Hidden Law History Of UK

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I would like your thought on this hidden law about birth certificate.After watching this video it made me wonna learn more about the subject hope people feel the same.

The music is a bit off putting but stick with it.



Lets take whats rightly are's




posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
OP check out these threads, They elaborate more deeply on this information.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


Just the sort of thing i was looking to read about. Thank you .Will be sure to let you know what i think .



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Its true if you have a birth certificate you are subject to statute law in the uk, If you dont have a birth certificate and are british born you are only subject to common law there is a massive difference, British born freemen cannot be prosecuted under statute law as they have no identification only thing is the government will forcé any citizen to register the birth of their child most parents that opt out get demonised and they generally lose their child to government Foster carers

statute law deals with petty offences that generally only carry a fine but fining a freeman is almost imposible unless they agree to pay it..

most gypsys in the uk are freemen they dont pay fines worry about speed cammeras or public order offences they basicaly tell judges to # off with a smile everytime they see 1 because they know its either time in jail as a John doe or go home to the caravan at an undisclosed location, It costs roughly 90 pounds a day to keep a uk prisoner and the judge knows this when he passes sentances so statute law is a preffered method of punishment freemen are very real danger to that method of control



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
most gypsys in the uk are freemen they dont pay fines worry about speed cammeras or public order offences they basicaly tell judges to # off with a smile everytime they see 1 because they know its either time in jail as a John doe or go home to the caravan at an undisclosed location


So how do you explain this...?


Jail sentences were handed down today to an Irish family, who had netted tens of millions of pounds worth of goods in a series of burglaries dating back 20 years.

Yesterday, after a crime spree that spanned 20 years and targeted the homes of the rich and famous, five members of a notorious Irish gypsy gang were finally locked away.


(Source).

These gypsies were arrested, prosecuted and jailed for their crimes. They're now serving 8-11 years each, identified not as mere 'John Does' but under their real names.

I guess telling the judge to # off with a smile didn't work!




posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Thats several huge offences the `pólice obviously had enough evidence to hold them on remand without bail because you cant bail a gypsy they dont have an address to bail too or a registered name in most cases so if the crime they commited is small enough to be dealt with using statute law a gypsy will walk away from it scot free thats what im saying.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 




"Freemen" believe that statute law is a contract, and that individuals can therefore opt out of statute law, choosing instead to live under what they call "common" (case) and "natural" laws. Under their theory, natural laws require only that individuals DO NOT harm others, DO NOT damage the property of others, and do not use "fraud or mischief"





These gypsies were arrested, prosecuted and jailed for their crimes. They're now serving 8-11 years each, identified not as mere 'John Does' but under their real names.


That there sir is not what we are talking about. There just mindless thugs out for themselves


Originally posted by Sankari

A public education is rightly yours. I'd start with that if I were you, and get your grammar cleaned up.


That the best you got my gammer



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Ignore him, Very interesting! i love reading stuff like this... thanks



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I don't know anything about the law in the UK, but I suppose there are certain similarities to American law. In the American system, none of the arguments used by "Freemen," "Sovereign Citizens," or those depending on "Hidden Law" have ever been succesful in courts that even wanted to be bothered with it.

The arguments have been rejected by every level of appelate court. Any licensed attorney even making the claims runs the risk of being reprimanded for offering a frivolous defense.

If you find something in the UK that allows for it I'd be surprised, but I suppose it's possible. But don't accept any claim for it coming from the US. Here, it's regarded as completely silly by the legal system. And it is the legal system which determines whether one is sentenced, not some blogger.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
In the American system, none of the arguments used by "Freemen," "Sovereign Citizens," or those depending on "Hidden Law" have ever been succesful in courts that even wanted to be bothered with it.


The same can be said for these arguments in Canada.

A recent court case in Canada, Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, included an analysis of many of these arguments in the process of ruling against the respondent who attempted to use them. It has subsequently been cited in at least 13 other decisions in courts across Canada.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I would suggest to the OP that these laws are true, Freemen are valid, they are effectively sovereigns. The legal status is constitutional and falls into "Lawful Rebellion". It is defined in the magna carta. To pre-empt people, the UK has 2 written constitional documents AND a bill of rights.

The Crown is a corporation owned and controlled in the City of London (A City State, like the Vatican and the District of Columbia). The laws they create are statutes and they literally get away with deceiving everyone that these are the laws of the land. The application of these laws, in the constitution, is by consent - without consent, we would live in tyranny. The deceipt applied by the City Empire implies tyranny. These laws are not taught to any of us, we literally grow up believing what we are told, without other knowledge to assist in thinking otherwise.

I have seen successful claims against Judges where appelants literally scare the Judge out of court and get cases dismissed - lawfully. For a judge not to swear oath is called Treason, to assist a person evade a charge of Treason is to commit the crime of Rescue. Treason is practiced by magistrates and judges all over the UK.

By being a Freemen, you rescind consent for the Crown and its laws. It is a constitutional duty to defend the free laws of the land should they be eroded by the Monarch, which is the public 'face' of the Crown. This is a duty which is why the legal status of Lawful Rebellion exists.

The human-rights act is a direct erosion of our liberty as it is a statute of limitations. I have seen quoted parts of this bill that says that political discent puts you in the category of forfeiting your right to life, in the same way that if you are about to shoot someone, and a policeman shoots you first, then tough, your fundamental right is taken away due to your actions of harm against another. There are quiet moves in the upper eschelons of the UK gov. that try to push replacing the UK's constitution with the Human Rights Act and similar.

There are apparently voices that try to decry Lawful Rebels as Terrorists !!!!

Crime, in its base, is when you create a victim or when you breach contract and leave debt,damages etc (Tort law). Removing consent states that you have no contract with the Crown; (that the implicit contract being used by the Crown is a fraud seems to go unnotices).

Liken this to being a member of a Golf Club, where a shirt and tie are required. Without a shirt and tie, you are not allowed in, you have breached contract. If you don't like it, you can leave the club. This is the situation with the constitution and the Crown. If you don't like it, you can leave; on leaving, the Club has no right to complain about you poor dress sense.

If you are being or naturalised in a country and that is your home country, you don't have to move to another country. If you did, you are living in a tyranny. To protect you, Freemen and lawful rebellion are constitional lawful positions. The Crown is tyrannical and decietful as well as greedy, and the number of Freemen is increasing.

In Canada, and indeed the US, both of which are Crown property (the US 'won' the war of independence, but didn't actually liberate itself sadly), this law applies. A couple of years ago it was reported in Canada about concern in increasing numbers of people claiming freedom and being in Lawful Rebellion (some 330,000 quoted at the time, if my memory serves me correctly). I believe these laws are valid in the US. That a judge says not isn't suprising, US judges appear to be utterly corrupted. As are most UK judges, with a lot of vested, and self-interest.

Also, don't forget, though the US is a country, the United States, the United Kingdom and other Crown properties are registered corporations (the UK has CCJ's). They are clubs, not countries.

Without contract, you are not obliged to pay taxes, anti-pot laws don't apply (on this issue, the Crown is the worlds first armed drugger-runner and pusher (the opium wars in China), if everyone grew, where would their profits be), also, with regards wealth control and economic subordination, you are not allowed to grow your own wealth out of the ground), parking tickets, and ALL other statutes DO NOT APPLY, you have removed your consent and are not part of the club.

You do of course have to comply with Common Law. The process of liberation is Claiming Your Rights. Anyone can do it, even if you had a birth certificate. Interesting point, that without a birth certificate, you are Freeman at birth - brilliant information for all those concerned about this and want a family. Too late for me or mine.

Hope this assists information.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
In response to the Gypsies being imprisoned. Their crimes are common-law crimes, they stole from people, this is not covered in statute, but in Common Law.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   


I have seen quoted parts of this bill that says that political discent puts you in the category of forfeiting your right to life, in the same way that if you are about to shoot someone, and a policeman shoots you first, then tough, your fundamental right is taken away due to your actions of harm against another. There are quiet moves in the upper eschelons of the UK gov


This is true, tony Blair said one of his main objectives was to abolish the magna carter.


One of the very few surviving copies of the Magna Carta - the famous document that is the foundation of British liberty - has come up for sale in New York. Experts say this copy of the charter will sell for as much as £6million. But the protections written out in the Magna Carta back in 1215 are priceless and never in our history have they come under such sustained and ruthless attack as during the ten years of this Labour Government.


www.dailymail.co.uk...


