Here there be rants. There will be Freeman stuff, Lawful Rebellion stuff and Random stuff. I am rebelling because I want my country back. My lawful obligations are as follows: “together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they see fit…”
Article 61 Magna Carta 1215
I had an hour to spare so I thought I'd go and see if I could find out how many statutes and statutory instruments we had on the Rolls.
I wish I hadn't bothered.
What is wrong with these people?
Have a look at this. This list is from 1987 to the end of 2011. Something changed in 1986/7 but I haven't pinned it down yet.
Take a close look at the first full year the coagulation were in power. They managed to outdo Labour when they were in full flood! So much for less government, eh?
In 1986 just 355 pieces of legislation were enacted. Prior to that the average was less than 100 per year.
From 1900 to 1985 6,141 pieces of legislation were enacted. Compare that to the four year period above (1987-1990) when they vomited out 6,433 new rules & regulations.
The very best years of all were 1265 and 1266. (The first parliament was created in 1265). Full of newbies, they did not draft any legislation at all for the first two years, and they only managed to pump two out in 1267.
Notably, between 1716 and 1765 they produced a grand total of 17 new "laws" in that 49 year period.
If you feel you really must depress yourself further, the source is here. To begin with I was scrolling through each page of 20 Acts and SI's but there were just too many, so I used the "Legislation by year" information on the bottom left of that page.
By my tally we have in the region of 68,000 statutes and statutory instruments on the Rolls.
That is a humongous amount. In one way, shape or form, each & every one of them will or can have an effect on every one of us.
Appoint me King Shit of Turd Mountain and I will wipe them all out. All 68,000 of them. Treaties and Declarations will remain. (And no, I do not mean the EU Treaties. I mean the proper ones that form our Constitution).
With me you will get just one law: do no harm.
Break this one law and elected judges have a free rein on sentencing and punishment.
There is one small change: we will no longer need MPs or solicitors.
I was feeling quite happy and in synch with the world.
Then I popped over to Tom's place to read his latest and I blew another gasket. Tom links to those nice folks over at the TPA and between them, they tell us the awful news: the thieving bastards want even more.
Those of us who are unlucky enough to be average will be spending TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHT DAYS working for the government in 2012.
I have a short message for them:
(Image nicked from a Twitterite. I forget who, but thanks anyway).
The money you earn from 27th July to 31st December? You can keep that. You can manage all of your bills from that, surely? What else were you going to do with it? Pay off some debt? Improve the house? Buy clothes for the family? Take a holiday? Save some of it?
Time to wake up. Time to get real.
Your useless fucking government needs it.
To send aid to Brazil. To send aid to India. To send aid everyfuckingwhere.
They need it to replenish their wine cellar. To gold-plate their pensions. To pay outrageous salaries to chief cuntstables and local authority chiefs. To send to the bastard EU. To pay those feckless millions for not working. To pay for the stupid olympics. And a thousand other stupid things.
And some of you still wonder why I want to step run away from these irresponsible, unaccountable freaks?
The terminally terrified, those that come on here saying that I should comply with all edicts issued by the gubmint and its agents, would have us believe that to say "No" automatically invites a SWAT Team.
I can confirm that that simply does not happen.
The first three items have penalties attached. The fourth involves corporate theft, and the fifth involves theft of a criminal nature. So they all have something in common then.
The speeding thing: Not heard a word from the PF. This was an "offence" allegedly committed on 23rd September. Despite the threats, I argued the toss. They are supposed to have a cast iron case, and yet here I sit, no points on my license, no fines issued, and no court date in sight.
The census thing: "You will be fined 1,000 pounds if you do not comply!!!". Oh really? Then where the hell are you? I have not heard a single word from these drones. I would like to hear from them. If I cannot get to court via the speeding thing, then I would like to use this as an excuse to read them the Ranty Riot Act.
The seizure of my stuff by UKBA: still mulling this over. I have time. I intend to play with them for a bit. Nothing to lose, see? They already stole my stuff. I doubt I will get my smokes back, but it won't stop me messing with the minds of the UKBA solicitors.
