Make of it what you will. It clears up a few things for me.
Thank you for your correspondence of 5 December where you have asked a further question relating to the principles of law within the English legal system.
Parliament is the supreme law-making authority in
England and and can legislate in whatever field of law it wishes. Laws passed by Parliament are referred to as Acts of Parliament or statute law. Statute law has become the commonest source of new laws or law reform since around the seventeenth century. Parliament can therefore legislate in all areas of law for example criminal, civil, commercial and public law. Wales
Statute law has not, however superseded the common law. Both sources of law remain significant within the English legal system and apply side by side. It is only when an Act of Parliament deals with an area of law previously covered by case law that the common law is superseded.
As mentioned in previous correspondence, the development of the common law in the English legal system can be traced back to the twelfth century. Statute law did not develop as the primary source of law until around the seventeenth century. Statutes can amend or replace common law in a particular area, but the common law cannot overrule or change statutes. A statute can only be overruled or amended by another, later piece of legislation. This reflects the legal and political doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty - the recognition and acceptance that Parliament is the supreme law-making authority.
Parliament is the representative of the people through election to the House of Commons. Members of Parliament are elected to represent the people and by those elections they have been legitimately handed the power to assess, enact or reject legislation.
The transfer of primacy from the common law to statute law was a gradual process which occurred simultaneously to the process of Parliament acquiring additional powers and establishing itself as the supreme law-making authority. There is no formal documentation or written evidence, for example legislation, to confirm this transfer.
I hope that you find this information helpful.
As other TPUC commenters have pointed out, if there is no evidence that parliament has the right to be "the supreme law-making authority" why do we simply believe them?
Here is a comment from Darren (hope you don't mind, mate!):
"Those letters are absolute proof that the government have no authority over anyone.
Unilateral contracts & defacto corporate systems all rely on our own consent. Regardless if you have voted or have a 'drivers' licence or registered your car or created a fiction/person at the registry office or have a bank account or sign on the dole or get tax credits or pay tax etc. None of it binds you to any system of control or government. They are contracts and considering there is not full disclosure means they are null and void anyway.
Remember folks, it's all a fiction. It's not real. It's just words of entrapment for those that haven't learned the manipulation techniques and so can't comprehend the truth behind it all.
The created can never be higher than the creator. The legal person is theirs to command, man isn't. People are not legal fictions.
We are all equal, so no-one has authority over anyone else. Simple really.
No harm or loss! That's all we need. Common Law true!"
My floor is your floor. Let me know what you think.
Ranty old bean.
I am rapidly coming to the same conclusion.
I am trying my damnedest to prove that statute laws are lawful, truthful, honourable and real. But whenever I get to the oopsi site to read through the specific statutes it becomes clear that something else is going on.
I am not a lawyer but I do have an excellent bullshit detector that rarely lets me down and bullshit is what I usually end up reading in statutes.
I have also taken to reading the legalese words as defined by Blacks Law third edition and some of them are off the planet or they appear to be until I then re-read the statutes and refer to the legalese definitions of the words they contain then you can clearly see why the statutes are worded the way they are.
Unlike you good sir I couldn't give a toss about proving this to anyone other than myself.
The majority in this land are happy within their state controlled comfort zone I am not and I have no desire to waste my breath or wear my fingertips down by trying to force them out of their slumbers or 'prove' my findings to them. Life is too short.
But as I continue to unpick what is turning out to be a really grand deception what is already clear whining on about what politicians are up to is total waste of time. No matter what colour flag they operate under they all piss in the same pot.
Learning legalese is vital, and so is having one of their dictionaries to learn what the "new" definitions for everyday words are.
If you were a lawyer you would stay the hell away from this stuff. They aren't trained in common law because there is no money in it for them so they protect their happy, rich little world by bogging each other (and us) down in the minutae. Cases live or die by the interpretation of a single line in a 400 page document.
Blacks have a Revision 9 that just came out. I have trouble with that: why do they need to redefine the same words in later revisions? Could it be because the plebs got access to their precious dictionary?
I read your great post called "Thought for the Day" and I agreed with your conclusion. The truth is buried in there somewhere, we just have to winkle it out.
Luckily for us there are thousands of us on the job now. We just need to join all the dots and we will rock their cosy little world.
The will of God ,Natural Law and the People is sovereign over all
temporal powers.The laws of Parliaments without the majority
consent of the People are invalid
in the eyes of all democratic principles.Democracy is constant
not periodical ie every 4or5 years.
A common man who obeys an unjust law is as much a criminal as the ones who fabricate that law.
Evil is sustained by compliance.
Some may mention anarchy,but then
again war is a form of human anarchy with which even politicians
The Inverted Pyramid
Captain Ranty, thank you for your pursuit of the facts underlying the Freeman movement. I have tried in the recent past to understand what it's all about and shall follow your progress with interest.
FWIW, I am the fellow who posted, at the BBC Resistance site (tvlicensing.biz), details of the provision in Common Law which allows the householder to withdraw the implied right of access to his property. From the forum there this information has now gone mainstream, and I understand that the BBC has had to establish a special unit to deal with the blizzard of instructions from disgruntled "customers". Since TVL's supposed electronic detection of evaders is a myth, this has left the BBC only one weapon: the search warrant. This is a most agreeable example of Common Law at work in favour of liberty and the individual, and I am keen to see what other treasures it can supply.
Hmm...one of my New Years' resolutions is to to learn more about the whole FOTL concept.
Personally, I have my doubts. Right now, I'm willing to believe that yes, there probably is enough in all this stuff to be able to throw legal spanners in the works (so to speak) if I should ever need to, but that at the same time, it won't save you if 'they're' really out to get you. Anyone visited FTAC Watch recently?
I'm not researching this route because I'm trying to get out of my credit card debts (unlike OH, who recently boasted in his comments section that he didn't have to pay his bill because they couldn't produce a written contract) - if this FOTL thing ISN'T totally iron-clad then trying something like that on is what I'd call bringing attention to yourself to the possible detriment of more honest people.
I just want to know exactly what my rights actually are, and what rights my children would be entitled to should I decide to bring any up in this God-forsaken country. So at the moment I remain to be totally convinced, but hopeful nonetheless...
God Speed You Captain Ranty. Watching both you and Holby with interest and hope.
Each time I am on the verge of understanding common law -v- statute law, a zillion questions spring to mind.
Can you produce, or point me towards an idiot's guide, Cap'n?
Watching says he "couldn't give a toss about proving this to anyone other than myself" and I can appreciate that.
But more people might be inclined to join the cause if there weren't so many questions unanswered or issues misunderstood.
You, and others here have asked some great questions, and I think I will try and produce a recap on what I have learnt so far. This subject is huge, and it is important to get the foundations down.
The trouble is, I am not an expert. I have learned a lot, but I learn more with each passing day.
Keep an eye out. The recap will be up shortly.
BEWARE: Commercial Redemption Rejected as Valueless
by Gregory Allan
That is what I thought, but I now know a lot more.
How can dead people (dead strawmen) make a claim? They cannot. CR fails because we have all been skipping the first step. We have to inform the govt that our legal fictions were not lost at sea. Then the CR process can properly begin.
Watch the video I link to. The pieces of the puzzle are starting to link up.
Post a Comment