March 28, 2010

Law-An Interpretation


















Or rather, my interpretation.

This will bring little comfort to our friend Kit, who had questioned my assertion that "..a statute is [a rule for a society acting for a common goal] given the force of law when consented to by the governed". I also stated that we are subject to Maritime Law (also Fleet, and Admiralty Law). Kit also disputed this, or rather, that we are not exempt from it simply because it is known as Laws Of The Water, or Laws Of The Sea. My argument being that I live on the land and I have decided that I will live my life only according to laws of the land. Having made that decision, and having served a Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right (NOUICOR) on the present government, which was undisputed by them, and contained the phrase that so worried friend Kit, I have no doubt as to its veracity. In short, I created my own law. I "opted out" of statute law and declared that I can be lawfully penalised only if I cause harm, injury or loss to another human being, or make mischief with my contracts.

How can one opt out? Using that very same interpretation of statutes. It stands to reason that if they can be consented to, that same consent can also be withdrawn. I have entered Lawful Rebellion. It is my considered opinion that HM Queen Elizabeth II is guilty of treason. Thousands of times. Since 1971/2 when she gave Royal Assent to the European Communities Act, she has steadily given away power granted to her by sovereign Britons during her coronation in 1952. Since she has violated her Coronation Oath, I have used rights granted to me under Magna Carta to lawfully rebel. This is not a privilege, it is not a "nice to have", it is an obligation. It is the duty of every Briton to enter lawful rebellion when the reigning monarch usurps or secedes her powers to a foreign nation. By rubber stamping all those treaties: Rome, Paris, Maastricht, Lisbon etc, she has steadily reneged on her promises to us, the people, that she swore to deliver on in 1952.

I have, over the last five years, read more statutes than any sane man should. I have discovered that although they appear to be, they are not written in my mother tongue. I speak, read, and write in English. Anyone connected with the law, either drafting, interpreting, or enforcing, does not. Over hundreds of years they have concocted their own version of English specifically for the law. Most of us call this bizarre language legalese. Most peoples eyes cross and they swiftly lose the will to live after just a few paragraphs, and it is now my belief that this is intentional. It isn't impossible to decode, you just need the right law dictionaries to hand when you read one of these mysteries. I use a variety of them: Blacks Law (if you want a taste of that publication, go here ), Jowitt's, or Bouvier's are just three that I look at for legal/lawful definitions.

All statutes contain remedies within them. They have to. Even the Human Rights Act (1998) allows for an interpreter, although I don't think they meant for someone to translate English into English. Still, the stipulation is there:

Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
(I nicked the above from FMOTL Forum).

Another great resource is Nolo's Plain English Law Dictionary. Go here to look up whatever you need. It has many of those troublesome Latin phrases too.

I write, often, about the difference between the law of the land, and the law of the sea. The former is common law and is based, almost utterly, on common sense. I cannot think of a single common law that makes money for the Crown. Laws of the sea, or statutes (Acts) cover a wide range of law: Contract, Tort, Company, Property, Equity and International Law are just some examples. I tried, but I cannot find a single statute that does not generate revenue for the Exchequer in some way, shape, or form. This may, or may not, explain why they pump them out at a rate of one per day, and have done so since 1997. This government, in fact, has pumped out more "crimes" in the last 13 years than all the governments of the last ninety years.

Kit, and others, may well find this interesting. This is an FOI I found during my little further research stint: it is interesting as much for what they did not say, as it is for what they did say.

Or this one concerning Income Tax.

To summarise then, I would say that laws/statutes are written either to protect me, or to part me from some money if I transgress. Hundreds of thousands of these statutes and statutory instruments have no affect on my life, and hopefully never will. Because of the sheer number of them in existence, is it unreasonable of me to say "I can't keep up. There are too many rules and regulations. They are not even written in my own language. I have decided to simplify my life and I have boiled all of your rules down to just one: Do no harm. It covers all of your rules and regulations so that is what I shall do. I shall avoid, at all times, harming others. My life, my law, my rules, my responsibility. From this day forth, all of your rules and regulations do not apply to me".

Statutes, by their very nature, are contracts. They form a contract between the government of the day, and the governed. Contract Law itself says, very clearly, that no-one can be forced into a contract. I have decided not to contract. No government, no man, and no woman can force me to. That is my interpretation of statutes. I often hear it said that one cannot pick and choose the laws that they like or dislike. I am living proof that you can. And crucially, the government did not disagree with me.

Fair enough Kit? I have withdrawn MY consent. I have told them that their statutes are laws of the water and I am a Freeman On The Land. With my chosen course of action I will someday step into a courtroom. I will demand common law jurisdiction. They won't like that because their courts are Maritime courts. Maritime or Admiralty courts deal with artificial persons or legal fictions. I am not a fiction. I am a living, breathing, sentient human being with an immortal soul. No-one in that courtroom ranks higher than me. No-one. I don't care what colour wig or gown they wear, I don't care how high their seat is. I will not stand for them. I will not defer, tug my forelock or doff my cap. They will attend to my needs on my instructions. They will be on their Oath, and we will be on the record. I will be judged by my fellow human beings.

The first step was to understand what I am, and more importantly, what I am not. The second was to understand how they play the game, and how to use their rules against them. The third was to be determined, honest, and honourable. The fourth is for them to understand that I am a different beast. The fifth is to succeed every time they make an unreasonable demand of me.

I am well on the way.

CR.

62 comments:

Kit said...

Thank you for the interesting post Captain. However, it does not answer my point.

Specifically, Statute law is not Fleet law or any sort of water law that is inapplicable on land. Your post does not cover that.

In addition, your assertion that Statute law is invalid without the specific consent of the individual concerned.

You previously stated that LEGALLY, a Statute law requires the specific consent of the individual to be applicable. This post does not substantiate that either. You make a MORAL case for that, but the legal case remains invalid. Statute laws do not require the consent of the individual to be legally binding.

Yes, it is a maxim that for a government and its laws to have legitimacy it requires the consent of the governed. That is not a legally enforceable right and is constitutionally considered fulfilled by the existence of regular general elections.

The Freeman based their views on two main principles.

1) That Statute (Parliamentary) Law is some sort of Fleet Law and inapplicable on Land. This is a false assertion that you have not addressed in this posting.

