December 05, 2011

My Response To The Court

This is an update on that speeding thing.

I tried to redact the letter from the PF but it looked a mess. I promise that I will share all of these original documents with you when I feel able to remove the cloak of anonymity.

The Procurator Fiscal (a procurer of money?) made me an offer. In my reply I have made him a counter-offer. (As a nicety, I offered him a discount because he offered me a discount). If he has an ounce of sense he will quietly quash the "charge". If not, I go to war.

My Notice follows the PF's letter to me, loosely. In his letter there is a preamble where the alleged offence and the statutes are laid out, then he goes into his "In Your Case" routine. I decided to word mine in a similar fashion.

The heading is genuine. We never write letters. They are always Notices. So that they erm, get noticed.


NOTICE



"RE: ABXXXXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam

I refer to your letter dated 11/11/11 concerning an alleged speeding offence. This reply is late because I left the country on 7/11/11 and I returned on 2/12/11.

Despite my having sent Chief Inspector Wallace a Notice detailing my lawful status, you continue to pester me with this nonsense. I shall endeavour to explain once more. Please read it all. It informs you.

I am in Lawful Rebellion. I entered Lawful Rebellion three years ago when I discovered that the monarch had violated her Coronation Oath. Several thousand times, in fact. Every time she gave Assent to a Bill transferring her sovereign powers to the EU she violated her oath to the people. To my certain knowledge she has done this over three thousand times. If you doubt me, read Hansard, or check the Rolls.

 Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 obliges me (and all Britons) to bring this to her attention. I have done so. She did not respond in the time I allowed her, so I was forced to revoke my allegiance to her and swear it instead to the Barons Committee that formed in 2001. Their instructions, by way of Art 61, are to “…distrain and distress us in all possible ways…” This includes, but is not limited to, ignoring any and all statutes given Assent by the reigning monarch. You will no doubt be aware that your Road Traffic Act is a statute. I can safely ignore it. Now that I have informed you that treason has taken place, you are honour-bound to investigate and if you do not, you will be guilty of Misprision of Treason. This crime has so far been reported at over 80 (eighty) police stations in the UK and 6 (six) were concerned enough to open investigations. Only six out of eighty are prepared to do what they swore to do: uphold the law. This is a disgusting statistic and causes me no end of shame and embarrassment.


If you have issues with MC1215 you may refer instead to the UDHR. My right to rebel is enshrined there too.

This is not about money. I can afford to pay either of the fines you mention. This is an act of patriotism. Our system (more accurately, your system) has become badly corrupted. It needs fixing. I will not “go along to get along”. I am resolute. I will do everything in my power (peacefully) to get this nation running the way it should be run. I absolutely cannot and must not pay this “fine” of yours. You may or may not be aware that an unrebutted affidavit becomes the truth in law. My affidavits are rock solid and I welcome the opportunity to test this in court. I cannot lose.

In law, “He who does not disagree, agrees”. No-one has disagreed with my affidavits.

In Your Case, I have decided to make you a conditional offer. Write back to me within 7 (seven) days confirming that you will no longer harass me for doing my duty as a Briton and that this nonsense has ended, or, write back and tell me you wish to invite me to court. I will make a special appearance but because my time on this planet is finite it is precious to me and it will be paid for. I have decided that you will pay me £15,000 (fifteen thousand pounds sterling) or its equivalent in gold or silver bullion. This condition may surprise you but it should not. My original affidavits contain a Fee Schedule and my fees for appearing in court are much higher but I have offered you a discount. However, if you create a tort against me, I will issue a commercial lien against you.

In an effort to be transparent, I feel obliged to tell you that I have several defences. I will prove that my affidavits to the monarch, to the Home Office, and to one David Cameron dba the Prime Minister are all unrebutted and as such, are now enshrined in law. I will prove that the monarch has violated her Oath, a crime of High Treason. I will also prove that the court itself is a sham, and is both unlawful and illegal.

There is a maxim in law which says “Let he who would be deceived, be deceived”. I will not be deceived. Not anymore. The system is broken and I will do all I can to fix it.

I urge you to consult a constitutional specialist. He or she will confirm that I am right on all counts.

I also challenge your jurisdiction in this matter. No sheriff, magistrate or judge can legally or lawfully hear this case- Nemo iudex in causa sua -because you all report to the monarch. Since I do not recognise her, I do not recognise your courts either.

In closing, I will say this: when I entered Lawful Rebellion I swore an oath not to cause harm, injury or loss, nor to make mischief with my contracts. That oath remains unbroken. I have remained in honour since that day. This alleged “offence” caused no harm, loss or injury and cannot therefore be a crime. I am no longer obliged to obey statutes. No contract was breached as I am no longer party to the contract.

If you do decide to invite me to court you are expressly agreeing to my terms and I will expect payment on the day of my appearance.

Without Vexation-Without Frivolity-Without Prejudice-Non-Assumpsit

Errors & Omissions Excepted


My mark"

Below this I placed a 1p stamp and cancelled it with my autograph.

The next move is theirs. I will let you know what happens.

CR.

88 comments:

lazy said...

love it.

Oldrightie said...

It could be a "Barnes Wallace" of a case. Blow the whole dam to smithereens!

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

"I will let you know what happens."

They ignore it and continue with proceedings because "Freeman on the land" is not an actual legal concept.

Just as has happened every other time this has been tried.

Captain Ranty said...

Lazy,

Ta.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

OR,

That remains to be seen....

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

CL,

Perhaps you can show me where (in my Notice) I refer to being a Freeman on the Land or depend on that as a defence?

I keep telling you people that FMOTL and Lawful Rebellion are two completely separate things.

Do pay attention.

CR.

