UK - Protestors 'arrest' county court Judge - Police blockaded by protesters (One man hospitalised

page: 12
128
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scorpitarius
When you go to court, you need to have standing to be heard or recognized by the court...which can be gained several ways. So, in our discussion, we want to achieve "common law" standing...basically ensuring common law jurisdiction.
So, for example, before you enter the court, ask any magistrates if it is a court of record (to ensure what you and the court representatives say and do go on record.)


1. You have standing by being a party to the issue.

2. The Magistrates’ court is not a court of record anyway, so the answer has to be “no”. This does not prevent a record being made of proceedings but it means there is no expectation of it happening. It is still worth noting that statutory equivalents of some common law powers of the superior courts of record (ie contempt) have been granted to Mags.


Originally posted by Scorpitarius
You want to avoid following orders, as that will change the jurisdiction from common law to maritime admiralty law. So don't "rise" when told to...don't agreee you your name being MR/MRS JOHN/JANE DOE, as this is the corporations name. If you follow any order from the courts, say ensure that it goes on record that you are doing so of your own free will. Etc...etc.. and there is so so so so much more to it.


3. Changing from common law to maritime admiralty law? Where is the authority for this statement? Can you point to any statute, regulation, case law or even authoritative piece of legal academic writing that supports this statement? It seems to have been pulled out of the air by someone and no one has ever provided any actual law to back it up. I think this is also a US-specific argument but if you can answer it from the US perspective it would still be very helpful.

4. The questions I am asking are to help me identify not just what you argue the law is, but WHY you say it is the law. I understand that you are identifying a separate legal entity (the “corporation”) but I still don’t understand WHY you say it exists or how it is created. What is the legal premise?


Originally posted by Scorpitarius
When a lawyer joins the law society, the bar, they have to take an oath to the bar. This ensures that the "secrets" of law are not revealed. I read a book by a lawyer once...he explained how the lawer goes from being a young, energetic and inspired student, wanting to make a difference, but how the law education slowly breaks him down until...by the time he realises it's such a scam, he's got too much money and power to want to change it. A very in depth book. The law society is what started the Legalese language and people agree to be ruled by the law society when they do (or don't do) certain things. I can't really explain this much further, but like I said, the info IS out there. Some understanding have come to me over a long period of time, after researching many different sources and pulling them together....so Im sorry if Im not much help regarding societies and the Bar.


5. I can’t speak for the US Bar but this is certainly not the case for the UK Bar. Goodness only knows what the solicitors get up to but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they don’t swear that kind of oath either.

6. What was the book?


Originally posted by Scorpitarius
A corporation is given legal rights. Keep this in mind.
A legal person, according to my findings, is as follows...
PERSON: A human being - Also termed natural person.
Human being is defined as SEE MONSTER; Monster is essentially a creature not allowed to own property. NATURAL PERSON does NOT define what a person is. Thats like saying GLASS-ALSO TERMED TRANSPARANT GLASS...this doesn't tell you what glass IS any more than natural person tells you what a person is. so the only definition left is corporation. Let me know if that doesn't make sence.
Rememeber, "there will be no INVOLUNTARY servitude...but I think everybody voluntarily got registered.


7. When the opportunity presents I will have to hit the dictionaries because that seems like a very bizarre definition to find in a legal dictionary. Do you have an edition/ISBN or similar for the dictionary you used? Also, the term “natural person” is used to distinguish from a non-natural “person”, ie the artificial construct that represents a business for legal purposes. Natural person, then, is someone who is NOT a business or corporation.


Originally posted by Scorpitarius
I agree with point 7 I think...If I understood correctly.
I can't remember the specific info, Im sure I could find it again in my mass of notes should you not be able to find it youself, but the capitalization of a name originated from (and here's where i forget...Roman law, corporate law...im not sure.) but this capitalization was carried over when living souls first started being used as colateral.


8. Hopefully point 7 was clear enough for your understanding to be correct. It was very late and I was half-asleep when I wrote that post, it might get a little confusing in places!

