The Freeman Movement and England

[Architect]

Since you do not live in England you are forgiven for not knowing the basics of the legal industry here in England.

I have directed you to two different English websites, filled with evidence.

TPUC

FMOTL

When you have visited them and read the details there please post again and I will be glad to answer any questions.

Regards

And again you lend the lie to your claim to be from the UK.

Those of us from the UK do, in fact, generally have rather more than a passing familiarity with the basic legal systems operating in the home nations and I should warn you that classes in this form a part of the university-level education system for my profession (laws of contract, tort, and liability - for obvious reasons). I also work extensively in the other home nations.

Of course, as a presumably US citizen (who might be resident here), you might not be aware of this.

Now, back to the substance of your post. You have made an extraordinary claim, albeit largely cut and posted from FOTL websites and rather familiar to us all. What you ahve not been able or willing to do is actually produce any legal substantiation besides a single reference of doubtful value.

Lothian's demand that you produce the evidence to back up your claim is not unreasonable. It is your place to prove youy hypothesis. Do so.

 

[Architect]

The Statutes of Parliament require the CONSENT of the governed.

Legal evidence for this extraordinary claim?

 

[Especially]

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

Certainly. And can you tell me how a person appealing to the law of the land is unlawful ?

Since you can answer no other questions I have repeatedly asked you. And it shows.

 

[Especially]

Legal evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Architect,

You grew up with certain 'misconceptions'. So did I. So did everyone.

Here is a short introduction to the Law of England.

The Law of England is that law which must be adhered to in the Statutes of Parliament. OK ?

The Acts of Parliament (made by politicians) are STATUTES. Do you know what statutes are ? They are NOT the Law of England. They are STATUTES.

A statute is a document produced by a parliament subject to it being found to be lawful. By the LAW OF ENGLAND.

Yes ?

Am I going too fast for you ?

 

[Especially]

And again you lend the lie to your claim to be from the UK.

Those of us from the UK do, in fact, generally have rather more than a passing familiarity with the basic legal systems operating in the home nations and I should warn you that classes in this form a part of the university-level education system for my profession (laws of contract, tort, and liability - for obvious reasons). I also work extensively in the other home nations.

Of course, as a presumably US citizen (who might be resident here), you might not be aware of this.

Now, back to the substance of your post. You have made an extraordinary claim, albeit largely cut and posted from FOTL websites and rather familiar to us all. What you ahve not been able or willing to do is actually produce any legal substantiation besides a single reference of doubtful value.

Lothian's demand that you produce the evidence to back up your claim is not unreasonable. It is your place to prove youy hypothesis. Do so.

On the contrary, the people of the UK are among the most dumb, ignorant, arrogant and downright 'dumbed down' people of the modern world. Who cannot tell us where their own sovereignty is to be found. Who consent to political union with the EU despite it being contrary to its own constitution, never having the mandate of its people, and who cannot even tell the difference between the Law of England and a Parliamentary Statute !!! Who enter in to contracts they never asked for, and who obediently pay them. What a nonsense !

Was there ever a more ignorant and fallen nation ? Well did the USA declare its independence from such theatre as an unelected dynasty and the feudal SUBJECTS of the UK. And from stooge parties at Westminster.

You presume to 'teach the world democracy'. It's hilarious !

 

[Mashuna]

And you will show us where it is wrong, yes ?

OK, clock starts ticking.....NOW !

I think the main errors are here

 

[geni]

Architect,

You grew up with certain 'misconceptions'. So did I. So did everyone.

Here is a short introduction to the Law of England.

The Law of England is that law which must be adhered to in the Statutes of Parliament. OK ?

Nope. Parliament is supreme. Thus parliment is free to do whatever it likes up to and includeing abolishing itself.

The Acts of Parliament (made by politicians) are STATUTES. Do you know what statutes are ? They are NOT the Law of England. They are STATUTES.

Nope. They are Statute Laws. You cannot legitimately devide the two words. That was why it was the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1998.

A statute is a document produced by a parliament subject to it being found to be lawful. By the LAW OF ENGLAND.

No you've already rejected that idea when you went pre 1066 and also rejected the later Anglo-Saxon laws. You are onto the laws of East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex and Wessex now and they don't support you either.

 

[jimbob]

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.

[/QUOTE]


Technically, you might have to swear an oath of allegiance, but not in reality, as Tony Benn said:

"When I took the oath at the beginning of this Parliament, I said, "As a dedicated republican, I solemnly swear ...". My hon Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, "I solemnly swear that I will bear true and faithful allegiance to the Queen when she pays her income tax". There are some concessions that we all have to make, and everybody should know that". [Tony Benn MP, HC Deb 23 Jul 1993 Vol. 229 c 656]

I have never felt the need to take an oath of allegiance, nor have I been fined.

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.

In that case how was Charles I executed for treason? The English Civil War, and the 1688 "Glorious Revolution" showed the primacy of Parliament. There was a fiction that the king could chose whether to sign any new laws, but Parliament demonstrated that it can depose monarchs who don't do what Parliament wants. The monarchy did have a lot of influence after this time, but the ultimate power rested with Parliament.

 

[jimbob]

Agreed. It would be like Monty Python was back....

"I can still bite you" ?

Or were you thinking about a different scene?

 

[geni]

On the contrary, the people of the UK are among the most dumb, ignorant, arrogant and downright 'dumbed down' people of the modern world. Who cannot tell us where their own sovereignty is to be found. Who consent to political union with the EU despite it being contrary to its own constitution,

The UK constitution is whatever parliament says it is.

never having the mandate of its people,

Not required under the UK constitution. "mandate of its people" is a rather french idea.

and who cannot even tell the difference between the Law of England and a Parliamentary Statute !!!

You supposed "laws of england" is not consistent with any legal system practiced in that area. I do understand the difference between common law and statute law but you've already rejected common law and it doesn't work in the way your supposed "laws of england" do.

Who enter in to contracts they never asked for, and who obediently pay them. What a nonsense !

Taxes are not contracts.

Was there ever a more ignorant and fallen nation ? Well did the USA declare its independence from such theatre as an unelected dynasty and the feudal SUBJECTS of the UK.

Actualy there have been very few subjects since the British Nationality Act 1981 entered law.

And from stooge parties at Westminster.

Err you are aware that the US had a Whig Party?

 

[Especially]

Wow, there's one born every minute, it seems !!

You say 'Parliament is supreme'. WRONG. You have been subjected to so much garbage that you are truly in a dangerous state of corruption. You are again quoting a Statute, not a law. For your information, the Parliament is subject to the Law of this nation. It cannot pass any Statute contrary to the Law of this nation. Indeed, the political parties cannot make laws. The Law of England is the measure of all Statutes. And if it is found to be unlawful the Act of Parliament is dissolved. Such is the true supremacy in this nation. Do not tell us Parliament is 'supreme' when you do not even know that it is subject to the Laws of England. It is the Law of England which is supreme. As anyone sensible will agree. The Parliament is NOT a law unto itself.

The Statutes of Parliament are subject to the Law of England and can be challenged by it. Not the other way around. Once again, the Law of England is the supreme authority in this nation. Not the publications of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or any other party. Similarly, the Constitution of the USA is supreme in the USA. And nothing else. The LAW of the nation is the rule, even of Parliaments.

Now, I say again that the Common Law of England IS the law of England. A fact recogised by a mountain of evidence in legal history.

And you will finally tell us, we hope, whether or not our courts are run according to Admiralty Law, commercial law, and not the Law of England. Won't you ?

Because this is the 6th consecutive time I have asked for this to be confirmed and, so far, nobody has replied.

Wake Up People !!

 

[volatile]

Your argument relies on the law being correct, and incorrect at the same time. You talk about "mountain of evidence in legal history" (even though you haven't actually cited any directly), but surely that evidence (if it exists) comes from the legal history of the very "admiralty" courts you yourself are saying are invalid!

 

[Especially]

The UK constitution is whatever parliament says it is.



Not required under the UK constitution. "mandate of its people" is a rather french idea.



You supposed "laws of england" is not consistent with any legal system practiced in that area. I do understand the difference between common law and statute law but you've already rejected common law and it doesn't work in the way your supposed "laws of england" do.



