March 28, 2010
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 It stands to reason that if they can be consented to, that same consent can also be withdrawn.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.