The Freeman Movement and England

[Dave Rogers]

Fact 1 is wrong - No constitution

I think it's a little more complicated than that. There is a British constitution, as I understand it, but it's not collected in a single document; rather, it's the accumulated collection of statute and case law that defines the basis of the legal system. I think it's fair to say that there's no such thing as the English constitution.

I love the idea that statutes are not laws. If the police are empowered by statute to arrest people who fail to comply with statutes, and the courts are empowered by statutes to fine or imprison people who fail to comply with statutes, then what exactly is the difference?

Dave

 

[drkitten]

I think it's a little more complicated than that. There is a British constitution, as I understand it, but it's not collected in a single document; rather, it's the accumulated collection of statute and case law that defines the basis of the legal system. I think it's fair to say that there's no such thing as the English constitution.

Even the notion of a British constitution is rather questionable, depending upon what you consider the properties of a Constitution to entail.

In particular, the US constitution is explicitly a well-defined collection of documents (in this specific case, a single document, plus amendments) that is self-empoweringly the supreme law of the land and therefore trumps any other document. That's why "unconstitutional" is such a powerful phrase in US law; an unconstitutional policy cannot be legally created or enforced without changing the constitution itself.

The British pseudo-constitution has no such authority. Indeed, I don't think I've ever gotten a straight answer about what documents are and are not part of the British constitution. But more importantly, it is accepted that Parliament and the Crown jointly have the authority to change any part of this "constitution" on a whim. The right to a jury trial? The need for a warrant to arrest or search a suspect? There is nothing in British law that prevents Parliament from eliminating those rights.

Which makes the idea that an act of Parliament can be "unconstitutional" rather silly, since Parliament has the authority to override the constitution, and by that very act to change it.

 

[uk_dave]

I recall being told once that while the UK doesn't have a US style constitution, we instead have an assumption that everything is allowed (or a right) ........ until it's made illegal.

So rather than have a shopping list of things which the citizen has a right to (but which is not really all that clearly defined, witness the right to arm bears and the seperation of interstates from the churchies) and which come under obvious strains as the world changes from period in which those rights were enshrined, we have a shopping list of specific things you can't do.

We also have an "ignorance is no defence in law" clause, which means we're supposed to know what isn't legal...which is why we have such big heads.

 

[drkitten]

I recall being told once that while the UK doesn't have a US style constitution, we instead have an assumption that everything is allowed (or a right) ........ until it's made illegal.

That's not really a difference. The US also has an "everything not forbidden is permitted" assumption, except when discussing Federal government action, where the rule is "everything not permitted is forbidden."

The question is whether or not there's anything in law that prevents some specific thing from being placed on the "forbidden" ("permitted") list.

There is, for example, a law that prevents quartering of troops in civilian houses in times of peace. The legal effect is that not only is the government forbidden from doing so (by default), but it's also explicitly forbidden from changing the law to put troop-quartering on the permitted list. There's similarly a law preventing the government from placing religious expression on the "forbidden" list.

So rather than have a shopping list of things which the citizen has a right to (but which is not really all that clearly defined, witness the right to arm bears and the seperation of interstates from the churchies) and which come under obvious strains as the world changes from period in which those rights were enshrined, we have a shopping list of specific things you can't do.

No. The idea behind having "a right to" is different from merely being "allowed to." I am, for example, "allowed" under both US and UK law (generally) to paint my house any color I like. Certain cities in the States have passed laws adding "paint your house in the wrong color" to the shopping list of specific things you can't do,.... but HMG (or any of the local councils) could also do the same if they felt like it.

The difference is that there are certain things that, at least in theory, cannot be added to the shopping list in the States., because we have "a right to" do things that cannot be abridged. There is no such restriction in the UK.

 

[Especially]

How strange that this thread should immediately be transfered to the 'Conspiracy Theory' thread. But what's new ? Anything which brings you back to basics is sure to be a 'conspiracy theory', right ?

You know what a conspiracy theory is, don't you ? It's the product of your 'education'. To reject anything not given to you by the mainstream corporate, Vaticanised, Jesuitical, occultist media. Simple, right ?

Let me address some of the silly criticisms above. Here are 20 facts about Britain and its government. They might surprise you, although last time I checked the political system in the USA it's just as corrupted. Where's the 'conspiracy' in the following facts -

1. The 'head of state' in England is unelected. Right ? It's the monarchy.

2. Since 1066 (when the papacy in Rome blessed a full scale invasion of this country) the monarchs have been seen as the 'head of state'. Stooges of the papacy, with tax raising powers. Under penalty if you disobey.

3. The scam of monarchy is of course that it introduced a system of slavery into England. Where barons, kings, princes, lords, and the entire system of privilege and elitism soon claimed to own all the land of England. That's just plain fact. In fact, the correspondence between King John and the Papacy in Rome makes interesting reading. Why not check it out some time in your library. Instead of believing that Magna Carta gave you your 'liberties'. It did nothing of the kind ! Magna Carta was a product of the new empire. A feudal empire of barons, kings, and the usual dynasties of power. The bloodlines of the 'New World Order'. What 'New World Order' ? The one your own presidents and prime ministers have been announcing to you for years. THAT 'New World Order'. The one you went to sleep about !

Which part of this message is a 'conspiracy' ?

4. The greatest enemies of democracy and a fair, representative government have always been the unelected system of the monarchy and its elites. It was the monarchy (and I must remind you of this fact) who drove out Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the USA from England. On the orders of the King of England. Didn't know that, right ? Around 1800 only a few people could vote in England and they were all land owning lords and aristocrats. Get it yet ?

5. The Laws of England are the Common Law of England. They are laws which must be observed by all governments of England. The laws of England are not made by political parties in Westminster. The Common Law of England is the final appeal against bad legislation. Check it out ! Ask any lawyer, any policeman, any historian, anyone who knows the subject. Where did the US Constitution come from ? That document which the elitists hate ? And who tore it to pieces after 9/11 and gave you a Patriot Act in its place ? You got it !!

6. The 'laws' made by Parliament in Westminster are STATUTE LAWS. What does that mean ? It means they require your CONSENT. They cannot be forced on you without your consent. Let me repeat this. The laws (so-called) of the Parliament in Westminster are NOT laws. They are STATUTES. They require the CONSENT of the people. Because you have a government which requires YOUR CONSENT ! Get it yet ? But these 'laws' of Westminster (Acts of Parliament) are NOT LAWS. They are Statutes. How much clearer can it be ? But you see, daily, the Constitution being torn to pieces. The same is happening here in England with the actual Law of England.

7. If an Act of Parliament is made which contradicts the Common Law of England it is bad and can be appealed against and rejected. This happens all the time. Didn't know that, right ? The Acts of Parliament are NOT law. They are acts of Statute. Such a simple thing. But do you realise what that means ? It means you've been suckered, for a long time.

8. Each and every politician elected in England by the people of England MUST give an oath to the unelected monarchy to serve THEM on the very first day he/she sits in Parliament in Westminster. Without which they are fined heavily. Didn't know that, right ? So the counterfeit system carries on acting as 'government'. It's all an illusion. The government of our nation is founded on the Law. On the Constituion. Nothing else.

9. The Parliamentary oath says NOTHING about serving the electorate of England. Nothing ! Didn't know that, right ? Check it out for yourself !

10. The political party system at Westminster is only a theatre. Political parties are filled with liars, stooges, fraternity members and pre-selected candidates of parties who are not interested in serving anyone. That is their track record of the last centuries. Our political system is a sick joke. But people keep voting for it. Why, you get all excited about it and you think you are being a real 'citizen'. You are being conned.

11. The monarchy is a dyanasty nobody, nobody elected. It is also one of the richest, most ruthless, corporate frauds of human history. Why, it was the Redcoats of England who invaded the USA. Forgot that ? Because the system of elites in England HATE democracy. And so does the New World Order. Why, they run rings around you in the name of Parliament and Congress. And you go back to them over and over and over again. It's ridiculous.