2) That Statute Law legally requires the explicit consent of the individual to apply. You have not made that case in this posting. (your FOI link simply shows someone writing to a council arguing with them) Instead you have made the case that it SHOULD be so, rather than that it IS so.

I'm sorry, but the idea that Statute Law is inapplicable if you do not consent to it is legally wrong.

Why is it that so many people can't distinguish between recognising an unpleasant reality and agreeing with it? Watching was unable to do so, he was so stupid he thought that i like the fact that huge numbers of Statute laws are being imposed on me simply because i recognise their legal existence.

Sorry, the fundamentals stay the same.

1) Statute Law is applicable on land.
2) Statute Law does not require the consent of the individual to be applicable.

IF you were campaigning that this should be the case, fine, but stating that they are the case is simply legally wrong.

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

To be brutally honest, I do not care what is, and what isn't "legally" right or wrong. My world runs on "lawful".

I don't think I ever expressly stated that each individual has to consent to a statute before it becomes enforceable. What I am saying is that a government needs the consent of the governed, society as a whole, (consent is usually granted via acquiescence*), but that as an individual, I can remove that consent. Using the most powerful (lawful) document on earth, a sworn affidavit, I did exactly that. Like the government does with their statutes, my consent was removed when I gained permanent estoppel by acquiescence.

So, you are quite correct with Point 2. It requires the consent of ALL society and that consent is granted when we say nothing.

I also don't think I ever said that Laws Of The Water were not applicable on land. I have said in the past that they are not applicable to ME. I think what I said (and reiterated in this post) was that the de jure courts (common law) that we think we are entering, are no such thing. They are de facto courts run under Admiralty. I also explained why: Admiralty/Statutes/Fleet/Maritime etc deal with artificial persons. De jure courts (used to) deal with human beings.

Common Law and Statute Law are two different animals. I am fairly certain that you know that. Realising why they are different is the key to this whole thing. I can point you at YouTube clips where humans entered a Maritime court, and asked the judge/magistrate to prove that they had jurisdiction (the first move for anyone accused of anything) and found that the sitting judge/maj could not prove that a) they had jurisdiction or b) were acting under their Oath or c) that the "accused" was being heard on the record. These are all procedural errors. Huge glaring errors that, if the court were being truthful, would not even need to be questioned. The truth is that when we come before a court, we do so as legal fictions. It is the legal fiction that has transgressed not we the human. Maritime courts cannot deal with human beings, that much is obvious when you study this a little.

Does that make it any clearer?

It is not about "wishing it to be so" either. To my certain knowledge, not one single NOUICOR has EVER been rebutted. There are now thousands of these documents either lodged, or waiting to be used in anger. The courts will explode when they learn that the genie is out of the bottle.

I have had a lawyer look at my NOUICOR and she said that it was technically, and lawfully correct although she hadn't seen one of them before. She said that sworn, witnessed documents such as mine were used often a couple of hundred years ago and that there is nothing in the law (common or statute) that prevents their use today.

To wrap this up I will say this: if the sitting government has not disagreed with my statements (your points 1 & 2) what makes you think you are right?

And please be assured that there is no malice. I welcome your questions and any doubts that you may have. During my search I discovered that many, many others have asked the same two questions over and over.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

The * was for me to explain what "acquiescence" meant but I figured that you would know.

It's the old "silence gives assent" expressed in one word. Very powerful in law.

Many maxims in law bear this out.

CR.

Kit said...

Captain, thank you for your courteous response. Unlike Watching you have refrained from calling me an ignorant coward living in fear who actively supports oppresive government, i appreciate that.

As for your points. Yes, you have made yourself clearer, although i still disagree with you in part. (BTW, legal and lawful are the same thing, you can't change the meaning of words you don't like)

Morally, i agree. I totally agree that the government is acting in an illegitimate fashion and has lost its moral authority. I agree that it is a fair moral position to openly withdraw your consent. However, and it is a big however, the Freeman movement states that you have a LEGAL right to withdraw your consent and that is not the case. Your lodging of an affidavit does not alter that fact.

As for the Freeman claim that Statute Law is the Law of the Water. That is not true, it is not even remotely true, it is a simply fiction. The Courts are not Admiralty Courts or Maritime courts or any such thing, nor do they only deal with corporations rather than individuals.

Statute Law is different from Common Law, everyone knows that, but Statute Law is not law of water or any such thing, it is simply law passed by Parliament and is fully applicable on land.

As long as the Freeman movement is based on fictions and fantasies it is not going to be severely limited in what it can do.

A word of advice, cut out the delusions about Courts being 'Admiralty Courts' and the other legal fantasies and concentrate on making the unarguable moral case for change.

Kit said...

PS

Legal maxims are all very well, but they are not actual law and courts can ignore them at will.

'silence implies consent'. The word is 'implies', not 'gives' and it is just a maxim, not enforcible law.

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

Legal and lawful are most definitely different. They are NOT interchangeable. Until you take this absolute fact on board, this is going to be difficult for you. I mean that kindly.

Statutes can ONLY be Laws Of The Water because parliament cannot produce any other kind. That they create statutes using Admiralty principles is a given. Ask a lawyer.

Parliament cannot enact common or case law because they have no power to do so. An Act can however produce case law, and it is added to, all the time and all over the world, by judges.

Those two sentences alone ought to highlight the differences.

A real world example would be a copper arresting you for breach of the peace. This would be a lawful arrest. The same copper arresting you under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act would be making a legal arrest.

I think (correct me if I am wrong) that you are using English words. Use one of the law dictionary links I gave to discover that everyday words (in English) morph into something else when used in Legalese.

Not only do they deliberately write using unnecessary complexity:

"Legalese is an English term first used in 1914[1] for legal writing that is designed to be difficult for laymen to read and understand, the implication being that this abstruseness is deliberate for excluding the legally untrained and to justify high fees. Legalese, as a term, has been adopted in other languages.[2][3] Legalese is characterized by long sentences, many modifying clauses, complex vocabulary, high abstraction, and insensitivity to the layman's need to understand the document's gist. Legalese arises most commonly in legal drafting, yet appears in both types of legal analysis."

They also redefine words.

Some examples:

Summons = invitation

Must = may

Understand = stand under

Notice (as in Fixed Penalty) = offer

Person = artificial corporation

Person = monster

Person = imbecile

Person = child

(Those last three have now been removed from the latest (9th) edition of Blacks Law. Too many "normal people" got access to it).

Your last point about maxims is quite wrong. Often, to give evidence weight, a clever lawyer will use a maxim to reinforce his/her point. Cases have been won and lost on the use of maxims. They are said by some to be more powerful than the law itself.

For interest, the majority of maxims in use today come directly from the King James bible. Another factet for you: the American Constitution is mostly made up of extracts from the King James bible. Over 62% in fact, and within the Constitution itself there are over 15,000 references to it.

CR.

Kit said...

Captain,

I have used a legal dictionary and lawful and legal do mean the same thing. There is a subtle difference in emphasis, that is all. I am using words in the legal sense.

Statues are NOT laws of water, Parliament does make laws that apply on land and they do not rely on Admiralty principles. Sorry, that is simply factually wrong. Apart from anything else Parliament predates the existence of English shipping, let alone a navy. It has never been the case, there is no historical or moral or legal tradition of it ever having been the case.

You are aware that the very earliest Parliamentary Acts concerned matters on land aren't you?

Sorry, you are also wrong when you state that maxims are more powerful than the law. Maxims are useful sayings that illustrate points and principles. That is all. Lawyers will use maxims in court, they can be very useful to help make and illustrate a case but they are NOT binding law and courts are free to ignore them.

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

I'm not sure we are getting anywhere here.

I keep bring little snippets and links to support my understanding, but because I have not (yet) shown you the magic bullet(s) you just keep repeating that I am wrong.

I know the information is out there somewhere. I used to have several hundred links but my laptop was upgraded mid-week and they are now consigned to the ether.

I have an old desktop pc and I will fire the old girl up and see what I dig out. I would not have embarked on this journey unless I was convinced. The moral case is there, and I do not need to embellish that, and my affidavit is now historical fact (whatever credence you do or do not give it) and I remain convinced that what I am doing is just, right, and lawful.

CR.

Kit said...

Captain, We seem to have reached a certain impasse.

I agree with you that the State has lost its moral authority and it is right to challenge it and demand back our freedoms. I agree with your goals.

On the matter of believing that Parliament can only pass Laws of Water. I'm afraid that is nonsense, the most cursory examination of the history of Parliament shows that is untrue and there has never been any legal basis for individuals having the right to withhold or withdraw consent from laws. It is not a matter of 'magic bullets' it is simply a bald outline of legal and historical fact.

Without the pseudo legal mumbo jumbo, the Freeman movement would be great. What you are doing is most certainly just and right, it just isn't lawful and frankly, being lawful is the least important of those three.

Uncle Marvo said...

"Without the pseudo legal mumbo jumbo, the Freeman movement would be great."

I concur.

I am enjoying these arguments/discussions.

Keep it up, Ranty and Kit.

One thing I would like to say is that nowhere, to my knowledge, has the "technique" been successfully used. I have seen all sorts of "boolocks" such as the Ray StClair stuff, and if tpuc continue to use StClair's material, I shall ignore everything else they put forward too.

James Higham said...

Excellent piece but remember that all law is now subject to the interpretation of the EU court.

Captain Ranty said...

James,

Not good news for Freemen (or anyone else) as we slide into Corpus Juris.

We now have to prove our innocence instead of them proving our guilt. Costs (for justice) for a poor man were almost impossible to afford before, they increased ten-fold from 1st December 2009.

Still, no-one can mess with common law. It cannot be revoked or repealed.

CR.

Kit said...

Captain, unfortunately, Common Law is legally subordinate to Statute Law.

Parliament does revoke and repeal Common Law.

Again, MORALLY they should not, but LEGALLY and LAWFULLY, they can and do.

Just because something shouldn't be so doesn't mean that it isn't so. That lack of understanding is the fundamental weakness of the Freeman movement.

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

Some proof supporting your statements would be refreshing.

This is a two-way street.

CR.

Kit said...

Captain,

Imagine someone made the statement that all laws of Parliament are actually 'Laws of the Air' That they were only actually applicable 6 feet above the ground and that all the law courts in the country were actually aviation courts which could only deal with birds and aircraft.

That is the exact equivalent of what the Freemen are saying with their 'Laws of the Water' and Admiralty Court nonsense.


Ok, here is a quote from 'The History of Common Law' 1713, Matthew Hale.

''the Kings of this Realm, with the Advice and Consent of both

Houses of Parliament, have Power to make New Laws, or to alter,

repeal, or enforce the Old. And this has been done in all

Succession of Ages.''

I could find a thousand and one other legal opinions, constitutional statements and the like all clearly laying out that Parliament has full reign to make and change laws as it sees fit. I also could point out the history which clearly shows that Parliament has made and changed the law of the land since its earliest days before the Norman conquest, right back to its earliest roots as a Moot of the Anglo Saxon people.

Kit said...

Here is a link to a very fine and clear explication of the meaning of both Common and Statute Law. Written in 1713 in language with a greater clarity than you ever see today.
http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/hale/common

Let me know if you can find any mention of Admiralty Law, Law of Water or Admiralty Courts.

Uncle Marvo said...

http://www.tpuc.org/forum/download/file.php?id=169&sid=3ef0e39c5d1d86270ea483ed62751d2c&mode=view

NOUICOR. Rebutted. In a feeble sort of way but rebutted.

The only way this will move forward is a trial of it. There hasn't been one yet. There have been lots of circumstantial mootings and even a fit-up video or two by you know who, but no trial.

Without malice, etc. I am not a troll, as CR knows. I am a truth seeker and arguing black is white from both sides will reveal nothing.

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

I see what you are saying, but you are only talking about statute law.

When I refer to common law, I mean those four basic rules for pretty much any society: do not cause harm, injury or loss, and do not make mischief with your contracts.

That is the essence of common law and cannot be changed by anyone. Who would want to?

I have yet to see proof that statutes are NOT laws of the water.

I have yet to see proof that our courts do NOT operate in Admiralty.

It matters not to me how many times you say I am wrong, or that the Freeman Movement has it wrong, all we ask is that you prove otherwise.

Having read several books on the subject, and having watched dozens of clips on Google/YouTube, and having read many thousands of words/research on the interweb, the overall conclusion I come to is that my findings are logical.

I went into this with an open mind and with my eyes wide open. It makes complete sense to me. It wasn't a guaranteed outcome. I am a sceptic by nature. I am satisfied that the theory is sound. The proof of the pudding, of course,.....

