pigpot's Pot

[pigpot]

July 8th

Current state of affairs is, there was a meeting after the guilty verdict seemingly to discuss the secession plan but there's been no leaks about what it consists of. There's total radio silence.

July 19th Burnaby discovers:

"Declaration of Succession and Independence"

I don't know what's worse, that I was able to deduce the plans to secede before knowing he had filed that or that he spelled it "succession".

I vote that I should become grammar and punctuation checker for "Quatloos" and that means I can solely take the p!ss.

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! It's okay then for a full frontal ATTACK on the quality of other posters sentence structure. SO IT MUST MEAN, QUATLOOS IS OPEN TO THE SAME ATTACK. What's that now?

[Gregg]

You don't get a vote in the management of the site, you're a guest, and one that is wearing out his welcome at that.

[pigpot]

Okay thanks "Gregg" ! So here's a thing I'd like to ask the forum as I've gone over the Robert Menard, Dean Clifford Santos Bonnaci stuff at various times and in various places but has anyone any opinions on Marc McMurtrie and his content?

Seems quite a knowledgeable guy. Brings up Statutes such as the 1875 Pacific Islanders Protection Act and such like. Quite a detailed and polished performance or would you disagree? Not an Australian I don't think or an "AB" - origine. A tribal man possibly but he describes who he is and what his is and how he is own words throughout his videos.

I've placed this in the "Pot" so as not to clog up any other work done here which I have been accused of before. Just trying my hardest to obey the rules of the forum.

Ta and cheers.

[Burnaby49]

Never heard of the guy so I googled him. And the first hit I checked turned out to be you;

pigpot
02-16-2014, 03:48 AM(02-16-2014 02:17 AM)pigpot Wrote: [ -> ]David Icke.

Marc McMurtrie.

Eileen Gravenhorst.

Veronica Chapman.

Robert Menard.

Santos Bonacci.

Mary-Ann Elizabeth Croft.

Dean Clifford.

Are they to the point or not? Are they accurate or not? Have they provided any factual based proof or not? Etc.

What are your thoughts upon this?

Nah! Fuck your thoughts. Give me empirical evidence for and against these people.

By-the-way I watched "Vin James" here, "VIN JAMES PART 1 NO STATE PROJECT MARC STEVENS" a while ago, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjlH5QL8htk , as pointed out by Marc), and I can surely see why he was banned from the World Freeman Society as although it is supposed to be a "FREE" man site, it is run by a dictator that has no real balls and is essentially full of shit. "bmxninja357". The forum name has already been supplied.

I only produce the name of the perpetrator so that "It" can come and argue against me but it rarely does as it CANNOT PRODUCE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK UP IT'S CLAIMS.

I tried previously to offer the same logic with a religious poster over on the David Icke site only to suffer the same banning fate there. Arguing that religions, beliefs, hopes, faiths, sciences, wants, Nations, States and Countries are real. It has been a long and hard road but for ME, one well travelled, that has hardened my resolve.

What a fucking waste of time, some would think. These wankers are shit heads and deserve no better than what they get. In fact they think they deserve even worse.

Let the game continue until people learn to look after themselves.

Government social welfare corrupts. Real family love is what is needed to counter family welfare.

There was a time when there was NO FUCKING GOVERNMENT. So people just got on and simply did. Fuck ALL governments! A real long time ago[/quote!]

Same old, same old. Making vague comments and requests hoping to draw in an audience. It immediately turned into a stupid argument between two posters called Andy and NonEntity.

http://marcstevens.net/board/archive/in ... 992-1.html

At least I won't move your posts from here. This is home.

[pigpot]

Forget the Marc Stevens Board, "Burnaby49", I'm not bothered about that currently. I'm more interested in Mark McMurtrie and your thoughts on him. Marc McMurtrie currently resides in the land commonly called Australia. He comes across as an academic who has researched much concerning Statutes as I said 1872 (later amendend in 1875, section 6)Pacific Islanders Protection Act and he describes the "Commonwealth " as a fiction that is registered with "Securities and Exchange Commission in America" and it's stuff like this and Mark's thoughts on the matter that I'd like dissected here. There is absolutely no point in me going to a site that's going to agree with Mark McMurtrie to get his points dissected. You'll find him youtube more.