12. Our nation of England has been tricked in to joining the European Union. An empire which NOBODY in the UK voted for. It was all done behind the scenes. By the monarchy and by the political machine. No vote (referendum) was given to the British People. It was rubber stamped by the politicians and the monarch .....of Westminster. Get it yet ? And the European Union will shortly throw the Constitution of England into the rubbish bin. It will impose its ruthless rule on England. Same as we see happening in the USA.

13. The 'laws' being used by the police forces of Britain (each of which is a registered corporation) are all STATUTES and they require your consent. So that policemen are now glorified revenue officers. Get it yet ? They hardly know what the Common Law of England is.

14. Local government in England has long been corrupted. It sends you bills to pay for local services whether you want those services or not. It takes you to their courts if you refuse to pay them, whether you want those services or not. Because, like everything else, your CONSENT is ignored. If you don't want their services you can say 'NO'. But they will still take you to court. A court system filled with their own loyal monarchist judges. Get the picture yet ? So the idea of consent is slowly but surely lost. The takeover of the nation by elitist corporations and by STATUTES, not laws.

15. In recent years people have started fighting back against this corruption. See for example the 'freeman' movement which exists very widely in the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. See for example the website FMOTL in the UK.

16. It's not that people want 'something for nothing'. It's that people want the Law of England, and NOT corrupt corruptions, parties, stooges and STATUTES to rob us blind.

17. If you do not understand that Common Law of England you will never understand how the courts are really places of business, for the CORPORATE system. That's all they are. And always have been.

18. America taught the world about how to be free of this empire. Now it seems that England must teach you.

19. If you are happy with your politicians, your bankers and those who are ripping up your Constitution, your entire society, all in the name of 'government' just carry on sleeping. But people are waking up to the bailouts, the corruption, the entire ruthless domination of elites. And that's the Freeman Movement. Check it out. And then you can say you have studied it.

20. I am not surprised most 'sheep' have little to say about this. They have never examined their own freedoms. They don't even know what they are. They have never once questioned the 'status quo'. They know something is badly wrong. But they can't put their finger on it. The 'something' that is wrong is YOU. You have to stand up for basic principles of law and justice or else you get the government you deserve. You have to say NO to ruthless counterfeits. Who steal from you in the name of 'government'. Back to the basics. Back to the Common Law of England. Back to real freedom. Because the alternative is a police state and the loss of all your individual freedoms.

Now, America, does that ring a bell ?

 

[twinstead]

How strange that this thread should immediately be transfered to the 'Conspiracy Theory' thread. But what's new ? Anything which brings you back to basics is sure to be a 'conspiracy theory', right ?

You know what a conspiracy theory is, don't you ? It's the product of your 'education'. To reject anything not given to you by the mainstream corporate, Vaticanised, Jesuitical, occultist media. Simple, right ?

Let me address some of the silly criticisms above. Here are 20 facts about Britain and its government. They might surprise you, although last time I checked the political system in the USA it's just as corrupted. Where's the 'conspiracy' in the following facts -

1. The 'head of state' in England is unelected. Right ? It's the monarchy.

I thought the prime minister was the head of state the monarchy was just a traditional figurehead? Did I miss something in English history class?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

The difference is that there are certain things that, at least in theory, cannot be added to the shopping list in the States., because we have "a right to" do things that cannot be abridged. There is no such restriction in the UK.

This is overstating the case a bit. I'm not a US citizen, so feel free to correct me, but the US constitution is not set in stone, if it were it wouldn't have the 20 odd amendments to it. Sure, it's harder to change the constitution than to pass a law but it can be done and has been done.

I'm on the fence a bit about written constitutions, I can see the utility that they make radical changes harder so you have to be really sure you want to do it, but on the other hand they make necessary change slower.
We keep having to change ours when we find out that it means rape victims can't get abortions, or paedophiles can't be put in gaol so they're not an unmitigated triumph.

 

[Especially]

I think it's a little more complicated than that. There is a British constitution, as I understand it, but it's not collected in a single document; rather, it's the accumulated collection of statute and case law that defines the basis of the legal system. I think it's fair to say that there's no such thing as the English constitution.

