Icke's "Freedom Foundation"

Since then Icke has even managed to attract ridicule from his fellow conspiracists, most notably following the launch of his reptilian thesis all guns blazing, convinced that he alone had happened onto the truth. The “biggest crock to be foisted on the public in many moons”, declared an incredulous Jim Keith, after reading The Biggest Secret (1999) Icke’s modest magnum opus on the reptilians.

What we need to understand before all freedom is extinguished is that you don’t have to agree with what someone says to defend their right to say it. Indeed, you are defending your right to say and think what you choose because unless everyone has free speech and free thought then no-one does. You can’t be free to think and say what you believe if someone is deciding what you can think and say.

Ciggy wrote:I've been searching for traces of Icke's defensive proceedings against Warman's lawsuit,

Yeah whilst searching I too came across the freedom foundation, Id forgotten all about the that shit

Hrafn wrote:I think in light of what ive seen , Icke v Warman will reveal itself soon...via Warman himself

http://www.richardwarman.com/transcripts.html

Ciggy wrote:

Hrafn wrote:I think in light of what ive seen , Icke v Warman will reveal itself soon...via Warman himself

http://www.richardwarman.com/transcripts.html

Nothing since 2008 though, on ANY of Warman's cases. This would suggest that maybe that whole "Canada ruled that statute unconstitutional" thing, has become a bit of a snag in his efforts. And the Free Dominion defense against him was chock FULL of absolutely embarrassing info about what Warman's been up to, which has been helping the subsequent defense teams make him look a fool in court. If he does get around to Icke in court, Icke's lawyer mainly just has to copy-paste about 40 pages of facts gathered by the 15 to 20 other defendants as to what a kunt Warman's been the past decade. And of course remind the judge the law the suit was based on was ruled unconstitutional. I think even Turd could win that case on a pro se basis.

Droike wrote:

Ciggy wrote:

Hrafn wrote:I think in light of what ive seen , Icke v Warman will reveal itself soon...via Warman himself

http://www.richardwarman.com/transcripts.html

Nothing since 2008 though, on ANY of Warman's cases. This would suggest that maybe that whole "Canada ruled that statute unconstitutional" thing, has become a bit of a snag in his efforts. And the Free Dominion defense against him was chock FULL of absolutely embarrassing info about what Warman's been up to, which has been helping the subsequent defense teams make him look a fool in court. If he does get around to Icke in court, Icke's lawyer mainly just has to copy-paste about 40 pages of facts gathered by the 15 to 20 other defendants as to what a kunt Warman's been the past decade. And of course remind the judge the law the suit was based on was ruled unconstitutional. I think even Turd could win that case on a pro se basis.

So what your saying is they are both tits, tell us something we dont know.

Its the way its looking to be, two prats vying up to each other..

Hrafn wrote:

Droike wrote:

Ciggy wrote:

Hrafn wrote:I think in light of what ive seen , Icke v Warman will reveal itself soon...via Warman himself

http://www.richardwarman.com/transcripts.html

Nothing since 2008 though, on ANY of Warman's cases. This would suggest that maybe that whole "Canada ruled that statute unconstitutional" thing, has become a bit of a snag in his efforts. And the Free Dominion defense against him was chock FULL of absolutely embarrassing info about what Warman's been up to, which has been helping the subsequent defense teams make him look a fool in court. If he does get around to Icke in court, Icke's lawyer mainly just has to copy-paste about 40 pages of facts gathered by the 15 to 20 other defendants as to what a kunt Warman's been the past decade. And of course remind the judge the law the suit was based on was ruled unconstitutional. I think even Turd could win that case on a pro se basis.

So what your saying is they are both tits, tell us something we dont know.

Its the way its looking to be, two prats vying up to each other..

Ciggy wrote:

Hrafn wrote:

Droike wrote:

Ciggy wrote:

Hrafn wrote:I think in light of what ive seen , Icke v Warman will reveal itself soon...via Warman himself

http://www.richardwarman.com/transcripts.html

Nothing since 2008 though, on ANY of Warman's cases. This would suggest that maybe that whole "Canada ruled that statute unconstitutional" thing, has become a bit of a snag in his efforts. And the Free Dominion defense against him was chock FULL of absolutely embarrassing info about what Warman's been up to, which has been helping the subsequent defense teams make him look a fool in court. If he does get around to Icke in court, Icke's lawyer mainly just has to copy-paste about 40 pages of facts gathered by the 15 to 20 other defendants as to what a kunt Warman's been the past decade. And of course remind the judge the law the suit was based on was ruled unconstitutional. I think even Turd could win that case on a pro se basis.

So what your saying is they are both tits, tell us something we dont know.

Its the way its looking to be, two prats vying up to each other..

Exactly. But in full candor I was believing Droike when he said that there was no trace of a court case at all, when in fact there was at least a complaint, and a claim of 1 million CD against him, which would be a legitimate reason to start asking for defense fund donations. It's not really a "case" yet and it's looking unlikely Warman will win, but it's not as brazen of a scam by Icke as I previously thought it was.

That being said, the rhetoric from the Icke camp in response to Warman simply underscores the absolute hypocrisy and kuntish nature of Icke when he doesn't afford the members of his own forum the freedom he demands from the government of Canada, to say what he wants.