Here's one. I mean is any of this historically incorrect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maXEbXndKjQ

From around 6:00 minutes on these words: "From 1788, 1796, Arthur Phillip, Sydney Cove, 8 years later, contemporaneous document, aborignial peoples, maintained hereditary title, radical sovereignty over the continent, Judge Advocate General Collins, commissions and inquiries. Argument etc, treaty with the native peoples,whether it is lawful for the The Crown to extend it's sovereignty, and whether it's lawful to extend its jurisdiction over the native people."

This is interesting I found and it would be good if anyone can expand on this and not simply leave it as the assumption is thus FACT as that would make no sense to me to do so. Section 6 above, "Power for Her Majesty to exercise jurisdiction over British subjects in the islands of the Pacific and to erect a Court of Justice with British subjects in the islands of the Pacific and to make ordinances..." Mark goes onto talk within seconds of this, the area noted as "Australasian colonies" and that it would be lawful for Her Majesty to have power and jurisdiction over her subjects in the islands of the Pacific... not being within Austraila's Dominion's... but Australia wasn't at that time a Dominion.

Shortly after "Letter patent." Section 7 goes on about the rights of the tribes. Very, very shaky it seems.

Clarification on the above would be good also.

Cheers "Burnaby49". Let me know your thoughts.

[pigpot]

Hey "Wes",

I replied over here: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-792 ... l#pid53891

I hope you are well and didn't really know where to pass the message on to. I didn't really want to pass my message on here as a cut and paste as I thought it may breach site rules so I thought it be better to provide a click and link to where I posted it. Posted again in the "pigpen's Pot" as "Burnaby49" said IS the place to do it and fair play to him / her. Cheers "Burnaby49" ((oh and by the way I'd very much like your input "Burnaby49" over on the Marc Stevens site but not the wanna be hard men and women (moderators) who post aggressively / take a note out of my book / letting anger go and bear in mind you ALWAYS catch more BEES with HONEY than vinegar)) and thanks for your BRILLIANT posting / moderating style.

So hey, "Wes", you said it was my "ball", I'll forgive but not forget the "child" remark. Waiting on you again respectfully.

[pigpot]

It's a very simple thing. Regardless of disagreement, "Wes" has stepped up and posted on the Marc Stevens site. That's good if not a great thing. At least some people can examine the way in which people "think" "THINGS" work. Some people attribute magical stuff to others that mere mortals cannot do. Prove it to me...

[pigpot]

Welcome aboard Wanky!

What "money" was loaned brother? WHAT WAS loaned. Tell me what was loaned on that day. The MASSES See it as fictional debt. Let it follow that the winner wins. The paper debtor demands their debt and doesn't get it. The non-paper debtor demands their debt and it still does no win.

What Wealth was passed on with the proof of GOOD PAYMENT OF SIMILAR KIND.

Any show of "currency" loaned would be good for me?

It seems that you may wish to be subservient to the "way".

[YiamCross]

Someone left the pigpen open again.

How is it these idiots who say there was no money loaned still think they're entitled to keep and use whatever was bought with the non existant funds.

[Losleones]

How is it these idiots who say there was no money loaned still think they're entitled to keep and use whatever was bought with the non existant funds.

Well put.

[JamesVincent]

How is it these idiots who say there was no money loaned still think they're entitled to keep and use whatever was bought with the non existant funds.

Well, I guess the response "Cuz 'Murica" isn't appropriate in this case. Gregg wrote up a series of posts awhile back explaining the ins and outs of our banking system, money creation, etc. Maybe if we ask nicely he can write one up and sticky it somewhere so when someone trots out the "no money was loaned" crap we cna just refer him/her/it to that thread and ignore them afterwards.