I love the idea that statutes are not laws. If the police are empowered by statute to arrest people who fail to comply with statutes, and the courts are empowered by statutes to fine or imprison people who fail to comply with statutes, then what exactly is the difference?

Dave

The difference is that you can choose the law of England or the statutes being made by our corporate sham called government. The same government who joined the EU without you getting a vote. Your sovereignty was trashed because the 'sovereign' said so. Got it yet ?

 

[Especially]

I thought the prime minister was the head of state the monarchy was just a traditional figurehead? Did I miss something in English history class?

Yes, we all grow up believing that. But the truth is very, very different. If we refuse to swear loyalty to the monarchy (even as members of Parliament) we are fined lots of money every day, until we do.

The sovereignty of the people has gone. It has been transfered to a 'sovereign' nobody elected. And this impersonation has brought us to ruin. Because its corporate government, the feudal system and eventual slavery.

The same is happening in the USA, whose great Constitution is being thrown into the trash can. In the name of a never-ending war on terror. And the people keep right on bailing out the bankers and hoopla for the politicians in Congress.

What happened to the Constitution ? It was stolen and nobody even noticed it. Why, its freedoms are every day laughed at by the elites in power in the USA. It has been put on hold. They can remove your freedoms with hardly a protest. And the same is happening here in England. We need to get back to basics. Fast.

 

[Lothian]

The difference is that you can choose the law of England or the statutes being made by our corporate sham called government.

How cute that you believe this.

 

[Especially]

This is overstating the case a bit. I'm not a US citizen, so feel free to correct me, but the US constitution is not set in stone, if it were it wouldn't have the 20 odd amendments to it. Sure, it's harder to change the constitution than to pass a law but it can be done and has been done.

I'm on the fence a bit about written constitutions, I can see the utility that they make radical changes harder so you have to be really sure you want to do it, but on the other hand they make necessary change slower.
We keep having to change ours when we find out that it means rape victims can't get abortions, or paedophiles can't be put in gaol so they're not a unmitigated triumph.

Well, the great US Constitution is perhaps the greatest constitution ever written. And who wants it ? Not the political elites.

The Common Law of England is derived from the Golden Rule. And who wants it ? Not the political parties of England. Not the judges. Not the monarchy. No, they have something new to give you. Their own corporate laws, their own system. Which you must pay for. And it must be exposed. The Patriot Act is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So are the so-called 'laws' of Parliament. They are products of the same corruption. Politics is a bunch of nonsense.

 

[LightinDarkness]

How strange that this thread should immediately be transfered to the 'Conspiracy Theory' thread. But what's new ? Anything which brings you back to basics is sure to be a 'conspiracy theory', right ?

How strange that a conspiracy theorist would decry his/her delusions being classified correctly? But whats new? Surely vast theories about unforeseen powers controlling our government are based in facts and should be accepted, despite the fact that you have offered no proof for anything you have posted so far.

You know what a conspiracy theory is, don't you ? It's the product of your 'education'. To reject anything not given to you by the mainstream corporate, Vaticanised, Jesuitical, occultist media. Simple, right ?

I know this is what you want to believe but, unfortunately, it has no basis in reality. There is no Vatican, Jesuit, or Occult control of the media.

Let me address some of the silly criticisms above. Here are 20 facts about Britain and its government. They might surprise you, although last time I checked the political system in the USA it's just as corrupted. Where's the 'conspiracy' in the following facts -

Whoops! I'm afraid you've failed already, see, what you posted was not facts but pretty standard conspiracy delusions without proof. We await your evidence that anything you posted is actually true...but I won't be holding my breath.

1. The 'head of state' in England is unelected. Right ? It's the monarchy.

Have you read your own traditions? The Monarch in England is a CEREMONIAL HEAD OF STATE, having no effective political authority. The actual head of state would b e the Prime Minister, who is unelected but is chosen by the winning party WHOM ARE elected.

2. Since 1066 (when the papacy in Rome blessed a full scale invasion of this country) the monarchs have been seen as the 'head of state'. Stooges of the papacy, with tax raising powers. Under penalty if you disobey.

Yawn. What the Vatican did in 1066 when it actually had political power has no relationship to 2009.