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Marv,

That is not a rebuttal. That is an opinion.

For an affidavit to be rebutted it has to be done point by point. All of it. There are no exceptions to this in law.

The PF has said exactly what I would expect him to say.

What he should have done was answer each of the three sections. He should have corrected Dave's Understanding, questioned his Intent, and rebutted each of his Claims, substantially, using points of law.

Instead he said (in effect) "Never seen one of these before. You are wrong, wrong, wrong", but he fails to say why.

Kit is more eloquent but they are essentially saying the same thing.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

Thank you for the link. I have read Hale before but only snippets. It's good to have the whole article.

CR

Uncle Marvo said...

Point taken.

I think this dialogue should continue. The "original" perps of the FMOTL thing in the UK are remarkably quiet. Presumably writing books.

I think probably the best thing for the movement is a decent bit of argument, not some twat giving lectures on stuff he knows virtually nothing about to people who are desperate to believe in it.

I look forward to the continuation.

drabzz said...

I'm afraid this argument has gone circular and it's in danger of chasing it's own tail.

Following the comments is a good intro to the Lawful Rebellion movement though.

I'm with CR on this, but I can understand how Kit may wish to defend his orthodoxy; after all we've been snowed by this for centuries.

Change is scary, but I venture that it is now inevitable. Time to steel ourselves.

Anonymous said...

http://twitter.com/raystclair

Kit said...

Captain, could you prove that Statute laws are not actually Laws of the Air? That Law Courts are not actually Airforce Courts that only have jurisdiction over birds and aircraft?

You ask for proof that Statute Law is not a 'Law of the Sea' and that Courts are not 'Admiralty Courts'.

Ok, actually the burden of proof is on you, but nevertheless, how do you answer these historical facts?

Parliament is derived from the Moots held by the early Anglo Saxon settlers in England. It predates the existence of a Fleet, Navy or Admiralty. The very earliest Acts were all concerned with matters on land. There has never been any tradition of Parliament only dealing with maritime matters. All constitutional history has consistently held that Parliment (under the Crown) has the absolute right to make and amend and repeal all and any laws it should choose.

Please, Captain, how do you refute those historic facts? They are not statements of opinion, but bald statements of historical reality.

BTW, Common Law is the customary law of the land as refined by judicial decisions. Your four principles are very fine, but they are not actually the basis of Common Law. I'm afraid you are confusing what SHOULD be the cae and what IS the case.

Kit said...

Drabzz, i am not 'defending' any Orthodoxy or opposing any change. I am simply pointing out the truth, however unpleasant it may be.

I would rather look an unpleasant truth full in the face than indulge a pleasing fantasy.

The Freemen movement are rushing down a dead end with their leal mumbo jumbo when they could be facing up to the realities of the perversion of our democratic system of government and the debasement of our precious Common Law heritage. The present morally corrupt system needs to be changed, nonsense about 'Admiralty Courts' is not going to do that.

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

Your "Laws Of The Air" is a strawman. I think we both know that.

My Laws Of The Water/Sea are real. I have pointed out a link that expressly states that there is a branch of law dedicated to laws of the water. I also explained why courts operate in Admiralty yet you seem to overlook the human/strawman/legal fiction aspect. Is there a reason that you do not connect the two?

The burden of proof began with me, that is true, but your repetitive "You are wrong" was grating a bit so I thought I'd lob the ball back to you in case you had something concrete, but you didn't. For me, the game starts from 1215 onwards so going back further than that, while interesting, doesn't add too much. (It doesn't take anything away either, but if we could stick to a defined period it may be easier to debate).

You want fleets? I got fleets.

The Romans got here when? The 1st or 2nd Century? And they arrived by....fleet. Following the arse-kicking they gave us they promulgated Roman Law, which is partly why we still have elements of Roman Law littering the rolls. I am not saying that they introduced Fleet Law, I am saying that we had, by default, a fleet and a navy by the end of the 2nd century.

I'll get to your other points later.

CR.

Kit said...

Captain, sorry if my points are grating, but they are valid.

My 'Laws of the Air' is not a strawman, it's a genuine intellectual device.

You have given a link that expressly states that there is a body of law that deals with the laws of water. True, however, there are also bodies of law that deal with Tort, that deal with Commerce, that deal with Property. There are many, many bodies of law, all part of the general corpus of British law. Your link in no way at all indicates that maritime law has any precidence over the over bodies of law, especially as it is preceded by several of the other bodies of law.

As for your 'Fleets'. Parliment is an Anglo ~Saxon insitution. The Anglo Saxons arrived in Britain at the end of the Roman occupation and established there own, completely seperate institutions. English Law is in no way at all based on the Roman Law which was previously in force. The Anglo Saxons did not have a navy, fleet or admiralty. The fact that the Romans had is completely irrelevant as the institution of Parliament was based on the Anglo Saxon Moot and has no relationship whatsoever to the Romans.

Sorry, but all you have as evidence is the fact that there is a body of law dealing with maritime matters (just as their are bodies of law dealing with property, tort, criminal and aerospace matters) and a false claim that the Anglo Saxon institution of the Moot which evolved into Parliament is somehow linked to the Romans.

Sorry, but your 'evidence' doesn't back up your claims at all.

Kit said...

Ok, you want to start from 1215, despite the fact that the institution of Parliament predates that by hundreds of years.

I assume you use 1215 as a reference date due to the Magna Cartna. Could you point out anywhere in that document that substantiates the idea that Parliament only has authority over the Sea? And you haven't given any evidence at all that Courts operate 'in Admiralty', especially as the courts predate maritime law.....

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

I am digging out some more stuff and will respond shortly.

Check this out in the meantime:

http://www.tpuc.org/content/wirral-council-%E2%80%93-admits-council-tax-unlawf

(The source will upset Marv a little....)

CR.

drabzz said...

Our alleged 'democracy' is a farce. Do you honestly think there is any difference between the oven-ready, over-groomed twats the LibLabCon present you with at election time? Demockery more like.

If we got to choose the candidates as well, it may come closer to a democracy; but it ain't even close.

The judiciary is as bent as an Arab's dagger as well, and good honest coppers can't do a day's police work when they are bogged-down with paperwork; providing junk statistics for their senior officers and politicians to babble-on about.

The whole political arena is just a show, a smokescreen. We have the illusion of democracy, but meanwhile, the real agenda is set behind closed doors.