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

Even if they are, neither concept has any sound legal basis. here's a question:

"If you have issues with MC1215 you may refer instead to the UDHR. My right to rebel is enshrined there too."
Please cite which article, exactly. I have my copy here, and it's not showing up...

Captain Ranty said...

Look closer:

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Preamble section 3 - Rebellion - Rule of Law:

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

Yeah, there's no source that this includes declaring oneself outside the remit of statute law or forms of government just because they gave you a fine.
Unless you can actually find some sort of jurisprudence that says it does, that is.

You can't just give insane, way off the mark interpretations of everything you read. A parking ticket is not tyranny. Your notion of "tyranny" in general is not tyranny. Not in the eyes of the UN. Not in the eyes of the Universal Declaration. Not in the eyes of anyone.

Hell, I'm a damn anarchist and I don't think our government constitutes "tyranny".

Anonymous said...

Why the 1p stamp?

duudass said...

go CR, go for it!

Captain Ranty said...

CL,

Do you honestly think I put myself through this to avoid a poxy speeding fine?

You really ought to get your comprehension sorted out. I have been at pains to say that I am doing this for noble reasons: our country is fucked and "anarchists" like you are happy to roll with it. Libertarians are happy just to meet up at the pub to discuss where it all went wrong. Almost none of them put their nuts on the line. I did. I am taking a stand. I am saying that our tripartite system is broken. The judicial system is broken. Parliamentarians run roughshod over our constitution.

The government robs us blind. Every month, every year. It has to be stopped.

I decided that doing fuck all was not an option.

The speeding ticket is incidental. I won't even mention it in court.

What I will do is point to all the broken parts of our system and demand that it is restored. And I will tell them that I have lawful excuse to ignore their statutes. Because I do.

They have no authority over me. I have removed my consent.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Anon (13:14),

It gives the document superpowers.

Look:

"Using a postage stamp and autograph on it makes you the postmaster for that contract. Whenever you put a stamp on a document, inscribe your full name over the stamp at an angle. The colour ink you use for this is a function of what colour will show up best against the colours in the stamp. Ideal colours for doing this are purple (royalty), blue (origin of the bond), and gold (king's edict). Avoid red at all cost"

and:

"Autographing a stamp not only establishes you as the postmaster of the contract but constitutes a cross-claim. Using the stamp process on documents presents your adversaries with a problem because their jurisdiction is subordinate to that of the UPU, which you have now invoked for your benefit"



Its all to do with these characters

The UPU (Universal Postal Union) in Berne, Switzerland



http://www.upu.int/en/the-upu/the-upu.html

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Duud.

I fully intend to!!

CR.

F***W*T TW****R said...

way to go CR. Posted to Farcebook, Twatter and G+. Tried to link as well but can't at the mo, (damn Android), but will when I can.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks FT!!

CR.

Anonymous said...

You're an idiot. Magna Carta does not run in Scotland, and never has. Furthermore, we do not have "tort" in Scotland.

Robert the Biker said...

Just to get clarification here: If you are in rebellion against the current sovereign (Liz) as and from 1953, are you not in a weak position regarding Acts etc. passed previously? I ask because I cannot quite work it out from your many articles whether you are against ALL of them from 1215 onwards or basically the present one due to transfer of powers. I also wonder what the position would be if rhe Act of Union were to be repealed.

Captain Ranty said...

Thank you for a most instructive comment.

The Act of Union in 1707 only transferred certain rights, then?

The last time I looked, all rights the Scots had were conferred on the English, and all rights the English had were conferred on the Scots.

And I am assuming the PF will read "Delict" for "tort". It's (almost) the same thing.

Regards,

The Idiot.

Antony said...

Now, you see Ranty, as to why you cannot not let us know what happens.

Civil Libertarian obviously cannot grasp the difference between Lawful Rebellion and Freemen.

We, however, do.

If it was people like CL who were getting you down, then bypass them.

I suspect this will quietly be placed in File 13. Which to me constitutes a victory.

Captain Ranty said...

Robert,

I can ONLY rebel against the current monarch. All the others are dead.

Regarding statutes, I am prepared to ignore any that she gave Assent to (since 1953) but I am particularly upset about the ECA 1972 and all the (related) others that followed it. Most of which originated in Brussels.

For clarity: there were no statutes prior to 1265. (This is when the first parliament was formed).

If the Act of Union is repealed, I will move back to England.

My biggest bugbear is the "amending" of Declarations and Treaties. They cannot do that lawfully, or legally.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Antony,

CL is free to say what's on his mind. No censorship here.

What bothers me about people like him is that they espouse freedom right up to the point where someone tries to (re)gain some.

Then, they don't like the methods we deploy. We're "nutters", we're "uneducated", we don't have the right degrees, we're deluded. I'd rather have one Freeman or Lawful Rebel at my side than ten thousand libertarians. It doesn't seem to matter (to them) that our remedies/methods drip with common sense.

If it does go into File 13 then I will view that as a loss. They have opted to ignore me on dozens of occasions now and I am keen to show people that this is the right way to do it. Without proof, they will not actively engage.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Good work Captain!

(Welcome back, btw. Bit late in saying that but am away a bit right now...)

Haz you seen Dean Clifford's latest?

Viewable here.

Well worth 80 mins of anyone's time. (It cuts off at the end so I assume there's another part coming eventually.)

"Procurator Fiscal (a procurer of money?)"

I believe the position was originally that of an agent of the sheriff, with responsibility for collecting fines, so in essence yes, a procurer of money for someone else, but I think in Scotland it is now like the DA in America, in that they investigate "crimes" within a certain area. I may have that wrong though; I would have to dig out a weighty tome or two to have a look for certain but I haven't got access to them atm from where I am.

