The Freeman Movement and England

[RHolmes]

Especially,

I just knew that you'd retort along the lines of "lawyer who disagrees with me = dishonest lawyer". I must be psychic. Of course, it isn't conceivable that your ideas are back-assward.

Keep splashing in the rockpools, kiddo.

 

[Lothian]

Especially, What is the point of this. Is the end point people should cite common law to escape taxes.

 

[Architect]

Especially

I'm puzzled. I don't see why you're here - you've failed to provide any solid evidence to back up your claims about your interpretation of constitutional and legal issues. You refuse to responds to points of technical clarification. You don't seem to understand the difference between the UK and England. You use occasional Americanisms not commonly used on this side of the pond.

Why are you here, if not to debate, and why are you pretending to be from the UK?

 

[Especially]

Especially,

I just knew that you'd retort along the lines of "lawyer who disagrees with me = dishonest lawyer". I must be psychic. Of course, it isn't conceivable that your ideas are back-assward.

Keep splashing in the rockpools, kiddo.

Then do me and this forum a great service.

Tell us plainly -

1. Does the Constitution of the USA require a man or a woman to pay an income tax ? Can you show me which LAW says so ?

2. Do you agree that the courts which sit in cases of bills are COMMERCIAL COURTS and operate according to Commercial (Admiralty) Law ?

Just answer me those two questions. Because one thing is sure. The lawyers are part of an industry and the LAW OF THE LAND says that every contract being offered must be CONSENTED to by both parties.

True or Not ?

Try teaching us how to suck eggs ?

 

[Lothian]

Then do me and this forum a great service.

Tell us plainly -

1. Does the Constitution of the USA require a man or a woman to pay an income tax ? Can you show me which LAW says so ?

2. Do you agree that the courts which sit in cases of bills are COMMERCIAL COURTS and operate according to Commercial (Admiralty) Law ?

Just answer me those two questions. Because one thing is sure. The lawyers are part of an industry and the LAW OF THE LAND says that every contract being offered must be CONSENTED to by both parties.

True or Not ?

Try teaching us how to suck eggs ?

Can you start a Freeman movement and America thread for that, perhaps starting with "Hello from Cook County Jail"

 

[Architect]

Then do me and this forum a great service.

Tell us plainly -

1. Does the Constitution of the USA require a man or a woman to pay an income tax ? Can you show me which LAW says so ?

2. Do you agree that the courts which sit in cases of bills are COMMERCIAL COURTS and operate according to Commercial (Admiralty) Law ?

Just answer me those two questions. Because one thing is sure. The lawyers are part of an industry and the LAW OF THE LAND says that every contract being offered must be CONSENTED to by both parties.

True or Not ?

Try teaching us how to suck eggs ?

This thread is about "England". Why do you keep refering to the USA?

 

[volatile]

Once I've "exercised" my "right" to be tried under common law, and once the Magistrate or judge laughs at me and then locks me up for contempt of court, to whom do I appeal? To whom is this judge, egregiously in breach of The Common Law, responsible? You keep talking about the "real" law of England. Fine, OK - let's say I believe you and it really is all playing out like you say it is. What next?

 

[Especially]

Especially

I'm puzzled. I don't see why you're here - you've failed to provide any solid evidence to back up your claims about your interpretation of constitutional and legal issues. You refuse to responds to points of technical clarification. You don't seem to understand the difference between the UK and England. You use occasional Americanisms not commonly used on this side of the pond.

Why are you here, if not to debate, and why are you pretending to be from the UK?

I am not surprised you are puzzled. I have produced lots of evidence. I have refered you to the law dictionaries, to the legalise of the commercial law courts, to the Constitution, to the fact that these courts do not operate according to the law of the land, but to commercial (Admiralty) law. Show me differently. But you cannot. Because it is true.

I am here in London. The time here is 11.37 am.