The lecky thing: the legal department are in a bit of a tizzy. The wifey called me to say that they had never seen letters like mine and they did not know how to respond. I said, "It's easy: simply refund all the money you took without my consent. It's theft. Pay me back". She ummed and ahhed and went away.
The fraud thing: when the paper statement arrived from the bank, I identified another two fraudulent payments. One for 227.99 and one for 157.99. Both to Amazon. They refunded the 227.99 but denied all knowledge of the payment made on 6th December for 127.99. I called my bank. The money was in my account 45 minutes later. All told, they tried to steal 1,410 pounds from me. I have it all back now. Hopefully that is the end of it.
That's about it. (Apart from the fact that my pound symbol has buggered orf. Anyone seen it?).
My alternative title was "Worthless Coppers?" but I thought you'd think I was ranting about plod again.
Have a look at these two 2p pieces:
The shiny one on the left (a 2004 model) is said to be worth 2p. (Post-1992 versions contain 93% mild steel and 7% copper).
The dull one on the right (a 1979 model) is worth 3.1p. (pre-1992 versions contained 97% copper).
Righty is worth more as scrap metal than it is as currency.
Marvellous, eh?
Incidentally, £5, £10, £20, £50 and £100 notes have an intrinsic value of around 4p. Banknotes issued by Scottish and Northern Ireland banks are not legal tender* in England & Wales and they can be refused as payment for goods and services. Thanks to our friends Yin & Yang, English notes are not legal tender north of the border either. (Thanks to PJH for letting us know in the comments).
In the last ten days or so, I have been privy to a conversation.
The conversation was between three or four people whose opinion I value greatly. It concerned Magna Carta, parliament, the monarch, and their respective roles today. To most people it would seem academic: after all, who really cares about who has supremacy over who, and what difference does it make anyway?
It makes a great deal of difference to me, and to all of you.
So I thought I would share the latest email with you. You don't have to have seen all the others leading up to this one, but if you feel the need, let me know and I will pop them on here for you.
I did not join the conversation because my knowledge is vastly inferior to the people that were emailing each other. I consider myself lucky to have "overheard" the discussion. I keep telling people that the monarch abdicated in 1972. That is referred to in the squadron leaders opinion.
Here you go:
Further to my submission below herewith are comments from my most knowledgeable and understanding friend and MCS colleague Sqn Ldr David Bourne who is particularly adept at encouraging those who would destroy this country in disclosing their own duplicity. BL.
"In addition to the present discussion about the Magna Carta I would remind everyone that Edward I in 1297, while confirming the Magna Carta, he decreed that the Magna Carta was to be regarded as the Common Law in perpetuity. The fact that the Magna Carta imposes limitations only upon our Sovereign is today ignored by Parliament despite the fact that all the members of both Houses swear allegiance to our Sovereign to uphold her in her position and duties as our Sovereign and thus accept the limitations upon them that our Constitution imposes upon her. They do that to uphold her power to give them the authority to carry out their duties which are codified in The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament and a similar code for Peers of the Realm.
The Codes can be found at www.parliament.uk under the heading “MPs, Lords and Offices”. If you read the Codes you will see that they too are ignored, particularly the requirement for “Selflessness” which involves a warning that to seek personal financial gain is not allowed on their part or for their family or friends, in the execution of their duties. Parliament’s booklet “An Introduction to Parliament” describes, inside the back cover, the powers of the Monarch which are the Royal Prerogatives, which, when in the hands of the Sovereign, were a safeguard from the possible usurpation of these powers by others such as the members of both Houses. However it says that these powers are now exercised by her Ministers and she has only theoretical powers. At no time in the Coronation Oath did she swear that her powers were only theoretical. She swore that she would govern us in fact not in theory.
When I asked her in 2005/6 whether she was still as Sovereign then, as she most certainly had been at the completion of the Coronation, she passed the question on to the Department for Constitutional Affairs(DCA) without giving a positive reply as to her Sovereignty. The DCA, without reply, passed it on to the Privy Council who said, in reply, that they could only deal with facts and could not answer questions which involve Constitutional Law as that had to be left to the Courts. But they are her Courts and they are established by the fact that she is our Sovereign which gives her the power to set up those Courts to dispense the justice that she promised us in her Coronation Oath. Thus neither the Queen, the DCA nor the Privy Council were prepared to state that she was still Sovereign which has to be an acknowledgement that she has been stripped of our Sovereignty, which we, the British People, embodied in her for her lifetime at her Coronation.
Thus there has been an imagination of her death which is an act of High Treason which we might expect she would recognise and see that those involved were brought to justice under the Law of Treason 1351 which is still extant. However knowledge of the Law of Treason is no longer required by law students and you will not find it mentioned in modern law books. Thus that law is ignored by the legal profession despite the requirement that we all owe a duty of allegiance to the Sovereign, who provides our protection, and that the breaking of that allegiance is the essence of treason. You will find a comprehensive description of the criminal offence in Lord Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol11. Treason is at the head of all crime and was a capital offence involving the death penalty until 1999, then reduced to life imprisonment.
Of course if the Sovereign has agreed to accept mediatisation, that is give up all her constitutional powers but to continue merely as a powerless figure head, then she will have, in effect abdicated, as did her uncle Edward VIII in 1936. If our Sovereign Powers were then surrendered to the EEC/EU in 1972 then there is no need to protect the Sovereign with a law against treason as we now have no Sovereign to protect. It will also mean that there is now no succession to the Throne as becoming Sovereign involved the passing of our Sovereignty from the dead or abdicated Sovereign to the next rightful Heir to the Throne. Those who saw “The King’s Speech” will have seen both those events enacted in that film and the acknowledged transfer in those witnessing the event. If our Sovereignty is with the EU it is unlikely that they will give it back for the Succession to continue.
For them to do so would be for the EU to agree for us to leave that union which is most unlikely. I doubt that the Scots will loan us the Stone of Scone for the day to complete the Coronation Chair which was constructed on the order of Edward I. at any future Coronation. Our present system of government is now called a Parliamentary Democracy when back at the Queen’s Coronation it was a Constitutional Monarchy. When was the change made and under what Act of Parliament which was given the Royal Assent? The words travesty and charade spring to mind. At least Cameron and company have got £34million for our Harriers which is exactly the agreed Civil List cost for next year for the Queen. Did she agree to go without that defence force and have the money instead? DB."
Let me know what you think.
UPDATE @ 19:16
Thanks to DAD in the comments for this:
Regulars will recall that I blogged on the written version of this a couple of months ago.
There is too much doom and gloom on this blog. Over the last few years I have blogged on some awful stuff. Some things were hard to believe, some were clearly rubbish, and some we didn't want to believe, despite the evidential links that showed us these things were true.
Together, we have learned much. About royalty, about law, about rights, benefits and priveleges. About how only we can give up those rights, and about how we can make sure we know when we hang on to our rights (always) and when to swap them for benefits (never), and about how we should interact with agents of the state. I have shared with you the various letters and notices received from police, courts, debt collection agencies and others. I do not yet have a convincing victory to report because these events are still in flux. Win, lose or draw I promise to tell you the truthful outcome.
There has been some weird shit. Some of it space-agey, and some of it spiritual. Some of it I have believed, and some I have put to one side for now, because either I don't understand it, or because I am not ready for it.
We have discussed the end of the euro, the end of the EU, and the end of the world. We never found complete and universal agreement on any or all of these subjects, and that is right fine by me. We are not Borg. We (here) are allowed to disagree. We (here) are allowed to think.
In the semi-serious clip below, George Carlin reminds us of the things we have in common. It's the funny shit, but it does unite us. One of my problems is finding that one thing that unites more than it divides. The August riots, for instance, were triggered by the cops shooting dead an unarmed man. What followed morphed from a genuine demonstration about injustice into full scale unlawfulness, and showed us just what feral people can do when they suspend all morals. We saw some nasty stuff unfold and we should remember those events if only to protect ourselves from the violent if the situation comes about again.
