tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post2806377638529333560..comments2023-09-10T16:35:32.651+01:00Comments on Captain Ranty-Lawful Rebel: My Response To The CourtCaptain Rantyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-1352508574773367372012-03-03T16:42:00.152+00:002012-03-03T16:42:00.152+00:00I have just entered a situation like yours. A spee...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-71164858495404241352011-12-07T05:55:12.360+00:002011-12-07T05:55:12.360+00:00Hi CR,
God bless you. If you ever go to court wit...Hi CR,<br /><br />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.Gareth.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-4975508574994920942011-12-06T22:50:26.941+00:002011-12-06T22:50:26.941+00:00Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
...Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?<br /><br />And the Queen answering,<br /><br />I am willing.<br /><br />The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and The Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.<br /><br />Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?<br /><br />Queen. I will.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Queen. All this I promise to do.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />and as to judges etc<br />Oath of Allegiance<br /><br />The Oath of Allegiance is in the following form:<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />[edit] Official Oath<br /><br />The Official Oath is in the following form:<br /><br /> I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in the office of (office). So help me God.<br /><br />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:<br /><br /> First Lord of the Treasury (also the Prime Minister)<br /> Chancellor of the Exchequer<br /> Lord Chancellor<br /> Lord President of the Council<br /> Lord Privy Seal<br /> Secretaries of State<br /> President of the Board of Trade<br /> Lord Steward<br /> Lord Chamberlain<br /> Earl Marshal<br /> Master of the Horse<br /> Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster<br /> Paymaster General<br /> Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland (the First Minister of Scotland)<br /> Keeper of the Privy Seal of Scotland<br /> Lord Clerk Register<br /> Advocate General for Scotland<br /> Lord Justice Clerk.<br />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.<br />Where diod you get your degree the back of a corn flakes packet!<br />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...<br />Oh that WAS a biblical allusion CL Joshua I think it was at Jericho... with trumpets/horns<br /><br /><br />wv= Toute sounds about right ish eh Cap'nnominedeushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06880828700080164569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-51849537683768777742011-12-06T12:15:24.631+00:002011-12-06T12:15:24.631+00:00I just want to point out the weight of experience ...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.<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Renton" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Renton</a><br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/may/25/guardianobituaries.obituaries1" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/may/25/guardianobituaries.obituaries1</a><br /><br />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.<br /><br />In 2000, Lord Renton said:<br /><i>"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."</i><br /><br />To which Earl Russell responded:<br /><i>"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."</i><br /><br />All the best to you Ranty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-88360435466895641402011-12-06T11:58:40.443+00:002011-12-06T11:58:40.443+00:00(CR, I'm here under a new guise - let me know ...(CR, I'm here under a new guise - let me know your email address and I'll put you in the loop.)<br /><br />Antony, I'm a Libertarian and I fully agree. <br /><br />Mr. FrostAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-21218752259216934832011-12-06T11:51:15.383+00:002011-12-06T11:51:15.383+00:00One thing that really comes across here is the fer...One thing that really comes across here is the ferocity of the attacks against you from so called "Libertarians".<br /><br />Surely a true Libertarian would be sat in the back seat watching with interest and offering quiet support, as in, do no harm?<br /><br />I interpret that to be both physical and mental harm, which is polar opposites to what has been displayed here.<br /><br />@CL & Anon<br /><br />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.<br /><br />All power to you, CR. Keep going.Antonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-518348428612355392011-12-06T10:12:17.483+00:002011-12-06T10:12:17.483+00:00i have to laugh at c.l.
the law system is based fr...i have to laugh at c.l.<br />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.<br />god created man in his own image,there is nothing greater.<br />man created communities,<br />communities created 'society',<br />society created goverment,<br />goverment created statutes,<br />statutes give power of 'authority'to individuals,try to usurp law and with that comes tyranny,<br /><br />statutes are way down on the list,there is no greater power than oneself,<br />the master, servant routine has been swithed, you just have to wake up to the power we actually have,the hundreth monkey is near.<br />go cap!!<br />nige.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-35529216922910103622011-12-06T08:42:15.539+00:002011-12-06T08:42:15.539+00:00Well. Very interesting discussion.
Glad you'...Well. Very interesting discussion. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-89926066931847886562011-12-06T07:01:27.559+00:002011-12-06T07:01:27.559+00:00Mr Civil Libertarian said...
