April 02, 2011

Just For The Cops

This blogpost is for the police officers that swing by.

We know that you police by statute. What we'd like to know is when you will begin to enforce these:

"1. To pre-fine someone in England is contrary with the Bill of Rights Act 1688, "And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed.All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme".

2. To pre-fine someone in Scotland is contrary with the Claim of Right Act 1689, "By imposeing exorbitant fines to the value of the pairties Estates exacting extravagant Baile and disposeing fines and forefaultors befor any proces or Conviction"....."All which are utterly and directly contrairy to the knoune lawes statutes and freedomes of this realme".

3. ANY Act (and I mean that in all senses of the word) which prevents a subject from enjoying their right to travel within the UK is "contrary and inconsistent" with the Acts of Union 1706 and 1707 Article 4 -

"That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging And that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles."

and Article 25 -

"That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms"

That means parking tickets, FPN's, PCN's, driving licenses, car insurance, MOT's, road tax, speeding and so on....in fact ANYTHING which restricts our "FULL FREEDOM".

Nothing more needs to be said or done, this is black and white. These are Constitutional Acts and are paramount.

Obey the Law, uphold the Law."

The comment above came from the brilliant mind of FMOTL stalwart, huntingross. More than most, his words, written so clearly over the last few years, have sent me hither and yon, digging and researching and learning. All credit goes to him for this wonderfully simple explanation to police officers on which laws they should uphold. Read the whole debate if you have time. You can find it here.

You will also find the writings of Prajna. If you want to learn more about Prajna, this article will help.

This is one of the quotes he used during the debate with Hoops, a serving copper. (Hoops, BTW, is unusual. He is trying to understand Freemen and actively engages in the conversation.)

"It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement." - Etienne de la Boetie, 1552-53

Although I kicked off by saying this post was intended for police officers, it wouldn't do any of us any harm to read and remember it.

These are your rights. They get trampled on every single day in the governments craving for your hard-earned cash. Remind the police officers who try to steam-roller you. They may not know what they do. Explain it to them, gently, calmly, and politely.

Know your rights, defend your rights, and starve the beast.



NewsboyCap said...


Good post,and that prajna dude speaks well,any more links to prajnas wise words ?

BTW, I put her maj on notice yesterday,she's now got forty days(10th May) to put things right then the gloves are off. You were right it is both emotional and uplifting to know that I am doing my bit for future generations.

Anonymous said...

CR... Did you receive my email OK?


Captain Ranty said...


If you do a search at FMOTL you will find a pile of great posts by Prajna.

Roll on 10th May!

Don't forget to send her your second affidavit. She won't acknowledge that one either, but after that, you are as free as a bird.

Then you can start to have some fun.


Captain Ranty said...


Yes I did.

I am on the case. Will get back to you in a day or so.

Be well,


StealthMode said...

Fantastic ;)

hangemall said...

A quick point, Captain.

1. Laws AND Statutes? Are they differentiating betweetn the two or is it just a fancy legal way of putting things?

Captain Ranty said...


Did you mean this line:

"That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom..."?

I think back then (in 1707) the lawmakers recognised the difference. What surprises me is that they wrote it down! They wouldn't do that today because they want us slaves to think that statutes are supreme. They are not.

Natural Law trumps everything else.


microdave said...

I hope you aren't expecting Inspector Gadget to pop his nose over the parapet, and try and justify "kettling" innocent people for hours, with no access to food drink and toilets.

I'm really looking forward to the day when a knowledgeable victim takes out a private prosecution against a member of the police on human rights grounds...

Anonymous said...

FFS, Ranty, much of what you write I'm up for, but this bollox about no licence, no insurance, and so on is so much crap!.

I don't want to see any restriction on peoples ability to freely move around, but it HAS to be conditional!

It has to be right that the vehicle you use is not going to cause anyone else any harm - agreed? It also has to be right that anyone using such a "safe" vehicle is competent - right?

Taxation - heh, don't go there....

But, don't I have the right to venture around unrestricted? And, if my movement is restricted by an incompetent? Someone who cannot demonstrate their competence by passing a test and obtaining a licence? Or whose vehicle is not safe?

Yes, you guessed - I'm a regulator. But I believe the regulations I apply add to the safety of the travelling public, and do not restrict the freedom of the public.

For example - a non-insured vehicle, that is unsafe (by our MOT standards), driven by a non-licensed driver, involved in a pedestrian accident, which results in the death of the pedestrian.

What price your claims, then?

Captain Ranty said...


I don't want to teach you to suck eggs, but, you must be aware that anything that requires a license is already lawful?


So the license (driving, owning guns, or running a boozer, for example) is either for revenue generation or a means of control.

The key point is that it/they are lawful practises.

I admit I am torn on insurance. I prefer to have it, as a means of protecting myself and the other driver, should an accident occur.

An MOT, as you are no doubt aware, is a snapshot. 1 nanosecond after the MOT is issued the car could be unsafe or unroadworthy. Freemen that I know, who say they do not want to get an MOT get instead, an Engineers Report. This is worth several MOT's.

The only people who should have their movement controlled are slaves.


Dark Lochnagar said...

Good post Ranters.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks DL!

Elby the Beserk said...

"To pre-fine"

Precise definition, please?

Captain Ranty said...


In this case it means being found guilty of an alleged offence, and fined by way of a fixed penalty notice.

None of us should be fined until we have stood before our peers and made our case. Under the current, corrupted system, there is no way to defend yourself. This is unlawful.