The Freeman Movement and England

[jimbob]

OK, So in 1649 Parliament was supreme.

What about the act of Settlement.

There are campaigns for Parliament to repeal this and to alter the succession of the monarchy so that the heir would be the first-born child of either sex.

Notice how this is asking for Parliament to decide on the succession.

Personally I am a republican, and I consider the monarchy an anachronism but in practice, the monarchy has many constraints placed upon it.

Face it, the heir can't comment on architecture without being criticised for overstepping the mark.

I am not denying that he might have had some influence with the developer, ultimately backed by an absolute monarch. But this was nothing to do with anything broader.

 

[jimbob]

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................. ?

The relevance is that you are claiming a knowledge but seem to have no evidence for your expertise. You certainly seemed to be trying to imply that you were English. Not British.

The vast majority of British adults would within a few minutes be able to tell where Rolfe lives. Though just for an experiment I found that google doesn't help, which makes it quite amusing.

 

[Especially]

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?

But an Admiralty Court (and you still have not accepted that courts hearing these cases are operating under Commercial Law, have you ?) must comply/conform to the law of the land. And the person who helps you is yourself. Who, from the outset, demands that your case is heard under the Law of England.

This is not rocket science. It is the law of England. You ask the case to be heard under the Law of England.

Let us say a person receives a bill for Council Tax.

Does such a person have the power to decline the goods and services involved in it ? Of course he/she does. But it's rare. Say a person asks the council to provide them with a list of itemised goods and services on offer. What reply will they receive ? None. Because the scam is to make you believe you have no power of consent. The entire Council Tax system based on Statute. And NOT on law.

The bill is presented to you in a de facto fashion. Can you imagine being presented with an unquantified, unsolicited bill in a restaurant with a demand to pay it ? But that's exactly what happens with Council Tax. You (of course) are not aware that you can consent or decline it.

You may write asking for a complete breakdown of their 'offer'. The chances are they will not reply. Now, this is an example of a commercial contract being forced on you.

You believe it's 'the law'. In fact, it's nothing of the kind, since you have not consented to it in the first place. You may not require those goods and services. You may decline it. Wouldn't that choice be yours to make ? But they present it in such a way that you are unaware of having any choice.

It's rather simple. If you consent to this scam you are liable to pay it. If you do not you decline their 'offer' (because that is what it is). And your consent is vital. In commercial law this is twisted so that your reply is deemed to be consent unless you specifically say you do NOT consent to it.

I mean, simply, that in a contract BOTH parties must consent. And here is a case where your consent has (sometimes) not been given.

Statutes work like that. Again, car parking tickets operate the same way. So do TV licences. The entire legal industry is based on commercial statutes which require your consent. To be lawful. And which you comply with because you think they are the 'law'. Withdraw your consent to them and it comes back to the Law of England. Which clearly states that you must consent to bills/contracts before they are lawful.

The terminology of this industry is designed to confuse us. It's all rather simple. They want to contract with you and if you don't agree they summon you (invite) you to their place of business. The Admiralty Law court (commercial court). At which time you express your willingness to resolve the matter and (at the same time) appeal to the Law of England. Pointing out that you decline their offer. As you have perfect right to do in the law of England.

Case Closed.

 

[tsig]

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

He's not claiming any of those nationalities.

Do you pay taxes? That's the only question worth asking.

 

[Especially]

He's not claiming any of those nationalities.

Do you pay taxes? That's the only question worth asking.

Taxes for what, exactly ?

If someone sends me a bill for goods and services which I never asked for in the first place I decline it. Don't you ?

Will you grant me that right ??? LOL !!

I mean, am I a man or a mouse ? It seems to me that I have some choice about any offer given to me, right ? I have the power of consent. What is a contract except mutual consent ? What does the law say ? The law says that I have the power to consent or not to consent to any contract.

Or do you want to live in a society where there is no consent ?

 

[Lothian]

No, I do not consent to your offer. I offer you instead to agree that our court cases are a commercial industry operating under Admiralty Law (commercial law) and not under the law of England.

I think we both agree with each other on this but what I want to know is whether the courts also concur.

Like you I want these scumbags who refuse to pay their taxes punnished. It is all very well pointing me to the websites where these tossers boast about their selfishness but before me, you and the others form a medieval mob and torch the ******* I want to know that when we defend ourselves by refusing to consent to be judged by statute the courts will accept it.

So give me one case where refusing to consent to be judged by statute has allowed the defendant to walk free.

Unless you have that it is all rather academic.

 

[Ysidro]

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

Please don't assume he's a US citizen just because he doesn't understand UK law and history. After all, he's already proven he doesn't understand US law and history either.

 

[jimbob]

Especially if you aren't English*, why are you referring to the British Parliament as "our parliament"

*You are obviously not implying that you to belong to any of the other nations within the Union

 

[Especially]

I think we both agree with each other on this but what I want to know is whether the courts also concur.