End of rant.

Kit said...

Thank you for the link, Captain.

I am very pleased that someone has been able to cause such disruption and difficulty for a Council that they have been forced to back down in the pursuit of their bloated tax demand.

However (i am sorry to return to the point but... ) It does not show that a) Statute Law is inapplicable without an individuals consent or b) That Statute law is some sort of 'Water Law' or 'Fleet Law' or whatever. As far as i can see, it just shows a feckless council making a decision that persecuting this man for his tax is too much bother to be worth it (which just highlights the bullying nature of our government, always pick on the soft targets)

More power to the man, well done, but.....

You still haven't given ANY evidence for the assertion that Parliament only has jurisdiction over Sea or that Courts are something called 'Admiralty courts'.

Please bear in mind that the Courts predate the Admiralty, they predate the existence of any fleets, either naval or merchant and that the earliest Statutes dealt with land based matters. How do you explain those facts? Please also note that this isn't me simply stating my opinion or simply saying that you are wrong, i am presenting relevant historic and legal facts here.

drabzz said...

I have found some Ray StClair footage that inspires me:

http://vimeo.com/10211543

Powerful stuff, note the police here acting under common law.

Uncle Marvo said...

Upset Marvo?

I think not. You couldn't upset me, Ranty, you are too high up on the reality ladder.

I blogged about this: ring up Wirral and speak to the alleged illiterate who wrote that letter, if you can.

The thread of illiteracy from a certain chippie and a certain net entrepreneur runs through all this like a tapeworm through a pork bhuna.

I can't unverify the StClair video, because I don't know which "court" this setup was done in. I can fully unverify the associated "interview" with a cop, who is an actor. Watch these things carefully. Tell me which court that fit-up was allegedly done in, and when, and I will go down there and follow it up.

I can't take "inspired" and "StClair" in the same sentence.

I can't take anything that promotes StClair seriously either. Please follow the links, there's half a day's reading there. If you want more please let me know but I really haven't got the time to repost all that shit. Ranty has the details, as he will tell you if you press him.

Lastly, note that I am NOT negative about this. I deal in truth and certainty, not hope. I truly wish that some of this bollocks hadn't been promoted as truth - trust me, I've seen at least as much as you guys, and I have researched the crap out of it. It leaves very little. When you start spouting off about con this and con that and claim the UK is a plc when it's a couple of rag traders in a shed in Acton, you lose your credibility. And when you go quiet because you're writing a book, when you're semi-literate on a good day, I start to wonder. Hard.

I want to find the way forward. I know there is one. It will probably take many forms and I sincerely velieve that the complete rejigging of a hundreds-of-years-old self-serving trough is that way.

Fighting a heap of lawyers at the own game, armed with a dictionary, is not that way.

This argument hasn't gone the way of the ooli-ooli bird as drabzz claims. It is important. Either it is valid, and therefore needs to be ratified, or it is bollocks, in which case let's stop wasting time and explore another avenue.

Don't just pack it in. There must be more evidence (and I have tried to find it) or there must be disproof. My stance here is that the freemanism concept has been proposed, therefore it is not up to a sceptic to disprove it. It is up to the proposer to prove it or at least give evidence.

Sorry if I am buirsting bubbles here, it is not my intention.

I can't speak for "Kit" but from where I sit I think he(?) wants it to be true too.

Captain Ranty said...

Marv,

That was a throwaway line. I knew the source would generate a comment from you. I should have bunged a smiley on the end of it.

I agree with everything you said. I realise that it isn't what I believe, have faith in, or trust in that matters, only what I can prove.

I know at my core that we are on to something here, and like you, I am trying to find the way. That things are hidden, that "they" have been playing with us without telling us all the rules to the game is abundantly clear, but that is not enough. I need to know how. I want to learn the rules.

I know that law dictionaries are not the rule book, but they at least help us understand how they use our language against us in some ways. Words that we accept as normal turn into something else and I think it is important to at least be aware of that. Lawyers (and JP's and magistrates) shrug this off as meaningless. I spent a hour or two last night at a magistrates blog where they slammed the video, which I had expected them to. What I hadn't realised was just how arrogant and smarter than thou they would be. I noticed that Kit posted there too (it may not be "our" Kit though) and he/she seems to have a legal background. I also get the sense that (our) Kit wants to find the truth.

I am fairly sure that I have something conclusive, somewhere. That sounds vague, and I apologise for that, but it resides on my old pc, and I don't have time to wire it up and rummage around today. I have a bid to prepare and it will keep me occupied for most of the day.

Just so you know, I would prefer you to burst my bubbles. I have no desire to sit here smiling at bubbles that are flawed. I can be told that I am wrong, and I can live with it. It will make me dig deeper, look harder, and be more objective.

Conspiracies don't blow my hair back, I think I have been at pains to say that. But I do know we live in a fucked up world where nothing, it seems, is as it seems. We are being reamed by the government so that they can spunk our money away in unimagined ways, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a score of places around the world over the last 100 years have been orchestrated, our money is worthless and we are deliberately led into a spiral of debt, as individuals and a nation, and I think that is orchestrated too. Why would the law be any cleaner than the rest of it?

I'll keep going until I find a way or I find a roadblock. If it's a dead end street then I will change direction.

I really do appreciate your honesty and Kit's questions.

CR.

Uncle Marvo said...

Aha, Ranty. It wasn't the source. I cited it in my blog "Free", as you know. It's cock. I've researched it.

You don't need to smiley me - I can read the smileys even when they're not there.

There are many of these alleged "ways forward", ranging from health to religion to lifestyle. Jonathan Livingstone Seagull is one. Just look at the huge range of inane crap on the magazine shelf in Smith's. They're nearly all pants, and nearly all proposed, propounded and promoted by quite clever people, and those people are the winners. Always.

Look at one of "your" own, Mr StClair, MLM scamster. If he's got any sort of job I'm the King of France. He makes his money out of taking the piss. I'm surprised he isn't on here - I know he reads it. Defend yourself, cunt.

I have done so much research that I think I *know* the answer. The answer is that they have had so long, and so much (of our) money with which to ensure that there is no way to beat them by the rules, because they made the rules. Look at any of the seemingly daft statutes - take the smoking ban, enforced for free by the property owners. Crazy that it got through but get through it did.

Please tell me that you don't think the copper in the StClair video (either of them) is real. Please.