If people are of a D&B persuasion, they can all be found on there.

Regards

TSL

Captain Ranty said...

Hi TSL,

Thanks for the welcome home. Straight into a shitstorm! (I wouldn't have it any other way).

I hazzent seen the vid but I will watch it with interest. I likes Dean, I does.

I looked for a definition of a PF and you are right. They can only prosecute misdemeanors, apparently.

If I get to court I shall be pointing out that it is a company with limited liability. My liability is of course, unlimited.

Still owe you an email reply (along with others) and I will reply soonest.

Be well,

CR.

Sukyspook said...

Fantastic NOTICE Cap'n.

Can't wait for the next update on this one.

Having felt somewhat overwhelmed by all the propaganda for a few days you have lifted my spirits again so thank you for that and for your ongoing valuable contributions to the cause.

Suke
x

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

Captain ranty;
I think you need to make up your mind.

Are you doing this purely because it's how you feel things SHOULD work- or because it's how you feel they DO work? You constantly switch between the two.

If the former, fine- but drop the pretension of a legal claim. If the latter- start putting forward legal arguments.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Suke.

According to some the cause is doomed.....

CR.

Anonymous said...

Nothing was "transferred" by the Act of Union into Scots law. Indeed, the Union with England Act 1707 explicitly specifies that Scots Law (other than "concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs and [...] Excise" s.XVIII), would continue to exist "for all time coming" (s.XIX).

It was a union of Parliaments, not a union of legal systems. We did not inherit their law, they remained unaffected by ours.

Captain Ranty said...

CL,

This is the way things should work:

1. A bill is tabled in the HoC. They discuss it for a bit, then send it to the HoL.

2. The HoL discuss it for a bit, a tweak here and there, and send it back to the HoC.

3. The HoC decide it's all ok, they send it to Madge.

4. Madge adds her moniker.

5. A new piece of legislation is born.

This is the way it does work:


The 1911 Parliament Act says that Madge doesn't have to sign anything because "the monarch never refuses Assent" (this is a lie).

So the HoC say they don't need Madge. (another lie)

The 1999 House of Lords Act unlawfully and illegally states that some peers cannot take their seats. (this is unconstitutional)

So the Hoc doesn't need the HoL (or certain personages who have a right to sit). We therefore have an incomplete Upper Chamber.

Ergo, the HoC can (and does) act autonomously. (I prefer to call it unlawfully).

Hence, a tyranny is born. And it became so when one of the three corners of the triangle was removed.

Thence, I declared myself a Lawful Rebel.

I do not need "legal". I only need lawful.

That, I have in spades. Why should I make a legal argument? To suit you, or the system you support?

I don't have to. I don't need to. I am right.

CR.

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

"The 1911 Parliament Act says that Madge doesn't have to sign anything because "the monarch never refuses Assent" (this is a lie)."

That sound is the "citation needed" claxon.

Yes, if parliament passes a law saying the queen does not need to give royal assent, and the queen gives royal assent to it- which she did, 18th august 1911- bingo, it's law.

Captain Ranty said...

CL,

Isn't that the point though?

To change our constitution (which IS written, just in several places, not in one concise document) the people have to be consulted.

On that date in 1911 we went from a tripartite system to a bipartite system. And even the bipartite system is in doubt now.

Not sure if I need a citation now. You supplied your own evidence.

CR.

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

...Eh?
I think you read so much into simple things, you get obsessed by non-existent "details".

None of the key points you make actually exist in law. They're mostly assumptions you have made, that have never actually existed in law.

Captain Ranty said...

Really?

So parliament can just make shit up as they go? Where is THAT written?

I have no obsessions. I am not deluded. I exercise common sense, which is what common law is all about. You seem to have great faith in statutes. I do not share that faith.

And if my "key points" don't exist in law, I will do what I can to make it so.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

You (all) might want to have a read of this:

http://accesstoinfo.blogspot.com/2011/12/system_04.html?spref=tw

Maybe that will open some eyes.

Or shall we just label him a nutter? Path of least resistance, and all that?

Or maybe we should just all roll over. No sense fighting them at all.

We are Borg.

CR.

Anonymous said...

"Where is THAT written?"

It's not written. But it is a constitutional convention. "No parliament my bind its successors." It's a fundamental rule of the UK constitution, and if you are unaware of it it really doesn't say much for the depth of your research (and also suggests that the rest of you "ideas" may be a load of whack).

If you really want it in written form, you could try this section of Hansard from 1999: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990429/text/90429-13.htm, where Viscount Cranborne and Lord Carter both articulate it.

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

It's not parliament making shit up; it's you. You're putting into law concepts and ideas that were never there.

As for the link you post, the vast, vast majority of points he makes are merely claims he posits with no evidence backing up. It really is just a list of nothing.

I really don't get why you obsess over ideas with absolutely no basis. They do not represent either the theory, practice, or history of law. They aren't even coherent. The ultimate proof of this? I have never been given anything other than lists of non sequitors, with the occasional "Your degree is funded by the Rocker-fellers" thrown in.

Anonymous said...

'I exercise common sense, which is what common law is all about'

You really haven't got a fucking clue what the Common Law is, have you? It's got precisely bugger all to do with "common sense".

Captain Ranty said...

CL,

I was unaware that you had a degree. I don't care. I don't even care who paid for it.

At the end of the day, my beliefs don't matter a fuck. What matters is what I can prove in court.

Watch this space.

CR.

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

Ranty,
People have tried. They have failed. They have been fined, and jailed. Their failures have been recorded and put on youtube (illegally, but whatever).

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

Thank Christ you showed up!

Here I was, laden down with all sorts of shit, and I was going to take it into court with me!

