March 25, 2010

Defending Freemen

During my enforced "downtime" I have missed quite a bit.

One blogpost, written by our own Uncle Marvo, was a bit of an attack on the Freeman Movement, and, since it kind of is my life right now, it is fitting that I defend my stance.

From the top then, I should explain just what it is about life in Britain that I have grown to detest. In a word, it is "statutes". Statutes are not laws, although many think they are. Statutes are (and I quote) "Rules for a society which are created by elected officials (government). They are given the force of law when consented to by the governed". It seems to me that if my consent is required, it can also be taken away. By me. So I did. In a sworn affidavit, witnessed by three other human beings, and I sent it to a government department. I could have sent it to all interested parties, or none. I chose the Home Office. They did not understand my new law because I used ancient rights to inform them (the government) that there's a new kid in town and he is no longer playing by their rules. I informed them that I was no longer a child and that I no longer needed, nor would I seek, their permission to live my life as I see fit. Not so very long ago, this was the norm. As long as people caused no harm to other people in their communities they would in turn not be harmed by the government of the day.

Dig a little deeper though, and you discover that statutes are Laws Of The Water. Admiralty Law, Fleet Law, even Contract Law is based on laws of the water. Now, the last time I looked, I lived on the land. Therefore, I feel, it is not unreasonable of me to want to be ruled by Common Law-the Law Of The Land. Simply put, I told the government that their laws of the water no longer applied to me. They did not argue. They did not question. They did not rebut any claims I made in my affidavit. There exists a legal maxim that states "...an unrebutted affidavit stands". I have, in effect, written my own law. No-one, no man, no corporation, can ever deny me the rights I claimed. They were given the opportunity to do so, and they failed to respond in time, or with any substance. I may never need to invoke "Ranty's New Law", but if I do, the paperwork is lodged. I am, as they say in modern parlance, golden.

I have acted honourably. Moreover, I swore an oath not to cause harm, loss or injury to another human being. If I should do so I expect the full weight of the law to descend upon me. I will, however, in court, claim common law jurisdiction. I will want to be judged by my peers, not some magistrate or judge who is running a limited company. Which, by the way, they all are. I will enter the court as a human being, not an artificially created construct. If they insist on dealing with my legal fiction I will lay my birth certificate before them and they can negotiate with it all day long.

In the comments of my previous post I was accused of being a "commie". From what little I understand of communism, everyone is entitled to the same slice of pie, whether or not they worked to produce its ingredients, to produce the heat to bake it, or even possessed the skills to make the pie. I have a great deal of trouble accepting that notion. We have seven million people in this country who have never worked, or intend to never work, so content are they with taking money from those who are prepared to work. Would a "commie" say "Drown the fucking lot of them" ? Because that is exactly my viewpoint. Leeches all. Get rid of them. If they cannot work due to disability or illness then it is our moral, and human obligation to feed and house, and to take care of them. Any society is judged on how it treats its people, particularly the weaker inhabitants. But the lazy are a different kettle of fish. I also have no beef with capitalism. For much the same reason: if someone is prepared to take risks, invest his or her money into a business that sustains a community, and keeps people in jobs, then who has the right to snatch away all the rewards when they come to those that risked all to begin with? Not me, certainly. I'm not exactly in the Gordon Gecko "Greed is good" camp, but I'm not too far removed from it. Capitalism works.

Uncle Marvo is looking for proof. He deals in absolutes. I have none. I only know that in law, my document gathering dust in the Home Office, is rock solid. It may contain a pile of mince, but it is my mince. No-one told me I was wrong, or that I could not have any of the rights claimed. The law says my document is good, because it didn't say it was bad. Marv has also seen his share of conmen and conwomen in his time on the planet. I happen to agree with him here. My research has led me to those who want to charge for their teaching. It is precisely at that point that I click on that little x on the tab and leave their website. I will not be told that the answers have a price, and in the same breath that these people are here to help. If teaching is what you do for a living then good on you. I won't be paying for seminars, discs, or lengthy documents that show me the way towards untold riches. I don't want untold riches. I want to know how I deal with people who think they are dealing with a cash-cow. I want to know how to say "No" in a way that they will understand. I want to be left alone. I want to walk down the street without hordes of shiny-arses watching me on CCTV. I want to move freely about MY planet without some freak seeing my near naked body in a useless, possibly harmful scanner at the airport. If I am driving on a motorway, alone, at three in the morning, I want to drive at whatever fucking speed I feel is safe. I want to park wherever it is convenient for me, I don't want to spend an eternity looking for 20 feet of road that doesn't have ugly yellow lines painted on it and some mental case in a uniform waiting to rush out and superglue a parking ticket on my car. I want to know that I own my car. The law today says that the DVLA own it. They can take it away and crush it almost at will. This is proof absolute that they own the vehicle, not us. Otherwise it is theft. Has the DVLA ever been charged with theft? No, I thought not.