The UKuncut folks: whilst I was sort of happy about a large group of people protesting, I couldn't help feeling that their reasoning was bizarre. Screaming for less government interference and demanding more in benefits from them seem to me to be diametrically opposed, but what do I know?
The Occupy Wall Street people: the overwheming image I retained from their protests around the world against Big Corporations was marred by the incessant use of Blackberries, iPhones, and the t-shirts and sweatshirts bearing logos that simply advertised Big Corporations. Clusters of people standing around berating big business while clutching their mochachocoskinnylattewithvanilla had me rolling on the floor. The protestors themselves could not see their own hypocrisy, their own reliability on the very corporations they were protesting against. Again, this was bizarre.
Take 7 or 8 minutes for yourself and listen to wise old George, delivering a serious message with humour.
What will 2012 bring us? Who knows. According to some, the brown stuff will hit the twirly thing at the end of January. The euro is in peril, and along with it, the EU. At the end of the year, at 11 am on the 21st December, to be precise, the game changes. According to those who studied the Mayans their "long count" 5,126 year calendar ends at that time on that date*. Armageddon or a new consciousness? We will have to wait and see.
*Or does it? Some say that it is today! (Thanks to TSL for the link). If we get to midnight and the world hasn't ended, do let me know if your mind is a little more.....open than usual.
Like yours, my year has had its ups and its downs. But we find ourselves doing the only thing we can do: we carry on. We accept the things we cannot change and we concentrate on the things we can change.
I want to wish you all a happy and safe Christmas and my very best wishes for 2012. Whatever comes our way, we will deal with. Together.
Thank you to my 174 Faithful blog followers, to my 784 Twitterati followers, to the 410,000 of you that have visited and read this odd stuff that I write about, but mostly, I want to thank the thousands of commenters who felt compelled enough to scribble a few words in the white space available underneath every single blogpost. Not all are supporters, but their contributions can sometimes be just as valuable. All I ever asked was that you avoid the nasty stuff, the personal insults, but you can bring serious questions any time you like. I won't always have the answers but I will do my best.
Christmas is a time when families and friends gather. If you have neither of those, please imagine that you are in the mess here at Ranty Barracks with me and my family. We can share our food and a few bevvies, we can think back on 2011 and we can look forward to 2012. Together.
A few days ago I remarked to Mrs Ranty that the bank balance seemed a tad low. I further remarked that I should be pleased with my Christmas prezzies.
She says "I've bought you bugger all. I thought you said we should stop buying shiny things?"
I know I've bought her very little, so the alarm bells went off. I got online and tried to trace any purchases. We recognised all the standard stuff: direct debits, cash withdrawals, petrol, food shopping etc. What I didn't recognise was over £1,000 worth of shite. Clothes and perfumes.
Turns out some light-fingered bastard has been helping themselves to our money.
Now, I appreciate that this is the season for giving, but I will find and prosecute this thief to the fullest extent of the law. My rules, my laws, remember, are very simple: cause no harm, injury or loss to another man or woman, and do not make mischief with my contracts.
This fucker has caused me a loss. They have stolen from me.
I don't care if it turns out to be a one-legged lesbian from Lithuania who was abused by leery Larry in the living room. They will pay. I do not steal from anyone and I demand the same courtesy in return.
Bastards!
Update 12:28
Well, bugger me sideways!
I reported the shenanigans at 8:30 this morning. It is not yet 12:30 and the whole amount (£1,029.36) has been returned to my account!
Fantastic response from the Bank of Scotland! Thanks fraud peeps, have a lovely Christmas!!
The following came from the pen of Frederick Forsyth.
It was sent to me by my pal Bob and I thought I would share it with you. Like me, you will no doubt disagree with some parts of it, but the sentiment is what roused my interest.
Here you go:
"Dear Madam Chancellor,
Permit me to begin this letter with a brief description of my knowledge of, and affection for, your country.
I first came toGermanyas a boy student aged 13 in 1952, two years before you were born. After three extended vacations with German families who spoke no English I found at the age of 16 and to my pleasure that I could pass for German among Germans.
In my 20s I was posted as a foreign correspondent toEast Germanyin 1963, when you would have been a schoolgirl just north ofEast Berlinwhere I lived.
I knowGermany, Frau Merkel, from the alleys ofHamburgto the spires ofDresden, from the Rhine to the Oder, from the bleak Baltic coast to the snows of theBavarian Alps. I say this only to show you that I am neither ignoramus nor enemy.
I also had occasion in those years to visit the many thousands of my countrymen who held the line of the Elbe against 50,000 Soviet main battle tanks and thus keptGermanyfree to recover, modernise and prosper at no defence cost to herself.
And from inside the Cold War I saw our decades of effort to defeat the Soviet empire and set yourEast Germanyfree.
I was therefore disappointed last Friday to see you take the part of a small and vindictive Frenchman in what can only be seen as a targeted attack on the land of my fathers.
We both know that every country has at least one aspect of its society or economy that is so crucial, so vital that it simply cannot be conceded.
ForGermanyit is surely your automotive sector, your car industry.
Any foreign-sourced measure to target German cars and render them unsaleable would have to be opposed to vetopoint by a German chancellor.
ForFranceit is the agricultural sector. For more than 50 years members of the EU have been taxed under the terms of the Common Agricultural Policy in order to subsidiseFrance’s agriculture. Indeed, the CAP has been the cornerstone of every EU budget since the first day.
Attack it andFrancefights back.
For us the crucial corner of our economy is the financial services industry. Although parts of it exist all over the country it is concentrated in that part ofLondonknown even internationally as “the City”.
It is not just a few greedy bankers; we both have those but the City is far more. It is indeed a vast banking agglomeration of more banks than anywhere else in the world.
But that is the tip of the iceberg. Also in the City is the world’s greatest concentration of insurance companies.
Add to that the brokers; traders in stocks and shares worldwide, second only, and then maybe not, to Wall Street. But it is not just stocks.
The City is also home to the “exchanges” of gold and precious metals, diamonds, base metals, commodities, futures, derivatives, coffee, cocoa… the list goes on and on.
And it does not yet touch upon shipping, aviation, fuels, energy, textiles… enough. Suffice to say the City is the biggest and busiest marketplace in the world.
It makes the Paris Bourse look like a parish council set against the United Nations and even dwarfs yourFrankfurtmany times.
That, surely, is the point of what happened inBrussels. The French wish to wreck it and you seem to have agreed. Its contribution to the British economy is not simply useful nor even merely valuable.
It is absolutely crucial. The financial services industry contributes 10 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product and 17.5 per cent of our taxation revenue.
A direct and targeted attack on the City is an attack on my country. But that, although devised inParis, is what you have chosen to support.
You seem to have decided thatBritainis once againGermany’s enemy, a situation that has not existed since 1945.
I deeply regret this but the choice was yours and entirely yours. The Transaction Tax or Tobin Tax you reserve the right to impose would not even generate money forBrussels.
It would simply lead to massive emigration fromLondonto other havens. Long ago it was necessary to live in a city to trade in it.
In the days when deals can flash across the world in a nanosecond all a major brokerage needs is a suite of rooms, computers, telephones and the talent of the young people barking offers and agreements down the phone.
Such a suite of rooms could be in Berne, Thun,Zurichor evenSingapore. Under your Tobin Tax tens of thousands would leaveLondon.
This would not helpBrussels, it would simply help destroy the British economy.
Your conference did not even save the euro. Permit me a few home truths about it. The euro is a Franco-German construct.
It was a German chancellor (Kohl) who ordered a German banker (Karl Otto Pohl) to get together with a French civil servant (Delors) on the orders of a French president (Mitterrand) and create a common currency.
Which they did. IT was a flawed construct. Like a ship with a twisted hull it might float in calm water but if it ever hit a force eight it would probably founder.
Even then it might have worked for it was launched with a manual of rules, the Growth And Stability Pact. If the terms of that book of rules had been complied with the Good Ship Euro might have survived.