'I'm not...Mr Civil Libertarian said...<br /><br /> 'I'm not interested in religious arguments. Like, really, really, really am not. Anyone who tries to cite God in court deserve jail.'<br /><br />This is a joke, right?<br /><br />DavidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-79789620326994987282011-12-06T01:51:09.986+00:002011-12-06T01:51:09.986+00:00Great letter. Sorry, 'notice'. I'm cer...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'. <br /><br />Brilliant stuff. I can't see the remotest flaw.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-35210874918541906582011-12-05T22:51:43.714+00:002011-12-05T22:51:43.714+00:00Sorry CR I have posted a few comments here and see...Sorry CR I have posted a few comments here and seem to have taken advantage.<br />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<br />CL<br />'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.'<br /><br />I seem to remember that CL HAS made a claim here and is asking US to demonstrate it.<br />Are these double standards, do you think?<br />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.'<br /><br />So fucking funny I nearly wet myself.Live an 'Achievable Life'https://www.blogger.com/profile/08254158813680625872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-89034300696340763212011-12-05T22:39:23.649+00:002011-12-05T22:39:23.649+00:00Now I am not generally known for my common sense, ...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.<br /><br />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. <br />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.<br /><br />Wouldn't that be the same as reverting BACK to before the law was passed?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So we use the only laws available to us to bring remedy.<br />What would you use?<br />TPTB are blatantly using force, a monkey with a pointed stick can not fail to see this.<br /><br />What do you suggest we do, bend over and have the pineapple inserted, some would enjoy this but not I.Live an 'Achievable Life'https://www.blogger.com/profile/08254158813680625872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-24776201651927919902011-12-05T22:12:54.229+00:002011-12-05T22:12:54.229+00:00HOW? just HOW is anyone able to contradict a syste...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?<br /><br />To ask one to point to an ACT or statute that supports a contradictory stance is pure senility.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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'<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQYjlP6fjFA&feature=player_embedded<br />and the other <br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ry0LmFP3Ig#t=1m 15s <br /><br />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.<br />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'.<br /><br />What you are doing is rescuing the very people who are guilty and as such you are committing a crime under law. <br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />CL?Live an 'Achievable Life'https://www.blogger.com/profile/08254158813680625872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-12729909078663323572011-12-05T22:11:44.412+00:002011-12-05T22:11:44.412+00:00Thanks for the assist TSL!
Great stuff.
Regardin...Thanks for the assist TSL!<br /><br />Great stuff.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />The die is indeed cast, my friend. <br /><br />Rubicons have also been crossed. (Thanks James).<br /><br />I am in a state of war with the, erm, state.<br /><br />Onwards!<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-68559000493873763022011-12-05T21:59:05.841+00:002011-12-05T21:59:05.841+00:00At 17.13, Captain Ranty said:
"Are you aware...At 17.13, Captain Ranty said: <br />"Are you aware that no parliamant can unmake a thing they did not make?"<br /><br />At 17.20, Anonymous replied: <br />"Care to substantiate that claim? With, you know, authorities other than your own say-so?"<br /><br />In 2000, Lord Renton said: <br /><b>"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." </b> <br /><br />To which Earl Russell responded: <br />"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." <br /><br />As is recorded in <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2000/jul/20/football-disorder-bill#column_1208" rel="nofollow">Hansard</a>; <i>sic veritas dicebatur</i>.<br /><br />“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.<br /><br />When comparing the laws of England and Scotland, Lord Coke said: <br />"That as there is one Language in both, so there was one kind of government and <b>one law in ancient time that ruled both</b> 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 <i>de verbo in verbum</i>, and many times our Granvil is cited therein by speciall name."<br /><br />"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 <i>Regiam Majestatem</i>.<br /><br />Coke then lists many more similarities, finally pointing out that the differences (such as then existed) were down to statute: <br />"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."<br /><br />All from 4. Inst. 345-7. Coke's distinctions are sometimes (conveniently) lost on later commentators and writers.<br /><br />At 15.37, Captain Ranty said: <br />“The 1911 Parliament Act says that Madge doesn't have to sign anything because "the monarch never refuses Assent" (this is a lie)."<br /><br />At 15.40, Mr Civil Libertarian replied: <br />"That sound is the "citation needed" claxon."<br /><br />Whilst the Act itself does not include that exact line, Halsbury's Laws of England says:<br /><br /><b>"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."</b><br /><br />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...)<br /><br />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".<br /><br />Whilst I don't do it either, as people have mentioned the good book dare one recall, say, Deuteronomy 4:2?! ;-)<br /><br /><i>Alea iacta est</i>, CR!<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />TSLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-75577531969602076992011-12-05T21:57:42.556+00:002011-12-05T21:57:42.556+00:00Hi Pitano,
Good to have you here. Thanks for the ...Hi Pitano,<br /><br />Good to have you here. Thanks for the comment.<br /><br />:) What kind of court? Heh!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />We should see a few more wins now that we are learning the rules.<br /><br />As OR says, we have had some successes but we need many more before they realise that the jig is up.<br /><br />Even the band has packed up and fucked off. They really are slow on the uptake, these legal genii.<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-22566532697365305102011-12-05T21:50:25.107+00:002011-12-05T21:50:25.107+00:00hi captain.
