Hidden Law History Of UK

reply to post by charles1952

"Governments are Corporations." Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person,an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary- having neither actuality nor substance- is forclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. thereof, can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.

It's about us identifying ourselves as a citizen, part of the corporation under admiralty law, when we do this we give jurisdiction that binds us to contracts most know nothing about.

reply to post by coolcatt


The real history of English law is not really hidden. Buy the 2 volume set of Pollock & Matland's History of English Law.

Originally posted by F4guy
Buy the 2 volume set of Pollock & Matland's History of English Law.

This book can be read online for free.

Originally posted by sifacomp
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.

NO, and you really should not be giving false legal advice. Theft is covered by statute in the UK, by the Theft Act 1968, commencement being January 1 1969:
en.wikipedia.org...
www.legislation.gov.uk...

You could seriously ruin someone's life and freedom by continuing this "Freeman" charade.

reply to post by erwalker


Star for the case citation!
2nd

Originally posted by sifacomp
I have seen successful claims against Judges where appelants literally scare the Judge out of court and get cases dismissed - lawfully.

Of course you can show proof of these claims.... No, of course you cannot!

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).

Care to link us to that report..... No?

the United States, the United Kingdom and other Crown properties are registered corporations

Wrong again, they have corporations, they are not corporations!

Without contract, you are not obliged to pay taxes, anti-pot laws don't apply

Still wrong, tell that to the people in prison!

Snip freeman nonsense - funny how no one can show a case when a "freeman" actually won.

Originally posted by erwalker

Originally posted by F4guy
Buy the 2 volume set of Pollock & Matland's History of English Law.

This book can be read online for free.

In case anyone wants them:

PDF Version (scanned from hard copy)

Text Version (easier to copy-paste)

reply to post by hellobruce


I would like to point out that I have not Claimed my Rights, in the sense of being a Freeman.
I am curious and have been trying to ascertain the actual truth to this matter. My posting are what I have learned over the past few years, based on what I know as fact.

I would like to assure people that I have not lied in my posting. I have searched the BBC site for the news article I was referring to about Canada and I have not found it yet.

The Crown is a registered corporation. Finding the facts of all of this stuff is very hard, I find these common responses from people very deconstructive - this can be a good thing, but I don't like to be implied as being a liar or peddler of mis-truths.

There are lots of videos of recordings in UK courts, magistrate and crown - I have seen videos of Crown courts getting into a tiz over the simple request for information of crown or common law. To those who are interested, find the answers and contribute to the learning, and correction of what is wrong.

The technicalities of all this are very hard, if the things I have learned are true, then the last statement you make is very grey, it would imply that people are being falsley imprisoned or that all we know about our law is wrong and that we have to accept the Crown law. The Crown is a global business, operated from the City of London, not the Monarch, it is not the country of England and is not constitutional.

"The island of Britain is a financial oligarchy run by the "Crown" which refers to the "City of London," not the Queen. The City is run by the Bank of England, a "private" corporation. The City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London.

I also believe there are not enough credible people who know this stuff - I agree with the view that alot of the arguments are expressed in such a childish way yet there they are, and there they provaricate successfully. It is very hard to know the truth, and that is the problem, and a benefit to the Crown.

The Acts described in the videos are true.

The big question is, if this is true, then why successful provarication and why the false imprisonment. I mentioned drug-laws as the enforcement of these is (or was) of financial benefit to the crown.

Interesting to see links to the Statutes of Theft. I will read these, thanks. They will provide some clarity.

Part of me concurs with you, alot of this seems nonsense, but over the past few years, after reading Archbold and the outcome of cases my mind is cast into doubt and the evidence appears to be there.

Of course, people need to be careful and not reckless or childish. They also need to find and watch these vids for themselves. They do exist, I am not lying. I will continue my search for the news article about it.

Where people are con-men and blag there way to BS in courts, I believe is equally balanced by so called lawyers and officials doing the same on the other side. If appelants were never successful at provaricating in Crown court then I would have less/jno faith in the Freeman standing but they do. In the UK at least.

I would not condemn this notion in law, I would also not assume that being imprisoned after failing to apply them does not mean they do not exist either. When you view UK history and British history in particular, they are amongst the worst people on the planet, driven by international money men with the desire to own the world. When you see wars being promulgated in our name by these people over the centuries, abuse of the law in court is a mere trifle. It changes the balance of view in my opinion and the book on this should not be shut.

Originally posted by sifacomp
reply to post by hellobruce

 

I would like to point out that I have not Claimed my Rights, in the sense of being a Freeman.
I am curious and have been trying to ascertain the actual truth to this matter. My posting are what I have learned over the past few years, based on what I know as fact.

You were erronious about the status of theft being a statute--so from my perspective your knowledge on law is flawed

I would like to assure people that I have not lied in my posting. I have searched the BBC site for the news article I was referring to about Canada and I have not found it yet.

Even if you have not lied, you have presented false information, which if someone took to be true, could land them in jail, or even a psychiatric institution. You can present false information about the law and expect it to be harmless.

The Crown is a registered corporation. Finding the facts of all of this stuff is very hard, I find these common responses from people very deconstructive - this can be a good thing, but I don't like to be implied as being a liar or peddler of mis-truths.

If the Crown is a registered corporation, it would not be hard to find that information; because it would be registered

There are lots of videos of recordings in UK courts, magistrate and crown - I have seen videos of Crown courts getting into a tiz over the simple request for information of crown or common law. To those who are interested, find the answers and contribute to the learning, and correction of what is wrong.

Please feel free to post a vid--I would assume that without formal training in Law; any legalese from the bench could be interpreted as "getting into a tiz". Courts operate on procedure--if that procedure is not followed; Either due to a poorly trained Barrister, or more commonly from a defendant representing themselves, then the Crown WILL react negatively and rebuke whomever has failed to follow procedure.

CONTINUED BELOW

Originally posted by sifacomp
The Crown is a registered corporation. Finding the facts of all of this stuff is very hard,

No it is not. ever stopped to think that is the reason you can find no proof for that silly claim.

I have seen videos of Crown courts getting into a tiz over the simple request for information of crown or common law.

So why not post them here....

The technicalities of all this are very hard, if the things I have learned are true,

no they are not true.

it would imply that people are being falsley imprisoned or that all we know about our law is wrong and that we have to accept the Crown law.

Who is being falsely imprisoned? You do have to accept the law - or do you somehow think the law should not apply to you?

The Crown is a global business, operated from the City of London, not the Monarch, it is not the country of England and is not constitutional.

your proof of that is what?

"The island of Britain is a financial oligarchy run by the "Crown" which refers to the "City of London," not the Queen. The City is run by the Bank of England, a "private" corporation. The City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London.

Very wrong - what makes you think the bank of England is a private corporation? It is a

In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy

I also believe there are not enough credible people who know this stuff

no credible people know it - as it is just nonsense!

after reading Archbold and the outcome of cases

Care to name these cases?

The technicalities of all this are very hard, if the things I have learned are true, then the last statement you make is very grey, it would imply that people are being falsley imprisoned or that all we know about our law is wrong and that we have to accept the Crown law. The Crown is a global business, operated from the City of London, not the Monarch, it is not the country of England and is not constitutional.

Please re-read the bolded text and replace "we" with "you", as you are failing to understand that Rule of Law applies to everyone equally.

"The island of Britain is a financial oligarchy run by the "Crown" which refers to the "City of London," not the Queen. The City is run by the Bank of England, a "private" corporation. The City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London.

You are contradicting yourself: First you say the the City is run by BoE, but then you say its a sovereign state--which is it, as they are mutually exclusive.

I also believe there are not enough credible people who know this stuff - I agree with the view that alot of the arguments are expressed in such a childish way yet there they are, and there they provaricate successfully. It is very hard to know the truth, and that is the problem, and a benefit to the Crown.

No credible people know of this because it is completely false.

The Acts described in the videos are true.

The acts or the Acts. Answering this correctly will give you a legal knowledge credibility point (you are currently with a negative score)

The big question is, if this is true, then why successful provarication and why the false imprisonment. I mentioned drug-laws as the enforcement of these is (or was) of financial benefit to the crown.

Do you mean prosecution?

Interesting to see links to the Statutes of Theft. I will read these, thanks. They will provide some clarity.

Not really interesting, most common law countries have legislated against theft.

Part of me concurs with you, alot of this seems nonsense, but over the past few years, after reading Archbold and the outcome of cases my mind is cast into doubt and the evidence appears to be there.

Archbold? Please link--I'd like to debunk it. You really shouldnt take legal advice from anyone who does not have at lease an LLB; Does Archie?

Of course, people need to be careful and not reckless or childish. They also need to find and watch these vids for themselves. They do exist, I am not lying. I will continue my search for the news article about it.

Why, you are the one referring to the videos--you have the onus of proof on you. How will I know which video it is that you saw?

Where people are con-men and blag there way to BS in courts, I believe is equally balanced by so called lawyers and officials doing the same on the other side. If appelants were never successful at provaricating in Crown court then I would have less/jno faith in the Freeman standing but they do. In the UK at least.

I do not understand the above--and that is thru no lack of knowledge of the Law.

I would not condemn this notion in law, I would also not assume that being imprisoned after failing to apply them does not mean they do not exist either. When you view UK history and British history in particular, they are amongst the worst people on the planet, driven by international money men with the desire to own the world. When you see wars being promulgated in our name by these people over the centuries, abuse of the law in court is a mere trifle. It changes the balance of view in my opinion and the book on this should not be shut.

:FACEPALM:

reply to post by cartenz




It is clearly hard to argue when you are lay-person like me. Even your arguments are open to the same scrutiny as mine. I recant the things I have learned.

You are mis-informing people about the City and the BoE, that I do know, and no, I will not spend the next 5 weeks research and gathering links for you, that is what this site is about, learning.

You are dismissive of all, so please indicate your credentials, it appears you are happy to be subjugated. I am not, and I have seen the crimes of the Crown over the centuries, and money, war, City States, etc. are all part of it.

People should read Knuth and learn that the war in Syria was on the cards a century ago. Naturally, this is more falsety....

Etc etc etc

My comments are without prejudice or offense and I hope they give people anchors they can learn from.
And just because the corporations that own us don't register themselves in the public domain, means nothing. The shareholders of the BoE are still private individuals. The queen was paraded in front of us, parading in front of gold in the vaults, that belongs to the Bank, and therefore private individuals. Trillions in those Vaults, yet we are all poor and pay 50%+ tax to them. Its a # world run by # people for their benefit and the law is just part of that and it needs clarity.

You disect well, but you bring no clarity and no information. I would like to pen more info from over the years, but I have to work for a living sadly. Please provide the counter-proof that makes you adament.

Oh, and please stop being just so insulting in your manner, its a bit obvious to many on here...

The OP asked for opinions, there are many out there. Write to the OP, and leave me out of your writing.

Later

Originally posted by sifacomp
It is clearly hard to argue when you are lay-person like me.

Then why do you believe silly youtube video's with no references or facts to back them up?

You are mis-informing people about the City and the BoE, that I do know, and no, I will not spend the next 5 weeks research and gathering links for you,

That is because you cannot, as your claim is false.

And just because the corporations that own us don't register themselves in the public domain, means nothing.

Wrong, it means that they do not exist as corporations!

The shareholders of the BoE are still private individuals.

Still wrong, as I pointed out before.

Nationalisation in 1946 did not greatly affect that; but it meant that the Bank was owned by the Government, rather than by private stockholders, and gave the power to appoint the Governors and Directors to the Crown.

but you bring no clarity and no information.

Actually, he has bought clarity to your nonsense

Please provide the counter-proof that makes you adament.

You made the claims, so it is up to you to prove those claims, (which you are unable to do....)

Originally posted by sifacomp
reply to post by cartenz

 

It is clearly hard to argue when you are lay-person like me. Even your arguments are open to the same scrutiny as mine. I recant the things I have learned.

Then you (or anyone else here) are welcome to scrutinise them; as yet you have failed to do so.

You are mis-informing people about the City and the BoE, that I do know, and no, I will not spend the next 5 weeks research and gathering links for you, that is what this site is about, learning.

In that case an you please identify the relevant section of Bank of England Act 1998 that supports you claim that BoE is a private corporation:
www.legislation.gov.uk...

You are dismissive of all, so please indicate your credentials, it appears you are happy to be subjugated. I am not, and I have seen the crimes of the Crown over the centuries, and money, war, City States, etc. are all part of it.

My credentials? why so you an claim that I'm part of the conspiracy?.

People should read Knuth and learn that the war in Syria was on the cards a century ago. Naturally, this is more falsety....

If you want us to read something then it might help if you provide a link??

Etc etc etc

???

My comments are without prejudice or offense and I hope they give people anchors they can learn from...

No, you are just spreading false information that could get people into serious trouble.

And just because the corporations that own us don't register themselves in the public domain, means nothing. The shareholders of the BoE are still private individuals.

Hang on. You stated it was a private corporation. Now you are claiming it has shareholders (ie: Publicly Listed), which is it? Publicly listed or Private?

The queen was paraded in front of us, parading in front of gold in the vaults, that belongs to the Bank, and therefore private individuals. Trillions in those Vaults, yet we are all poor and pay 50%+ tax to them. Its a # world run by # people for their benefit and the law is just part of that and it needs clarity.

I must disagree--it is the law, and only the law that stands between a tyrannical governments and sociopathic multinational corporations. Dont blame the law for your failure to understand it.

You disect well, but you bring no clarity and no information. I would like to pen more info from over the years, but I have to work for a living sadly.

As we all have to do; work for a living...

...Please provide the counter-proof that makes you adament.

rationalwiki.org...

Oh, and please stop being just so insulting in your manner, its a bit obvious to many on here...

I do not believe I was insulting, but I really dont care less, as your misinterpretation of the basic principals of Law is indeed insulting to not just myself but any other readers with a background in Law.

The OP asked for opinions, there are many out there. Write to the OP, and leave me out of your writing.

So I have to let you flood the thread with incorrect information--without retorting from a rational and educated (in Law) position?

Later

I dont think we're done here yet...

reply to post by cartenz


Thanks for the information and posts.

As I hope I made clear, I have represented what I have learned, indeed, from all those videos, sites, books etc, some of which have a strong sense of truth, others not. From a lay-persons perspective, it is hard to discern the truth. Rationalwiki does not represent the truth, just someone else's version of it. As some of the comments in response to me are. And this is the problem, cases are won on the quality of the argument, not the extant nature of law, if the Law was less subjective, it would be easier? Is this a fair point to think?

I do not place these as fact, I have scant knowledge of the Law and want to learn more, certainly I am not interpreting it. If people take info from here, and apply it to their own life, they are too blame, not people like me.

I would like to learn more. That is the point of the joining the thread. I have several editions of Archbold (Archbold 2013, Sweet and Maxwell which are hard to read. Some cases are interesting in this context. I also think Archbold is rather authoritative on how the law is currently being interpreted.

There is talk in the prologue of the 2010 edition (I believe) about the Freeman movement being vexatious, and also talk about contempt of court and how it is being abused, and that Judges and Magistrates have broad-enough shoulders to deal with the 'contempt'. This indicates that contempt is just being used by Judges and Magistrates to control order, which is not particularly 'lawful' or fair. Is this happening with the actions of applying Freeman/Lawful Rebellion in court? Are Judges/Magistrates just walking over people, using the fact that the people don't ultimately, truly know what they say (and yes, some of it sounds just childish).

The Acts in the video, are Acts, not acts, btw.

I will read your posted links, but I will place them in the same place as the other things I have learned and consider them alongside that other stuff. I have not followed this course of action (becoming a freeman) because the old, rational part of me concurs with you. I also would not advise anyone to take anything on this site as truth, but as discussion (no prejudice). Certainly don't bang on at a judge based on it....

This sort of thing should be clear to us all, it is tragic that it is not.

Thanks for the links btw, I will read soon. Do you have others that actually counter this rationale. There are a lot of credible people falling back on this constitutional position. And it must be said that so many people talk of Admiralty law, a law for the sea, not land, and that statutes formed in the Admiralty are being used on Land. Is this actually Lawful, or just a fudge to ensure statute is applied? or just BS. 'They' also talk of the constitution not being trumped by any other law (statute) and to do so is treason. In fact, this is the original meaning of the term treason.

To some of the comments regarding my additions, though I may put a particular facts or corroborations across, this does not mean that you have to provide nothing in return. (The Candians have decided recently that they don't need corroborating evidence for a case now). If you say I am wrong, say why, provide the evidence if you know it, and some purport to know what 99% of all of us will never know. Provide that evidence and help us all. Countering me, with nothing, is not strong enough for me; I will read and learn and add to my knowledge, but it is not conclusive - just another view-point. A question, can you highlight the points of law that say this IS baloney, and not just judgments in case-law; though these judgements make the Law, are they Lawful if they actually trump a valid point of the constitution?

Another link for a book that appears very strong (this is a PDF): Knuth, Empire of the City.

I cite this and other links so as to indicate the nature of the beast, and I find it so hard to rule Freeman Woo as just baloney. The British Government earned the moniker of Perfidious Albion for a reason...

For people that know the BoE, please inform us of more. It is nationalised, but strangely, with the nationalisation of 1998, we handed them absolute control of the entire money of the UK, with no politics involved at all, we got a stack load of cash so the labour gov. could make us feel good, but they then took it all away again..., this happened the world over. And with trillions of $ of gold, why are we (the people) so bloody poor?

I would put it to the readership that this is all with intent. Our subordination etc. If Freeman Woo is actually Lawful, and therefore the Law, there of course would be trouble ahead for the Crown.

This is a very interesting video, long, but worth it: The Money Masters.

Anyway, happy reading, watching, learning etc...

Failed cases from the link I posted:

Despite the numerous failed attempts to use freeman legal methods, freemen will always insist that they do work, even clinging to this delusion when arrested and thrown in the cells. Below are some examples.
2012 October 3rd - State of Tennessee v. Anthony Troy Williams "we determine that Appellant was properly convicted of driving on a canceled, suspended, or revoked license. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed."
Meads v. Meads (2012-09-18) Alberta judge writes the all time smack down of Freeman on the land claims. "I agree with Justice Sanderman’s succinct evaluation of Henry’s claims as 'total gibberish'".
Judge challenged to produce oath by man disputing summons. Full panoply of Freeman delusion on display here, down to Black's Legal Dictionary being produced in court. End result: conviction, and when The FreeMan Bobby of the Family Sludds wanted to appeal—"I can’t accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can’t be verified," the Judge said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.
Two men are arrested and charged with growing cannabis. They claim to be "freemen on the land", but the courts state that they have "no personal circumstances applying to them which affords immunity to prosecution", that there was "no legal significance" to the term "freeman on the land" and that they would be tried anyway.
Freeman Mark of the family Bond gets arrested (more) after refusing to recognise the court and giving police his notice of intent. He gets a suspended 3 month jail sentence anyway, on condition that he pays off his debt
Freeman "Brian-arthur: alexander" tries to get out of speeding by telling a judge the law doesn't apply to him. The judge disagrees and the police suggest further charges of obstruction and mischief for his freeman shenanigans.
Mika Rasila gets stopped by the police for not having a licence plate. He tells them that he doesn't consent to their laws and that he isn't an employee of the "corporation of Canada". It doesn't work and they arrest him and impound his van. A judge later gives him a fine of $1,250.
Freeman Darren Pollard gets arrested despite telling the police officer he doesn't consent or contract. Not surprisingly it fails and they take him into custody anyway
Darren Pollard gets arrested again after refusing to appear in court despite trying to claim that he was "Darren of the family Pollard" and not the legal fiction of Darren Pollard they were looking for.
Freewoman Mary Gye recollects her account of being arrested for not having road tax or car insurance and having her "conveyance" impounded.img This in spite of all the freeman woo she tried. She was later sentenced to 14 days in HMP Styal women's prison for criminal contempt when she brought a tape recorder into a court hearing over nonpayment of council tax.[44]
Freeman Ben Lowrey is arrested for driving a motorcycle without registration, insurance, MOT or a crash helmet. Subsequently fined £500.
New Hampshire resident Ian Freeman (AKA Ian Bernard) arrested, tried and jailed for 93 days for dumping a couch. Within seconds of his trial commencing, he was rearrested and hand-cuffed for refusing to sit down when asked. He has since attempted using the freeman woo while defending a parking ticket.
James-Michael: Tesi arrested. After refusing to pay a fine for not wearing a seatbelt, he flooded the court with woo-woo documents basically refusing to pay. The court ignored this, and issued an arrest warrant. A police officer pulled him over, which resulted in gunfire and Tesi being wounded.
A Freewoman attempts to use the entire panoply of freeman woo to deny a court's jurisdiction in child custody proceedings. She was sentenced to nine months for contempt.
A person is a "person", a Canadian judge rules, after freeman[45] David Kevin Lindsay tries to get out of paying tax by asserting otherwise. Lindsay has also been designated a vexatious litigant.[46] (Whether entering into litigation counts as consent to said laws is not clarified.)
Star: Hills' house is foreclosed upon when her attempts to just stop paying her mortgage fail, and even her fee schedulesimg don't work. Despite having bought the entire $250 package from Robert Menard..

rationalwiki.org...

reply to post by cartenz


Cartenz are you saying there is no way out?

It says you escaped from the asylum, on your avatar, and the signature and your signature tell me a different story.

Have you got any secrets you want to share? You can trust us.

Originally posted by cartenz
Failed cases from the link I posted:

Those that believe the freeman nonsense will just ignore them!
Note that they are still unable to show even one case a "freeman" has won using their nonsense!

reply to post by Wifibrains


Out of what? There are plenty of legal defences for crimes committed--but refusing to acknowledge the authority of the courts is not one of them.

One well known loop hole was the Dietrich Principal--basically that if the state could not afford your lawyer then you had to have the case re-heard (which it wasnt)
en.wikipedia.org...

Many ways to defend many crimes...

reply to post by hellobruce


Its mainly for the benefit of those with no prior knowledge of FreeMan Movement--I know how appealing it would sound to many; Immunity from prosecution, even some of my less-learned friends have jumped on the FreeMan/Sovereign citizen bandwagon prior to me advising them appropriately.