I could go on, but as I started replying to #3 I realized how pointless it was. I usually don't mind debunking CTers because there is a little tiny part inside all of them that is open to reality. There is that little, tiny part in most CTs that is yearning to break free of their self-imposed delusions and embrace reality. Unfortunately, I do not see it in the OP. He wants to believe so badly that I am not sure any amount of facts or reason will dissuade him from the lies he/she has embraced.

Its like the OP believed every single conspiracy hes ever read. For example "OH MY GOD, SOMEONE UTTERED THE 3 WORDS NEW WORLD ORDER - THIS IS PROOF OF A VATICAN/JESUIT/OCCULT CONSPIRACY!" No, the phrase "new world order" is a political term used as rhetoric by politicians, it has no relationship to the mythical conspiracy you believe in.

There is no difference between "common law" and "statute law", its a FOTL woo distinction that only exists in your fantasy world. The legal system - of the UK (and the US, for that matter), is based on the legitimate exercise of several types of authority derived from both common law principles and statutes.

The FOTL woo hatred of "corporations" is rather hilarious because it demonstrates that they do not understand what a corporation actually is. All a corporation means is that a group of people have decided to form a legal entity for practical purposes - corporations are devices that allow us to operate in the modern world. Without them, anytime someone sued a company you worked for you, and every other employee in the company, would be jointly liable. Thus, no one would ever form a company and we would have none of the conveniences of society that we all enjoy. Your hatred of them comes from populist irrationality.

 

[Especially]

How cute that you believe this.

And how tragic you do not !

But there is hope on the horizon. Try reading about Statute Law and Common Law. Try reading something about it. Ask any policeman, any honest judge. Go to a library. Check out the freemen websites around the world. There are dozens. Statutes (Acts of Parliament) are NOT laws. They are statutes. They ALL require your consent. At least try to learn the scale of the deception. All done in the name of 'government'. All designed to rob you of your own God-given freedoms.

Regards

 

[twinstead]

Yes, we all grow up believing that. But the truth is very, very different. If we refuse to swear loyalty to the monarchy (even as members of Parliament) we are fined lots of money every day, until we do.

Do you have any reference to anybody being fined lots of money every day for refusing to swear loyalty to the monarchy? I find that very hard to believe.

 

[Especially]

Do you have any reference to anybody being fined lots of money every day for refusing to swear loyalty to the monarchy? I find that very hard to believe.

Yes, certainly. If you do a websearch for -

Parliamentary Oath

You will see the text. There is a FINE, daily, for any member of Parliament who sits in Westminster and who does not swear his/her allegiance to the Monarchy. That oath says NOTHING about serving the people or the nation. Nothing at all.

If you still can't find it please write again.

Regards

 

[Lothian]

All designed to rob you of your own God-given freedoms.

Who is this "God" of which you speak? I trust he is English.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Yes, certainly. If you do a websearch for -

Parliamentary Oath

You will see the text. There is a FINE, daily, for any members of Parliament who sits in Westminster and who does not swear his/her allegiance to the Monarchy.

If you still can't find it please write again.

Regards

In other words, no, he does not have any evidence. He simply heard this from a FOTL woo website and believes/wants it to be true.

Where he got this delusion from is that bastion of truth the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ant-ditch-500-year-oath-allegiance-Queen.html

Note that the article claims that members of parliament CAN be fined for not taking the oath and acting in a official capacity, but fails to note one instance of this ever occurring.

 

[Especially]

But I've already told you I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Right ? Why do you make the silly mistake of saying I am one ?

These are plain facts of history, supported by the documents of history. They are not even in dispute.

 

[drkitten]

How strange that this thread should immediately be transfered to the 'Conspiracy Theory' thread.

Not especially. It's a theory about a [widespread] conspiracy by the government (in this case, the government of England or the UK -- a pity you don't know the difference) to act unlawfully.

Anything which brings you back to basics is sure to be a 'conspiracy theory', right ?

No, but anything that alleges a widespread conspiracy to violate the law is a conspiracy theory, by definition.