I want to own guns. I want to use them to defend my family against the freaks that run around raping, stealing and killing, especially if they break into my house to commit these atrocities. I don't want to ask permission to own these guns. I don't want to register them with anyone. Although I will happily do so when all the bad guys register their weapons.

I don't want to give the government 80% of what I work hard to earn. I don't want to give them much more than 10%. From what I can see, 10% of my earnings would be spent wisely. They deserve medals for Money Wasting, and I am tired of it.

Lady Justice is reduced to a pox-ridden syphilitic whore. She needs to be euthanaised with all haste. We need a proper judicial system that is over-dosed on common sense. We need to lock up killers until they stop breathing. Child molesters need to chemically castrated as a minimum, and thieves need to be sent to horrific gaols that they never ever want to reside in again.

We need one law: do no harm. That's it. The other four or five hundred thousand statutes, statutory instruments and mindless regulations can be safely repealed.

Does any of that define freedom? I want it. I want more than that. I want no government whatsoever. No huge machine running/ruining my life. I want to live. I want to spend my hard earned money on whatever I like without paying portions of it to the greediest fucking machine ever created. I want to enjoy what life has to offer. I don't want to harm others and I don't want them to harm me or mine. I want the police to protect me, and I want them to serve me. That is what I pay them for. When they are unable, or unwilling, to do so, I will take care of myself. Using my 9MM friend. And his friend, the 12 bore.

As I have repeated often, I will strive for everything I mention here, and more besides.

Or I will die trying.

Do you want to know, Marv, why it isn't "all bollocks"? Because it kicked me off. It got me started. A light went on in my little brain and I started to look for a way. I know from our emails that you have been doing a similar thing for many years. Your thing just doesn't have a label. Mine does.

It isn't important what I call it. It doesn't matter that a movement has sprung up. What matters, the only thing that matters a damn, is that people are waking up. They have stopped watching TV. They have stopped reading newspapers. They have stopped believing doctors, scientists and politicians.

They have started learning.

Who cares what they call themselves?

CR.

38 comments:

Uncle Marvo said...

@Rantster

Well said that man.

Just get the tpuc out of my face. 99% bull and 1% shit. And they've got Ray FuckingstClair on the front page, and you know what I think of him and his.

The rest is fine. It's called Libertarianism.

And yes, it got me jump-started too.

drabzz said...

I'm in the same place as CR, and I think the light is showing through the cracks for increasing numbers of people.

Yes there are cranks and oddballs in the Freeman movement, and hooray for that - anything to break the ovine servitude eh?

I know the PTB are probably working full tilt to 'divide and rule' the Freeman Movement. Spooks under the bed n'all. I have even felt the flutter of a split between the direct action types and the passive resistance types (of which I am one).

As any movement grows and gathers pace, divisions will naturally occur, and the Freeman Movement is no exception. The hard part is stopping the PTB stooges from dividing us; we must keep focus on the things we have in common, not on our differences.

I am Stan said...

Yo Capitan,

You go for it big man,I`m learning to say no too....

Some council bods came round to my house a few weeks ago,two of em, in vizi-vests and with SIA badges,I opened the door and there they were, the conversation went like this.

them-Are you Mr *******?

me-er you knocked on my door, who are you and what do you want?

them-(slightly taken aback)I`m blah blah and this is blah were from the council blah blah dept,(pause for effect)there has been a complaint about a dog barking at this address(womans eyes gleaming with power)would that be your dog.

me-If you want to ask anyone at this address questions I want a letter explaining who you are and what you want,I will then let you know if I or anyone else wants to talk to you,and when its convenient ok goodbye.