9. I would be very interested if you could direct me to the sources from your notes for this. If they are not readily to hand then do not worry about it, but it would be useful to see for the sake of comparison.


Originally posted by Scorpitarius
I'm sure legalese carries the definition you've mentioned, however, you may wish to look up it's definition according to lawers. Read the law dictionaries if you doubt what I'm saying about the language. At least there you'll find tangible proof as opposed to asking for my opinions to try and proove to you.
I keep saying, start doing some research of your own as well as asking questions here.


10. I have. That’s the problem

edit on 9-3-2011 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by lawlb0t
...
The judge failed to present his certificate of oath, meaning he is an imposter. That is fraud on the court. The judge takes orders and executes them, he doesn't make his own, he isn't god. He is a public official, public officials are public servants, they serve the sovereign people. All the courts are de facto commercial courts, and to operate in commerce you need to have liability, the judges oath turned into a certificate of oath is his liability.
...
The Judge wouldn't want to give his certificate of oath because that guy will know how to hold him liable, he has made judges run from the court for committing fraud many times.


Apologies, I meant to reply to this but got carried away with a different post.

If you could assist me with the following, that would be appreciated.
What is a certificate of oath?
What piece of law requires a certificate?
What piece of law requires him to present it to anyone on request?

In relation to the second point, you don't let yourself get drawn on the irrelevant and legitimise an otherwise illegitimate debate by engaging in it. Walk away. No point in deliberately winding up or enabling an already unstable person if it can be avoided.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ozscot

YOUR Country? Now just which country might that be?


The one MY people have been inhabiting for 12,000 years. Albu (aka Alba, Albion and, more recently, Britain). But that's all off topic.

But in my experience those who are not at work on a week day are more often or not unemployed



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Great to see people doin something about all this for once. we better get used to this because all the lies are starting to show and we need to sort it out!



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 

Sorry, don't know why this saved...I went to edit and it posted this twice. can I delete this?
edit on 9-3-2011 by Scorpitarius because: Delete this?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Hey, rather than continue to answer your many many many questions (and please don't get me wrong, your questions are awesome, you should keep questioning....I just don't have this much time....he he, I'm getting in trouble from the better half for spending so much time on these replies, lol.....just as I did for 2 years of nothing but law law law, lol. I hope you understand) I have decided to offer you a link...
www.youtube.com...

(sorry, I couldn't figure out how to embed...I've seen that moderators can do this....so feel free if anyone would like to embed this for me? : )

I had heard about the difference between common law and admiralty law for over a year or so, but ignored it and thought nothing of it, until I saw this video. It offered (in my eyes) proof and applicability. This video caused me to do much much much research, leading to my understanding today.
In this video, a man drives with no license, no registration, no insurance and is pulled over by the cops. (this is in Canada I think, also a common wealth corporation.) the cop confirms he has none of the above, and lets him go.
I hope this is helpful in your mission. Please DO feel free to ask many more questions...I may not have time to answer all questions...but I will try my best.
Peace and One Love
edit on 9-3-2011 by Scorpitarius because: Wasn't done before I clicked submitt...



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scorpitarius
reply to post by EvillerBob
 




(sorry, I couldn't figure out how to embed...I've seen that moderators can do this....so feel free if anyone would like to embed this for me? : )







posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
These folls are using a law that has been repealed and isn't valid. This whole Freeman group are basing their idea's on a document that is largely invalid and has been surplanted by later documents and laws, such as the Bill of Rights, which had they used instead of MC, they might have a better legal footing.

I think Evillerbob and Sherlock have done a good job and generally sum up my thoughts on the matter, but I will address a few points in this thread.


Originally posted by Lynda101
Isn't it strange that we are now not allowed to photograph a police officer,


Isn't it strange people still believe this crap? Even the Police have now issued guidance to Officers who are in ignorance of what that particular legislation actually says.

It states that it is only illegal to photograph mkembers of military or military establishments if it can be proven that those images will be used in preparation of an Act of Terrorism or if a Senior Officer has used his powers under the Terrorism Act to declare a defined area as subject to the law and it is time limited, not indefinate.