Let me address some of the silly criticisms above. Here are 20 facts about Britain and its government. They might surprise you, although last time I checked the political system in the USA it's just as corrupted. Where's the 'conspiracy' in the following facts

2. Since 1066 (when the papacy in Rome blessed a full scale invasion of this country) the monarchs have been seen as the 'head of state'. Stooges of the papacy, with tax raising powers. Under penalty if you disobey.

Well, there's part of the conspiracy you're alleging. If the papacy approves of something, that makes anyone participating a "stooge." By this argument, Manchester United is a stooge of a substantial portion of the football fans of the world.

3. The scam of monarchy is of course that it introduced a system of slavery into England. Where barons, kings, princes, lords, and the entire system of privilege and elitism soon claimed to own all the land of England. That's just plain fact.

Actually, no. That's one of the interesting and unique things about the Normal Conquest -- in fact, none of the barons, lords, and whatnot claimed to own any of the land in England. It was all held in fief from the Crown.

.... which is one of the traditional perks of military conquest. You conquer the land, you own it.

Which part of this message is a 'conspiracy' ?

This part:

In fact, the correspondence between King John and the Papacy in Rome makes interesting reading. Why not check it out some time in your library. Instead of believing that Magna Carta gave you your 'liberties'. It did nothing of the kind !

On the contrary, the Magna Carta broke the stronghold of the King that had existed since 1066; the barons, lords, and whatnot were ostensibly granted powers and rights of their own independent of the land that they "held" at the whim of the current reigning monarch.

Magna Carta was a product of the new empire. A feudal empire of barons, kings, and the usual dynasties of power. The bloodlines of the 'New World Order'. What 'New World Order' ? The one your own presidents and prime ministers have been announcing to you for years. THAT 'New World Order'. The one you went to sleep about !

And, of course, "the bloodlines of the New World Order" is pure conspiracy theory.

4. The greatest enemies of democracy and a fair, representative government have always been the unelected system of the monarchy and its elites.

Right. Because neither communism nor fascism have ever been threats to democracy.

Around 1800 only a few people could vote in England and they were all land owning lords and aristocrats.

In 1800 lords could vote? Really? Obviously the meaning of "House of Commons" has mysteriously escaped you.

In fact, there was a watershed change between the Magna Carta and the 1800s precisely because the untitled could vote and could exercise power,....

5. The Laws of England are the Common Law of England. They are laws which must be observed by all governments of England.

This is simply wrong.

6. The 'laws' made by Parliament in Westminster are STATUTE LAWS. What does that mean ?

It means they're laws.

It means they require your CONSENT. They cannot be forced on you without your consent. Let me repeat this. The laws (so-called) of the Parliament in Westminster are NOT laws. They are STATUTES. They require the CONSENT of the people. Because you have a government which requires YOUR CONSENT ! Get it yet ?

Yup. it's incorrect gibberish like this that has resulted in your posts being ghettoized in the conspiracy theory section. You're assuming a widespread conspiracy of illegal action on the part of the British Parliament.

8. Each and every politician elected in England by the people of England MUST give an oath to the unelected monarchy to serve THEM on the very first day he/she sits in Parliament in Westminster. Without which they are fined heavily.

More conspiracy theorizing.

9. The Parliamentary oath says NOTHING about serving the electorate of England. Nothing ! Didn't know that, right ? Check it out for yourself !

It also says nothing about the number of eggs to put into a proper Yorkshire pudding. Not really relevant, I'm afraid. As a matter of fact, I'd be deeply worried if a Scottish MP were required to serve the electorate of England.

[yadda yadda yadda]


Now, America, does that ring a bell ?

It does. It reminds me of every other half-educated lunatic whackjob on the conspiracy theory forum, which is why this thread is now correctly placed in the half-educated lunatic whackjob conspiracy theory forum.

 

[Especially]

In other words, no, he does not have any evidence. He simply heard this from a FOTL woo website and believes/wants it to be true.

And you, of course, HAVE read the Parliamentary Oath of Westminster, haven't you ?

You, of course, HAVE checked this out for yourself, haven't you ?

No, you haven't !

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for attacking the arguer, not the argument.

Please read your membership agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady