Is common law jurisdiction in the corporate matrix a conspiracy theory or fact?

About two years ago, my internet navigation radar stumbled upon a small flurry of web pages which went on about STRAWMAN and other words which to be honest confused me a little. Up until the last half a year, I have not really pursued the elusive 'STRAWMAN' as much as I should have from the beginning. Since, I have stepped it up, and been busily attempting to learn enough legalese and process to claim common law jurisdiction properly, also to serve a notice of understanding and intent with claim of rite/affidavit of truth to the involved corporations. Since then I have served my first notice of conditional acceptance on the council over a parking charge notice, which incurred them no loss as per usual. Considering it has been seven days (stipulated in notice) from notice date with recorded mail confirming delivery, it has now become binding as we have had no reply. I'm going to wait a little longer before declaring all out success.

All this led me to an opportunity today to have the pleasure of speaking to a freshly sworn, just out of police-school peace officer, about many things.
One set of questions which were asked was about the freeman on the land law approach and my understanding of the law. I asked him if the oath he swore was to uphold the law and the queen's peace, which he confirmed as correct. I then asked if the law was law of the land aka common law and he confirmed this. I then asked if his office of constabulary was a common law jurisdiction and he further confirmed this. I then stated "it is my understanding that statutes or acts are only given authority by consent, as authority without consent is fascism." I decided against getting into definitions, however he confirmed consent is required but also added that he thinks some statutes can't always be defeated by common law jurisdiction, however he's not 100% sure and to check with his superior about that one, then if no answer, to go up the chain. I said that the crimes act 1961 section 20 (1)(2) clearly state that common law is a justification or excuse for this or any other enactment (judicial servants, if on oath, swear to uphold common law and must recognise its jurisdiction, in addition an enactment has no lawful authority over or to alter a natural law, so this trumps any 'inconsistency or altered by this act' wriggling room). He had a rather surprised look and stated he did not know that but would look into it. I also asked him about a breach of peace and how he was taught it was defined, he said it really depends on each circumstance, which I guess is a fair but broad answer.
He was a really lovely guy and I hope I run into more awesome peace officers like him in positive situations, it's little meetings like this which reconfirm my little remaining faith in humanity and give me hope, in a non obama-reptillian-hopenosis way.

I count that encounter as a win for the freeman movement and the common law believers. If anything this proves freeman on the land more to me than anything, conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact.

Here's the relevant act of parliament on the New Zealand government legislation website

0 General rule as to justifications * (1) All rules and principles of the common law which render any circumstances a justification or excuse for any act or omission, or a defence to any charge, shall remain in force and apply in respect of a charge of any offence, whether under this Act or under any other enactment, except so far as they are altered by or are inconsistent with this Act or any other enactment. (2) The matters provided for in this Part are hereby declared to be justifications or excuses in the case of all charges to which they are applicable. Compare: 1908 No 32 s 40

www.legislation.govt.nz...

The government whom is listed on the securities exchange commision website as 'HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND', a corporation registered to the exact same address as the treasury. Time for me to dream and dwell on this after some parting words.


My my, the rabbit hole can spiral down swiftly, even if you peer in the devils own library.

The consent of the governed (not individual consent) is acertained by you being able to vote for a representative who then makes the law.

Individual consent is not required (If it was there would be no reason to make laws in the first place)

Also note that if statute law requires consent to be valid, the same would be true for common law.
Now, common law is propably not what you think it is: Its a system of law described by the decisions of judges (precedent). It has its advantages (Judges dont need to wait for parliament to come up with laws if something new appears before them) and its disadvantages (gets incredibly difficult to read/understand/research, and judges can make bad decisions too)
I myself am from a country that only knows civil law, and doesnt have common law (That would be one of those that isnt britain or a former colony of britain)
Not sure about new zealand but in britain parliament rules supreme, and cant be bound by common law, or even by parliament itself (As set down in the statute known as Bill of Rights)