Taxes are not contracts.



Actualy there have been very few subjects since the British Nationality Act 1981 entered law.



Err you are aware that the US had a Whig Party?

What nonsense !! Go back to school. You say that Parliament can write any constitution it likes. What hogwash. Parliament does not make laws. It produces only statutes. Statutes are NOT laws. They all require the consent of the governed. How simple can it be ?

Tell us, 'where is sovereignty found in this nation'. Can you ?

I have news for you. The sovereignty of a nation is in its people. Must I tell you, an Englishman, such a basic FACT ?

Taxes ARE imposed on people by means of contract law. The Council Tax is one such example. And if you do not agree to it you will go to a commercial court held under Admiralty (commercial) law. Where you will meekly pay them, though you may never consent to their goods and services in the first place. What a nonsense ! What a scam it is.

The Council Tax is a product of contract law. Derived from a STATUTE.

And you are free to consent, or not to consent to it. Under the Law of England.

 

[jimbob]

Especially,

Did Parliament Execute the King in 1649?

How does that not demonstrate where the power resides?

 

[Especially]

Especially,

Did Parliament Execute the King in 1649?

How does that not demonstrate where the power resides?

It demonstrates where power lay in 1649.

But since 1649 the monarchy has been restored. You may have noticed that fact ? Since which time the body of Oliver Cromwell was dug up and his skull was stuck on the railings in Westminster by his monarchist enemies.

I must ask you, 'where is the sovereignty of a nation found' ? In the monarchy, in the politicians, or with the people ?

Simple question. It seems nobody here wants to tell us.

 

[Especially]

Your argument relies on the law being correct, and incorrect at the same time. You talk about "mountain of evidence in legal history" (even though you haven't actually cited any directly), but surely that evidence (if it exists) comes from the legal history of the very "admiralty" courts you yourself are saying are invalid!

You are of course right ! The courts operating under Admiralty Law are FORCED to recognise the supremacy of the Law of England (the Common Law) whenever it is invoked. So, you are right. They have no choice but to do so whenever it is appealed to. And yes, their records are filled with this fact being recognised in the history of our nation.

Now you see that when you are in THEIR court you MUST appeal to the Law of England. But you do so YOURSELF. Otherwise their commercial law machinery will run. Contrary to your interests.

 

[volatile]

You are of course right ! The courts operating under Admiralty Law are FORCED to recognise the supremacy of the Law of England (the Common Law) whenever it is invoked.

Forced by whom? I'm not following you. Sorry, I am brainwashed and all; I guess that's not helping.

If an Admiralty Court judge locks me up for (say) not paying council tax, even if I have requested to be tried under the Common Law, to whom can I appeal? And if the lawyers are all in on it, who can I get to help me?

 

[Especially]

Your argument relies on the law being correct, and incorrect at the same time. You talk about "mountain of evidence in legal history" (even though you haven't actually cited any directly), but surely that evidence (if it exists) comes from the legal history of the very "admiralty" courts you yourself are saying are invalid!

Yes, since reality is greater than fiction. Our legal records show the supremacy of the Law of England. Even in the records of a system which operates under the law of the sea, Admiralty Law (commercial law).

A person in court must demand that they are heard under the Law of England. Or else your case will come to a swift and negative conclusion.

The plain fact is that Statutes are not binding on people without their consent. If you do not consent you must say so. And it's that simple. The Council Tax (all councils being corporations, as are the courts) is a product of Statute. Of commercial law. And you are lawfully entitled not to consent to any such contract if you choose so. Lawfully. Under the Law of England.

 

[Rolfe]

Just mentioning that Especially has not PMed me to confirm he knows where my location is.

I think earlier speculation that even if he is physically in London right now he is not English, is correct.

I suspect he may be American.

Rolfe.

 

[Especially]

Just mentioning that Especially has not PMed me to confirm he knows where my location is.

I think earlier speculation that even if he is physically in London right now he is not English, is correct.

I suspect he may be American.

Rolfe.

And I suspect you may be Greek, Chinese or Latvian. The relevance of which is................. ?