What "money" was loaned brother? WHAT WAS loaned. Tell me what was loaned on that day. The MASSES See it as fictional debt. Let it follow that the winner wins. The paper debtor demands their debt and doesn't get it. The non-paper debtor demands their debt and it still does no win.

What Wealth was passed on with the proof of GOOD PAYMENT OF SIMILAR KIND.

Any show of "currency" loaned would be good for me?

It seems that you may wish to be subservient to the "way".

I take it you have never done any type of real banking or taken out a loan or mortgage and paid attention to the process. It's a common problem among the "no money was loaned" crowd. Any time you take a mortgage out the bank writes a check to the mortgagee. And, like any other check, the mortgagee then deposits said check and receives monies for it. It's been discussed a million times on here, try reading some of the threads dealing specifically with loans, like one of PD's threads.

[YiamCross]

The simplest and easiest way to look at it is if no loan exists then you never paid for it in the first place so it's not yours. So quit whining and give it back.

[longdog]

Any time you take a mortgage out the bank writes a check to the mortgagee. And, like any other check, the mortgagee then deposits said check and receives monies for it.

I don't recall that happening when I took out a mortgage. If there was a cheque it went straight to my solicitor or the seller's solicitor not to me.

[littleFred]

And James confuses mortgagor (typically the householder) with mortgagee (typically a bank).

[pigpot]

pigpot are you aware that this is all done and dusted?

That's been answered.

I think our keyboard warrior is enamored with the freeman fantasy that "the movement" will soon rise up and strike a fatal blow against the powers that be. This freeman wet dream often occurs after one of "the movement's" failures.

No "Freeman-on-the-land here. I leave that to the complete tools who follow "Patrick" like the idiots. We are sovereign but we still want to be Governed..." There's one here, a 50 something push bike rider. Really sovereign that eh. So as typed no "Freeman" here I pay / barter (being the better) for everything I use.

Back to your point about your so called, "wet dream". Have you ever seen this many challenges to the perceived powers that be at any point in time, over on youtube and elsewhere. I haven't and it's rising. Now their protectors (of the powers that be) are armed, so the people may think that this is the next option. I don't advocate offensive violence as I indicated on a previous thread, BUT ALAS JEREMY did advocate buying a cop a beer who would eventually kill a man for non-tax payment resistance etc. The details are on the thread. Still I do advocate self-defense against ANY attacker. I don't a shiny sh1te about someones badge. Means nothing to me.

It is characterized by the belief that the roles of the aware are "growing expediently", as Menard used to claim, and that soon there will be too many freemen for the authorities to handle.

Well there seems to be a little more worry in the mainstream media concerning the authorities and being harassed and blocking up "Courts" etc. So thanks for agreeing on that point.

In a moment of uncharactoristic honesty our visitor projects his true feelings by inferring that the powers that be are in for a violent end.

I've never denied otherwise. Revolution. What's your problem with that? I think it's a great idea. Sticking people's heads on poles, hung, drawn and quartered. The thing is I'm not on my own. It was only a relatively short time for the Indians to get the British out India. There's loads of examples. I like the Romanian one with the Ceausescu's. Kill them and mount them on the gates of their house.

See Jeremy for details for the idea of buying them a beer.

[rumpelstilzchen]

pigpot wrote:

Have you ever seen this many challenges to the perceived powers that be at any point in time, over on youtube and elsewhere.

Cases regarding mortgages such as the Crawfords case are civil actions. They involve a bank and a homeowner, not the government. Crawford did not challenge TPTB he challenged a bank. Sadly for Crawford the argument he presented was pure bullshit which is why he lost. This thread is about a challenge to a bank, it is not about a challenge to TPTB.

[pigpot]

pigpot wrote:

Have you ever seen this many challenges to the perceived powers that be at any point in time, over on youtube and elsewhere.

Cases regarding mortgages such as the Crawfords case are civil actions. They involve a bank and a homeowner, not the government. Crawford did not challenge TPTB he challenged a bank. Sadly for Crawford the argument he presented was pure bullshit which is why he lost. This thread is about a challenge to a bank, it is not about a challenge to TPTB.

You're not getting it "RUMPY". I don't know whether you are a solicitor, lawyer or bin man and I don't care either way. The way "these" people (banks etc) are perceived by the many is that they are allowed to get away "scott free" by legislation brought about by the "Governments". The people take it as read that the two are in "cahoots" as it were and thus take action. So yes the people see it as an intertwined conspiracy and all you need to do is read the "Brotherhood" by Stephen McKnight to see many of these connections. The people themselves aren't like, they put themselves out there, live on youtube DOING IT, names and identities all on the line because they aren't scared anymore. They have nothing to lose. You on the other hand do have lots to lose if your identity is made open because they may come after you (watch out for that one when "they" grab hold of the ISP companies and find out who you are and what you look like. Go watch "The Road" and see what your future holds for you. Don't whine about me being the same as you as both of us hide behind an on-line presence, they won't want me as I'm agreeing with them and not agreeing with you. They'll be watching this site and others like it like a hawk and when it may all fall down... good God (if there is one) I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the likes of the people they oppose.

So rely on your Government to protect you, rely on "their" agents to protect you. The problem becomes a real thing when these agents are asked to shoot "their" own. Do you think they will? Will there guns turn for when they see it like it really is. No question mark there. That "RUMPY" was a rhetorical question and I think EVEN you know the answer to that.

Cheers.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I couldn't care less how the ignorant "see it".
I am only interested in facts.

[pigpot]

I couldn't care less how the ignorant "see it".
I am only interested in facts.

Could "they" see your arrogance as ignorance. "They" may find you VERY arrogant to assume "they" are ignorant. Not a game I'd want to be playing with upset people. Ignorance man... It's just a state of mind.

Snap for "them". Your "legalese" won't make "them" care either. "Their" gun barrel may turn your thoughts when "they" wave it in front of your face though. You can show them case law, precedent etc and your facts. "They'll" just tell you, you are delivering "legal opinion" not fact. "They'll" show you gravity is a fact and not opinion. After that it might not last long. The French Revolution didn't last too long. I'll pick the winner as it's already won. The winner isn't usury. "They" the winner have chosen who wins and the reason is... NUMBERS. You don't have as many as them. For that... See India.

Cheers "mate".

Think on "friend".

[pigpot]

A note to readers. Pigpot just made another gibberish posting here which was totally unrelated to the topic so I moved to the pigpen. Rumpelstilzchen had responded to it so I moved his post too. Anyone interested can read them here;viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10688&start=640#p2 ... 40#p200198

Please outline my "gibberish" "Burnaby49" as by simply stating it is so does not make it so. Would one not agree. Better that I can refine my skills even more so than they already are to thump the facile amongst us here. Any how thanks for moving and not warning or banning. I feel better here than say "JREF" I'd like to make it an internet home of sorts. You know... I'll make you a coffee and you'll get the biscuits type thing. I mean as long as I don't try and become "grifterboy50" or something soft. Me and you know who poncing around, "The Chopper" versus the "bmx". What sh1te eh! Poooooh! How serious can anyone be to call themselves that and sell it as serious.

Here I am: http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/xx25 ... G_0260.jpg Can anyone turn this into a picture PLEASE?????????

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10688&start=640#p200198

It kind of bored me somewhat. Still........

However Pigpot is a special case.

Ta...

He has been banned elsewhere on the web because of his rants, obscenity (you've been careful here piggy, I appreciate that),

Ta again...

and personal insults.

Bluddy hell. I'm even changing the vowels now... but yes... Ta...

So he gets no tolerance in respect to off-topic postings at Quatloos. They get moved to the pigpen. He can, within moderated limits, post what he wants there. If you want to squabble with him there I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

Oooh! Ta and thanks.

Cheers, "Burnaby49". Well played. Mean that.