But compliance was entrusted to the European Central Bank which catastrophically failed to insist on that compliance.
Rules governing the growing of cucumbers are more zealously enforced. This was a European Bank in a German city under a French president and it failed in its primary, even its sole, duty.
This had everything to do withFranceandGermanyand nothing whatever to do withBritain.
Yet inBrusselslast week the EU pack seemed intent only on venting its spleen on the country that wisely refused to abolish its pound.
You did not even address yourselves to saving the euro but only to seeking a way to ensure it might work in some future time.
But the euro will not be saved. It is crumbling now. And since you have now turned against my country, from this side of the Channel, Madame Chancellor, one can only say of the Euro:
YOU MADE IT, YOU MEND IT."
In my opinion, it is unmendable. That is not wishful thinking. European cities are tearing themselves apart, and the blame can and should be laid at the door of this bastard currency.
Once the economic union dies, the political union should die too.
I am a Restorationist.
Let's go back to what once worked. Naturally, we can dump the bad bits and crack on.
Remember those cigarettes and cigars that were stolen from me back in March? UKBA have instructed their solicitors to send me a Writ (Or a Warrant. It mentions both).
I have 21 days to decide whether I will defend the case or not. The form is very specific: I must instruct a solicitor and I must pay £80 if I want to defend.
I do not intend to defend. But I will, however, attack.
Later today (I have to do the worky thing now) I will update this post with my response to the solicitor/court.
For those interested in the speeding thing, the Procurator Fiscal is now out of time, and he is in dishonour. He is obviously a man who does not like to be told what he must and must not do. Join the club, sunshine. Neither do I. You may recall I gave him seven days to get back to me. He has not done so, although I doubt he will leave it there.
With a bit of luck, that large purple vein near his temple burst and he is now formulating his revenge.
In the spirit of fairness, I wanted to post the police officers video first, so that you could hear his rant, and then the rebuttal by the Freeman.
Here is the coppers tale:
"This video has been removed by the user.
Sorry about that."
Why did he remove the vid? No clue. Perhaps he was told to. It's a mystery. Perhaps it was because he uttered the most insane statement ever? It was "....consent is automatic". In my world, consent can be either freely given, or it can be revoked. 'Twas ever thus, I was just late to the game.
Here is the Freemans rebuttal/explanation:
Many thanks to blogger Call Me A **** (I've cleaned that up a bit) for posting the story. Oh, and I like your other image in the same story, and I wanted to stick it on here. It makes a vital point:
It's a pity we can't hear the bobbies side of this, but I am willing to bet my left nut that all the vitriol came from his training to be a fully fledged Borg. Much like the lawyers who swing by and leave derogatory comments in an obvious ploy to defend what they do to put bread on the table.
As I keep saying: the jig is up. The proles are self-educating. We will be your downfall.
If you think we are a pain in the arse now, get those loins girded.
As much as I try to avoid looking at this too deeply, the subject keeps raising its head.
I nicked this piece from the Mainly Fail (which we know is given to melodrama) from my good pal Bry.
It tells, as you will see, of "ordinary" people stockpiling food. The article suggests that "Doomsday" may be only one month away. Now I know that we have heard it all before-hell, I have even written up other people's tales of armageddon myself-only to note, often with derision, that absolutely nothing happened on the day in question. This is slightly different. It may not be biblical, but it may be plausible.
The only reason I give this article some oxygen is because they are giving good advice in amongst the dramatics. Twenty or thirty years ago we had enough food stockpiled to last the nation around 12 weeks. Nowadays, thanks in part to the supermarkets and their "just in time" ordering policies, we have enough for three days. That's just nine meals. Nine meals for 60,000,000 people.
If you are going to take any lessons from the article, make sure it is this:
Buy lots of non-perishable food, buy large containers for water, buy camping stoves to cook your food on, make sure you have warm clothing & sleeping bags (you may find that you end up living in a much smaller space), a means of keeping warm, and most importantly, a means of defence.