But it doesn't matter. You are the one who is presenting no evidence. I repeat that the Common Law, the law of the land, is what you must appeal to in court cases of tax, bills and commerce. NOT the law of those courts. Which is there to fleece you, to extort from you money for goods and services which you never asked for in the first place. And in common law the consent MUST be given.

If you don't like this thread, perhaps you can read another ? Because others like it and I am happy to share with you these FACTS of our courts.

The law is your friend. But not the law of the commercial courts. It's totally different.

 

[Architect]

Especially, whether you are currently resident in London is academic. I asked why you were pretending to be from the UK, and why you seemed unable to understand the important distinction - generally acknowledged on this side of the pond - between "England" and the "UK".

 

[Lothian]

I am not surprised you are puzzled. I have produced lots of evidence. I have refered you to the law dictionaries, to the legalise of the commercial law courts, to the Constitution, to the fact that these courts do not operate according to the law of the land, but to commercial (Admiralty) law. Show me differently. But you cannot. Because it is true.

I am here in London. The time here is 11.37 am.

But it doesn't matter. You are the one who is presenting no evidence. I repeat that the Common Law, the law of the land, is what you must appeal to in court cases of tax, bills and commerce. NOT the law of those courts. Which is there to fleece you, to extort from you money for goods and services which you never asked for in the first place. And in common law the consent MUST be given.

If you don't like this thread, perhaps you can read another ? Because others like it and I am happy to share with you these FACTS of our courts.

The law is your friend. But not the law of the commercial courts. It's totally different.

A fact I would like you to share is the name of a court case where someone has escaped a fine in the UK using these arguments.

 

[Especially]

Once I've "exercised" my "right" to be tried under common law, and once the Magistrate or judge laughs at me and then locks me up for contempt of court, to whom do I appeal? To whom is this judge, egregiously in breach of The Common Law, responsible? You keep talking about the "real" law of England. Fine, OK - let's say I believe you and it really is all playing out like you say it is. What next?

But you are NOT in contempt of court. You are there to resolve the issue. You are there saying that a bill was issued to you for goods and services which you never asked for in the first place. You are there to explain that these goods and services were never quantified, that you do NOT consent to receiving them, and that the Law of England clearly says you may consent or not consent to receiving them. That you are perfectly within the law. And that you are not in contempt of court but are appealing to the Law of England, and NOT to the commercial law, the Admiralty Law.

This is why, from the very start of a case, you make it clear that you wish to be heard under the Law of England. That you do NOT consent to the bill and have every right, under the Common Law of England, NOT to consent to it.

Now, who is being lawful here ? You DO have a right to choose if someone is forcing a contract on you, don't you ? And if you have no right to choose, no right of consent, then, what sort of court is it ?

 

[Especially]

A fact I would like you to share is the name of a court case where someone has escaped a fine in the UK using these arguments.

What do you prefer ? To have consent or not to have consent ?

If you want bills for the rest of your life in which you have not asked for the goods and services in question then, under the law of England, you have a perfect right NOT to consent to their supply.

Why not go to websites such as FMOTL ? Or TPUC ?

Really, you should be aware that courts are part of an INDUSTRY. A commercial industry. They do NOT operate according to the Law of the Land. They operate under Admiralty Law. The law of the Sea. A very, very different system.

And yes, all over the country in the UK, people are exercising their lawful right NOT to contract with people for the supply of services they have not solicited in the first place.

 

[Lothian]

But you are NOT in contempt of court. You are there to resolve the issue. You are there saying that a bill was issued to you for goods and services which you never asked for in the first place. You are there to explain that these goods and services were never quantified, that you do NOT consent to receiving them, and that the Law of England clearly says you may consent or not consent to receiving them. That you are perfectly within the law. And that you are not in contempt of court but are appealing to the Law of England, and NOT to the commercial law, the Admiralty Law.

This is why, from the very start of a case, you make it clear that you wish to be heard under the Law of England. That you do NOT consent to the bill and have every right, under the Common Law of England, NOT to consent to it.

