Hundreds of council tax protesters storm courtroom in attempt to make citizens' arrest of judge, page 2

reply to post by Mike_A

---

I would be very interested to see that myself
2nd line

reply to post by Mike_A

---

Under common law, public officials are under oath to serve the public. Plain and simple. If they are not serving the best interests of the people, then they are breaking their oath. A Free Person should not be subject to laws, such as taxes, other wise they are essentially still slaves.

reply to post by Portugoal

---

reply to post by Portugoal

---

Err no, I asked for a statute or ruling that makes it a legal requirement for a judge to confirm his oath to a defendant and gives the powers of arrest to a defended should a judge not do this?

That is the claim, that is what you said was great, that is what I said is meaningless. We’re not arguing over whether a judge takes an oath or your philosophical ideals we are arguing over the legal status of a group of people who stormed a court to get someone off paying a tax bill.

Reply to post by Mike_A

---

If I understand this correctly, statutes are corporate law. They would not make a (corporate) law to hamper themselves.

The judge took an oath that is a common law oath, but is judging using corporate law, therefore breaking his common law oath.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

My thread on this subject is here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Mike_A

---

Sorry for the delay, I've been kinda busy. Essentially, you can look at is under the same umbrella as perjury. If the civil servant's job (i.e the judge) is to serve the public, and he does not do so, then he is breaking his oath. The judge's refusal to answer the simple question exemplifies this.

*I know you're going to say it isn't perjury per se, it revolves around the same idea of being under oath.

Since the judge is unable to confirm his oath under common law, he is trying to illegally impose the law.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

---

Well no. That's my point, you won't find any evidence of this outside looney blogs; it's made up.

Portugal said what this group did was legal, I want him to prove it by showing me the specific legal documents that make it so.

I'll continue bumping this up until Portugal either posts the above, admits he has nothing or stops visiting the forum.

reply to post by Portugoal

---

No, you say its lawful so post the legal statutes or caselaw that makes it so. Can you do that or not? If not, why?

I've already looked for it, I know that it doesn't exist.

www.youtube.com...

Just found this video, not watched it yet (as i'm live on air), although it may be relevant.

I shall watch it when i get out of the radio station and back home.

While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
  Posted 19 days ago with 81 member flags

People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 4 days ago with 72 member flags

Critical Mass Has Arrived: Fast & Furious Scandal - Dems Join With GOP
  Posted 17 days ago with 32 member flags

Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 14 days ago with 26 member flags

President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags

Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 7 days ago with 24 member flags

Police Tasings Might Finally Be Ruled Brutality
  Posted 13 days ago with 23 member flags

US judge blocks indefinite detention of Americans
  Posted 12 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: