The Freeman Movement and England

[drkitten]

But I've already told you I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

We are under no obligation to believe you.

Why do you make the silly mistake of saying I am one ?

Because you hold conspiracy theories to be true.

Or, more bluntly, because you ARE one, even if you don't have enough self-awareness to recognize it.

 

[LightinDarkness]

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.

As you believe there is some secret shadowy distinction between common law and statute law, which is not supported by any actual facts, and that the Vatican and the Jesuits plot to control he media, you are a conspiracy theorist. You just make yourself look worse by denying the obvious.

Also, you have failed to state anything that is supported by any fact of history. Everything you said is indeed not in dispute though, because everything so far has been a lie - and there is no dispute about that.

 

[Especially]

If you don't know now I guess you never will !

 

[Especially]

As you believe there is some secret shadowy distinction between common law and statute law, which is not supported by any actual facts, and that the Vatican and the Jesuits plot to control he media, you are a conspiracy theorist. You just make yourself look worse by denying the obvious.

Also, you have failed to state anything that is supported by any fact of history. Everything you said is indeed not in dispute though, because everything so far has been a lie - and there is no dispute about that.

Where did you get your 'education' from ? Everything I have said is true. And it's all documentary FACT.

 

[Especially]

We are under no obligation to believe you.



Because you hold conspiracy theories to be true.

Or, more bluntly, because you ARE one, even if you don't have enough self-awareness to recognize it.

We are under no obligation to believe you also.

The difference is that what I am saying can be shown to be true by a mountain of documentary evidence. Evidence hidden from you. But check it yourself. It's all true. As people all round the world now know. Including people in your own country. In fact, the number of people who believe it is exactly 100%. Because they are the people who have examined these things and because I too examined them in detail.

Seems to me that you owe yourself a visit to your library. Soon.

 

[Lothian]

In fact, the number of people who believe it is exactly 100%.

So your knowledge of maths is poor as well.

 

[Especially]

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.

Wrong ! NO parliament has the power to override the constitution of the nation. They only have the power to make Statutes. NOT to write and re-write the Constitution which keeps them in check ! This is basic fact.

The members of Parliament are elected to SERVE the Constitution and the sovereignty of its people and NOT to change the very rules that are its Constitution. As I have already said, the LAW of England is found in the Common Law of England. NOT in the affairs (the statutes) made by Parliament.

 

[Especially]

So your knowledge of maths is poor as well.

Your ability to read is very poor. Those who have read on these subjects all agree about what is said. 100%.

But those who have not (including yourself) do not.

It is that simple.

 

[Especially]

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.



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





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.



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.



This part:



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.




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



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



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,....



This is simply wrong.



It means they're laws.



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.



More conspiracy theorizing.



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.



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.

I don't know your sources but if I was you I would ask for a refund. This is second grade rubbish.

 

[drkitten]

Wrong ! NO parliament has the power to override the constitution of the nation. They only have the power to make Statutues.

And that's the basic problem with this type of CT woo.

Because it actually interferes with intelligent and productive discussion of rather serious issues of human rights, freedoms, questions of sovereignty, and whatnot.

There have, in fact, been periodic political movements to create some sort of formal written Constitutional framework to keep HMG in check. I believe there was a document called "the Bill of Rights" which was actually passed as an Act of Parliament in 1689 which formalized certain acts that can and cannot be done. For example, it formalized the "right to petition" and equally formalized the lack of authority of the crown to use Royal Perogative to tax.

And, of course, there was the Human Rights Act of 1998.

But one fundamental problem with these parliamentary acts is that what one Parliament can do, another can undo; it would take a simple majority in Parliament to rescind the 1689 Bill of Rights and grant the sovereign the authority to tax by Royal Perogative. It has also acted to limit the development of the concept of "due process" in UK law.

This doesn't bother most Brits; after all, "parliamentary sovereignty" has worked as a principle for 300+ years and trying to restrict it would limit HMG's ability to respond to new crises. So there's a lot of room for reasonable discussion about what, if any modifications to parliamentary sovereignty are appropriate.

But if you start out with the counterfactual assertion that, no, Parliament is not legally sovereign in the UK, you end up.... well, you end up in the CT forum. And you prevent any possibility of an intelligent discussion from happening except by ignoring you, which is to say, you completely marginalize yourself in any meaningful way.

 

[drkitten]

I don't know your sources but if I was you I would ask for a refund. This is second grade rubbish.

That's right. It's only second-grade rubbish because it's based on fact.