It's all in the bin now. Thank you for your assistance.

I'll just walk in, drop trou, and get fucked like everyone else, shall I?

Fucking sound advice there pal.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

CL,

I don't know of anyone who has used the LR defence as yet. At least, not in the same way I am going to use it.

Why don't we all calm the fuck down and see what happens?

They can hardly gaol me for writing a Notice to the PF.

Unlike most though, a stint in the cells does not fill me with horror and despair.

CR.

Anonymous said...

"So parliament can just make shit up as they go? Where is THAT written?"

It's part of the much-vaunted Constitution: "No Parliament can bind its successor". And the Lords believe it exists:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990429/text/90429-13.htm

Captain Ranty said...

Anon (17:07),

I am well aware that no parliament can bind its successors. I have never questioned that, nor have I ever complained about it.

Are you aware that no parliamant can unmake a thing they did not make?

That is why MC1297 is a crock of shit. They amended and deleted huge chunks of 1215 when they did not have the right to do so. They did not create it. It predates parliament by 50 years.

Someone needs to tell them that. If it is down to me, so be it.

CR.

Anonymous said...

"Fucking sound advice there pal."

It's sounder that your insane illogical unsubstantiated makey-upey arguments.

You seem like a complete tosser, so I really don't care what happens to you, so, go ahead and get jailed for contempt. I'm sure it'll feed your martyr complex nicely.

But I'd hate for anyone to think anything you say about the law is correct. Because it's all rubbish.

Anonymous said...

"Are you aware that no parliamant [sic] can unmake a thing they did not make?"

Care to substantiate that claim? With, you know, authorities other than your own say-so?

The fact that Parliament has repealed all but three provisions of the Magna Carta suggests that Parliament doesn't think it is so restricted.

Captain Ranty said...

Time will tell.

If I fuck it up you have my permission to come back and say "Told you so".

Contempt of what? You dozy twat.

How fucking terrified are you? Seriously. I may be a tosser but at least I have a fucking spine.

Lose the fear and you will see things differently. I guarantee it.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

"The fact that Parliament has repealed all but three provisions of the Magna Carta suggests that Parliament doesn't think it is so restricted."

Ah. So that makes it alright then?

Take a squint at Halsbury's. All the answers you seek are in there.

Nice of you to point out the typo.

It would have been justifiable if I had spelt the word wrongly both times I used it though.

Petty.

You're a libertarian, aren't you?

CR.

Nick said...

Captain. You seem to be attracting more detractors to your fight. I'm slightly inebriated but I will try to articulate my thoughts. My immediate thought is that you are getting close to some truth and TPTB are getting rattled.
Mr. CL, the fact that you have a law degree, for me, means that you have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. I don't wish to be insulting, but, you come accros as the type of person who would be the first to climb aboard the one way cattle train. Yes the present system is rigged against the common man, and maybe our host cannot beat it. But , our fight is against this corrupt system which is, clearly, unconstitutional. Do you board the train or do you resist and fight back? Glad you're back and sparking on all cylinders Captain.

Oldrightie said...

I thought some freemen have gone down this road, CR and done very well?

Anonymous said...

Halsbury? As in "Laws of England"? Why would I want to read that, since we're both in Scotland, and not subject to English law (not that you seem to be aware of the difference)? The Scottish equivalent is the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia.

Also, Halsbury is very large, so can you narrow it down a little? Like, to a single paragraph or page? Surely one must be there, and you must have read it, so it should be to hard for you to point it out.

And no, I'm not a libertarian.

Anonymous said...

Mr Civil Libertarian

I think your moniker is wrong. Surely it should be 'Mr Tyranny Acceptable and Anyone who Disagrees is Mad'?

If you've got a Law Degree then firstly you've been taught the wrong stuff - I know because I've just finished a foundation year and the correct 'Rule of Law' - a la Dicey - is no longer adhered to. You should also surely know that the Common Law of this land has been gradually chipped away at by Romann Law since the 1800s.

You should also know from your studies that 'the courts assume that certain points are implied in ALL legislation including the following - statutes do not change the common law' (Slapper & Kelly, English Legal System, 11th Ed )

Instead of harrassing someone who is prepared to put himself on the line for millions of others, why not go and do some proper research and test the system yourself hey.

David

Anonymous said...

Anonymous

You are either scared or you're one of the millions who that is happy to prop up the current corrupt system. Perhaps you feel a sense of shame because CR is prepared do what's right and you're not.

Why else would you hurl such venom at someone who has done nothing to harm you and is, in fact, doing everything in his power to get real freedom back on the agenda?

Your behaviour only makes sense when put in this context, otherwise it's bizarre.

David

Chas said...

Good luck to you, mate. If they hang draw and quarter you, I shal write a martyrs song for you. I win, I will make a hero's song.

Either way, I shall look for a suitably immortalising lyric, even if it's :

"We wish him well
We wish him luck
Even if we find he's fucked!"

Although I'm sure I can come up with something better!!

Anonymous said...

Captain,
I wish you luck. For myself being a coward I have taken a different line. I just lie on my tax return so that I dont have to pay any. I recommend it, of course if you are not self employed it is difficult.

Bil said...

Thank-you Cap'n. I follow your blog assiduously and am close to having your bollocks and going into LR.

Ignore the twats who can't think for themselves and accept the status quo because it is easy. Rebellion is resistance.

Just got see what Merkozy are about to do to understand that the Poltico/Legal world will do whatever it likes. It must stop.

Power to your elbow. Don't stop. You are too important.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks for the support guys.

Just for the record (1):

I am happy to be challenged here. These lawyers can ask whatever they want. I won't always have the right answers but their questions help. It forces me to go and find the answers. In court I will not have Mr Google. I find the insults pointless though. If ad hominem is all you have, (and typo's), then I can stop worrying about you.

Just for the record (2):

I have never professed to be an expert. I know some things. I know I have enough with which to mount a reasonable defence. And I am tired of saying to people "This is NOT advice. This is what I'm doing. Research, research, research, then give it a go yourselves". I may be inconsistent about some things but that is one thing I have said constantly.

Just for the record (3):

My Notice (though transparent) does not contain all of my defences. I have others. Some are even based in Scots Law. Who'da thunk it? I may be dim, but I am just bright enough to know that some battles require a range of weapons. I am well armed.

Which does not mean I will emerge victorious, however right I know I am. They are deceptive, these courts, and so are the people that populate them. I do not see that as a conspiracy. It is plain old self-preservation.

Any lawyer who says otherwise either truly does not know that, or worse, they are wilfully part of the deception.

Or, (and this I do believe), they do not get taught common law. They learn the basics, I am sure, but then they quickly rush off to specialise. I have yet to meet a lawyer who wanted to practice law as a vocation. I know a few lawyers. They are all minted.

That makes those insults easier to understand.

CR.

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

Well I have read enough of this 'UTTER SHITE'. Anon and civil lib, Your rhetoric is bent way out of whack. Your arguments are based on current legislation and what has been taught by those who wish you 'NOT' to know the whole truth.

These 'citations' you refer. PRAY tell where these citations made by GOD? or was it a man or men?
The fact that it was said and argued by 'learned men' doesn't mean it is correct. EITHER WAY.

CR is putting himself in 'THAT' exact place, where the argument is to be debated, in a court or elsewhere. As it happens CR cannot, although should be able to, put his argument anywhere else and have it noticed.
Hence the speeding thing an excuse to get to court.

You can quote whatever you like and at anytime you like but this will not and never has made you ‘learned’, It is this exact mentality and bleating that has got us into the mess we are in right now. Thank GOD you only have access to the blogosphere. To think the damage you could do in real life.

I will make this suggestion, stay well clear of politics, we have enough badly created statutes on the books without your sycophantic suggestions. My other advice is to check in the mirror and see if you tongue is not yet brown enough and go back to whomever it is you report to and ask if you can lick a little more.

But don’t worry your time will come to be in court and I hope among hopes you either have CR or a LR or a FMOTL on your side because if you do not you are truly ‘FUCKED’.

Namaste, rev;
Yes that is REV as in Reverend. (Power and PRAYER to CR – A modern day hero) Fighting for RIGHT against a corrupt system.

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

I'm not interested in religious arguments. Like, really, really, really am not. Anyone who tries to cite God in court deserve jail.

Nick said...

Ah you have surfaced from beneath your rock Mr. C.L.
I , too, don't do God. I would never resort to admonishing a person for bringing He, She or it into a conversation though.
As previous commentators have said. If you were truly a civil libertarian you would use your legal knowledge to help our host.
The fact that you deride and mock weakens your position.
Be a Man, i think it safe to assume you are Male, and admit you are scared of our host proving his case in court...
If he does your whole house of cards collapses, and you loose your meal ticket!
I'm 44 years old and I have met many lawyers and Barristers, it may surprise you that I also have a Bsc hons, Only 1 has any integrity. Blogger Tom Paine. The rest of you just further your own nefarious cause.

Rev. Well said Sir.

As an aside, I have sworn an oath to cause no harm, injury or loss to another person. People like you strain that oath. What do you contribute to the human race?
When you shave tomorrow morning, take a long hard look at your self in the mirror.

If I have offended anyone, I don't give a flying fuck. You will not subjicate my young kids while I have breath.
Cu£&s.

DAD said...

One thing that is missing in the responses to the Captain’s two posts is the psychology being exhibited by the Procurator Fiscal.

Before taking retirement part of my duties was to be an Expert Witness in court cases involving fraudulent abstraction of electricity. This usually was through ‘modification’ of the electricity meter. On the day of the court hearing, I usually saw the following performance.
a) The prosecuting Barrister (in wig and gown) and the electricity company Fraud Officer speak with the accused solicitor, then speak with to the accused. If it was possible they would sit either side of the accused.
b) The Barrister would emphasise the gravity of the offence and that he was going to ask the Judge for the maximum sentence of X months in prison and a fine of £Y, as well as the whole claim of the electricity company, plus the prosecution’s costs
c) I would see the Fraud Officer gently put his hand on the accused shoulder (playing the Hard Cop/Soft Cop routine) and offer to forget the whole case if the accused would pay the whole of the money that the electricity company claimed that was ‘stolen’ by means of the fraud.
d) If the Fraud Officer (FO) was successful the court case ended there and then, but if the FO felt a little softening of resolve of the accused he might make an offer of payment at £10 per week (or £50 per month), or, perhaps 80% of the claim.
e) I was involved in about 20 court cases but only 3 actually went into the courtroom. This psychology worked in all the other cases.

Let us consider the Captain’s case. The PF, long before the case is due in court, makes a fantastic offer. This suggests to me that either the PF knows that he is beaten or is not looking forward to a court battle, but ‘to save face’ makes an offer that most people would accept and the case would be over; or it is an attempt to weaken the resolve of the Captain and a further offer will be made at the courtroom door? The PF will have come across many defendants who are all bluster at the start, but, as the case becomes nearer and nearer, the defendant starts to waver.

The other possibility is that the PF is dreading this case as it may open a whole ‘can of worms’ and future problems. This happened in the Hereford courtroom when Guy was required to attend there. (See the earlier video on the Captain’s site).

Think psychology! And keep one step ahead of ‘them’.

James Higham said...

Do I hear the splash of a Rubicon being crossed?

