RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213

RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 6:42:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne That is not specific to family but the thrown and successors et al you are not correct because the conveyance is the kingdom. quote: ORIGINAL: Smutmonger This was pretty much null about the time they beheaded King Charles. I believe he was the last Catholic King of England. And yes,the Stuarts never did make it back into power. And it was the royal line that this applied to-not the entire Kingdom. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail according to the form appended; ....we shall do liege homage to him...binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever... You left out the form of which this would take. (appended) It is only leige homage that was offered for the remission of sins. And hows is Jimmies wife doing these days? The Stuart line is long gone. binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever... clearly that is not the case. why it is written so plainly a school child can understand it. our means the kingees and queenees et al when you give away the whole fucking country you cant limit to just you and your wife. our plural meaning the succession of the monarchs not just his kids.. do you have any remote clue what so ever what a successor is to the throne? and "pull it" means the firemen aint that right? BBAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah, you're laughing like woody woodpecker and slobbering like cujo, but it may have escaped your notice that legally a contract cannot be assigned to be performed by the unborn. They make their own contracts once they reach the age of majority. Don't give a fuck if you are jesus h palmerhousing christ, it's a no good canoe.

pahunkboy -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 6:51:20 AM)
post 141 was not trimmed.

LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 6:53:50 AM)
Post 141 is also in error - not that it makes any difference - but I wonder if RO will spot it? Now that I've said this it will be necessary for him to detail reasons of course, rather than just brush it off as he is wont to do. E

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 7:20:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, you're laughing like woody woodpecker and slobbering like cujo, but it may have escaped your notice that legally a contract cannot be assigned to be performed by the unborn. They make their own contracts once they reach the age of majority. Don't give a fuck if you are jesus h palmerhousing christ, it's a no good canoe. now thats fucking hilarious. I can get you into a contract you dont even know exists take you to court and sue the fuck out you over and you will never see it. That is precisely what the government has done and unless you shortsighted tunnel vision shithouse lawyers know how to recognize it you sink.

mnottertail -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 7:23:24 AM)
that is even more absurd than your usual shithouse lawyer antics.

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 7:24:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail that is even more absurd than your usual shithouse lawyer antics. coming from someone who cant grasp the distinction between travel and driving among a long list of other points in law I will take that as a compliment.

mnottertail -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 7:25:58 AM)
there is no such distinction in the us, in the way you are making it out to be. you have no caselaw whatsoever to back that up.

mnottertail -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 7:27:15 AM)
furthermore, a bit of law that was proclaimed before the time of Jimmy boy, voids the whole notion of what was mumbled by him. see if you can find it, shithouse.

LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 7:30:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I can get you into a contract you dont even know exists take you to court and sue the fuck out you over and you will never see it. this is a remarkable assertion (though not the error I indicated in Ron's post). please enlighten us as to how one might become party to a contract which, being ignorant as to its existence, - one is unaware of the identity of the other party, and hence cannot have intended to create legal relations nor agreed any matter with that other party - one is unaware of what consideration one must provide and what consideration one might receive and is thereby unable to provide or seek performance E

pahunkboy -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 11:07:19 AM)
I am sorry, RO does not deal with 3rd parties.

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 12:22:18 PM)
thanks hunk but please dont represent me. I prefer to "present" myself.

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 12:24:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I can get you into a contract you dont even know exists take you to court and sue the fuck out you over and you will never see it. this is a remarkable assertion (though not the error I indicated in Ron's post). please enlighten us as to how one might become party to a contract which, being ignorant as to its existence, - one is unaware of the identity of the other party, and hence cannot have intended to create legal relations nor agreed any matter with that other party - one is unaware of what consideration one must provide and what consideration one might receive and is thereby unable to provide or seek performance E by not understanding contract law and the extents to which the contract can be construed.

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 12:26:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail there is no such distinction in the us, in the way you are making it out to be. you have no caselaw whatsoever to back that up. what thread are you rambling on about now

pahunkboy -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 1:20:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne thanks hunk but please dont represent me. I prefer to "present" myself. People been throwing around 3rd party per this topic left and right. An example- talking to a collection agency-- cant happen because they are a 3rd party.

Real0ne -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 1:28:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne thanks hunk but please dont represent me. I prefer to "present" myself. People been throwing around 3rd party per this topic left and right. An example- talking to a collection agency-- cant happen because they are a 3rd party. yah but I welcome them! cha ching!

LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 1:56:06 PM)
are you saying that a party to a contract may not assign the account receivable arising under it to a third party, nor form a contract for services with and instruct a third party to obtain collection thereof on its behalf? or are you conflating this with the notion of third party rights in contract law? E

SaintIntensity -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 2:07:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, you're laughing like woody woodpecker and slobbering like cujo, but it may have escaped your notice that legally a contract cannot be assigned to be performed by the unborn. They make their own contracts once they reach the age of majority. Don't give a fuck if you are jesus h palmerhousing christ, it's a no good canoe. now thats fucking hilarious. I can get you into a contract you dont even know exists take you to court and sue the fuck out you over and you will never see it. That is precisely what the government has done and unless you shortsighted tunnel vision shithouse lawyers know how to recognize it you sink. did someone say "delusional" you are spouting more crap with each passing day you've never sued anyone successfully you don't work you are on here 24/7 to all intents show a case - ONE - that supports ANY of your BS - and a REAL case, not some net hearsay BS maybe one where the court has been proven to be "Admiralty" maybe one where a case has been thrown out based on your net-spread BS and lies now you can create contracts they do not even know about and sue them successfully based on that? laughable - and pure RealOne no-life-no-friend lies (as ever) next you will be able to create a life and career for yourself sad

mnottertail -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 2:09:36 PM)
our successors and our heirs by our wife Everything else in this piece of asswipe is RealZero law except this, this is extraneous and of no consequence according to you. why not or our heirs by our wife? why by our wife --- at all?

LadyEllen -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 2:27:05 PM)
Indeed, I would find it incredible to believe - barring clear evidence - that RO had ever been successful in any form of legal proceedings in his own name. Not only the confusion on his part over the law leads me to this position, but also the apparent inability to produce coherent arguments, (even based on that confusion), the apparent inability or unwillingness to explain and develop those arguments by responding adequately to examination, and the clear failure to present substantial and relevant evidence, (even where any evidence at all is forthcoming), to convey and support respectively the assertions made. Failing to interpret and apply the law correctly, failure to argue coherently, failure to support arguments by answering examination and failure to present adequate evidence would each be more than sufficient to have a case dismissed in their own right as a waste of court time, let alone being found occurring together. E

SaintIntensity -> RE: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213 (4/22/2010 2:32:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Indeed, I would find it incredible to believe - barring clear evidence - that RO had ever been successful in any form of legal proceedings in his own name. Not only the confusion on his part over the law leads me to this position, but also the apparent inability to produce coherent arguments, (even based on that confusion), the apparent inability or unwillingness to explain and develop those arguments by responding adequately to examination, and the clear failure to present substantial and relevant evidence, (even where any evidence at all is forthcoming), to convey and support respectively the assertions made. Failing to interpret and apply the law correctly, failure to argue coherently, failure to support arguments by answering examination and failure to present adequate evidence would each be more than sufficient to have a case dismissed in their own right as a waste of court time, let alone being found occurring together. E its pure WIKI'd nonsense - discredited time and time again in the pesky real world he goes off on oblique angles rather than answer directly - a sign of deceit just an internet fantasist - probably jobless, dreaming of a "big score" - probably against whoever he blames for his current situation and a nasty vitriolic little twat with it, which doesn't help of course, he may be the leading lawyer in Second Life or WoW etc

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02