Just playing along with u all!! This site is just as good as the British democracy system!! All too busy arguing over issues that are pointless all the while the Real issues never get resolved!! Bravo bravo
Freeman-on-the-land idiocies
- Thread starter xes
- Start date
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I admire your sparing use of capital letters.
Their called 'promissory notes' look them up!
Ha ha well pointed out!
YOUR Right to Remain Silent
Update: End of November, 2011
You have the Right to Remain Silent. This is a basic Common Law RIGHT, and trumps anything & everything else ... such as demands to fill out Census Forms, Electoral Register, Birth Certificates, TV Licencing ... indeed ANYTHING ... including letters warning you of the 'dire penalties' for not complying with whatever has (or will ever be) written into Statutes.
You have the RIGHT to Remain Silent.
AND -NEVER- -EVER- FORGET THAT.
This includes "not saying anything", "not writing anything" ... and "not signing anything" you would choose not to say, write or sign.
Whenever a Policyman might arrest you, and 'cautions' you, this is the FIRST THING he must tell you.
So ... take him at his word!
This means NOT signing any Bail Acceptance he may offer you, once he has charged you.
If you get a letter, making demands for information, you can write back this letter(*). Simply add your address at the top, and a date (as normal), before printing it. DO -NOT- SIGN IT IN YOUR OWN 'NAME'. DO -NOT- PUT PEN TO PAPER. Leave it 'signed' as printed ("Peaceful Inhabitant", etc). Just put it in an envelope, stapled to the UNFILLED-IN form you have been sent, and post it back "Received signed for".
(* Click here for the one I sent to the Borough Solicitor)
If anyone ever suggests that your 'silence' is evidence of 'guilt', then your response would be: "Guilt? Guilt of what?"
Their answer would be something like: "Evidence you have refused to fill out the form".
Your response would be: "Do not, on any account, fret or bother yourself with such 'evidence'. I perfectly agree that I have not filled out the form ... and the fact that it is still blank is proof of that. But I'm not 'guilty' of anything, because I have the mitigating circumstance of 'lawful excuse' ... the fact being that I'm standing on my LAWFUL RIGHT TO SILENCE".
If they are sufficiently STUPID as to actually take you to Court, you can ask the Magistrates if they are 'Justices of the PEACE' THEY WILL CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE EXACTLY THAT.
So you can then say: "I have the Common Law RIGHT to Remain Silent, and that is about as peaceful as anyone could possibly be. You, as Justices of the PEACE, have SOLEMNLY-SWORN to uphold the PEACE. Thus you MUST uphold my RIGHT to PEACE, and MUST (THEREFORE) IMMEDIATELY DISMISS THIS CASE. If you don't do that, then I will dismiss it myself. However, if I have to do it for you, then I will also have you arrested and charged under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835, Section 13, for UNLAWFULLY ADMINISTERING YOUR OATHS OF OFFICE, and not upholding my RIGHT to live in PEACE".
The Charge Sheet you will fill in ... and hand back into the same Court Offices (so take a blank copy with you!) can be found here. (Just the second page is all that is necessary ... but you could hand in the first page as 'subsidiary explanation').
They.
Don't.
Like.
It.
Up 'em.
Veronica, November 2011
Update: End of November, 2011 - 'Twisting the knife'
You could, if you wished, 'twist the knife' a little further by adding the following "PS" to any letter:
"PS If I were to fill out your paperwork, I would sign it very clearly "Under Protest & Duress". Consequently everything filled in would be null & void IN LAW and, as a consequence, would not count - because it would not be legally or lawfully binding."
They.
Still.
Don't.
Like.
It.
Up 'em.
Veronica, End November 2011
Update: End of November, 2011
You have the Right to Remain Silent. This is a basic Common Law RIGHT, and trumps anything & everything else ... such as demands to fill out Census Forms, Electoral Register, Birth Certificates, TV Licencing ... indeed ANYTHING ... including letters warning you of the 'dire penalties' for not complying with whatever has (or will ever be) written into Statutes.
You have the RIGHT to Remain Silent.
AND -NEVER- -EVER- FORGET THAT.
This includes "not saying anything", "not writing anything" ... and "not signing anything" you would choose not to say, write or sign.
Whenever a Policyman might arrest you, and 'cautions' you, this is the FIRST THING he must tell you.
So ... take him at his word!
This means NOT signing any Bail Acceptance he may offer you, once he has charged you.
If you get a letter, making demands for information, you can write back this letter(*). Simply add your address at the top, and a date (as normal), before printing it. DO -NOT- SIGN IT IN YOUR OWN 'NAME'. DO -NOT- PUT PEN TO PAPER. Leave it 'signed' as printed ("Peaceful Inhabitant", etc). Just put it in an envelope, stapled to the UNFILLED-IN form you have been sent, and post it back "Received signed for".
(* Click here for the one I sent to the Borough Solicitor)
If anyone ever suggests that your 'silence' is evidence of 'guilt', then your response would be: "Guilt? Guilt of what?"
Their answer would be something like: "Evidence you have refused to fill out the form".
Your response would be: "Do not, on any account, fret or bother yourself with such 'evidence'. I perfectly agree that I have not filled out the form ... and the fact that it is still blank is proof of that. But I'm not 'guilty' of anything, because I have the mitigating circumstance of 'lawful excuse' ... the fact being that I'm standing on my LAWFUL RIGHT TO SILENCE".
If they are sufficiently STUPID as to actually take you to Court, you can ask the Magistrates if they are 'Justices of the PEACE' THEY WILL CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE EXACTLY THAT.
So you can then say: "I have the Common Law RIGHT to Remain Silent, and that is about as peaceful as anyone could possibly be. You, as Justices of the PEACE, have SOLEMNLY-SWORN to uphold the PEACE. Thus you MUST uphold my RIGHT to PEACE, and MUST (THEREFORE) IMMEDIATELY DISMISS THIS CASE. If you don't do that, then I will dismiss it myself. However, if I have to do it for you, then I will also have you arrested and charged under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835, Section 13, for UNLAWFULLY ADMINISTERING YOUR OATHS OF OFFICE, and not upholding my RIGHT to live in PEACE".
The Charge Sheet you will fill in ... and hand back into the same Court Offices (so take a blank copy with you!) can be found here. (Just the second page is all that is necessary ... but you could hand in the first page as 'subsidiary explanation').
They.
Don't.
Like.
It.
Up 'em.
Veronica, November 2011
Update: End of November, 2011 - 'Twisting the knife'
You could, if you wished, 'twist the knife' a little further by adding the following "PS" to any letter:
"PS If I were to fill out your paperwork, I would sign it very clearly "Under Protest & Duress". Consequently everything filled in would be null & void IN LAW and, as a consequence, would not count - because it would not be legally or lawfully binding."
They.
Still.
Don't.
Like.
It.
Up 'em.
Veronica, End November 2011
All Judges take the Judicial Oath when they are sworn in:
I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, in the office of Justice of the Peace/Judge, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the realm without fear or favour, affectation or ill-will
Administrative Law (so called) forms no part of the laws and usages of the realm - which Judges swear to the Sovereign to uphold via Promissory Oath that binds them to a specific course of conduct otherwise they cannot be said to perform their judicial duties impartially.
Performing administrative acts on behalf of the executive is incompatible with the terms of the Oath, which Judges take when they are created under Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, which every Judge must take. A breach of that Oath is perjury.
If the argument is that Common Law has no basis in administrative law proceedings (and therefore is irrelevant), it should be noted that administrative law has not been sanctioned by Parliament. It should also be noted that the crime of murder is a Common Law crime (manslaughter, etc. are Statutory but murder still remains Common Law). Thus to disavow the Common Law, disavows the crime of murder. The consequence would be that someone could pre-meditate to take the life of another (without, necessarily, requiring any reason whatsoever!), and no crime would have been committed in that a circumstance. This is the absurd position we would all be in, without the protection of the Common Law.
Actions which overthrow and subvert the laws and Constitution of the Kingdom and which would lead to the destruction of the Constitution are unlawful.
The case of R V Thistlewood (1820) established that To destroy the Constitution of the country is an act of treason.
Halsburys Administrative Law 2011 confirms that administrative law is (nothing more than) an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And that the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country, and NO Act could be passed to legitimise them. (SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO FOLLOW )
Statement of Offence:
Administering an unlawful Oath, contrary to Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.
Particulars of Offence:
(+) being a Judge/Magistrate (-) for the county of ..(+) on the day of . unlawfully administered an Oath to (+) in a manner which the said Judge/Magistrate (-) had no jurisdiction, namely:
The Judge/Magistrate (-) has sworn an Oath to well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the Office of Judge/Magistrate (-), and to do right by all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affectation or ill-will.
The aforesaid Oath does not authorize any Judge/Magistrate (-) in the Common Law Jurisdiction of England and Wales to adjudicate any Hearing in which the matter is to be decided in any way other than by a Jury. Furthermore, in the Hearing in question there was no Injured Party, no corpus delecti, and no Defendant. Therefore the Common Law Oath under which the Judge/Magistrate (-) claimed authority is unlawful and constitutes an offence contrary to Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. The fact that the Judge/Magistrate (-) sat is considered to be prima facie evidence of the offence.
(- = delete as applicable; + = insert name, as applicable)
I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, in the office of Justice of the Peace/Judge, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the realm without fear or favour, affectation or ill-will
Administrative Law (so called) forms no part of the laws and usages of the realm - which Judges swear to the Sovereign to uphold via Promissory Oath that binds them to a specific course of conduct otherwise they cannot be said to perform their judicial duties impartially.
Performing administrative acts on behalf of the executive is incompatible with the terms of the Oath, which Judges take when they are created under Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, which every Judge must take. A breach of that Oath is perjury.
If the argument is that Common Law has no basis in administrative law proceedings (and therefore is irrelevant), it should be noted that administrative law has not been sanctioned by Parliament. It should also be noted that the crime of murder is a Common Law crime (manslaughter, etc. are Statutory but murder still remains Common Law). Thus to disavow the Common Law, disavows the crime of murder. The consequence would be that someone could pre-meditate to take the life of another (without, necessarily, requiring any reason whatsoever!), and no crime would have been committed in that a circumstance. This is the absurd position we would all be in, without the protection of the Common Law.
Actions which overthrow and subvert the laws and Constitution of the Kingdom and which would lead to the destruction of the Constitution are unlawful.
The case of R V Thistlewood (1820) established that To destroy the Constitution of the country is an act of treason.
Halsburys Administrative Law 2011 confirms that administrative law is (nothing more than) an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And that the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country, and NO Act could be passed to legitimise them. (SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO FOLLOW )
Statement of Offence:
Administering an unlawful Oath, contrary to Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.
Particulars of Offence:
(+) being a Judge/Magistrate (-) for the county of ..(+) on the day of . unlawfully administered an Oath to (+) in a manner which the said Judge/Magistrate (-) had no jurisdiction, namely:
The Judge/Magistrate (-) has sworn an Oath to well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the Office of Judge/Magistrate (-), and to do right by all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affectation or ill-will.
The aforesaid Oath does not authorize any Judge/Magistrate (-) in the Common Law Jurisdiction of England and Wales to adjudicate any Hearing in which the matter is to be decided in any way other than by a Jury. Furthermore, in the Hearing in question there was no Injured Party, no corpus delecti, and no Defendant. Therefore the Common Law Oath under which the Judge/Magistrate (-) claimed authority is unlawful and constitutes an offence contrary to Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. The fact that the Judge/Magistrate (-) sat is considered to be prima facie evidence of the offence.
(- = delete as applicable; + = insert name, as applicable)
There is a lot more to come.............
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
And how are those working out for you?
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
How about just linking to it and referring to salient content?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
This is absolutely correct except that you should always also refer to the judge as Fuckface.
He's far more likely to to be impressed by your knowledge of the law if you use the correct terminology.
So you Do accept that it's not all gobbledegook!! Yay
Just pay your council tax and stop parking in resident only bays. They are resident only for a reason, people need to park outside their house and their right trumps your desire to not have to walk into town.
If you fuckwits invested half as much time into positive things as this pathetic wibble you'd probably have cured serious disease or colonised Mars or something.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Totally. Also remember that if you are ever apprehended by a policeman, you can assert your rights as a freeman on the land by knocking off his helmet and shouting "Fuck you dickhead. I reject your authority. I am a Freeman on The Land".
Works every time.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
And, don't forget a pregnant woman has the right to relieve herself in a policeman’s helmet.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Woop woop that's the sound of the policyman
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Should be policypeople really
Have you heard about the cure for cancer? Well it's out there if you look hard enough. But there again let's spend millions and millions on prevention and treatment rather than cure! Ffs they have cloned sheep! Cracked the human genome!
Combustible
Well-Known Member
Idiocies
Id-io-cies
ID- In Our - SEAS
Because your "name" is only your legal identity (ID) in admirality law (in our seas). On land in the realm of common law, one signs as Freeman of the Family XXX
(did I do this right)
It's OK to mock things you surely don't want to understand.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Vitamin C or smoking loads of weed?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
He did, which is why he's calling them "home made bank notes"
Let me guess. Is it vitamin c by chance? Or Colloidal Silver?
Did Steve Jobs die in vain?
Home
Miracle Medicine
Medicine vid's & InfoDare you?
The Truth Will Set You Free, But First It Will Really Piss You Off!
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
and;
A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies [that praised the drugs] were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”
Marcia Angell, MD, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.
“As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.”
Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President of The American Chemical Society
“My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer than treated individuals. For a typical type of cancer, people who refused treatment lived for an average of 12 & ½ years. Those who accepted surgery or other kinds of treatment [chemotherapy, radiation, cobalt] lived an average of only three years.”
Dr. Hardin Jones, Physiology, University of California, Berkeley
Iatrogenic deaths (deaths caused by doctors) is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States according to the medical establishment’s own statistics. Death by doctor is so normal that they have actually coined a word for it: ‘iatrogenic’.
Health Wyze Report
Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.
Read more here!
Linus Pauling
All nuclear and chemotherapy treatments are known to cause and spread cancers. These are flippantly referred to as ‘known side effects’. Cancer screenings do the same, by likewise exposing victims to radiation and various industrial poisons. This is why breast cancer rates explode with expansive mammography testing.
Health Wyze Report
Please watch the below presentation:
The Health Wyze Report
And then click here for more revelations.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
This conspiracy theory has been around for years, it's not just bonkers, but fucking insulting to those facing cancer, you fucking lowlife twat.
Think the words you are looking for is 'pond scum' and I have lost friends to cancer so I agree with you but I look towards the so called 'medical professionals' to vent my anger!
lazythursday
Well-Known Member
Why do all the freemen think that 'common law' is some timeless set of noble rules and rights, rather than what it actually is, judge-made law created through precedents, which actually is reinterpreted all the time?
And why would it be in the slightest bit in anyone's favour to prefer the parts of the legal system made by elite judges (the very top of the privately educated establishment) rather than statute law which is created through at least a flawed democratic process with an opportunity to have an input?
And why would it be in the slightest bit in anyone's favour to prefer the parts of the legal system made by elite judges (the very top of the privately educated establishment) rather than statute law which is created through at least a flawed democratic process with an opportunity to have an input?
joustmaster
offcumdun
Fuck off you horrible cruel little person.
We don't want you here.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
You have just quoted Dr. Hardin Jones, Physiology, University of California, Berkeley - who in died in 1978, the quote is from a paper, not study, published in 1956, so certainly not 'recently revealed', as loons like you claim.
Similar threads