You're a pretty bright guy, I know that. Sadly there are few of you, and many twats. I am also pretty bright, although some might say I am mad. I would agree - but if this madness is an illness I choose ill over well.

I will NOT end up like the last chapter of 1984.

And I, with your help hopefully, will find the truth.

This just isn't it. But I look forward to seeing your bit of evidence - not get off your arse and get that PC wired up.

:-) << a smiley

Captain Ranty said...

Well, I know two coppers. One in the Northern Constabulary and one in Grampian Police. Both disbelieved the video. They both said that no sane copper would agree to being filmed, even on a routine mission like the one portrayed.

Still doing the worky thing but I see that William (Watching) has produced a nice article entitled "Admiralty".

Have a butchers:

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

CR.

Uncle Marvo said...

Where is the one-sided raging argument I'm supposed to be looking for?

I'm involved in a sensible and logical discussion about the varying points of view on FMOTLism.

I suppose I could blog about Watching's thing - I'm not sure if I can be arsed. I'm a bit long in the tooth and bored with these "it states" arguments; nothing, but nothing, is going to be solved by taking words out of a single dictionary and trying to beat a huge system at its own game with them.

What I will chuck in are these two facts:

1. The parking fine. If you throw away parking fine summonses, in a large number of cases they give up. If you claim not to have received them, same effect. If you are REALLY unlucky they will nail you and it gets unpleasant. Same goes for minor offences like traffic cameras. I KNOW this, it is not speculation. I cannot say why I know.

2. Admiralty Law. There is such law. It has to be so because it applies cross-border. Statute laws introduced in Parliament such as (say) the smoking ban are not these. Nor are council tax laws, etc.

The conclusion: why is it right? It isn't. It is deemed right because apparently we live in a democracy and we choose who we want to govern us. The people chosen will then make a law and we will abide by it and that is fair, and they can do what the fuck they like for five years then we can choose someone else, unless the lot that's been in engineers "society" to make sure they get in again. If they shaft us up the arse with a splintered axehandle they merely have to make sure that a few million (not many in a place the size of this) prefer the axehandle plus benefits option to the no-axehandle and have to work harder option.

Now even I know that's cock. It's not democracy. It's a system which, if someone tried to introduce it today over an existing system of fairness, would result in a bloody revolution. But we're used to it.

When you've all finished with the FMOTL thing let me know. I have a much better plan. But you'd better have great big balls. Be quick, it won't be too long before it's too late.

Uncle Marvo said...

... and having posted all that, I find William http://www.dwfisher.com/watching/2010/03/statutes.html has posted again and says the same thing as me. Almost.

Now, chaps. Ready for Option 2?

Captain Ranty said...

I am ready Marv.

If time is of the essence then let's hear it.

You have my email addy if you want to tell me sans spotlights.

CR.

Uncle Marvo said...

Spotlights?

Come on, obergruppenfuhrer, you know me better than that :-)

2 on, 999,998 to go. That should do it.

I gather that the BCG have that many, all signed up for the chippie and the net entrepreneur. Can't be that hard.

Somehow, I don't belive them.

drabzz said...

Maybe the term 'inspired' was a little too flowery for the present company, and the copper in the StClair vid was played with all the style and panache of am air dried Iberian ham - just not surly enough really.

The court scene looked and felt real, but who knows. If it was true, then StClair has cojones of steel. The jury's out (sic) on that one.

Mia culpa, my bad.

Uncle Marvo said...

It seems to me, and I make no derogation of the work that has been done by Freemen, that the paradigm to which many have aligned, and to which I felt I might, has been fabricated, probably in the US, welcomed by those driving the bandwagon, and consumed hungrily by the many that are looking for a peaceful way to end the oligarchy in which many have realised that we now find ourselves.

Or, to put it another way, a couple of dodgy scamsters have tried to pull the wool, and now the game's up.

It wasn't a very good scam if a twat like me can knock it down in a couple of comments.

But scam it is, I maintain, and I thank "Kit" for his persistence.

Now, unless anyone else is keen to carry on, let's have a serious look at Option 2. Same result, just a slightly less tortuous method.

Captain Ranty said...

I found, completely by chance, this posting and wanted to put it up for Kit to read.

Part 1:

"Consent of the governed – “a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that power is exercised. This theory of "consent" is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings.

Statute of Westminster, The First (1275)
And because Elections ought to be free, the King commandeth upon great Forfeiture, that no Man by Force of Arms, nor by Malice, or menacing, shall disturb any to make free Election.

Confirmation of the Charters 1297
“But by the common assent of the Realm”

++ Reform Acts and the Representation of the People Acts ++ Parliament Act of 1911 was only introduced after TWO general elections in one year.

UDHR
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

UN
To develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the people.

China BC
Mandate of Heaven, that Heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, but would be displeased and withdraw its mandate from a despotic ruler.

Prophet Muhammad
"There is no obedience in sin"; if the ruler orders something contrary to the divine law, not only is there no duty of obedience, but there is a duty of disobedience.

Social contract - the notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.

Hugo Grotius “In other words, the people i.e. the individual people, are sovereign.”

Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps at the time the freest people on earth, he did not approve of their representative government. Rousseau believed that liberty was possible only where there was direct rule by the people as a whole in lawmaking, where popular sovereignty was indivisible and inalienable. Citizens must, in at least some circumstances, be able to choose together the fundamental rules by which they would live, and be able to revise those rules on later occasions if they choose to do so.

Rousseau argues a citizen can be an egoist and decide that his personal interest should override the collective interest. However, as part of a collective body, the individual citizen puts aside his egoism to create a "general will", which is popular sovereignty itself. Popular sovereignty (i.e., the rule of law), thus decides what is good for society as a whole, and the individual (including the administrative head of state, who could be a monarch) must bow to it, or be forced to bow to it.

Captain Ranty said...

Part 2:

David Hume did agree that, no matter how a government is founded, the consent of the governed is the only legitimate foundation on which a government can rest.

Lysander Spooner argues that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon advocated a conception that the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather between individuals themselves refraining from coercing or governing each other, each one maintaining complete sovereignty upon oneself: What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau’s] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society.

David Gordon’s “Secession, State and Liberty,” includes consent as important democratic principle; will of majority to secede should be recognized.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
Noting that the principles of free consent and of good faith are universally recognized.

