Free to Fly hub

[broken_slinky]

It’s on the public record sars-cov2 has never been isolated in humans.

Yet the CDC is on record stating that it was collected from the first US patient infected. Took all of 10 seconds to find this:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... lture.html

[JerryRig]

It’s on the public record sars-cov2 has never been isolated in humans.

Yet the CDC is on record stating that it was collected from the first US patient infected. Took all of 10 seconds to find this:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... lture.html

The CDC is gaslighting you. The reason you are not finding the truth is because you only took 10 seconds. THATS what they WANT you to know. The truth they hide near the bottom because they know you are too lazy to dig for it. That way they could never be held at fault for lying to you because it was always there.

THIS is how lawyers deceive you in contracts. State one thing in the first paragraph, then state the opposite near the end, where they know you won’t read.

Case in point. Read any privacy statement in a user agreement. First third will state “we will not sell your information”. Last third “we may share your information to third parties”.

This happens all the time. You are just not aware.

[‘Bob’]

https://youtu.be/D3cc_tgE__w

[JerryRig]

Listen, not a single person here is supporting your argument,

How do you KNOW this.

There are many who agree, just have chosen not to waste their time on pointless rebuttals. They already see what is going on, and letting the survival of the fittest kick in. Fearfulness is not a good leadership quality, you know.

[flying4dollars]

Listen, not a single person here is supporting your argument,

How do you KNOW this.

There are many who agree, just have chosen not to waste their time on pointless rebuttals. They already see what is going on, and letting the survival of the fittest kick in. Fearfulness is not a good leadership quality, you know.

And likewise, how do YOU know this?

Imagine going to court and telling the jury that there are many who are on your side, they just choose not to waste their time on 'pointless rebuttals'. How do you think that'd go?

You still haven't answered my question. What makes you think flying on a commercial vessel is your RIGHT? Where in the charter is that stated?

This guy

[JerryRig]

Listen, not a single person here is supporting your argument,

How do you KNOW this.

There are many who agree, just have chosen not to waste their time on pointless rebuttals. They already see what is going on, and letting the survival of the fittest kick in. Fearfulness is not a good leadership quality, you know.

And likewise, how do YOU know this?

Imagine going to court and telling the jury that there are many who are on your side, they just choose not to waste their time on 'pointless rebuttals'. How do you think that'd go?

You still haven't answered my question. What makes you think flying on a commercial vessel is your RIGHT? Where in the charter is that stated?

This guy

Depends WHICH court. The court of the QUEEN OF CANADA (note the capitalized letters designating a service corporation), or a court of you (who you are known as by your mother, of the family that is yours). Our courts have been hijacked by foreign invaders on this land for a very long time. Go ahead and dispute this if you can find the evidence. I’ll point you in the direction of Maritime Admiralty Law. Now I ask you what does traveling by air have to do with maritime law? It doesn’t. Law of the land aka common law applies from the center of the earth to the airspace above with reference to the land in question. Sea bearing vessels need not apply. There is currently in place a fraud which placed Maritime Law of the sea over land and air. This is based on historic precedent. See you in Library.

Charters only apply to persons, not man or woman. Persons are fictitious.

[cdnavater]

How do you KNOW this.

There are many who agree, just have chosen not to waste their time on pointless rebuttals. They already see what is going on, and letting the survival of the fittest kick in. Fearfulness is not a good leadership quality, you know.

And likewise, how do YOU know this?

Imagine going to court and telling the jury that there are many who are on your side, they just choose not to waste their time on 'pointless rebuttals'. How do you think that'd go?

You still haven't answered my question. What makes you think flying on a commercial vessel is your RIGHT? Where in the charter is that stated?

This guy

Depends WHICH court. The court of the QUEEN OF CANADA (note the capitalized letters designating a service corporation), or a court of you (who you are known as by your mother, of the family that is yours). Our courts have been hijacked by foreign invaders on this land for a very long time. Go ahead and dispute this if you can find the evidence. I’ll point you in the direction of Maritime Admiralty Law. Now I ask you what does traveling by air have to do with maritime law? It doesn’t. Law of the land aka common law applies from the center of the earth to the airspace above with reference to the land in question. Sea bearing vessels need not apply. There is currently in place a fraud which placed Maritime Law of the sea over land and air. This is based on historic precedent. See you in Library.

Charters only apply to persons, not man or woman. Persons are fictitious.

Holy feck, this guy is nucking futs!

[JerryRig]

[/quote]

Holy feck, this guy is nucking futs!
[/quote]

I see you got that turned around in more ways than one.

Ask your self: do you want to be free, like your creator intended, or do you want to be cargo, owned by the state?

Ask yourself honestly. You can chose which one. The question is which square will you stand in Without leaving it?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Reading this guy's posts reminds me of listening to this guy try to defend himself in court. It starts slow but it's worth the watch.

[Conflicting Traffic]

Person by legal definition (blacks law dictionary) is a dead entity with no rights. There. I researched it for you.

Bullshit.

PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

So much for your "research". Maybe you meant "I watched a YouTube video by some crackpot and liked what he was saying, so I accepted it as true".

Now admittedly my definition is from an old edition (dated 1968). But do you really expect us to believe that the legally accepted definition of PERSON has changed that much? If so, feel free to provide evidence.

Also, the definition is followed by extensive notes regarding the fact that "man" is used generically and also applies to women, as well as the application of PERSON to corporations, etc. Feel free to go read for yourself. https://heimatundrecht.de/sites/default ... Law4th.pdf

Some of the notes following the definition:

"Persons" are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation; a collection of property to which the lawattributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. Examples are the estate of a bencrupt or deceased person

(emphasis mine)

It has been held that when the word person is used in alegislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons

I’m not lying. It’s all true. You’ve been bamboozled.

As noted above, you are indeed lying.

Charters only apply to persons, not man or woman. Persons are fictitious.

As noted, the definition of PERSON includes men and women. In any case, the Charter use terms like "everyone" and "every citizen". "Person" shows up in some contexts like "person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada ". Maybe you can enlighten us on how a fiction can be a permanent resident of Canada. You also might want to try actually reading the Charter before you try to lecture us about what it does or doesn't say.

[JerryRig]

It doesn’t work if you interchange and misuse legal terms in context of common law.

Yes I read the charter. It is being violated on many levels. Why is that?

[Conflicting Traffic]

...feel free to provide evidence.

It doesn’t work if you interchange and misuse legal terms in context of common law.

Yes I read the charter. It is being violated on many levels. Why is that?

I know that you're having trouble with this concept, but word salad (first sentence) and arbitrary unsupported claims (second sentence) don't constitute evidence.

If we're speaking only within the context of COVID restrictions, I'm not aware of any large scale Charter violations. There have been a few isolated instances of over-reach by police and municipal enforcement officers that I suspect are/were Charter violations, but I would defer to a lawyer (read: expert) who disagreed with me.

Exactly what actions by the government are you claiming are violations of exactly what sections of the Charter?

[‘Bob’]

He’s not interchanging terms.

[flying4dollars]

My goodness....JerryRig you are in your own world pal. Enjoy it.

*flying4dollars has left the chat*

[JerryRig]

Hey, it was posted for those who were interested. Those who don’t, just keep doing what you are doing. Over.

[imjustlurking]

Hey, it was posted for those who were interested. Those who don’t, just keep doing what you are doing. Over.

You do not belong in the cockpit.

[JerryRig]

Hey, it was posted for those who were interested. Those who don’t, just keep doing what you are doing. Over.

You do not belong in the cockpit.

Wow. Just wow. rEEAAlly professional.
I have control.

[TG]

Hey, it was posted for those who were interested. Those who don’t, just keep doing what you are doing. Over.

You do not belong in the cockpit.

Wow. Just wow. rEEAAlly professional.
I have control.

Yes, well no...
You show such warped view of the word that it doesn't necessarily make you mentally fit for it.

[imjustlurking]

You do not belong in the cockpit.

Wow. Just wow. rEEAAlly professional.
I have control.

Yes, well no...
You show such warped view of the word that it doesn't necessarily make you mentally fit for it.

Doesn't necessarily? If I had this guy's name, I would pass the views he has shared to TC and request a medical review on the basis of mental capacity and ability to reason.

Please don’t reference the World Health Organization as authority. They do not have any authority, are guided by Chinese communist party, and have a criminally qualified individual at its head that committed humanitarian atrocities while in charge of health in Ethiopia. The WHO is at the core of the greatest deception against mankind in history ever, and too many men and women have there head in the sand, or up their arse.

Link

It’s actually not about a virus at all. Viruses in nature don’t kill. A weaken immune system on the other hand....
But if you weaponize a virus...

Link

Even the mainstream media isn’t hiding the eugenics intention/agenda anymore.

[Link to article titled 'Bill Gates funds birth control microchip that lasts 16 years inside the body and can be turned on or off with remote control
It conspiracy fact.']

Link

Y'all are idiots (since y'all insist on name calling) to think theres a deadly pandemic. Y'all been had by the establishment.

Link

We’ve been pointing this out. Nobody younger than 60 (or 55) is getting ill. Focus on that instead of your imaginary math. THAT IS where we should focus. Not locking down and performing genocide with an experimental jab on the entire population.

Link



This is far from an exhaustive list, but it shows a clear inability to think critically. Don't be confused with my comment... he's not troubled because he's anti-vaccine; you can see that he's troubled by the metal gymnastics that he uses to justify how an absurd idea is correct and that everyone else agrees with him.

[Edited for formatting]

[JerryRig]

[/quote]

Yes, well no...
You show such warped view of the word that it doesn't necessarily make you mentally fit for it.
[/quote]

World views are relative. Did you not see the movie Matrix?

[porcsord]

World views are relative. Did you not see the movie Matrix?

You are either a troll or an idiot.

I suspect the former, although the latter is equally as plausible. Seek professional help, you need it.

PS

[Bede]

Depends WHICH court. The court of the QUEEN OF CANADA (note the capitalized letters designating a service corporation), or a court of you (who you are known as by your mother, of the family that is yours). Our courts have been hijacked by foreign invaders on this land for a very long time. Go ahead and dispute this if you can find the evidence. I’ll point you in the direction of Maritime Admiralty Law. Now I ask you what does traveling by air have to do with maritime law? It doesn’t. Law of the land aka common law applies from the center of the earth to the airspace above with reference to the land in question. Sea bearing vessels need not apply. There is currently in place a fraud which placed Maritime Law of the sea over land and air. This is based on historic precedent. See you in Library.

Charters only apply to persons, not man or woman. Persons are fictitious.

A Freeman on the Land! It's to law what flat earthers are to science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

[imjustlurking]

World views are relative. Did you not see the movie Matrix?

Neither the blue pill or red pill will help you.

Go to a therapist and talk you shit out.

[Capt. Underpants]

Yes, well no...
You show such warped view of the word that it doesn't necessarily make you mentally fit for it.
[/quote]

World views are relative. Did you not see the movie Matrix?
[/quote]

Seriously. Get help.

[‘Bob’]

What are you talking about? The Matrix? There is no such movie.