Hidden Law History Of UK

reply to post by hellobruce


I don't think they will, certainly they shouldn't as this is how law is being interpreted at the moment.

reply to post by sifacomp


I thank you for editing your post to include links

Archbold I will read further as it is published by a credible legal source. Kunth, Empire of the City does not hold much credibility to me--for obvious reasons, but now that I have the information you were referring to I an address that and not just your claims in a vacuum.

reply to post by cartenz


Thanks.

It takes time to do this, my employer would not be happy right now :-).

Knuth, is a well regarded treatise on the current situation. It was written by a US soldier nearly a century ago, as he was outraged by what was happening. There are often books like this published, partly as a record, but they often have tiny print runs and very selected distributions. Knuth seems to have broken out of this mould, and like the The Money Masters, is very informative.

If I can ask of you and others, If a small-run print of a book was obtained from a reputable bookshop just off threadneedle street has more credence for you, I would proffer Knuth should have similar credence. His writing is not baloney and is very well researched. If you follow the arc of this book to the present day, you will see strong connections to the what is happening right now, and also the very manipulative Crown (which is very successful) gaining successes over the ensuing century.

On the point of Freeman Woo and statute law, I want to expand its importance, not in getting out of council tax and parking tickets, but much more fundamentally. Here is a link to the Human Rights act.HR Act, 1998

I attach an excerpt of the Human Rights act, with the intent of indicating that it is a statute of limitation and enables the Crown to do what it likes. This is how I would interpret it, anyway.

Part I
The Convention

Part IThe Convention

Rights and Freedoms

Article 2
Right to life.

1 Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law..

2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:.

(a)in defence of any person from unlawful violence;.

(b)in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;.

(c)in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

I would put it the readership that 1 is covered later in the HR Act insofar that there is no death penalty except for the provision of it, for the Crown, as part of war. 2a is part of common law and needs no legislation surely. We just need to enforce that law.
b and c however are contrary to common law and as a statute represents treason. It allows the Crown to kill you if you disagree with them. There is no provision here (please correct me if I am wrong, on all points) to differentiate nutters trying to kill police from rational or peaceful protest - what is the legal definition of insurrection?

It says (to me), that if the people of Britain did what the people of Brazil have just done, they have a right to kill us, with impunity. I would suggest this is a statute that makes tyranny not only a potential but also legal.

Freeman Woo would theoretically trump this, as it is rooted the English constitution and understanding it places the correct structure and priority on the laws in which we live and what defines us. If we besieged the City, or parliament, what actually are our rights?; given that this is 'Law' and legal, is it actually lawful? The constitution states that is our duty to protect it from other laws that abuse it or us and that in my view applies to this Article.

How do people feel about this part of the HR act? Naturally freeman woo is useless if you are dead, that goes without saying. But it raises the logical structure of law as being very flawed and weak. I would say the common law of the constitution trumps this, and we do have a right to insurrection, though the Crown obviously has the vested interest of us not so doing.

If this part of the HR act is hard to argue or contradicting, why is it extant? For what was it created? For whom was it created?

Wanting Freeman/Lawful Rebellion for me is not about getting out of parking tickets, there are better ways to do this, it is about understanding the logical structure of the Law and how it is actually meant to be applied.

I believe some bad times are coming and there needs to be a way for us to lawfully defend ourselves from it.

Freeman Woo is tightly integrated into this notion and given just this statute, is very important and needs to be properly, legally, clarified. Interpretation is not enough. Especially if you are dead.

Many thanks for reading...

Originally posted by sifacomp
reply to post by cartenz

 

I recant the things I have learned.

Please don't take this as an insult but this made me laugh.

Presumably you meant to say "recount" meaning "to narrate the facts or particulars of".

"Recant" means "to make a formal retraction or disavowal of (a statement or belief to which one has previously committed oneself)."

reply to post by sifacomp


How did I know this would come to the Human Rights Act 1998 UK ("HRA")...

HRA had many implications on criminal law that are/have being addressed with case law/statutes--but if anything it takes power away from the Crown, not giving them more. For example (from Archbold News 1998, 2 6-8):

The new Act will take precedence over existing rules of common law and equity and over delegated legislation. By Clause 6(1) it will be “unlawful for any public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with one or more Convention rights”. Clause 6(3)(a) makes it clear that courts and tribunals at all levels are within the definition of “public authority” for this purpose. Clause 2(1) provides that in determining any question which has arisen under the Act in connection with a Convention right, all courts and tribunals must take into account any relevant judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, opinion of the European Commission of Human Rights, or decision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

This I agree with:

I believe some bad times are coming and there needs to be a way for us to lawfully defend ourselves from it.