Habeas Corpus is the single most fundamental freedom of the British subject, one which distinguishes us from tyrannical countries such as Burma, China, Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union, where citizens can be seized at whim by the police and held without trial. In rare times of national emergency, such as World War II and the most violent phase of the Northern Ireland troubles, British governments have temporarily suspended this vital protection. Habeas Corpus translates literally as 'thou shalt have the body [in court]' and enshrines the right to a fair trial. However, Tony Blair tried to get rid of it altogether by introducing legislation which would enable the state to hold suspected terrorists for 90 days without being required to provide reasons.


edit on 22-6-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



edit on 22-6-2013 by coolcatt because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sifacomp
 


If I were the OP, I would ignore everything that you just posted.

These pseudo-legal arguments will at best gain you nothing and could end up getting you cited for contempt if you persisted in using them in court.

Certainly no one in Canada who has attempted to use these pseudo-legal arguments to defend their actions or obtain their desired outcome has won their case.

They have also not worked in the US. One of the more famous examples of someone attempting to use these arguments to avoid their tax obligations is United State v. Wesley Trent Snipes et al., No. 5:06‑cr‑00022‑WTH‑GRJ‑1 (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fl., February 1, 2008). Snipes finished his 3-year prison sentence this past April.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Op, in the matrix, neo is a anogram of one. Don't listen to anyone else, when you find truth. Follow it, agents are everywhere.

Here's another interesting thing about the name NEO...


In theology, a neologism is a relatively new doctrine (for example, Transcendentalism). In this sense, a neologist is one who proposes either a new doctrine or a new interpretation of source material [12]


If you interpret the law in a new way you become a NEOlogist. Thought it was interesting how that ties in with my matrix theory.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by coolcatt
reply to post by charles1952
 



edit on 22-6-2013 by coolcatt because: (no reason given)


As a side note I've heard some things about the guy in this video, ray Sinclair. Made a few vids about not giving jurisdiction. Which is easy. He interviewed a police man in a set up interview over a stolen pub lunch and filmed it. Set up a site and ripped a load of people off apparently.

Word is he is a con man. Not to say the info in his videos isn't true though.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by coolcatt
 

Dear coolcatt,

I just watched the Gloucester 10 video. Four comments.

1.) Notice that he didn't win anything? His case was, at the end of the video, still pending.

2.) Comments like "Do you understand?" "No, I don't stand under that." Is better suited for 7 year-old comedy than for serious thought.

3.) What has he accomplished? He's irritated the system which will end up making the decision in his case. That's foolish.

4.) Had I been on the bench, and left the courtroom for a moment, it would have been to decide whether I should: cite him for contempt. remand him him for psychiatric evaluation, find against him for failing to offer a defense, or give him a government lawyer and make the guy watch on CCTV.

I've seen four or five of these threads making claims such as "If your name is in all capital letters, then they're not talking about you. Oh, and it needs a colon between first and last names to be legal."

I've never seen evidence that this has ever worked as a legal justification. Maybe we should just encourage every ATSer who accepts this to not file taxes for a few years, then write back from prison to tell us how it went. (Or, if not from prison, they could report on the additional fines and penalties they had to pay.)

If this stuff worked, every defense lawyer in the country would be getting rich using it to get their clients off, until new laws were written.

With respect (but also a certain amount of frustration),
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by coolcatt
 


This proves what? That a justice of the peace panel will temporarily leave the court to possibly get legal advice when confronted by a person spouting pseudo-legal nonsense?

In England magistrates come in two types, justices of the peace and district judges. Justices of the peace are laypeople from the local community who have been voluntarily appointed to the position and are not required to possess any qualification beyond intelligence, common sense, integrity and the capacity to act fairly. They receive a 3-day course and are then mentored by another magistrate with a minimum of 3-years experience. Aside from that they are NOT required to have had any formal training in the law prior to becoming a justice of the peace. District judges on the other hand must be either a barrister, solicitor, or Legal Executive.

Unlike district judges, justices of the peace normally sit in a panel of three, as in the video, and must number at least two. They are provided advice by the Clerk of the Court, especially as to sentencing, and are restricted in both the type of cases they may hear and sentences they may pass.

Canada does not have such a position. All cases are heard by judges.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join