firstly let me say i`m with you 100%
...hi captain.<br />firstly let me say i`m with you 100% <br /><br />but i`m a little confused,by the word ..court`that keeps popping up.<br /><br />are we talking`badminton/tennis..or?<br /><br />i notice that the word LAW/COURT OF.<br />has been rather thin on the ground.<br /><br /><br />even on the outside of these dives<br />you will not see hide nor hair of this word.<br /><br />surely if they were practicing this it would be displayed with pride for all to see,would it not.?<br /><br />make one think `does me anyway`.<br /><br />i to because of the corruption we are up to our eyebrows in, am in lawfull rebbelion.<br /> <br />i have not informed her mag,why the fuck should i,if i say i`am,<br />i`am,she has never written to me.<br /><br />any way i digress,let me just congratulate you on the honorable way you are conducting yoursef in your affairs.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />keep up the good work captain.<br /><br />here is a question for cl.<br /><br />can you tell us the differance between a magistrates court,and a bank.?pitano1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-24792802141433304162011-12-05T21:42:34.627+00:002011-12-05T21:42:34.627+00:00The word Lawyer is from the late 16th Century comb...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.Live an 'Achievable Life'https://www.blogger.com/profile/08254158813680625872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-91640634618625268132011-12-05T21:39:09.286+00:002011-12-05T21:39:09.286+00:00Phil,
Thanks for the support.
CL's blog can ...Phil,<br /><br />Thanks for the support.<br /><br />CL's blog can be found here:<br /><br />http://mrcivillibertarian.co.uk/<br /><br />His latest post has a go at me too.<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-77842987745654706722011-12-05T21:37:18.947+00:002011-12-05T21:37:18.947+00:00CL,
Are you a lawyer?
Really?
I ask because alm...CL,<br /><br />Are you a lawyer?<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />I ask because almost every maxim in law comes from the bible.<br /><br />Our basic laws are lifted directly from it:<br /><br />Thou shalt not kill<br />Thou shalt not steal<br />Thou shalt not bear false witness (perjury)<br /><br />etc etc.<br /><br />I'm not saying law is based on the bible but the law sure does refer to the bible a great deal.<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-66371396690279307512011-12-05T21:35:11.528+00:002011-12-05T21:35:11.528+00:00CL I am still waiting for the link to your blog or...CL I am still waiting for the link to your blog or to anything you have written which illustrates your knowledge and understanding.<br />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'.<br />So come on lets have it. Testimonial = testicles as is written under LAW (definition).Live an 'Achievable Life'https://www.blogger.com/profile/08254158813680625872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-1993293033058107062011-12-05T21:28:56.041+00:002011-12-05T21:28:56.041+00:00The Primary Law that Governs all Court Cases wheth...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 ><br />TITLE IV. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCELive an 'Achievable Life'https://www.blogger.com/profile/08254158813680625872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-21106713436368046842011-12-05T21:21:29.426+00:002011-12-05T21:21:29.426+00:00Well in Scotland CL our laws are based upon Roman ...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.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-87917097484267930142011-12-05T21:09:04.222+00:002011-12-05T21:09:04.222+00:00"Errrr, what's that thing you swear on in..."Errrr, what's that thing you swear on in court ?, and say so help me god"<br />And you honestly think this means we're based on some code of religious law?<br /><br />Really?<br />Really?<br />Really?Mr Civil Libertarianhttp://mrcivillibertarian.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-88526612415668676212011-12-05T20:31:40.524+00:002011-12-05T20:31:40.524+00:00Now you see what I mean.you will take any and all ...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. <br />READ AGAIN I merely stated: 'where these citations made by GOD? or was it a man or men?' <br />For those slow of thinking it was 'MAN' that made the citations.<br />MEN unlike CL are fallible, hence the reason acts and statutes need to be corrected more oft than not.<br /><br />MINE, however is the same as CR's and is not by any stretch of the imagination religious. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Having said that I do not know your views and if I am wrong I will, as a man of honour, apologise.<br />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.<br /><br />Namaste, rev;<br />Mine is the name given to the post and I have other blogs too so you can see them.Live an 'Achievable Life'https://www.blogger.com/profile/08254158813680625872noreply@blogger.com