It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

That long arm of the law, keeps getting shorter.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Here's a little snippet, to get you interested.

The information contained herein is now established fact. Feel free to check with a competent Lawyer.

There is law. Irrefutable and permanently applicable law which, as a peaceful individual is unlikely to ever affect you. It is called Common Law. Provided you keep the peace, do not cause injury, harm or loss to another individual, then you will remain within the terms of Common Law and will not break it.

Update: May, 2009: The definition should be: "Provided you keep the peace, do not cause harm or loss to another individual, and do not employ mischief in your promises and agreements, then you will remain within the terms of Common Law and will not break it."

But Statutes, as passed by Parliament (any Parliament or Congress) are not, necessarily, "the law". And, that being the case, there are circumstances where it is possible to ignore them - as if they did not exist. The circumstances and reasoning are fully explained herein.



Education's a wonderful thing, isn't it. Does anyone on here have the legal background to varify what's written on that page? Would just luurve to get that checked out. Just imagine pringing that out and leaving it in public places. *cheeky mode* I'm not even going to pretend I've understood all of it yet, think I'm going to have to read it a couple of times before it all sinks in. Then maybe sleep on it and read it again


Just thought it might be well received on here.


edit, because it'd be handy to have a link I suppose *blush*
links.veronicachapman.com...

[edit on 18/5/2009 by Acidtastic]

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/18/2009 by semperfortis]




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
If this was true, wouldn't every defense lawyer use this?
2nd
3rd
4th



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
If this was true, wouldn't every defense lawyer use this?
2nd
3rd
4th
All depends if lawyers kind of "forget" about it, or have fallen for the mirage that they actually have some control over us, and them. Maybe they get so wrapped up in all the little laws that there are to learn, that they forget the important stuff. Or, maybe, that's just part of the big ol' conspiracy.

Edit to add, are they even taught it?

[edit on 18/5/2009 by Acidtastic]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
If this was true, wouldn't every defense lawyer use this?
2nd
3rd
4th


I know that in the U.S. under common law that a jury can acquit for any offense where it deems the law unfair though defense lawyers are prohibited from discussing jury nullification. It really is the last non-violent line of defense against tyranny.

When I was summoned for jury duty, during the voir dire process, the presiding judge was kind enough to inform us that we were to "follow only the law", essentially misinforming the potential jury that they had no choice in the matter as far as enforcing what was on the books.

Given the case was involving child molestation, I would consider the case a serious matter had I been selected. If it were merely a case of drug possession, my mind would have been made up before the trial began and I would acquit, even if that ultimately meant that the jury could not reach a verdict.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Well, I've forwarded the site to a lady I know, who does research for some top law firms in London. If I can indeed, become a Freeman-On-The-Land, then that is just what I will do. And if it turns out to be legally binding, I shall do my best to spread the word. Wouldn't it be nice to just be able to denounce the state?



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join