While you are reading this, many millions are not. They are lashed to the sofa, scratching their nuts, busy watching more inanity on the tellybox. When the shit hits the fan, the previously ignorant will wise up. Fast. They will suddenly realise that they have nothing and their survival instincts will kick in. They will band together and become that roving mob you see in all the doomsday movies. Like the deadly gangs in The Book Of Eli. Or the bad lads in Mad Max. They will come and they will take what you have. You need something to prevent that.
Successive governments have reduced our ability to arm ourselves. The police and the armed forces will NOT be out to protect us. They will, however, be standing guard over the inepts in government. They will defend Madge, and her inbreds. They will be deployed at ports, nuclear facilities, and other buildings deemed vital for the survival, and reanimation, of the elites. YOU are last on the list. (If you are on it at all). Those bleeding-heart liberals, and the Sisters of Gaia are going to learn an important lesson in the first few hours of a meltdown. The vegetarians are going to be foodless and I suspect they will all rediscover a love of meat. They will be in no doubt that vegetables is what food eats, and they will be as violent and as desperate as the Sofa Set, so lock up your chickens. Daphne the Social Worker will be as prepared as Bob the Brickie to carry out vile and vicious acts to stay alive.
If this comes to pass, it will be messy. Mans most basic instinct is to keep breathing. Some of us are going to be shocked at the lengths they will go to just to keep doing that. They will not flicker if they have to stop your breath so that they can continue to live.
Consider laying in some long-lasting nutricious food, and perhaps something as simple as a bow & arrow to defend it, and yourselves. The food will not go to waste, and if all of this blows over, you can take up archery as a hobby.
Those shiny things you went deep into debt for? Useless. The power will fail. That big fancy Merc? Useless. The petrol will run out rapidly. That healthy savings account? Useless. Withdraw the money by all means. Toilet paper will be needed so withdraw the cash in large notes. Need to trade? Tobacco and booze are safe bets. Seeds too, if the meltdown is protracted. Buy a couple of survival guides. We spend millions training our special forces, and when they leave the service, they very kindly write books about how to survive. Learn from them. There is no need to die. There are a thousand and one things that aren't particularly tasty, but they will keep you alive.
It comes down to two choices: prepare, or don't.
But I issue fair warning; if you swing by my gaff expecting to be fed, or in anticipation of taking what I have amassed for the survival of my herd, think again.
I was a 'man of violence' for seven years. And I have not forgotten my training. I can be violent if I need to be.
I was sent a link on Twitter to this great story. My thanks go to @gruffdiver for the link.
Here are the basics:
25 year old guy in Sydney, well-oiled, leaves a restaurant. Someone accuses him of leaving without paying. The cops turn up and have a word in his shell-like. Our hero takes to his heels. The cops catch him (he is on foot and they are in a car, yet despite being arseholed, he manages to run half a kilometre), and he is arrested.
"Justice Kaye said it was an ancient principle of the common law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police, or answer their questions. And there is no statute that removes that right.
"(Mr Hamilton) before being placed under arrest did not have any obligation to stop when requested to do so, or to answer questions asked of him,'' the judge said.
"The conferring of such a power on a police officer would be a substantial detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed to the citizen by the common law for centuries.''
The next time anyone tells you that statutes are supreme, tell them to piss off.
I had not seen this site before and I am pleased to be able to share it with you now. I found the link on FMOTL and want to say thank you to those that search more diligently than your slack host does.
I am not going to try to sway you one way or the other. You are no longer children and you can make your own minds up. (Although I will say that I was surprised at their findings).
The only thing I ask is that you let me know your thoughts.
I find this fascinating, and I hope you do too. It's one thing picking a fight with the government, but it's quite another marching into their playground armed to the teeth.
I recommend that you watch this series over and over until you truly realise just how powerful you are. Get your learning done and you will never again get stiffed by the courts.
The only proviso being, of course, that you have not caused harm, injury or loss. I have not done so, not once, since this all began. If I do ever harm someone-a man, a woman or a child-I will expect the full weight of the law to descend upon me.
