User talk:24.160.104.69

Dear bunchnofnumbers

Please stop being a crackpot. You'll find your life much more rewarding and productive afterwards.

Sincerely,

06:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

exactly my point..
whats your problem with what i have wrote? I dont advocate them either way...i am only suggesting what is fact,and why this movement would be so appealing
 * Ah. Then why don't you create an account here, and we can talk it out?  We prefer to discuss things first, before making major changes to articles.
 * Oh, and please sign you talk posts with four tildes ( ~ ). And you don't have to put your responses as a "new topic"; just add a colon  in front of your post to let us know your responding to an earlier one.   06:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Went to your first youtube link, WILFRED KEITH THOMPSON, making an ass of himself in court and claiming a victory. To bad they didn't record 5 mins later when the judge came back in and found him guilty and assessed a fine. Oh and Thompson has spent the last couple weeks in jail for a breaking and entering charge, in a bust that included hoarding weapons and ammunition. Will the other videos be as entertaining? Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize,i did not realize i was not following protocol..Only looking to educate in a more Open minded way than what i was reading...i thought somebody didn't like what i was saying and tried to remove it,(like craigslist flagging)...

as to Keith ,and the rest of the videos,i was making the point that it looks very real based on the bailiffs refusal to respond...I wont make an account,i am too busy searching for remedy to this corruption i spoke of in my post.But if you would like to talk on email or something...I would love to discuss the doctrine of inevitable discovery!Otherwise...best wishes24.160.104.69 (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't talk on email if you don't give your email...  07:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not sure if this was ananomous,im not familiar with this web site...i actually thought i was on wikipedia,when posting..please confirm and i will provide24.160.104.69 (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * craigslistjoshua *at* gmail.com
 * Thank you.  07:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * i've edited your email address so you don't get spammed by bots. Sophie  because liberals  09:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * thank you, Sophie.Very kind of you
 * I highly doubt anyone here wants to communicate with you in e-mail. If you would like to defend your delusional viewpoint on the videos you posted you can do it here. I have looked at each of them and each one ended very badly for the people involved. No case was won, no victory had. The only person that came out on top was St. Clair who ruins peoples lives to get "notches" on his belt to scam more people out of their money. But run away when confronted with counter-evidence, we are used to that. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * well...Your avoiding the point i was trying to make entirely...it had nothing to do with the actions of the freeman,My point was only to suggest that the videos could be very persuasive when observing the actions of the bailiffs...they seem to respond to these things??I am not running anywhere,but unless you address what i actually said(very clearly),i choose not to argue with you...your so called evidence was never my point...i posted that under the section on how its marketed...and suggested the bailiffs refusal to respond to court orders is very hard to disproove to people new to that subject.Also which video was St. Clair?....so lets try and stay on the subject,ok Tmtoulouse?24.160.104.69 (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * St. Clair is the "lay adviser" in the videos. He charges people money to pull off his circus acts in court, and then posts the video results on youtube in order to get more people to pay him. Of course once the dust settles the people he charged money still lose their cases!


 * As for the bailiffs acted to diffuse a situation in a non-violent way. The room was packed with freetards and there were two elderly bailiffs dealing with about 30 (some drunkenly rambling about the Stanley Cup in the background) people looking for a fight. So the police were called, what I saw was the bailiffs and police doing an excellent job diffusing what could have turned violent and dangerous. I also notice you claim a judge was arrested in the last video. That of course never happened, the group stormed the court and lead to the arrest of 7 of the protesters. Oh and the guy whose hearing that was? He wound up having to file bankruptcy a few months later. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see...They never said his name..but that's who i thought you meant..My point still remains though,and stands very strong. To a person "under the thumb" Of an already corrupted government...When looking for a solution,these bailiffs actions could be construed as very persuasive...while you might see diffusing,you kind of expect them to follow the orders of the judge/magistrates to "remove these people"..Even the police do not offer their help?(outnumbered or not...i am sure that could have been fixed quickly(well within that amount of time). Also that judge making a bowing motion does not help to disprove this to people researching the subject,especially from the standpoint of a person new to the subject,as i was....I really was most in shock by the actions i specified!....I always asked the question,"what happened when the camera was shut off"...It was these actions that demanded my attention!24.160.104.69 (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The judge bowing was not to WILFRED KEITH THOMPSON but is standard procedure in Canadian courts. You will see the court reporter bow as well. Again just more smoke and mirrors. Your main point seems to be that if you show up at court, make an ass of yourself, you might not be arrested? Okay, score one for your side I guess. But what exactly does that get you? Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * REALLY? I have made my "main point" several times in this post...i think your going to have to take a "time-out",read it again, and then get back with me when you want to address my point(dont make me stand you in a corner)...Lets Re-Define "MY-Side"....to the average person these "smoke and mirrors" ARE VERY PERSUASIVE!THEY DEMAND ATTENTION!SHOW IT TO 100 PEOPLE THEN TAKE A POLL ON WHAT HIT THEM THE HARDEST?i bet at least 80 say what i said,the actions i have previously specified, demand attention to the laymen...Now, don't assume anything in this conversation again,i will make my own points ,if you don't mind..address them as they stand..not shifting them into what is convenient for you to make,what you consider to be,a clever remark.which hold no weight to what i have actually said..and I have never even addressed.Otherwise i will address you with the same childish mentality you have displayed so far...(but wait,i have seen this mentality some where before?)you sound like a cop...and i smell bacon..24.160.104.69 (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In responce to the judge bowing,I did not know that.i have conducted a brief search and i have found no evidence of this being true.wiki says lawyers will bow to the judge?24.160.104.69 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your only argument you have presented is that the bailiffs didn't remove the people from court. With the case of "Katherine of Gaia, Flesh and Blood, Living Soul, Falsely presumed to be legal person, Wilfred Keith Thompson" (that's the name he goes by now, you can reach him at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex where he is in jail for breaking into his home which he lost when he refused to pay the mortgage on it, this is working out well for him), as soon as the judge told him to be removed 3 bailiffs surrounded him and prepared to do just that. Then the judge started asking him questions, it was when the judge asked follow up questions that they backed off. They are not going to drag the guy out of the court when the judge is still talking to him. In the next video in England a clerk told the court room that if they didn't act with the proper etiquette they would be removed. Two elderly bailiffs came forward and were confronted with an unruly mob of 30+ people. At this point they opted to call the police rather than engage.


 * But here is what I don't get. Let us put aside the argument above and assume your right. That some magic word kept the bailiffs at bay. So what?? In each and every one of those cases it did not even remotely change what happened. The defendant in each case lost. Roger Hayes who was the defendant in the UK cases with St. Clair and the attempted "arrest" of a judge has now lost everything. Had to file for bankruptcy and lost his home, job, and all other seizable assets. "Katherine of Gaia, Flesh and Blood, Living Soul, Falsely presumed to be legal person, Wilfred Keith Thompson" I have all ready mentioned lost his house and now sits in jail. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As for the bowing, courts in Ontario (where I lived for 5 years) the bow is common event with lawyers, witnesses, staff, etc. The judge will return the bow, in this case the judge obviously annoyed and in a hurry bowed first, and you can quickly see the court reporter or lawyer returning bow as they forgot/didn't see the judge leave. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow,you just twist things to suite your need...how do you know how many people were in the first English courtroom?I could not tell that,from watching the video(I assume a new viewer could not either).In-fact,basically everything your saying is not from the video.I don't care about your Re-search of "what happened to them now!!"I never addressed these people or their actions...I posted a comment under "how its marketed"so again i ask..."what's your problem with what i have wrote?"Does it not specifically address what new people might see when looking into the subject?"ANYONE ELSE CARE TO CHIME IN HERE? Yes,I believe a new person could see the responses mentioned above,and think that suggests a "magic word"24.160.104.69 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your still arguing the "what happened next" "what happened to them now"...I choose not to argue that with you.Your obviously dealing with a superior mind and cannot keep up.It is 5am where i am,and i am done..Care to address my previous observation,That you are absolutely a cop?And i can tell just by your twisted way of making things suit what you want?24.160.104.69 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a cop an NSA agent. And a mason. Tmtoulouse (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * NSA? I thought you were MI6? --DamoHi 11:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr 24, did you just imply you don't bother checking what happens to people after their youtube moment? If you don't, why not? Sophie  because liberals  09:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No sophie,I simply stated that ,I have not on this topic,And that the aftermath represents nothing to my origional point...What a newcomer to the subject might think when seeing these and only these videos24.160.104.69 (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the videos BoN. They are the funniest thing I have seen in a while.  I think they are meant seriously, and not as a piss take, however hard that is to believe.  --DamoHi 09:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I knew it...you have to admit...i was close enough.You still have the ability to destroy families,take fathers from their children for petty offences,superiority over me in court when testifing..I am sure you do nothing to help the average citizen of this country(like myself).And even if you are not guilty of these things yourself,you watch your colleagues do it every day!The true heros in this country are the firefighters/paramedics,military,and Randy Kelton.I am going to bed,you have my email address...damo please clarify?BoN?Piss take?I dont understand what you said?24.160.104.69 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "BoN" - Bunch of numbers - what an IP account is customarily referred to as. "Piss take" - a joke, humour for the sake of it.  As someone who spends quite a bit of time in court these days, I can tell you that if someone tried to pull this nonsense in any court I have seen it would not work out well for them.  For a start any "lay adviser" would just be removed, or at least not seen by the Judge, and would probably end up in contempt of court and with a fine/court costs for their trouble.  DamoHi 09:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "as to what i have seen at this website"..So far, The only things addressed, have been done with the same mentality I was suggesting a new-comer to the subject would feel bound under..None of you have said....that's a good point.Or even addressed my point.If you want to argue with a freeman,go find one!I do not advocate freeman or their actions..I simply added what i believed to be, a contribution, to the"HOW ITS MARKETED SECTION" of this wiki.So far,none of you have addressed my point...My point was,With so many people around you seeing a mentality like this and dealing with it everyday,would be searching for resolve.Seeing the actions of those bailiffs would pose a major "HOLY CRAP" and would be difficult to assert to them that this is not true...(Based on Only watching the provided videos)...Once again i don't care about any of your research about what happened after the video...how many people were in the courtrooms?Who cares....Act like you have some intelligence and face me on the subject that i brought to the table!(In-Your own Forum),I might ADD. And you will either agree to the clear point that i have made,Or at least see that its the mentality like this, that makes it so easy to market in the first place.(with or without the video of the BAILIFFS)to which i have provided.Other things The Freeman Movement Suggests is,"you cannot beat them at their own game","You cannot challenge them on their own turf"...Does any intelligent person here see how that applies to this conversation,much less this topic?Again remember,The only thing i have ever addressed,Was the way of marketing this,is made easier by this mentality of a few people,too stupid to see that! Forcing this Moron mentality on the public is probably what created the movement,in the first place...Its people who think like you,who make their jobs of recruiting very easy.If the people are looking for a magic word...I have already provided on for you...."Randy Kenton"!!!!

You have definitively proved to me that you are weak minded(probably government employees),who reign over a particular forum,to ENFORCE your Distorted Mentality over the rest of us!AND THEN TO CALL IT RATIONAL WIKI???Laughable!!!!Its superior minds, like mine, that will DESTROY this mentality,FEAR ME,and Others like me!Obviously you already do,or some body would have addressed the clear point that i have made...Not a single one of you has chosen to face me on this topic.(The topic i brought to you in your own forum)...I will give you a clue retard...The topic in not the freeman!Now, i believe i have left "Your ignorance" With plenty of time to go argue with a freeman,since that is clearly your obsession,based on what i have seen24.160.104.69 (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What you fail to factor in is the effect of the chemicals we release over major populated areas. These chemtrails help us to maintain order. The only people that will look at your videos and realize the power of magic words are people that live in underpopulated rural areas where we don't bother spreading our mind control drugs. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * your stratigies/methods of mis-information prove me drastically wrong...I stand Corrected...MORON!!Seth,very good point,however None of you have yet to challange the point on the table,Lets talk about everything else we can think of..I said the forum as an example...not a limitation...whatever forum people with this delusional mentality reign over,be it the public,the public courts and so on..Would it be safe to assume that most of you agree,since i seek challangers to no avail??Isnt it about time to Declare the Undisputed Winner(and superior mind) of this argument? 24.160.104.69 (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would sooner share a banana split with Ray Comfort.
 * I would sooner split a footlong Kony Coney dog with Rick Santorum and Dan Savage.
 * I would sooner get into a debate about Phrenology with someone who believes it to be true, except that I would prove them right on one particular instance: the shape of my skull with its flat, crushed forehead from banging my head against the table after arguing against PRATT for several hours would bely something about my personality.
 * I would sooner get into a drinking contest with Lindsey Lohan.
 * What's amazing is that sooner or later you will give up, and go away, and we at RW will never see or hear from you again. Until then, we're gonna have some damned good fun making fun of you while you're completely oblivious to that fact, due to your base assumptions and skewed vision of reality.  Godspeed!  -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Until this poster began I had no real idea of the impressive heights of lunacy scaled by these people.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 19:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)