UN Millennium Declaration
Democratic and participatory governance based on the will of the people best assures these rights.


Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who in this belief system are the source of every political power.


A key question is whether the unanimous consent of the governed is required; if so, this would imply the right of secession for those who do not want to be governed by a particular collective.


Secession - is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity.

Jus Cogens - peremptory norm, "compelling law", a norm from which no derogation is ever permitted.

Res inter alios vel iudicata, aliis nec nocet nec prodocet
What has been agreed/decided between people (a specific group) can neither benefit nor harm a third party (meaning: two or more people cannot agree amongst each other to establish an obligation for a third party who was not involved in the negotiation; furthermore, any benefit that may be established will have to be accepted by the third party before it can be implemented).

Declaration of Independence
The founders of the United States believed in a state built upon the consent of "free and equal" citizens; a state otherwise conceived would lack legitimacy and legal authority.

That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, the attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

CR.

Anonymous said...

Marvo you ought to view the final cut of our video(not what gary/ray posted).It was shot in Cwmbran magistrate court and can be seen at http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=caQcxOH17fo .The opening titles should explain why st cliar was used as lay representative

Captain Ranty said...

This is from Anon in the "Defending Freemen" blog. For Kit's attention:

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.

30 March 2010 16:28

Uncle Marvo said...

@Anon:

"Our" video?

From "Anon"?

The link is wrong anyway, otherwise I'd watch it. Maybe.

What was the date? I'll ring them and ask about it all. I like both sides of a story.

Who is st cliar?

Kit said...

Hello Captain, i've caught up on this thread now and have some comments.

Your references to the Magna Carta and your extensive quotations about the generally accepted need for a government to have the consent of the people to be considered legitimate are very interesting.

Firstly, the extensive quotations on the need for consent for government to be legitimate is legally and constitutionally considered fulfilled by the holding of regular elections. You might disagree on ethical and moral grounds, but purely on legal grounds it is fulfilled. In addition, not one of those quotations ever states, let alone implies, that an individual person, as opposed to 'the people' has the right to unilaterally withdraw consent from a law.

As for the Magna Carta. It does not give any backing to the that proposition that statue law which infringes the subjects common law rights not being binding.

The Magna Carta makes reference to the 'Law of the Land.' and 'Common Consent of the Realm'. The 'Law of the Land' is NOT a reference to Common Law in contrast to Statute Law. The 'Law of the Land' is the totality of Common Law and Statute Law. As for the 'Common Consent of the Realm'. That is legally held to be fulfilled by the mechanism of Parliamentary democracy (at that time not so democractic, but nevertheless they were referring to the Crown needing the agreement of Parliament to change and make laws). Note also, the use of the phrase 'Common Consent'. That pretty much directly contradicts any claim for an individual right to refuse consent to a law.

Captain, you inspired me to do some research, yesterday i went to the British Museum and did some serious searching in documents and books for ANY hint that Parliamentary Statutes have EVER been considered to be purely concerning Maritime matters. I found precisely no evidence to that effect while i did find a huge amount of very detailed explaination of the development and evolution of the British system of law and in particular how Common Law and Statute Law are both parts of 'The Law of the Land'.

I'll give you a quick overview,

The early Anglo Saxon brought their own institutions and laws to Britain, creating a clear legal break with Roman Britain. The Anglo Saxons based their legal decisions on customary rules (Folk-right and privilege), these were first seriously codified (written down) in the Reign of King Alfred, although some codification had happened under . It was the custom to hold Moots, meetings that were the early ancestor of Parliament as well as consulting a 'council of wisemen', before the King made any major changes to the laws.

When William conquered England he ordered that his officials discover what the customary law was and had what he choose to accept written down, this was considered 'Common Law'. He also made new Laws, this was considered 'Statute Law'. Both were the 'Law of the Land' and could be changed at will. In recognition of the lingering customs of the Anglo Saxons (The Moot) he and his descendants maintained a weak version of consulting the Barons about new laws and taxes, this was the beginning of the emergence instition of Parliament.

In 1189 Eleanor of Aquitaine introduced the idea of having laws relating to maritime matters. (a Fleet Law). This was a body of laws in exactly the same way that their are laws relating to Tort, to Property, to Taxation, to Divorce and so on.

In 1215, the Barons rebelled over the over autocratic behaviour of the King and forced him to restate legal rights and to reinforce the already existing principle that the King could not issue laws unilaterally but needed the consent of the Realm, by which they meant, the agreement of the Barons in the proto Parliament.

Kit said...

This principle strengthened so that even Monarchs such as Elizabeth 1 had to turn to Parliament to pass laws and raise taxes. When Charles 1 tried to assume autocratic powers (as common in the rest of Europe) he provoked the Civil War which ended with principle of the Realm being ruled by Parliament under the Crown. This was reinforced by the Bill of Rights in 1689, which clearly laid out the position of Parliament to make, amend and repeal laws with Parliament deriving its authority by the consent implied by elections.

Other than the recent introdution of European Law, that has been the settled constitutional and legal position of the nation.

The 'Law of the Land' is made up of both 'Common Law' (which is the established custom of land as amended and refined by Judges in court) and 'Statute Law', law made by Parliament, under the Crown, that derives its legitimacy from the holding of elections.

At no time has there ever been any tradition, custom, practice or hint that Parliament only or even mainly dealt with Maritime, Admiralty or Water, matters. At no time has there ever been any tradtion, custom, pratice or hint that an individual needed to give consent for a law to be binding.

I'm genuinely sorry, but the Freeman tenets that 1) Statute law is Maritime, is wrong, that 2) Courts are Admiralty, is wrong, that 3) Common law can't be overruled or changed, is wrong, that 4) only Common Law is the 'Law of the Land', is wrong.

Please note that this is not based on some recent legal sources, it is based on the work of the Venerable Bede, the prouncements and decrees of William the Conqueror, the Magna Carta, the earliest stored Parliamentary Act (An Act for taking of Apprentices to make worsteds' (a type of wool cloth) in the county of Norfolk), the Bill of Rights (1689) and 'The history of Common Law', 1713, William Hale.

Again, i am sorry, but at not time in the history of this nation has Parliamentary Law ever been considered to be a matter of Water as opposed to Common Law being the 'Law of the Land'.