But I still hold the position that you are misinterpreting some things and being straight out lied to in others. Its late here (AU), I'd be happy to address this further tomorrow when I get the chance to do some further reading (and of course after some sleep)

reply to post by cartenz


Interesting and thanks a lot.

I look forward to hearing your views.

Sleep well...

reply to post by erwalker


I did mean recount, not recant, that made me chuckle too...

Given that I was getting a bit of a kicking, perhaps recant was the right thing to do

:-).

reply to post by Wifibrains


what case is this , I know it's an early case because I ran across it before?

Furthermore, ignorance is bliss and comdemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance.
The Birth Certificate is.........a public record showing the organization was organized, showing that it exist.
It is a certificate of existence for a registered organization.
The legal name of that organization is your ALL CAP NAME.
Don't believe me? here are the nations foremost experts on the uniform commercial code.
I would advise all to listen to the entirety, however if you want to know what the birth certificate is, they will tell you, start at the 43:20 of the video.

how was this birth certificate created, what are it's contents?
well lets go see...
KRS 213.051
213.051 Contents of birth certificate.
(1) The person who assumes the custody of a live-born infant of unknown parentage shall report on a form and in a manner prescribed by the state registrar within ten (10) days to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services the following information:
(a) The date and place of finding;
(b) Sex, color or race, and approximate birth date of child;
(c) Name and address of the person or institution with which the child has been placed for care;
(d) Name given to the child by the custodian of the child; and
(e) Other data as required by the state registrar to complete a birth certificate.
(2) The place where the child was found shall be entered as the place of birth.
(3) A report registered under this section shall constitute the certificate of birth for the child.
(4) If the child is identified and a certificate of birth is found or obtained, the report registered under this section shall be placed in a special file and shall not be subject to inspection except upon order of a Circuit Court.

If you read the definitions for that title, registration means acceptance, to file means a presentation.
So at this point there is a presentation and an acceptance. i.e. a Contract.

when the paperwork goes thru, the information is used to create a "state agency". and the birth certificate is the evidence showing that organization exist.

here is a little more evidence,
KRS 189.010 define the term motor vehicle and vehicle as an agency,

so when you use your birth certificate to get an operators license, you are applying to operate an agency of the United States in the state.
As long as you use the birth certificate you are considered the agent/trustee.
All property you think you own is actually in the name of the agency, of which the United States uses as collateral in transactions.
it is said that the national debt is the mortgage on all the property of the nation and they are absolutely correct.
The Agency is the problem.
When you use the agency name, via the birth certificate, YOU ARE THAT PERSON.
MAXIM===
HE WHO ACTS THRU ANOTHER IS CONSIDERED AS ACTING FOR HIMSELF.
You cannot claim that you are not that person if you are using it's name.

To all you naysayers, I got my declaratory judgment and no longer operate an agency of the govt,
I am also the secured party of that agency as I was the only ONE who provided energy and value to it.

I am now working on getting access to the accounts, as I was an agent for 42 years I am entitled to commissions of the transactions.
Also, before I go,
an organization is a person other than an individual(UCC)
It could never be you.

reply to post by 7Thunders


youtu.be...

link spoke of, 43:20

Originally posted by cartenz
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...

Why must we defend, if we defend then we are shown to be liable, and the being found guilty/not guilt will be out of our hands, where has your control over your destiny gone then? There are many things now classed as crimes that are not crimes, they are simply policies and rules that place restrictions on us to create revenue. To be free is to be unrestricted.

The real freeman Woo is about learning that you have a trust, and also a corporation, like the info in the OP the freeman also learn how we are dead. the freemen realize this and begin to educate themselves to find a way out of the matrix, out of laws and trusts that seek to enslave us within this pyramid shaped matrix. This is forbidden, no one leaves the matrix, and the agents tell everyone it's impossible.

There is a way to get above the law within the matrix, but you have to become agents, and work to keep the structure strong. Enforcing. These agents are every where but they are all the same just like in the film. When you have seen one you can see them all. They are so obvious it's unreal. Hiding behind shades in the shadows.

The way the agents are taught the way above the law "within" the matrix is exactly the same as what the freeman realize. They learn about the name, the corporation, and the trust, and they are taught how to use it properly. In the higher echelons they don't need money. Just a signature will suffice, a taste of freedom. isn't that right cartenz? (your avatar, location and sig)

I could go on, but I might as well just give you the third degree.....

Brother... Until now you have been dead, welcome to your trust and corps. 
Now we shall resurrect you. MAUOOHAHAHAAAA

flic.kr...
Mmmmm, a corps and a trust. I'll be danmed.

The freemen on the land are pure and the realisations are from the heart. They see the matrix for what it is, they know It's not real and think for themselves guided by the heart. They are aware of who and what they really are. Devine beings with god given rights. They know right from wrong and they don't need laws to tell them. They are able to think "free" unlike the agents in this thread repeating a doctrine and trying to get you to conform.

The Freemasons do learn it for themselves, however, it's done through being shown symbols. This is mind control guys and you need to wake up to what has been done to you. Everyone knows that if you stare at a spiral you get hypnotised, and the experts you are in symbolism you failed to see it. You were tempted by the matrix, you strayed from the centre. but it's not too late if you still have a heart. If not then your clinically dead anyway. Metaphorically speaking.

Agents wake up. You can't see the beast trough the eyes of a demon.

Freeman woo is freemasonary....from the heart.

I'm willing to be wrong here, i just say it how i see it. the symbology speaks for itself

Have a nice day!

reply to post by 7Thunders


Some good info in your post 7Thunders.

I wish you Good luck in reclaiming your stolen wealth. Sounds like you have found out where it is, and they have acknowledged your claim. I hope it's worth it for you and you get your returns. All value created inside was created by you, you should be looking for more than commissions.

Also I'd look at how to gain certain possitions if possible, like being able to administer your own trust and corporation. Is suspect you can do some amazing magic with a cheque book, you could write your right hand man a promisary note.

This is a very worrying thread, because people have clearly been misled about UK common/statute law (and probably about US law and that of other countries with 'common law' jurisdictions.)

In the UK, freeman/woman is an honorary title relating to being granted the 'freedom' of a particular town or city. It confers no legal rights or privileges whatsoever - disappointingly, despite popular myth, not even the right to drive your sheep over London Bridge or to take a pee against the wheel of your carriage.

The notion that you can claim exemption from the jurisdiction of the courts on any grounds at all is ridiculous. What it says on your birth certificate is neither here nor there. And cherry-picking old legislation or case law from other jurisdictions carries no weight whatsoever.

Our law is frequently an ass, and common law rights are indeed being eroded, as discussed in this article: www.spiked-online.com...

But buffoons who question the right of magistrates to try them deserve to be dealt with as vexatious litigants or held in contempt of court. Filming court proceedings in this country is also a serious offence, and whilst not wishing to be a party-pooper, ATS and YouTube would be well advised to take those clips down.

Why must we defend, if we defend then we are shown to be liable, and the being found guilty/not guilt will be out of our hands, where has your control over your destiny gone then?

No, if you are found guilty then you are liable, if you are found not guilty then you are not liable. By entering a plea of not guilty--you are challenging the Crown/State, you are saying that you do not agree with the charge and wish to contest it. The control over my destiny is that I have choice to obey or break the law, and if I am caught breaking a law, I have the right to challenge it--but I cant legally ignore it.

There are many things now classed as crimes that are not crimes, they are simply policies and rules that place restrictions on us to create revenue.

Yes, and that is why common (case) law is so important, because it is meant to address short-comings in legislation. A common theory by law academics is that Politicians dont understand the legal system and make laws under political motivation, to remedy this the courts (are meant to) interpret and apply the law with out bias.

To be free is to be unrestricted.

FREEdom id not FREE beer. Would you drive down the wrong side of the road because you dont recognise the laws that govern traffic?

The real freeman Woo is about learning that you have a trust, and also a corporation, like the info in the OP the freeman also learn how we are dead. the freemen realize this and begin to educate themselves to find a way out of the matrix, out of laws and trusts that seek to enslave us within this pyramid shaped matrix. This is forbidden, no one leaves the matrix, and the agents tell everyone it's impossible.

Except that is not true, there is no trust; Hence the Freeman movement is based on false information.

There is a way to get above the law within the matrix, but you have to become agents, and work to keep the structure strong. Enforcing. These agents are every where but they are all the same just like in the film. When you have seen one you can see them all. They are so obvious it's unreal. Hiding behind shades in the shadows.

Sorry but I never watched those films--at the time they were released I believed they were part of MKULTRA programming.

The way the agents are taught the way above the law "within" the matrix is exactly the same as what the freeman realize. They learn about the name, the corporation, and the trust, and they are taught how to use it properly.

but there is no corporation. no trust. its all false.

In the higher echelons they don't need money. Just a signature will suffice, a taste of freedom. isn't that right cartenz? (your avatar, location and sig)

Yeah you got me. I have no birth certificate, no passport, no drivers licence (and still have a S-Class Mercedes-Benz). I have registered my own name as a corporation and I often win court cases. That is all true, but the Freeman movement is not, in fact IMHO it is a plan by TPTB of labelling conspiracy theorists as terrorists, but thats another story.

I could go on, but I might as well just give you the third degree.....

or thirty-third

Brother... Until now you have been dead, welcome to your trust and corps. 
Now we shall resurrect you. MAUOOHAHAHAAAA

flic.kr...
Mmmmm, a corps and a trust. I'll be danmed.

That does not prove a corporation or a trust.

The freemen on the land are pure and the realisations are from the heart. They see the matrix for what it is, they know It's not real and think for themselves guided by the heart. They are aware of who and what they really are. Devine beings with god given rights. They know right from wrong and they don't need laws to tell them. They are able to think "free" unlike the agents in this thread repeating a doctrine and trying to get you to conform.

Exept conepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are subjective; they are underpinned by the values of the subject. My values of right and wrong could differ greatly from yours.

The Freemasons do learn it for themselves, however, it's done through being shown symbols. This is mind control guys and you need to wake up to what has been done to you. Everyone knows that if you stare at a spiral you get hypnotised, and the experts you are in symbolism you failed to see it. You were tempted by the matrix, you strayed from the centre. but it's not too late if you still have a heart. If not then your clinically dead anyway. Metaphorically speaking.

The Freemasons drink too much.

Agents wake up. You can't see the beast trough the eyes of a demon.

Freeman woo is freemasonary....from the heart.

If so then why do they spout this nonsense in court when they could just symbol the judge and have their case dismissed (it does work!--Freeman arguments dont)

reply to post by SummerLightning


Its not like it was, there are provisions to allow for filming court proceedings in the UK:

The ban on filming in law courts will now be overturned, Clarke confirmed, as the government hopes to improve transparency and public understanding of the courts.

The issue had been due to go for consultation with senior judges but in recent days Downing Street had moved to circumvent this consultation process and support the change.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Im all for filming and broadcasting of court proceedings--it would help dispel some of the romanticised ideas people have of the judicial process.

reply to post by cartenz


Nice disection.

I'm on my phone now and cant give you the answer you deserve right now. But will reply more in depth later.

I find it funny you think that about the film and mk ultra, but failed to address my issue raised about mind control, but I don't believe it. Are you suggesting mku have something against the masons? I'm not a enemy by the way, I have some harsh truths for you, but they come from the heart, in the hope you will see the truth you have swayed from through your programming and self perpetuation of false truths and lies.

You are encouraged to do this from the start, with the Masonic talk where one word has a diferent meaning to the truth. When words are used symbolically for communication within the conciuosness of all humanity it causes static and separation and divides us. Lawyer are just as bad with the use of legalese. I will make a thread later highlighting this and link it here. Both are playing with fire, I will show how this bs talk disconnects human beings from the one great spirit, perhaps you know already and that's the plan.

So you know the we, the name is not a trust and a corp, it's called something else. It works the same, again straying from the truth as you push a avatar/person and ship/corporation through Lala land. You know it's not a corps and a trust, do you know what it is? You must, to know what it is not. Can you draw one for me? the balance you keep between the two worlds is important I know. It was a problem for quite a while if my suspicions are correct, without giving away too much. Hmmm, Maybe there are three worlds. Can I have some more clues?

Be back soon, stay tuned.x

reply to post by Wifibrains


Read the Meads v Meads judgement, the term Ponzi Anarchism came to me when reading on OPCA's

There is a third reason for a broad-based decision and analysis. It so happens that Mr. Meads has provided a remarkable and well developed assortment of OPCA documents, concepts, materials, and strategies. These materials also illustrate particular idiosyncrasies that this and other Courts have identified as associated with the OPCA community and OPCA litigation. Phrased differently, Mr. Meads’ materials and approach provide an ideal type specimen for examination and commentary, which should be instructive to other OPCA litigants who have been taken in by these ideas, opposing parties and their counsel, as well as gurus.

www.canlii.ca...

Also: The assumptions you have made about me are probably false, even tho all information I have provided to you is correct. Keep your eye on the ball, and not the opponent.

reply to post by cartenz

Exept conepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are subjective; they are underpinned by the values of the subject. My values of right and wrong could differ greatly from yours.

So if we don't see eye to eye, one will always be wrong. That's what jury's are for, the majority decides. I have no preconceived perceptions of you as a human, we are all the same, but different. I'm sure in the real world you are real nice, generous, even caring. My perceptions of the mason is where the sarcasm and snide remarks come from. Don't take it personally, you are more a human than a mason.

Right now though we are in virtual reality on the interweb. We can do what we want in the fiction as we cause no harm. Is that right, Or did I miss the boat?

May I ask, are you a lawyer?

So if we don't see eye to eye, one will always be wrong. That's what jury's are for, the majority decides. I have no preconceived perceptions of you as a human, we are all the same, but different. I'm sure in the real world you are real nice, generous, even caring. My perceptions of the mason is where the sarcasm and snide remarks come from. Don't take it personally, you are more a human than a mason.

No, if we do not see eye to eye then it is possible we are both wrong; An absolute truth comes from a shared understanding.

Right now though we are in virtual reality on the interweb. We can do what we want in the fiction as we cause no harm. Is that right, Or did I miss the boat?

To some extent, but advocating what could amount to criminal activity could harm a reader. Someone thinking that the law does not apply to them is just that, and the consequences for that an be quite severe. Jail, shot by the police, have rights removed, are all possibility's that stem from this Freeman notion. Really this is what keeps me arguing this point, when these things occur they are often treated as humorous by the legal profession (point to your other thread), but in actual fact it is quite tragic that these people are fed this crap and they run with it.

May I ask, are you a lawyer?

Not a Lawyer, I read Laws at university, at an Australian university, so most of that was the history of English Law. Most people who study Law dont become Lawyers; like 90% here in AU. Also not a mason, but I wont touch on that here as there is a big misconception about masonry on this site. They drink too much, thats all I will say about them.

reply to post by Wifibrains


Does the change of avatar explain the "not a mason" thing?

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
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

This is clearly nonsense, gypsies like the rest of us are subject to both statute (made by the legislator) and common law ( made by the decisions of the courts). For example a person who comes to the uk will be bound and can be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act regardless of whether they have a uk birth certificate.

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

Statutes are not based on severity neither is common law for example some of the most serious offences ie grievous bodily harm is a statute offence under the Offences Against the Person Act. Likewise the definition of murder is common law. Both statute and common law offences can be severe or relatively minor and both types of offence can carry jail time.

The law is divided in to criminal and civil law (contract and tort), common and statute law cover both. IE contract law is largely based on common law where as property law is largely statute. You also have civil and criminal courts, generally they only have jurisdiction in their own area. The process is also different, civil claims ie contract are not tried but an action brought and the standard of proof varies considerably. Beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal cases and on the balance of probability in civil. The parties involved are also different, in civil cases the action is between two private individuals. In criminal cases and individual is prosecuted by the state.
There is much more but you could fill many books on the differences.

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.

The Theft Act would differ.

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.

Two basic elements of a contract are offer and acceptance, you can not have contract by deception, it would be void.

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

Actually this is sorta true but the freemen have a misunderstanding of what a corporation is. A corporation is an incorporated entity, ie many people can act in law as one with a single legal personality and capacity, ie can sign a contract, be prosecuted, own property and sue and be sued. Sovereign states and departments of are incorporated entities- corporations with legal capacity/ personality. for example if i wanted to sue the home secretary it would not sue him personally but his office, like wise his office could sue another person in its own right.

Which brings me to the next point, a person is a legal classification that grants rights and obligation. Freemen confuse this with legal personality- a classification of persons. ie an employer has different rights and obligations that a tenant. ie has different legal personality than a tenant. Or a person can have different legal personality depending on age ie a 15 year old and and 18 year old will have different rights and legal capacity. People are natural persons, by analogy to a natural persons, corporations are also considered in law as (artificial)persons. This is known as a legal fiction; something that is false but for the purpose of law is treated as fact. A natural person can not be a legal fiction, its logically impossible.

also see on the "stawman" theory www.abovetopsecret.com...

The cause no harm concept is pretty useless as the only basis for law also, ie up until the point some one was actually harmed, it would be legal to take a hit on some one and the police would be unable to act until the hit went through. There is much much more this could apply to fe i could dump toxic wast up until the point it did in fact harm someone. etc etc......