At that I shut the door and went back to giving the dog his weekly brush who had been barking through out the short conversation.

In his defence Ive had a lot of deliveries from ebay lately and of course he barks every time someone knocks on the door,like a good dog does.

6 months ago I would have stood there answering all their questions and probably apologised for his barking...now my attitude is much harder towards "officials"

If the person who complained had knocked on the door I would happily have explained to them why he was barking and probably apologised to them.

Stay safe Stan :-)

PS-Ive not received a letter yet!

Uncle Marvo said...

@drabzz:

The PTB don't need to divide. People like Ray StClair, cunt extraordinaire, do that for them. They must love him, but I doubt they fund him. You know who I mean, yes?

I am split between direct action and passive resistance myself (for reasons which one day may become clear).

But I do say this:

One wasp doesn't bother anyone. One wasp is one newspaper ruined. Two wasps are an impossible target. A few dozen are an absolute bloody nightmare.

Bzzz.

drabzz said...

Ray St Clair...

I once read his blog (linked from TPUC I think) but I have no memory of the content. I must have been uninspired by him.

Anyone smell candy floss?

Bzzzzz

Marcellus said...

Hooray to Ranty.

Almost all the laws made since 1 May 1997 have been for the convenience of the State or for the political advantage of the ruling elite. They have not been for the benefit or welfare of the individual person.

Once one really realises that, one feels unwilling to cooperate, particularly when one knows our contribution is required merely for the increased self-aggrandisement of the Few.

The State is only valid when it benefits the individual.

It has stopped doing so.

The State has become a monster. A vampire sucking the life force out of the individual.

No self-respecting individual owes fealty to a vampire.

watching said...

The one thing I have discovered for myself and now believe to be fundamentally true is that the state in it's many and varied forms can only legally interact with the person attached to us at birth is if we the human being give it our consent.

They are devious bastards though and often times we are suckered into 'tacit consent' without realising it but without it they seem to be powerless.

Three things work to put any state muppet, most of whom to be fair haven't a clue they are being duped by their overlords, off their script and into the scary world of self doubt and they are...

Firstly just say no.
Scares the shit out of them because they are told we are all conditioned to follow their lead and enter into contract with them.

Secondly ask questions such as
Who do you represent?
Who gave you permission to talk to me?
How did you get this phone number?
Can I see your identity please?
Can I see your letter of authority please?
etc etc.
It's actually great fun once you get over the initial fear of interacting with officialdom. What is really surprising is how often the officials genuinely want to learn more about being duped for themselves.
Can't remember who said it originally but "The best way to learn anything is to go teach it." and they were right on the money.

Lastly simply ignore them. As they need our consent to interact with us just ignore them and there is nothing they can do.

I like the two wasps analogy. I can confirm from first hand experience that two wasps are almost impossible to deal with and three are enough to ensure that retreat is the best course of action!

Anonymous said...

The big problem with "freemen",
libertarians,liberty lovers,devotees of choice is their
dedication to chatter and waffle,
twitter and natter.Limp wristed
nannies are not in the least perturbed by any amount of angry words. We all know what is required to capture the attention
Westninster weasels but is it to
unpleasant for us to contemplate.

Educated Chav

Captain Ranty said...

Some great comments from all of you. Thanks.

Mr Chav, I even liked your comment. I don't think I was supposed to, though.

Are you advocating violence? That, surely, is a road to hell? Riot, and they have all the reason they need to fling you into a cold, dark cell. What good can be done from there?

A little while ago I posted a list. It was almost 200 ways to mess with the machine. THAT is surely the thing to do? I was surprised to learn that I was using nearly 30 of those 200 methods. Peaceful. Lawful. Rebellious. And surprisingly easy.

I do not lack backbone. I do not lack stamina. I have the sand to protest, to march, to sing and to shout. But here's the thing: I watched almost a million people do that in London and the Iraq War still happened. Twice.

I even have the skills to fight. To subvert. To antagonise. To lead. But if I am to win my fight I have to do it peacefully and lawfully. I cannot harm another human or I will violate the Oath I swore on June 8th 2009. It means everything to me. Everything.

Sure I'm an "armchair warrior". A badge I am proud to wear. I am causing trouble. And I am very pleased with my progress so far. It is slow, but steady.

