. If any such proof occasional would appear in the initial stage/s of an event, it is soon removed never to be seen or found again, and that, we have seen occur numerous times over the last decade just on the net. It boils down to what one is able to discern by disseminating what is allowed to be there.

What you ask for is a form of proof whereby once having acquired such proof THEIR entire game could be destroyed overnight. We think they would NEVER allow such thing to exist publicly, but then again, what would we know?

GeneralExecutor, that makes it pretty much impossible to verify anything you are saying. How convenient. We just have to accept your particular version of reality. It also suggests to me that you are finding certain unrelated pieces of information and joining the dots, so to speak. This sort of thinking is quite paranoid!

Actually if "they" do not allow proof of what you are claiming, how do you account for the existence of the links you have posted? Wouldn't "they" close them down? Indeed what about this very thread. How I wish "they" would delete it. Do you see how little sense your argument makes? The very fact you are posting what you have said disproves your argument.

It is great to have a healthy skepticism, particularly about what your government or mass media are telling you. It is quite another thing to link unrelated events into a conspiracy theory.

Anyway this thread was about pot being legal in Australia wasn't it?

 

[mcsamuels]

[FONT=&quot]Common and General laws are today's foundational laws and in usage in all of H.M. Commonwealth for those capable/competent enough to invoke and verbally enforce them.

Even Uniform Commercial Code permits one the right to common law protection through UCC 1-308 because it is through clever/sinister manipulation of common and civil law that they used to create UCC to intertwine/enjoin all with Admiralty. As there is a MAXIM of law which implies that the "created" CANNOT be greater than its CREATOR, then to remain in honor, they MUST allow for the invocation of common law whilst within UCC or without; hence 1-308 is the remedy to the controversy they raised/created.

[/FONT]

hmmm interesting. but it looks like "we" have some reading and research to do )

 

[gaiusmarius]

why would we need to delete this thread hard rain? you have said your piece, made your views know, so people are informed from all sides, believer and non believer, lol. there is no need to close the thread unless that was your motive all along? i don't like trying to shut people up just because i might not agree with what they are saying.

btw you never got back to me about the desirability of having some kind of recourse when being screwed with by the pigs for victimless consensual actions, that they call "crimes"?

 

[Technique]

For News on Syria http://rt.com/ and on many other things.