I can't touch your top-class rubbish, which is completely uncontaminated by facts, reason, evidence, or the Real World in any way whatsoever.

 

[Especially]

Freemen - Ultimate Sanity

Corporate policemen, corporate governments, corporate local government, corporate politicians, corporate bankers, corporate monarchies, corporate news channels, corporate contractors, corporate scams at every level. Corporate prison, corporate courts. Corporate lawyers. And where is your freedom from it ?

Read your own Constitution. Read your own laws.

A generation ago nobody could have predicted such a generation of couch potatoes could possibly exist. And you voted it in. And you will do it again. Don't you just love governments who make you bailout the entire system ?

Get to know your own freedoms and use them. Given to you by men and women better than you have been.

 

[D'rok]

Wrong ! NO parliament has the power to override the constitution of the nation. They only have the power to make Statutes. NOT to write and re-write the Constitution which keeps them in check ! This is basic fact.

If it's a basic fact, I'm sure you can point us to the UK constitution. Before you answer, you might want to read up on the principle of parliamentary supremacy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

Also, I refer you to section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which explicitly gives the Canadian Parliament the power to override constitutional rights under certain circumstances:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society

Additionally, I refer you to section 36 of the South African Bill of Rights:

36. Limitation of rights

1. The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including *
   1. the nature of the right;
   2. the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
   3. the nature and extent of the limitation;
   4. the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
   5. less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
2. Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.

There's two examples, either of which negate your claim. There are more.

And finally, I ask you, if parliaments cannot modify constitutions, how are constitutions amended in a parliamentary democracy?

The members of Parliament are elected to SERVE the Constitution and the sovereignty of its people and NOT to change the very rules that are its Constitution. As I have already said, the LAW of England is found in the Common Law of England. NOT in the affairs (the statutes) made by Parliament.

I refer you once again to the principle of parliamentary supremacy and repeat my request for you to show us the UK constitution and to explain how parliamentary democracies amend their constitutions.

 

[drkitten]

Get to know your own freedoms and use them. Given to you by men and women better than you have been.

Physician, heal thyself. Although in this case, it would probably be better expressed as "psychiatrist, heal thyself."

 

[Especially]

You have completely misunderstood the facts. Here they are.

1. The sovereignty of a nation is with a dynasty ? A political party ? NO - IT's with its PEOPLE. Yes ? Nobody else.

2. The members of a government are elected. By who ? By the PEOPLE. Yes ?

3. A Constitution is written by.............???????????????????????????? The PEOPLE

4. Political Parties CANNOT re-write a Constitution. They have no right to do so. They are elected to defend it. A Constitution is the expressed product of the sovereign will of the PEOPLE.........NOT THEIR SERVANTS

Unless, of course, you want more of the same corporate government forever

Get it yet ?

 

[Mojo]

Read your own Constitution.

Any chance that you could post a copy of it?

 

[ktesibios]

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?

IIRC, it's the monarch who is head of state, i.e., the symbolic figurehead, and the prime minister is head of government.

Here in the USA we have both roles combined, with the result that we elect a President and then expect the poor ***** to be an effective political leader and a plaster statue all at the same time.

Sometimes I've wondered if it might not be better to tell the President "just run the damn gummint and don't go getting above yourself" and just hire some repectable old granny to do the ribbon-cuttings, medal-pinnings, platitude-spewings and so forth.

 

[D'rok]

In a parliamentary democracy, how do the people amend their constitution?

 

[Especially]

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.

The UK is headed up by a feudal elite who, in corporate style, have taken over the entire political process. Issuing 3000 new 'laws' - none of which are actually law, in the last 10 years alone.

The LAW of this nation is the Common Law of England. Which, amongst other things makes it an act of treason to negotiate away the sovereignty of this nation with any foreign power.

Which is why the UK (rubber stamped by the unelected monarchy) ignored the law and joined the EU. So much for the sovereignty of the people, yes ? They made an idol instead. The 'sovereign'. And the rest is sheer popery, delusion and wholesale mass media spin.

Such fun, right ? And, of course, no mandate from the people of England.

This is getting a bit ridiculous. But what's new in Parliament ? It's a giant heap of corruption, falsehood, fakery and fraud.

 

[D'rok]

I get an extra chuckle out of this UK brand of FOTL woo. Elevating the common law to the supreme law of the land really just means that the unelected judiciary is supreme. Who makes common law? Judges. Who does judicial review? Judges. Who appoints judges in the UK? The Queen on the advice of the PM. Some freedom!