At the very least I have learned how to say "No", politely and firmly. They dont like that.

They don't like it at all.

CR.

Uncle Marvo said...

@Ranty:

... Captain Mannering.

|The old wisdom is still the best.

Bring it on.

Kit said...

Captain, i respect your attitude toward the arrogant parasites rulling our country, but the fact is that Statute is not 'Fleet' law or 'Admiralty' law or any other kind of non land or water based law. That is a delusion with no factual basis.

In addition, the idea that consent is required for statute law is also (unfortunately) not true.

I would be interested in where you got your quote from that stated that statute law does require consent to be valid.

I wish you the best in causing confusion and discord amongst the dishonest swine who order us, it is a good cause, but please don't be deluded about the legal realities.

JerryD said...

Hi Captain great post (as usual) but from a philosophical point of view I have difficulty in one clause you stated. That being, "I will cause no harm".

I see this again and again in Libertarian circles, like a mantra. I am not violent, I will not cause harm. I always see this as a limiting factor and why should we limit ourselves?

If a group of men decided to take my property from me, or harm my family – would you not resort to violence?

If a group of men said you must wear orange clothes to work – or face pepper spray – would you not use violence?

If a group of heavily armed men, with guns, dogs, pepper spray, tasers, helicopters, asked you to stop smoking – should we not cause them the harm they would do unto us??

Don’t you think, Captain, we should be armed to the teeth??

Keep up the excellent posts, always a pleasure to read them.

Anonymous said...

@ JerryD

The non-agression axiom that libertarians live by, is a live and let live attitude which embodies the principle of doing what one wishes with their life and property unless it adversley effects others! Libertarians believe fundamentally in self defence - in all of your scenarios there is an aggressor, or someone initiating force - defending oneself and ones own against an aggressor in physical terms is ones duty, but this is not an act of aggression or an act of force, it is an act if self defence. Yes we should be armed to the teeth, but never for acts of aggression, only for self defence and a silent ultimate safeguard against any potential aggressors including government.

chocolatemonster

watching said...

Kit
"In addition, the idea that consent is required for statute law is also (unfortunately) not true".

Please explain, if you would be so kind, how you have come to this conclusion.

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

We are an island nation. For hundreds of years the only law we could rely on for protection were laws of the water. Our laws of the land were useless as a defence when we had a dispute with a trading partner on the other side of the world. ALL law books tell us about Fleet and Admiralty law.

As for the "..consent of the governed.." statement that I use so often, I had trouble believing that when I first started. I had trouble with it right up until I saw the evidence in an FOI to the Ministry of Justice. You might want to take a wander through FOI's at Whatdotheyknow.gov. (I'll try and dig it out as well).

Even thinking logically, why would it be otherwise? If governments could enact law willy-nilly without our implied or express consent it ceases to be a democracy. We do not elect Gods and Goddesses. We elect humans to run our nation, and they do not have carte blanche to do what they want without us consenting to their actions. Not completely, or at least not in theory. Of course, 13 years and 4000 new statutes later, we now know different.

As far as I am aware, I have never stated a falsehood on this blog. Since these two things are the foundation of what I am doing I had to be certain they were not "delusions".

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

JerryD,

The Chocolatemonster beat me to it.

I DO want to be armed. Everywhere and all the time. Not so that I can go on a mall shooting spree but in order to protect myself from the gun-toting knife-wielding scum on our streets.

I will always advocate robust self-defence.

My "do no harm" statement relates directly to common law. It is how I live my life and the most basic element of common law is to do no harm. It does not mean I cannot defend myself if attacked, or if one of my herd is attacked.

I am at pains to point out that I am a peaceful man but that stops when I am threatened.

CR.

Uncle Marvo said...

I would like to see the reference to that FOI, Ranty.

As you know I am all for this cause, but I am very, very disappointed with the stuff I have read on tpuc as most of it is complete and utter horsecrap. It does not stand up to scrutiny, for instance actually ringing up the people concerned, looking the "Corporations" up, etc.

I would LOVE it to be true.

Captain Ranty said...

I'm on it Marv.

Kit said...

Captain, unfortunately, you are wrong.

The statement that ''For hundreds of years the only law we could rely on for protection were laws of the water.'' is silly. Their is no actual distinction between the 'law of the land' and the 'laws of the water' in the English or British legal system. Laws passed by Parliament (statute law) are the 'law of the land' and have always been so. There has never been any tradition of Parliamentary law being only applicable on sea.

''Our laws of the land were useless as a defence when we had a dispute with a trading partner on the other side of the world.''

That is illogical and irrelevant. The fact that it is hard to enforce English or British law on trading partners overseas doesn't make Parliamentary law only applicable at sea (which still would not solve the problem of disputes with overseas trading partners.


The law books mention maritime law and fleet law in exactly the same way they mention criminal law, commercial law and every other branch of the law. There is no great distinction between common law being the 'Law of the Land' and Statute law being 'Fleet Law.' That has never been the case.

As for the consent of the governen being required for laws to be applicable. Maybe that SHOULD be the case but is it not and has never been the case or even been a legal maxim. You state it as if you were quoting some clearly defined legal principle when it is not. The broader (unwritten and unactionable) constitutional principle is a system of government ultimately depends on the consent of the governed for its legitimacy. That consent being considered to be derived from elections to Parliament. You can argue with that, but it does NOT amount to an argument that the individual has the legal right to deny consent to Parliaments laws.

I'm sorry, i'm not accusing you of making deliberate falsehoods, but the ideas that 1) Parliamentary laws are 'Fleet law' and not applicable on land, is a delusion. and 2) The idea that Parliamentary law requires individual consent is also a delusion.

Legally speaking those ideas are fantasies.

Captain Ranty said...

Blimey Kit, are you serious?

I'll go through your comment piece by piece a little later.

In the meantime you might want to pop over here:

http://www.dwfisher.com/watching/2010/03/illogical.html#more

You are under sustained fire there...

CR.

Kit said...

Captain, i am perfectly serious.

I've had a quick look at that link and seen the remarkably illogical manner of the attack on my comments there.

It appears that they can't differentiate between what they WISH was true and what IS true.

I don't think it is right that stupid, overbearing laws are imposed on us by Parliament, but that does NOT translate into those laws not being applicable because of some fantasy about Parliamentary laws only being the 'law of the sea'.

Equally, the fact that for a system of government to have any legimatimacy requires there to be a degree of consent from the people does NOT translate into every law requiring each individuals consent for it to apply.

The people over there mistake my pointing out those realities with defending the current political system, which just shows how stupid they are.....

Back to the unpleasant realities, Parliamentary law has never been 'Fleet law' or some sort of maritime law, it has always been fully applicable to land. That is simply a basic legal and historical fact. In addition, Parliamentary law has never required the explicit consent of the individual for it to be applicable, that is also a fantasy.

Maybe it would be best if that were the case, but it is not the case. Unfortunately, the people in your link are too stupid to see that distinction.

Parliamentary law is not 'Fleet law' it does apply on land and it is applicable to people without their individual consent. Sorry, but sometimes the truth is unpleasant.

BTW, where did you get that quote from?

watching said...

Kit me old fruit "stupid" here.
You obviously believe that legal is lawful. I have proved to myself that this is simply not the case.
I have no need to prove it to you nor am I asking you to believe me. All I am asking anyone to do is question the existing status quo. Scary isn't it?

I have yet to see any explanation from your good self as to how you would like better your world hemmed in as it is by 'stupid overbearing laws' and the current 'stupid political system' not to mention staying on in a country which is ruled by 'arrogant parasites'!
So if you would care to elucidate here is as good a place as any.

Watching.

Kit said...

Watching, you are a confused and muddle headed person.

I have not stated that i like the world being 'hemmed in' by 'stupid overbearing laws' nor have i stated that the present status quo should not be questioned.

All i have pointed out is that Parliamentary law is not 'Fleet Law' which does not apply on land and that legally, the law does not require the individual to consent to it.

Those are facts. They may be unpleasant facts, but to try and pretend they aren't true because you don't want them to be true is juvenile while to accept unpleasant truths does not imply that you like them.

A shame that you are to stupid to understand that distinction.

watching said...

Apologies for the double posting Ranty. Please delete one.

Kit said...

PS, i am amused by your attempt to rewrite the English language.

Afterall, if you don't like what a word means, why not simply change its definition? Simply announce that legal does not mean lawful because you don't want it to any more.

Never let awkward things like facts get in the way....

watching said...

Kit please re-read your own posts

"Captain, i respect your attitude toward the arrogant parasites, rulling our country"

"I don't think it is right that stupid, overbearing laws are imposed on us by Parliament,"

And yet again you fail to answer a direct question.


What do you propose we all do to change Great Britain for the better?

Watching

PS
Please go and have a read of any version of Black's Law dictionary and you will see that legal has an entirely different definition to lawful or you may not the choice is yours.

Kit said...

Interesting how you are trying to change the subject.

I take it you now accept that i am right when i state that Parliamentary law is valid on land and that it does not legally require the consent of the individual to apply?

Afterall, you criticised me and stated i was wrong to say that. Now you twist and wriggle and try to change the subject.

Be a man and just accept that you were wrong.

Kit said...

PS, i have checked, and yes, legal does mean lawful.

Never mind, in your own head you have 'proved to yourself' it is not so.

Perhaps you could prove to yourself that 2 + 2 = 5 and then try and convince the bank manager of that. Good luck.

watching said...

I've just read back through these comments and I never once mentioned 'fleet law' or 'admiralty law'.

I am not trying to change the subject either. All I am asking you is to tell me and anyone else on here what you propose to do to change the system that you yourself state is worthy of
"causing confusion and discord amongst the dishonest swine who order us, it is a good cause"

Assuming that you think ranty and I are barking up the wrong tree.
So how would do you propose we all do this successfully and to what end?

Kit said...

Interesting that you are still trying to change the subject.

I point out that the idea that Parliamentary law is just 'Fleet law' and somehow not applicable on land is wrong.

I point out that the idea that Parliamentary law is inapplicable without the individuals consent is wrong.

You respond with a diatribe against me, claiming that i am totally wrong. Now you refuse to stand by your diatribe or attempt to back it up, instead trying to change the subject.

It's simple, either Parliamentary law is applicable on land or it isn't. Either Parliamentary law is applicable without the explicit consent of the individual or it isn't. You came here to argue that it isn't, but now you refuse to stand by your arguments.

It's a pathetic and dishonest tactic, you have found that you have lost the argument so instead of having any sort of integrity and admitting it you try and shift the argument to something completely different.

So, not only are you stupid, you are also dishonest and lacking in basic integrity.

Or perhaps you can explain why you think that Parliamentary law only applies at sea and why you think that Parliamentary law is only applicable with the express consent of the individual. Despite that not being true and having no basis in law, tradition or history.

watching said...

Kit
I give up and apologise for wasting your time..
I didn't realise you were just intent on repeating that RANTY'S position on Admiralty, fleet, or maritime law is wrong simply because you say it is. No doubt at some point he will come along and try and prove otherwise.

Back up the page I asked you a question which you totally ignored.

Kit
"In addition, the idea that consent is required for statute law is also (unfortunately) not true".

Please explain, if you would be so kind, how you have come to this conclusion.


You have still not answered this question.

Apologies for wasting your time asking what you consider to be 'off topic' questions.
If you answered I had hoped you would throw some light on another way, your way, to get rid of the onerous statute burden produced by the Labour party and rubber stamped by an elected Parliament, which may be better and easier than trying to find a way though freeman/lawful rebellion/commercial redemption morass.

As it is I wish you the best of luck in complying with every statute that is on the roll and those that are lurking around in the minds of the politicians waiting for their chance to be added to that roll.
If Gorgons party stay in power after the May election boy will this country be a really different place. The people will have given him and his ilk a mandate to speed their creation of a socialist utopia where everybody is reliant on the state and everybody does only what the state tells them too.

Watching

PS (you seem to like them)
I had an almost exactly the same sort of exchange with an AGW believer who insisted that it was wrong of me to state in public on another blog I used to run that man made global warming was a myth simply because he had read a book, produced by a now disgraced climate change prophet and thus decided that man was causing global warming.
I asked him to show me what other evidence proof or opinion he had used to arrive at his conclusion but all he did was rant on about the contents of one book.

It is very dangerous to read anything in a book, in the MSM or especially on the interweb and take it at face value. In my humble opinion you have to follow it up for yourself or you end up looking like the Gorgon who is basically just a powerful professional liar. This is how Marvo outed Mr St Clair as the charlatan he is. Marvo did his own research and discovered that St Clair is just a con man.

Ranty may be right about Admiralty Law, Kit may be right. I haven't made my mind up one way or the other.

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

I will do more on this. A separate blogpost I think. It is the cornerstone of the Freeman Movement and thousands of people have investigated this aspect.

In the meantime, chew the bones out of this:

"Admiralty law, also called maritime law, is a body of domestic and private international laws which govern marine commerce, navigation, shipping, seaman, passengers and cargo, towage, wharves, peers, docks, insurance, maritime liens, and in some countries, inland waters. Admiralty law is different from the Laws of the Sea, which is a code of public international law governing coastal water jurisdiction, navigational and mineral rights, and international relations. The flag flown by a ship determines what national admiralty laws govern it; ships with an Italian flag answer to Italian admiralty law, while US ships are governed by US admiralty regulations."

Taken from here:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-admiralty-law.htm

It isn't conclusive, I know. I'll be back with more later today.

CR.

Kit said...

Watching, i made two simple statements, you jumped in and criticised and insulted me for making them, then you refused to back up your criticisms and tried to change the subject.

Sorry, i don't accept your apology.

Kit said...

Captain, sorry but there is nothing to 'chew' there.

Admiralty law is just another body of law in exactly the same way that Commerical law and Tort Law and Property law are bodies of law.

There is absolutely no basis in law, history or tradition for Parliamentary law ever having just been Admiralty law. The very earliest Parliamentary Acts were laws concerning matters on land. (apart from anything else Parliament predates England being a maritime power, early Anglo Saxon England had almost exactly zero shipping)

In addition, Parliamentary Law, right from the very foundation of England by the Anglo Saxons has always been considered binding on all people without their explicit individual consent. At no time have people ever had the option to refuse to consent to a law.

Sorry, i realise you are emotionally invested in this but it isn't actually true.

Anonymous said...

Kit posted:

“In addition, the idea that consent is required for statute law is also (unfortunately) not true.

I would be interested in where you got your quote from that stated that statute law does require consent to be valid....”.

There are common law and statutory authorities for the proposition that statue law which infringes the subjects common law rights not being binding. Please bear with me.

The Confirmation of the Charters Act 1297 confirms that taxation requires consent and that all of Magna Carta is the common law:

“VI. No Aids or Prises shall be taken but by Consent of the Realm.

MOREOVER we have granted for Us and our Heirs as well to Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, and other Folk of Holy Church, as also to Earls, Barons, and to all the Communalty of the Land, that for no business from henceforth we shall take ( X1 ) such manner of Aids, Tasks, nor Prises, but by the common assent of the Realm, and for the common profit thereof, saving the ancient Aids and Prises due and accustomed...”.

“And We will that . . . F2 our Justices, Sheriffs, Mayors, and other Ministers, which under Us ( X1 ) have the Laws of our Land to guide, [X2 shall allow the said Charters pleaded before them in Judgment in all their points;] that is to wit, the Great Charter as the Common Law,...”.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&Year=1297&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1517501&ActiveTextDocId=1517503&filesize=10743


Magna Carta itself confirms that liberties can only be infringed by the law of the land:

“Magna Carta XXIX.
Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.
NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [X1 condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right....”.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&Year=1297&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1517519&ActiveTextDocId=1517542&filesize=1806

The Coronation Oath Act requires The Sovereign to rule according to law:

“ III. Form of Oath and Adminstration thereof.

The Arch-Bishop or Bishop shall say,
Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?
The King and Queene shall say,
I solemnly Promise soe to doe.
Arch Bishop or Bishop,
Will You to Your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements.
King and Queene,
I will....”.

It therefore follows that purported statutes that are against the common law cannot lawfully be given Royal Assent and the Courts have no authority to enforce them against a person who does not consent.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Anon.

I am going to repost this on the newer entry up above.

Cheers,

CR.

Anonymous said...

Good Day! Adam Garcia . payday loans

Anonymous said...

toronto bad credit loans This website is the right I appreciated it a whole lot
AAA Toronto Payday Loans 1172 Bay St #101, Toronto, ON M5S 2B4 (416) 477-2817