Now, the only way they can prove that is by investigation and gathering of evidence for presentation in a Court, noty with arbitrary seizure of camera's and deletion of images on the street and also, the Police are not military, despite what they might like to think. They are Civilians too. I've had some fun with the Fuzz over this little "photgrapghing" thing and educated quite a few on what the Law actually says, not what they have been told it says.


Originally posted by Lynda101
although fortunately some of them are so stupid as to trunction whip little women and thrust people to the ground so heavily they die infront of national tv/security cameras. We are in dangerous territory because in the past we respected our police today I wonder if so many now do?


It has to be said that some of the examples of "Police brutality" provided in this thread are taken wholly out of context and in some of the video's you are seeing an edited version of what happened. It's all well and good showing the Police doing the beating, but they rarely show the "before" of someone being a right tit and usually being violent to begin with.


Originally posted by illuminnaughty
yes I agree with you on that point. germanic language was used before english. In fact the english are a bastard race with a bastard tongue. They invaded these isles.


English is a germanic language, with some French, Latin and others mixed in. It is also a total lie (was going to use the word Myth but felt it has been debunked enough now) to suggest that the English are not the original inhabitants of these islands.

I grow wiery of typing this again and again, but the short story is the Anglo Saxons did not wipe out or surplant the Romano-Britons or Celts that lived here before, but merely replaced the ruling elite. The Anglo-Saxon "invaders" (they were really mercenaries fighting for the Roman-British) numbered in the low tens of thousands, it wasn't the mass migration and ethnic cleansing some like to portray.

The same applies with the Normans. In fact, in the case of the Normans, at most 10,000 came over and most were in fact Breton who, if anyone actually knew their history not what dreamy eyed Celtic nationalists told them, are actually of the same ethnic group as the Celtic Britons! Even today, people in Brittany, France, speak a language that is much like Cornish or Welsh.


Originally posted by m0r1arty
Another ATS thread states it's about a council tax issue. It's the Daily Mail as a source and so who knows how much research has gone into it but it's making the rounds at least.


If you refuse to pay Council Tax (or any Tax), Bankruptcy is one of the options the courts can use against you.


Originally posted by Ozscot
Is that the one which became French in 1066 and is now ruled over by a German Monarch?


The Normans weren't French!

And the Queen is no more German than I am Irish, namely in that I might have Irish ancestors but that doesn't make me Irish!

And she can actually trace a direct line back to King Harold, the one who lost the crown to the Normans. All the Royal Houses of Europe are related and claiming the Queen is German is as daft as saying she is Dutch, or Norwegian, or Russian!

They are all interbred to the point that defining them to a national group based on ancestry is even more absurd and idiotic than normal. She was born in the UK and has resided here her whole life and doesn't speak a word of German.


Originally posted by Ozscot
Or is it the one which is largely Scandinavian historically?


Elaborate. I have ideas what you're on about but don't want to make assumptions.


Originally posted by Ozscot
Oppression is the English way


How so? The english have historically been very liberal people.


Originally posted by Ozscot
- Oppressed the Americans,


Again, how so? You cannot in one breath claim a German monrach on the throne then say the English oppressed the Americans! Even the soldiers used during the Revoluionary War were Hessian mercs (Germans in case you're wandering!)


Originally posted by Ozscot
most of Africa,


As did every other world power at the time and every world power does today. It has to be said though that British rule (not English..British..Different thing) was a damn site better than the poor sods whi ended up under the French or Belgians!


Originally posted by Ozscot
Australia


Oh, but those Australians there today are innocent in the decimation of Aborginal people? Must have been the English.. Despite alot of the population being Scots or Irish in origin, but lets not let facts get in the way of a good rant, hey?


Originally posted by Ozscot
and India


The Indians sold themselves out. Hardly an English soldier was in India until quite late on. For the most part, it was Indians fighting Indians, with the British (not English, the Scots and irish were there too!) taking advantage to make some dosh. Again, had it not been us, it would have been someone.