It simply isn't so. To use an analogy you didn't like, it makes as much sense and has exactly as much evidence as claiming that Parliament only has authority over the Air and the Courts can only try birds and aircraft.

Anyway, i get the idea that you are emotionally committed to this so you might not be able to accept this, no matter what evidence is presented. Can we at least agree that the erosion of individual liberties by an ever expanding, arrogant State is an affront that is morally wrong and should be confronted, regardless of the legal exactitudes?

Kit said...

http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/anglo-saxon-law
http://www.parliament.uk/about/livingheritage/building/archives/the_records/some_early_acts.cfm
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29196793/The-History-of-the-Common-Law-of-England-1713-by-Matthew-Hale
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-jIYAAAAYAAJ&dq=venerable+bede&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=RO6zS8KwAZSy0gTIjaCnBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=18&ved=0CEEQ6AEwEQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/law/research/centres/cbclh

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

Thank you for a pair of great posts.

Let's get two things out of the way:

"Anyway, i get the idea that you are emotionally committed to this so you might not be able to accept this, no matter what evidence is presented. Can we at least agree that the erosion of individual liberties by an ever expanding, arrogant State is an affront that is morally wrong and should be confronted, regardless of the legal exactitudes?"

Yes, we absolutely agree. And just for the record, my emotions don't matter. That I want this all to be true doesn't stand up for me, and if it doesn't stand up for me, then it won't (and shouldn't) stand up for anyone else. I agree that evidence matters more than my wants, wishes and desires. I still maintain that I have the evidence somewhere and will produce it for your scrutiny.

Secondly, this:

"Firstly, the extensive quotations on the need for consent for government to be legitimate is legally and constitutionally considered fulfilled by the holding of regular elections. You might disagree on ethical and moral grounds, but purely on legal grounds it is fulfilled. In addition, not one of those quotations ever states, let alone implies, that an individual person, as opposed to 'the people' has the right to unilaterally withdraw consent from a law."

I hear what you are saying, and I thank you again for taking the time to read up on the subject.

My question to you is this:

Did it state anywhere that I did NOT have the right to withdraw my consent?

CR.

Kit said...

Captain, i'm glad we can agree on the moral fundamentals. I think that is more important than the legal arguments and technicalities.

As for your question, 'Did it state anywhere that I did NOT have the right to withdraw my consent?'

A fair question, it does not explicitly state that anywhere, what is repeatedly stated however is that Law is enforceable on people because the Law has the consent of the people as expressed by elections. That precludes any individual right to withdraw or withhold consent.

Using a quote you posted from the Magna Carta, '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.''

This explictly states that a Freeman may be imprisoned, outlawed, exiled or destroyed, by the Law of the Land. The Law of the Land is both Statute Law and Common Law. (see the introduction of William Hales book for a clear and indepth explanation of that pointhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29196793/The-History-of-the-Common-Law-of-England-1713-by-Matthew-Hale)

The main mistake the Freeman movement appears to make is to confuse 'The Law of the Land' with 'Common Law', when 'The Law of the Land' is the combination of both 'Common Law' and 'Statute Law'.

The Coronation Oath you quoted confirms that

'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.''

Anonymous said...

That precludes any individual right to withdraw or withhold consent.

So this means at the moment of our birth we are automatically victims of whatever form of government is in control at that moment in time to the day we die assuming that we don't move to another country or the form of government is changed by force or invasion. Is this a correct interpretation of your statement?

Kit said...

Anonymous, yes that is a correct interpretation of my statement.

Captain Ranty said...

So it's possible to have absolutely no say in the matter for (possibly) the first 23 years of your life?

My reasoning is:

You reach the age of 18 but you missed voting in a GE by one day. You now have to wait another 5 years before you can vote for the first time (in a GE). In the inetrvening 5 years whichever party was elected to govern can actually ruin your life yet you never had a chance to say yea or nay to any of the statutes that they pumped out.

Doesn't seem right to me.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Typo: Intervening, not whatever guff I wrote.

CR.

Kit said...

Captain, yes, you are quite right. It is perfectly possible to spend the first 23 years of your life having absolutely no say in the matter.

Doesn't seem right to me either.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your clarification.
So what do you suggest can be done to change this situation for the better short of a foreign invasion or forceful means from within?
Or is the forceful eviction of the current system by the only viable option?

Anonymous said...

Apologies for the typo above. Interrupted by kids!
Thank you for your clarification.
So what do you suggest can be done to change this situation for the better short of a foreign invasion or forceful means from within?
Or is the forceful eviction of the current system the only viable option?

Anonymous said...

Parliamentary democracy is run by the political class rather than aristocracy.
They get personal financial gain from this system and get a massive buzz from ordering around millions of individuals in the population at large to "do as they say but not as they do".
Until they put "none of the above" on their voting papers the system will carry on as is except that now it is subservient to an even more corrupt system of government, the EU, so it's days are well and truly numbered. What's replacing it is far worse so it will be cold comfort watching the Houses of Parliament being turned into the museum of antiquities it really is.
The "right to vote" is an illusion of democracy nothing more. Your vote will never change their system, because history shows it never has. Voting rights are truly worthless things that are handed out to the population of the United Kingdom by its political rulers.

Kit said...

Anonymous, i suggest widespread civil disobedience to the States miriad rules and regulations, they can only ultimately be applicable and control us if we accept them. The number of times i have heard people complain about how stupid and pointless another rule or regulation is and then go on to obey it, makes me very frustrated. In this country we have an ingrained habit of respect for the authorities, mainly because for many centuries the authorities actually mostly respected peoples basic liberties and concerned itslef with limited matters. Now its reach is into every aspect of our lives. When we lose the habit of respect the authorities are going to have a shock, and it will be very, very hard to rebuild that habit, it took centuries to build up but the way the authorities deliberately target law abiding respectable people rather actual criminals they are going to break that habit of respect and obedience.

As for what i would like to see replace the present system, i dislike all government, but assuming that we are stuck with it, a more direct level of democracy as we see in Switzerland, where the people get to call their own referendums, withtheir own wording and the results are legally binding. The Swiss people have a habit of voting against the expressed opinions of the major parties and media outlets. Which just proves how unrepresentative, 'representative democracy' really is.

Uncle Marvo said...

Good point about the 23 years, I'd never thought about that.

I've always struggled with kids born on April the 5th or 6th qualifying someone for a years-worth of tax difference. Shows what a can of crap it all is, really.