Now, who is being lawful here ? You DO have a right to choose if someone is forcing a contract on you, don't you ? And if you have no right to choose, no right of consent, then, what sort of court is it ?

Please reference a case in the UK where a breach of statute law has been won by a defendant citing that statute law doesn't applay as they never consented.

 

[Caustic Logic]

This thread is about "England". Why do you keep refering to the USA?

He doesn't consent to the American Revolution! That was won under the terms of Admiralty (ie wartime) law, and hence nullified by lack of statutory volition... and such. Look it up!

 

[Especially]

Especially, whether you are currently resident in London is academic. I asked why you were pretending to be from the UK, and why you seemed unable to understand the important distinction - generally acknowledged on this side of the pond - between "England" and the "UK".

And I am asking you to agree that the courts are run according to commercial/maritime law. Not according to the Law of England, that of the land.

Just confirm this, won't you ?

In the Law of England a man/woman is entitled NOT to consent to statutes being forced on them.

Just confirm this, won't you ?

And then we can have a conversation. But, until then, let's not waste our time.

Regards

 

[Lothian]

What do you prefer ? To have consent or not to have consent ?

If you want bills for the rest of your life in which you have not asked for the goods and services in question then, under the law of England, you have a perfect right NOT to consent to their supply.

Why not go to websites such as FMOTL ? Or TPUC ?

Really, you should be aware that courts are part of an INDUSTRY. A commercial industry. They do NOT operate according to the Law of the Land. They operate under Admiralty Law. The law of the Sea. A very, very different system.

And yes, all over the country in the UK, people are exercising their lawful right NOT to contract with people for the supply of services they have not solicited in the first place.

I was very clear in what I prefered. I prefered you to give me the name of a court case where someone has escaped a fine in the UK using these arguments. If you can't I will draw the obvious conclusion.

And then we can have a conversation. But, until then, let's not waste our time.

 

[Especially]

He doesn't consent to the American Revolution! That was won under the terms of Admiralty (ie wartime) law, and hence nullified by lack of statutory volition... and such. Look it up!

You are right. Which is why the City of London still has massive controlling interest in the USA. And always has.

The iniquity is this. The law of the USA (and appeal to the Constitution of the USA) is being diluted by the legal industry. People should wake up to the fact that Admiralty Law is NOT the law of the land.

 

[Especially]

I was very clear in what I prefered. I prefered you to give me the name of a court case where someone has escaped a fine in the UK using these arguments. If you can't I will draw the obvious conclusion.

And then we can have a conversation. But, until then, let's not waste our time.

But you are not interested in facts, are you ? There are THOUSANDS of examples every day of people NOT consenting to paying for goods and services which they never asked for in the first place.

Try the websites

TPUC

and again -

FMOTL

in England

And then tell me the same thing.

Because you must understand something rather quickly. The courts do not sit to hear such cases under any other law than Admiralty Law (commecial law) and their game is so clever that you, an ordinary person, are hardly aware of it. I repeat that every person has a right to consent or not to consent to statutes, according to the law of the land.

Get used to it. The rest is a scam.

 

[volatile]

This is why, from the very start of a case, you make it clear that you wish to be heard under the Law of England. That you do NOT consent to the bill and have every right, under the Common Law of England, NOT to consent to it.

OK, fine. You've said that already. What happens if the judge locks me up anyway? How do I proceed? To whom do I appeal? If what you say is correct, how is it enforced? In other words - how does this stuff work IN THE REAL WORLD?

 

[Maja]

And I am asking you to agree that the courts are run according to commercial/maritime law. Not according to the Law of England, that of the land.

Just confirm this, won't you ?

In the Law of England a man/woman is entitled NOT to consent to statutes being forced on them.

Just confirm this, won't you ?

And then we can have a conversation. But, until then, let's not waste our time.

Regards

Are you saying that you are only able to have a conversation with people who have already agreed with your views before it has started?