Originally posted by Ozscot
as well as the Irish,


Originally invaded by the Normans and then settled by Scots. Oh, but it was all those evil English...


Originally posted by Ozscot
Scots


Ah, this old chestnut. Do you understand the reasons for the wars between England and Scotland? There were, by and large, mostly to do with Scotland siding with the Pope/France and invading England. Scotland invaded England more than we did them and don't forget, it is they who requested Union with England while we had a Scottish monarch sat on our throne. We didn't desire it at all!


Originally posted by Ozscot
and Welsh


Wales was never a country and again, it was the Normans who invaded after they took England.


Originally posted by Ozscot
- I guess it should come as no surprise that they excel therefore at oppressing their own people.


What comes at no surprise is your crap historical awareness. Go read a book.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
'We would do well to remember our heritage and its basis in Magna Carta.
We would do well to remember that constitutional change arises through
consent following deliberation and that lies at the heart of our
democracy;a democracy that can ultimately trace its roots to
Runneymede.
Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls.
Lecture 16 June 2008.

F



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by fakedirt
 


Indeed, Magna Carta is important, but it isn't the be all and end all these peeps claim it is and it is largely replaced by much more relevant and modern legislation.

It is worth mentioning that MC only dealt with the rights of freemen, which at the time was mostly nobility as the common man was a serf, locked into a life of bondage to his feudal Lord. It was the Barons who had the right to lawful rebellion, not the common man. The last English serfs were "freed" in 1574, 350 odd years after the MC was signed, so even then it was largely out of date. Like I said, there is much more relvant legislation and documents from more modern times these people can use, rather than a feudal document.

I also find it amusing that these peeps also claim that MC is a guarantee of their rights when all it did was redistribute power from the monarch to feudal Lords. It is also amusing that they mention MC and Common Law in the same breath, as MC is a document from Feudal England whereas Common Law stems from a time before the Normans, who introduced feudalism, when the Anglo-Saxon kings ruled. Seems alot of people are getting history all knotted up to try and prove a very flimsy point.
edit on 12/3/11 by stumason because: Speling and typos



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 

thanks for the input. i have quite an interest in the history of our laws. yesterday i discussed with another member the actions of the bcg crowd and how the state would perceive this movement. it won't be the last we hear of this, however i await the outcome of the arrested individuals and the arguments they put on the table. an interesting situation whatever the outcome.
regards fakedirt (serf of the runny mead).




posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Humanity, although filled with apprehension when faced with rebellion toward any decree of objectionable law imposed through any class of humanity posing as elite, are compelled, through force when necessary, to refuse that which impede common law.

I would like to add a poem if it is ok.... this poem is from a friend and is posted with her permission.

I, Queen of Sovereignity stand with sovereign dignity, and take up the sword to cut the long cord that would bind my sovereign right. Common is the law that I confess for they have put me to the test by telling me how I am to live, and just how much I have to give.

It is DARKEST before TRUE SIGHT...... I am Queen.
edit on 12-3-2011 by ShelbyHunter because: spelling errors fixed



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Stumason - your explanation is an excellent example of the kind of logic, structure and clarity that these discussions so often need but usually lack. Thank you!



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
BEST VIDEO - of the event



Powerful is how i would best describe this video



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by johngtr

Powerful is how i would best describe this video


I find myself at odds with this statement. The main description than sprung to mind was "farcical and childish".

Each to their own, I suppose.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


How Is It Childish did you actually watch ALL of it, ?
What is Actually Childish about please specify



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by johngtr

Powerful is how i would best describe this video


I find myself at odds with this statement. The main description than sprung to mind was "farcical and childish".

Each to their own, I suppose.


farcical and childish,so please tell everyone what you done to try put a end to the corrupt system we all live and die under,i'm guessing not a damm thing.

your just a armchair critic,spouting negativity for people making a public stand and wanting change,and actively doing something about it.

we need a dis-like button.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by snapperski
 


Thank You Sir

2nd line





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
128
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join