Johnnyrvf said...

@MCL. so why then, if the U.K. ( England, Wales, N.I. ) AND Scottish Legal systems are based on Christian Teaching as is supported by having, until recently ( although the option is still there ) the assurance that what you shall say is substantiated by an oath sworn on the Bible, a notably religious tome are you not interested in religios arguments in court? They are an integeral part of many countries legal systems, whether that meets with your approval or not.

del said...

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

I'm not interested in religious arguments. Like, really, really, really am not. Anyone who tries to cite God in court deserve jail.

Errrr, what's that thing you swear on in court ?, and say so help me god

One more thing, who is anybody to demand anything of me, or anybody ?, unless I have given consent ?, Where did I give that consent to be governed ?.

You Sir are part of the problem, and you say, your a anarchist, fucking pull the other one FFS !

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

Now you see what I mean.you will take any and all out once you know you are beaten. I did not bring GOD in as an arbitrator nor do I rely on any help from this quarter.
READ AGAIN I merely stated: 'where these citations made by GOD? or was it a man or men?'
For those slow of thinking it was 'MAN' that made the citations.
MEN unlike CL are fallible, hence the reason acts and statutes need to be corrected more oft than not.

MINE, however is the same as CR's and is not by any stretch of the imagination religious.

I MAY remind you, though, that every judge and barrister, solicitor the queen and the parliament state 'UNDER GOD' so YES in these cases we are in agreement they should be put in prison. Thanks for the support on that thought.

Having said that I do not know your views and if I am wrong I will, as a man of honour, apologise.
Now show me your website so that I may learn more. You have much to say and I cannot wait to delve into your mind and see what it is you categorically state, personally.

Namaste, rev;
Mine is the name given to the post and I have other blogs too so you can see them.

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

"Errrr, what's that thing you swear on in court ?, and say so help me god"
And you honestly think this means we're based on some code of religious law?

Really?
Really?
Really?

Pete said...

Well in Scotland CL our laws are based upon Roman Law, which is based on religious laws http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KrzVe4NOEToC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=hume+1844&source=bl&ots=hoWEflbcfl&sig=c_SDAHNUckHGBu1Kgnt_u2YRUvM&hl=en&ei=qgfMTp2RAcqnhAfa6-ivDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hume%201844&f=false Have a read at that book it may aid your understanding. It is also worth mentioning that England had a system of Ecclesiastical courts. Now if that is not a suystem of law based on religion then I do not know what is.

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

The Primary Law that Governs all Court Cases whether you realize it or not, whether a judge, prosecutor, attorney or any law official admits it or not, the central law that governs the administrative procedure of all Western law court cases is BOOK IV FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848) > PART I. THE SACRAMENTS >
TITLE IV. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

CL I am still waiting for the link to your blog or to anything you have written which illustrates your knowledge and understanding.
Being a sceptic is not a replacement for knowledge. Writing about the subject and placing your testimonials on the block,as CR is doing 'IS'.
So come on lets have it. Testimonial = testicles as is written under LAW (definition).

Captain Ranty said...

CL,

Are you a lawyer?

Really?

I ask because almost every maxim in law comes from the bible.

Our basic laws are lifted directly from it:

Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness (perjury)

etc etc.

I'm not saying law is based on the bible but the law sure does refer to the bible a great deal.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Phil,

Thanks for the support.

CL's blog can be found here:

http://mrcivillibertarian.co.uk/

His latest post has a go at me too.

CR.

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

The word Lawyer is from the late 16th Century combining the Latin words lar/lares =(customary law) + iuro/iurare = (to swear, take an oath, to conspire) meaning literally “one who has sworn an oath to customary law (of the private Guild)”. Hence the true and original meaning of a lawyer is “one who is authorized and licensed by the private Guilds of the Bar to practice law”. Therefore, no Lawyer can be Counsel without deliberately injuring the law and perverting the course of Justice.

pitano1 said...

hi captain.
firstly let me say i`m with you 100%

but i`m a little confused,by the word ..court`that keeps popping up.

are we talking`badminton/tennis..or?

i notice that the word LAW/COURT OF.
has been rather thin on the ground.


even on the outside of these dives
you will not see hide nor hair of this word.

surely if they were practicing this it would be displayed with pride for all to see,would it not.?

make one think `does me anyway`.

i to because of the corruption we are up to our eyebrows in, am in lawfull rebbelion.

i have not informed her mag,why the fuck should i,if i say i`am,
i`am,she has never written to me.

any way i digress,let me just congratulate you on the honorable way you are conducting yoursef in your affairs.

one thing to bear in mind as far as your dissenters are concened,is, `this,cognitive dissadence`is like the pox,as you know once it reaches the brain,it becomes incureable.

keep up the good work captain.

here is a question for cl.

can you tell us the differance between a magistrates court,and a bank.?

Captain Ranty said...

Hi Pitano,

Good to have you here. Thanks for the comment.

:) What kind of court? Heh!

What we know for certain is that games are played there, and if you are not one of the inner sanctum you are going to get fucked.

We should see a few more wins now that we are learning the rules.

As OR says, we have had some successes but we need many more before they realise that the jig is up.

Even the band has packed up and fucked off. They really are slow on the uptake, these legal genii.

CR.

Anonymous said...

At 17.13, Captain Ranty said:
"Are you aware that no parliamant can unmake a thing they did not make?"

At 17.20, Anonymous replied:
"Care to substantiate that claim? With, you know, authorities other than your own say-so?"

In 2000, Lord Renton said:
"My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggested that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta."

To which Earl Russell responded:
"My Lords, the noble Lord is of course correct in relation to present legislation. However, 17th century Parliaments treated Magna Carta, in its 1229 version, as being an Act of Parliament. I spoke loosely and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me."

As is recorded in Hansard; sic veritas dicebatur.

“Treated...as being an Act of Parliament”, meaning that the early MCs (inc. the real one) were not, in fact, Acts of Parliament, as we have said here many times.

When comparing the laws of England and Scotland, Lord Coke said:
"That as there is one Language in both, so there was one kind of government and one law in ancient time that ruled both with many unanimous agreements between them, which evidently appeareth by many proofs. First, that the Lawes of Scotland are divided as the Lawes of England, into the Common Laws, Acts of Parliament and Customs. Their Common Lawes are principally contained in two Books...the first Book both in substance agree with our Glanvil and most commonly de verbo in verbum, and many times our Granvil is cited therein by speciall name."

"De verbo in verbum" = word for word; "Glanvil" is Ranulf de Glanville, Chief Justiciar during the reign of Henry II, to whom is attributed an early treatise on the Common Law. Coke is referring to the Regiam Majestatem.

Coke then lists many more similarities, finally pointing out that the differences (such as then existed) were down to statute:
"But by reason of their Acts of Parliament, which in many points have altered, diminished, and abrogated many of the old, and made new Lawes and other proceedings, the distinct kingdoms as they now stand have many different laws."

All from 4. Inst. 345-7. Coke's distinctions are sometimes (conveniently) lost on later commentators and writers.

At 15.37, Captain Ranty said:
“The 1911 Parliament Act says that Madge doesn't have to sign anything because "the monarch never refuses Assent" (this is a lie)."

At 15.40, Mr Civil Libertarian replied:
"That sound is the "citation needed" claxon."

Whilst the Act itself does not include that exact line, Halsbury's Laws of England says:

"In practice the monarch now plays a purely formal part in the making of statutes for, by convention, she has lost the power of refusing her assent to a bill passed by both Houses, or, in terms of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, by the House of Commons alone."

Which is effectively the point. (This is of course only relevant if you assume Brenda is not at or near the capstone. ;-) But even then it could all be a grand design...)

Later, it says "The existence of some conventions is certain and they can be defined accurately" and cites the monarch not refusing assent as the example. And of course one of the other conventions is that the monarch acts on the advice of the ministers, and as they are MPs... Parliament does likes its "conventions".

Whilst I don't do it either, as people have mentioned the good book dare one recall, say, Deuteronomy 4:2?! ;-)

Alea iacta est, CR!

Regards

TSL

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks for the assist TSL!

Great stuff.

Regarding Deuteronomy 4:2-having sworn on the bible containing that very instruction Brenda then proceeds to violate it 90 days later by giving Assent to a piece of legislation!

The die is indeed cast, my friend.

Rubicons have also been crossed. (Thanks James).

I am in a state of war with the, erm, state.

Onwards!

CR.

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

HOW? just HOW is anyone able to contradict a system (LAW; acts and statutes) where the LAW; acts and statues are designed to prevent such a thing?

To ask one to point to an ACT or statute that supports a contradictory stance is pure senility.

CL, You have a stance that acts and statutes are valid. I agree wholeheartedly, they are there to protect, they are there to define how we live in a society and are rules agreed to by consent. I agree, again, and in a world that is devoid of crime we would not need them. Do you agree?

However and here's the point, there are those who seek to use these acts and statutes to their own end;criminal. And those criminals are in positions of power. Now I recall a question time audience member, actually more than one, stating that the word power used by the government is entirely incorrect it should be 'SERVE'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQYjlP6fjFA&feature=player_embedded
and the other
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ry0LmFP3Ig#t=1m 15s

CR, myself and thousands of others are striving to remove those that userp the law to their own ends at the cost of the majority. Once this is achieved WE that is all of us will BACK OFF.
Are we subverting LAW? NO! we are trying to bring the LAW back to what it is designed to do and as written in the charter we are 'BOUND' by those that came before us 'shall distress and harass ... by all the ways in which they are able'.

What you are doing is rescuing the very people who are guilty and as such you are committing a crime under law.
Now as for your statutes, why prey tell is it illegal to remove eggs from a supermarket store shelf, and YES this is in the statutes. Why are some laws enforced and others not, jay walking, YES my wife was fined for this in 1990. Why is is suddenly illegal to protest unjust laws outside parliament?

These laws along with thousands of others are there to protect WHO? ME? well I don't need protection, CR? It seems he is able to fend for himself too. Anyone else wish this protection?

CL?

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

Now I am not generally known for my common sense, since I have been called many things for my beliefs, I am referred to as without any sense.

Lets say the parle a ment decide murder is now legal and we should practice the art of devil worship once again. (hypothetical of course) and YOU thought HOLD ON this isn't right this needs to be reversed.
I agree, however, what you have been saying is that if a law is unjust or just plain stupid we cannot 'GO BACK' we must pass laws that make the unjust law illegal.

Wouldn't that be the same as reverting BACK to before the law was passed?

All we are saying is that before parliament was formed there were laws that protected the people of the country from it's monarch. The position of monarch has been manipulated by the political class and is now pretending to be the monarch (TREASON). The role of our monarch, well yours not mine, is no longer within the control of the people and the authority vested in it is now being used to enslave those that gave it power in the first place.

So we use the only laws available to us to bring remedy.
What would you use?
TPTB are blatantly using force, a monkey with a pointed stick can not fail to see this.

What do you suggest we do, bend over and have the pineapple inserted, some would enjoy this but not I.

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

Sorry CR I have posted a few comments here and seem to have taken advantage.
However I will sit back and watch for a while, but before I do that I have to mention this, and I laughed my ass off when I read it it is a CLASSIC
CL
'I hate to break it to you guys, but: If you’re gonna make a claim as to how the English legal system operates, it’s up to you to demonstrate it.'