This is a good beginning. I won't blether on, you guys know how Freemen feel about corporate "citizenship" versus flesh & blood men and women. Suffice it to say that in America, corporations are protected by the Constitution, which was designed to protect people. I read somewhere that in US law books there are over 250 pages of definitions for the word "person". Thousands and thousands of definitions for the same word? And it is in those definitions that we find ourselves inextricably linked to corporations. We have seen evidence here that we are-all of us-registered as a corporation at birth. Government agencies cannot deal with men and women: they can only interact with your legal fiction (corporation) and if you disbelieve me, try it. Try to get a judge to see you as a man or a woman and he or she will scurry out of the court as if their ermine was alight.
When I started all this, I was disgusted by that fact and wanted to run away, I wanted to run far, and I wanted to keep running. Nowadays I am more interested in making my "corporation" work for me.
In the UK men & women have rights and access to benefits. Benefits are cheap, shoddy things, and rights are solid gold. We need to learn how to use both to our advantage. Naturally, the government will almost always want you to go for the benefits. Benefits can be removed, while rights cannot. Rights can be given up though.
You should learn how not to give them up, ever.
It won't happen overnight. Amending the Constitution will probably take years.
But like I said, it's a start.
Regulars will know that I abhor the use of the term "human being" because I discovered some time ago that under 13th century Venetian Law (later converted to Vatican Law with almost no changes) the definition for human being is (variously) 1. Monster 2. Imbecile and 3. Child. I confess that I have been a 2 at times, and I was a 3 for while, but I have never been a 1. Yet this is how (some) continue to view us.
Bollocks. I said I wouldn't blether on, then I did just that.
Tip of the beret to Coz in the previous comments for the link. Thanks!
Just received a letter from the Procurator Fiscal. It is short and to the point.
Dear Sir,
I refer to your letter received here on 7 December 2011. The terms of the Conditional Offer are quite clear. If you decide not to accept the offer, you will be prosecuted in Court.
Yours faithfully
Procurator Fiscal
My reply, which I posted about ten minutes ago was also short and to the point:
Dear Sir
I refer to your letter dated 8/12/11.
The terms of my offer are equally clear.
You have no authority over me and no jurisdiction in this case. I reiterate that should you invite me to court you will be obliged to pay my fee.
Without Vexation-Without Frivolity-Without Prejudice-Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
My mark
He has two choices: drop it, or ask me to attend court. I am prepared for either outcome.
I also received another letter from a DCA. The same one chasing that £31.00 from last year. That Sky thing.
In big, bold red lettering it says:
FINAL OFFER-IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
DEADLINE FOR FURTHER ACTION: 7 DAYS.
"As a gesture of goodwill, our client will accept £23.25 as full & final payment for the above debt providing payment is received in our office by 16th December 2011. Please note that this is a Time Barred Offer. If payment is not received by the above date then the settlement figure will be revoked and no such offer will be made again".
(They then go on to tell me how I can pay them).
I responded thusly:
FINAL OFFER-IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED BY YOU
9 December 2011
Dear DCA
As a gesture of goodwill, I will accept the sum of £5,000 (five thousand pounds) as full and final payment for the harassment you have visited upon me.
This is a Time Barred Offer and you must settle within 30 (thirty days) of receipt of this Notice.
Failure to make payment to me will cause the figure to double to £10,000 (ten thousand pounds).
In the spirit of fair play, however, I will agree to pay £23.25 as soon as you send me a copy of the contract signed between DCA and Captain Ranty.
As I have said repeatedly, I have never heard of you.
I am now tired of telling you that I verbally cancelled the contract with Sky in good time. That they cannot find a record of this conversation is no concern of mine.
Leave me alone or suffer the consequences.
Without frivolity, ill-will or vexation,
(my mark)
I forgot to tell you that when I was in Namibia Mrs Ranty told me that they had sent a letter promising to send in the burly men. I contacted the DCA and told them that I was abroad and that they should stay the hell away from my family. They did not appear.
So, two fights picked, they shot first and I have returned fire, let's see what happens next.
I am kind of looking forward to the court thing, if it happens.