Like you I want these scumbags who refuse to pay their taxes punnished. It is all very well pointing me to the websites where these tossers boast about their selfishness but before me, you and the others form a medieval mob and torch the ******* I want to know that when we defend ourselves by refusing to consent to be judged by statute the courts will accept it.

So give me one case where refusing to consent to be judged by statute has allowed the defendant to walk free.

Unless you have that it is all rather academic.

Lothian,

Let's first establish the facts. You now agree that the Council Tax is the product of a Parliamentary Statute. It is NOT a law. It is an OFFER given to you to contract with the local council for goods and services. An offer being made under Contract Law. And you are entitled to receive these goods and services or not, under ordinary commercial law.

Your consent is required. But you pay it anyway. You may choose to ask what goods and services are being offered. But let us say you never do. Fine. Pay it. But others do not want these goods and services and they point out that they do not want them. They decline the offer.

But the system does not leave them alone. It harasses them. It issues a 'warrant' to their place of business. The court of Admiralty Law (the law of the sea). Which they, ignorantly, are unaware of. They think it's a court of the land. It's not.

And this court (unless you ask them to do differently) will try the case under commercial/contract law.

That is why, from the outset, in such cases, you must explain you wish the case to be heard under the Law of England. Since the law of England clearly says that a contract must be consented to by BOTH parties or it is unlawful.

Isn't this fair and reasonable ? And do you not agree that in matters of contracts the consent of both parties must exist ?

If you agree to this the issue is closed.

Regards

 

[geni]

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.

Statue law is law. This has been established by common law courts for century after century (it's also been established by scots law courts).

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.

Actualy it can. This was established during the regency crisis although there are older cases that make the same point.

Indeed, the political parties cannot make laws.

Parliment however can and does.

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.

There hasn't been a Law of england since 1542.

It is the Law of England which is supreme. As anyone sensible will agree.

I know a lot of sensible people. A worrying number of which could talk the hind leg off a donkey about UK consititional law. Parliament is supreme. Legaly parliament could abolish common law fairly quickly. It could do much the same for courts.

The Parliament is NOT a law unto itself.

It can be if it wants to be.

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.

Laws are passed by parliment not by parties.

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.

The UK has no equiverlent of the US constitution. Raiseing the issues suggest a profound ignorence of the UK system.

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.

Nope. The law of england is English and Welsh law which could be considered common law as modified by statute law.

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 ?

The question doesn't even make sense under UK law. Admiralty Law abd commercial law are simplty subsets of the general law and English law hasn't existed in nearly five centuries. English and welsh courts are run under the laws of england and wales which are common law as modified by statute law (very modified these days).

 

[Especially]

Especially if you aren't English*, why are you referring to the British Parliament as "our parliament"

*You are obviously not implying that you to belong to any of the other nations within the Union

Why are you so concerned about my nationality ? I am merely teaching you the fact that the Laws of England are NOT the Statutes of Parliament. And that you are being suckered with bills which are adminstrated under courts operating under commercial/Admiralty law. Against which, if you demand it, you may appeal to the law of the land. That of England. Which expressly says that a contract must be consented to by both parties or it is unlawful.

I am sure you are able to understand these simple facts if you really want to.

 

[Especially]

Statue law is law. This has been established by common law courts for century after century (it's also been established by scots law courts).



Actualy it can. This was established during the regency crisis although there are older cases that make the same point.



Parliment however can and does.



There hasn't been a Law of england since 1542.



I know a lot of sensible people. A worrying number of which could talk the hind leg off a donkey about UK consititional law. Parliament is supreme. Legaly parliament could abolish common law fairly quickly. It could do much the same for courts.



It can be if it wants to be.



Laws are passed by parliment not by parties.



The UK has no equiverlent of the US constitution. Raiseing the issues suggest a profound ignorence of the UK system.



Nope. The law of england is English and Welsh law which could be considered common law as modified by statute law.



The question doesn't even make sense under UK law. Admiralty Law abd commercial law are simplty subsets of the general law and English law hasn't existed in nearly five centuries. English and welsh courts are run under the laws of england and wales which are common law as modified by statute law (very modified these days).

Well, I beg to differ. The legal profession want us to be totally confused and it's our job to educate them.

There IS a law in England. It's the Common Law. The Common Law existed long, long before 1542. The Common Law of England is used every single day in law. Don't you know this ?

But there is another system. The system being used by courts of Admiralty Law. The commercial law/the law of the sea. You surely admit this. Don't you ? It's THESE courts where cases such as Council Tax are heard.

Now, in law, both parties of a contract must consent to the contract. Yes ?
What happens if one party does not ? Well, in such a case, there is no contract. Right ? I exercise my right NOT to consent in such cases. And that is the law of England. But you want to remove the consent of one party from this contract and to pretend it doesn't matter, yes ?

 

[geni]

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 ?

Parliment hasn't been sucessfuly overthrown since 1660 and that was through militry force.

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

The crown.

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

Thats not true under UK law. It's true under a number of legal systems mostly influence by napoleon but not UK law.

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.

Admiralty and commercial are seperate entities and unless you live in pakistan or are at sea you are not subject to anything resembling Admiralty law. Comercial law is limited to civil law while not paying your taxes falls under criminal law.

 

[Lothian]

That is why, from the outset, in such cases, you must explain you wish the case to be heard under the Law of England. Since the law of England clearly says that a contract must be consented to by BOTH parties or it is unlawful.

Isn't this fair and reasonable ?

Point me to a case where someone has explained they wish the case to be heard under the Law of England. Since the law of England clearly says that a contract must be consented to by BOTH parties or it is unlawful.

One case. Isn't this fair and reasonable ?

 

[Especially]

Point me to a case where someone has explained they wish the case to be heard under the Law of England. Since the law of England clearly says that a contract must be consented to by BOTH parties or it is unlawful.

One case. Isn't this fair and reasonable ?

An astonishing request ! You mean our courts are operating every day here in England but you don't know a single case where they hear cases under the Law of England !!!

Wow ! So, under what law are these courts operating if it's not the Law of England ?

I think you see the answer (because I've already given it to you). The courts operate under Admiralty/Commercial law. Right ? And what we are talking about here is the right of a person to decline a contract offer. Not to consent to it. Which is fair and reasonable in a society where consent matters, don't you agree ?


Thanks

 

[Especially]

Parliment hasn't been sucessfuly overthrown since 1660 and that was through militry force.



The crown.



Thats not true under UK law. It's true under a number of legal systems mostly influence by napoleon but not UK law.



Admiralty and commercial are seperate entities and unless you live in pakistan or are at sea you are not subject to anything resembling Admiralty law. Comercial law is limited to civil law while not paying your taxes falls under criminal law.

You can invent as many legal systems as you like. But this nation is under the law of England. Unless, of course, you are suckered in to the commercial law scam being run by the Admiralty law courts/commercial courts. Who cannot care a fig for your consent or not. It's an industry !!!!!!! THE LEGAL INDUSTRY. And is has nothing to do with the law of England.

 

[Lothian]

An astonishing request ! You mean our courts are operating every day here in England but you don't know a single case where they hear cases under the Law of England !!!

Wow ! So, under what law are these courts operating if it's not the Law of England ?

I think you see the answer (because I've already given it to you). The courts operate under Admiralty/Commercial law. Right ? And what we are talking about here is the right of a person to decline a contract offer. Not to consent to it. Which is fair and reasonable in a society where consent matters, don't you agree ?


Thanks

Our courts? Are you English or Welsh?

So am I correct there is not a single case of someone in the UK successfully arguing that they have not consented to a statute law.

 

[brodski]

Wow ! So, under what law are these courts operating if it's not the Law of England ?

English and Welsh Law, which may be the law of England, but it is not the Law of England as you use the term.

 

[geni]

Well, I beg to differ. The legal profession want us to be totally confused and it's our job to educate them.

So the people who actualy have to deal with the law every day don't understand it?

There IS a law in England. It's the Common Law. The Common Law existed long, long before 1542. The Common Law of England is used every single day in law. Don't you know this ?

No common law covers england and wales since 1542. Pre that time it was more limited to england but since such common law was only introduced in 1066 it's a bit odd that you support it.

But there is another system. The system being used by courts of Admiralty Law. The commercial law/the law of the sea. You surely admit this. Don't you ? It's THESE courts where cases such as Council Tax are heard.

Um no. High Court of Admiralty hasn't sat in full in nearly a century.

Now, in law, both parties of a contract must consent to the contract. Yes ?
What happens if one party does not ? Well, in such a case, there is no contract. Right ? I exercise my right NOT to consent in such cases. And that is the law of England.

Statue law, Common law, Anglo saxon law and roman law all accept taxation as legitimate and seperate from contract law. Will you now appeal to celtic law?

 

[Especially]

Our courts? Are you English or Welsh?

So am I correct there is not a single case of someone in the UK successfully arguing that they have not consented to a statute law.

I am saying the very opposite. I am saying that when the Law of England is appealed to (which expressly says consent must exist in both parties of a contract) the lack of consent of any one party nullifies the 'contract'. Since one party does NOT consent to it.

The absurdity of the situation is that the system is so corrupt you are not even aware you are not being heard under the law of England but of Admiralty/commercial law. A fact you should be made aware of. Since your consent matters. And so does mine.

Or else we end up as zombies with no consent for anything.

Which is precisely why, in such cases, we appeal to the law of England when in an English court. The whole system is a threatre for the unwary victims of 'laws' which are not laws at all. Statutes.