I seem to remember that CL HAS made a claim here and is asking US to demonstrate it.
Are these double standards, do you think?
I have seen NO demonstration here or on his website, nothing but accusations and hot air, 'ONLY' 'PROVE IT' which again counters his statement '... If you’re gonna make a claim as to how the English legal system operates, it’s up to you to demonstrate it.'

So fucking funny I nearly wet myself.

Anonymous said...

Great letter. Sorry, 'notice'. I'm certain it'll work. He'll read it and think 'shit, we can't take him to court! He's written to the Queen. And if we do take him to court he's going to charge us! I know, it sounds crazy, but he's proved it all with these legal maxims I've never heard of and these rules that don't exist'.

Brilliant stuff. I can't see the remotest flaw.

Anonymous said...

Mr Civil Libertarian said...

'I'm not interested in religious arguments. Like, really, really, really am not. Anyone who tries to cite God in court deserve jail.'

This is a joke, right?

David

tedioustantrums said...

Well. Very interesting discussion.

Glad you're back and Ranting Ranty. I support you which is word doodly squat of course. To really be supportive I'd need to get off my ass and do something real and meaningful like you.

The negativity demonstrated here is very typical of the blogosphere is it not? Mostly lefties no doubt who say one thing and do the opposite.

I've been on the wrong end of a speeding case where they gave me points and a significant fine. My solicitor wanted to go to appeal as they could only do one rather than both. I bottled it. They could have taken my license away and or increased the fine.

I look forward to reading your progress. There comes a point where we all have to stand up and be counted. I can't help thinking we are very, very close to this.

Anonymous said...

i have to laugh at c.l.
the law system is based from god(bible)or whatever you percieve god to be, and if indeed he is a lawer(parasite)worth his salt he will know this.
god created man in his own image,there is nothing greater.
man created communities,
communities created 'society',
society created goverment,
goverment created statutes,
statutes give power of 'authority'to individuals,try to usurp law and with that comes tyranny,

statutes are way down on the list,there is no greater power than oneself,
the master, servant routine has been swithed, you just have to wake up to the power we actually have,the hundreth monkey is near.
go cap!!
nige.

Antony said...

One thing that really comes across here is the ferocity of the attacks against you from so called "Libertarians".

Surely a true Libertarian would be sat in the back seat watching with interest and offering quiet support, as in, do no harm?

I interpret that to be both physical and mental harm, which is polar opposites to what has been displayed here.

@CL & Anon

Why the extreme viciousness and nastiness? If CR crashes and burns, that is on his own head as it is his path he has chosen to take. You both sound like really petty, nasty humans.

All power to you, CR. Keep going.

mrfrostblog said...

(CR, I'm here under a new guise - let me know your email address and I'll put you in the loop.)

Antony, I'm a Libertarian and I fully agree.

Mr. Frost

thesecretpeople said...

I just want to point out the weight of experience Lord Renton (who was quoted above) had. When he made that comment in 2000, he was 92 years old and had over 60 experience. I think he was in the game long enough to know what's what, don't you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Renton
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/may/25/guardianobituaries.obituaries1

As you can clearly see, Renton wasn't trying to prove a point in some long drawn out argument regarding Parliaments inability to amend the Magna Carta, but merely correcting, in the moment, what he thought was a mistake by Russell. Russell himself then agreed with Renton. At no time did any of the others sitting make comments to the contrary.

In 2000, Lord Renton said:
"My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggested that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta."

To which Earl Russell responded:
"My Lords, the noble Lord is of course correct in relation to present legislation. However, 17th century Parliaments treated Magna Carta, in its 1229 version, as being an Act of Parliament. I spoke loosely and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me."

All the best to you Ranty.

nominedeus said...

Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?

And the Queen answering,

I am willing.

The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and The Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen. I will.

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

and as to judges etc
Oath of Allegiance

The Oath of Allegiance is in the following form:

I, (name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

[edit] Official Oath

The Official Oath is in the following form:

I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in the office of (office). So help me God.

The Oath of Allegiance and Official Oath shall be tendered to and taken by each of the following office-holders as soon as may be after his acceptance of office:

First Lord of the Treasury (also the Prime Minister)
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Lord Chancellor
Lord President of the Council
Lord Privy Seal
Secretaries of State
President of the Board of Trade
Lord Steward
Lord Chamberlain
Earl Marshal
Master of the Horse
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
Paymaster General
Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland (the First Minister of Scotland)
Keeper of the Privy Seal of Scotland
Lord Clerk Register
Advocate General for Scotland
Lord Justice Clerk.
Cl you really do need to get a fecking friend for your braincell it seems to be getting lonely....NO GOD in court...you make me laugh m8 the Queeen swears an oath to god and all her judges swear an oath to her , without her authority there is no court, they are the Queens courts and the royal coats of arms are in every SINGLE one or it is not a court.
Where diod you get your degree the back of a corn flakes packet!
You keep kicking the wall Cap'n there are lots more of uss than you would give credit to... and after all of us kicking for a while the old wall will come tumbling down...
Oh that WAS a biblical allusion CL Joshua I think it was at Jericho... with trumpets/horns


wv= Toute sounds about right ish eh Cap'n

Gareth. said...

Hi CR,

God bless you. If you ever go to court within 50 miles of Cambridge let me know and i will endevour to provide after court drinkies.

Anonymous said...

I have just entered a situation like yours. A speed camera machine has found me guilty of a ACT. I true am making a stand as a freeman tho and have enjoyed reading your posts. They have helped me clarify in my mind that I am right to challenge. I to could pay their fine and except their points but it goes against my beliefs of my life.