Laws and Statutes - The Rule Of Law In The UK

Originally posted by Essan
btw do people really belive that it's okay to sell alcohol to a child, because the law making it an offence to do so is written in the statute book and therefore you can choice whether or not you want to be bound by it?

And what about rape? Or child molestation? You really beleive you can do anything you want without punishment?

That you are above all the laws?

Eughh, you are too frustrating to be true!!

Of course giving children alcohol and molesting them isn't lawful, it's COMMON LAW!!

A statute is NOT a law, it is a piece of written LEGISLATION with the FORCE OF LAW should the person who is governed GIVE THEIR CONSENT TO THAT STATUTE!!

COMMON LAW must be obeyed at all times, in other words they are laws that guarantee Human Rights that make it a crime to hurt a human or cause another human loss, but STATUTE is what Governments make, and the only reason Governments exist is because the average person ALLOWS THEM THROUGH CONSENT!!

You CAN withdraw you consent to be governed, i.e you can refuse to be governed with the STATUTES made by Governments, but you CANNOT withdraw consent from COMMON LAW ....


How many times does someone nee to have the information blatantly shown to them before they realise they are stating that they are WRONG to say that a Statute and a Law are the same thing?

LOOK IN A DICTIONARY OF LAW ... the Law and Statutes are even given totally different LEGAL TERMS!

reply to post by Essan


Er, if we were to abide by COMMON Law then rape or anything that causes HARM is already covered ?
Common Law covers EVERYTHING !

Simples


Peace

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by Essan

 

Er, if we were to abide by COMMON Law then rape or anything that causes HARM is already covered ?
Common Law covers EVERYTHING !

Simples


Peace

COMMON LAW COVERS HARM TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR CAUSING AN INDIVIDUAL LOSS IN SOME CONCEPT!!!!

That is not EVERYTHING covered, Common Law does not cover EVERYTHING in the world, it doesn't cover making people pay tax, because tax isn't physical harm or allowing somebody to lose anything, tax is forced and your tax pays for societal benefits such as Police and NHS, terefore it is not classed as a LOSS of money as it is used as a service, and it certainly doesn't constitute any HARM, therefore COMMON LAW DOES NOT COVER THIS, therefore doesn't cover EVERYTHING, and because taxation is NOT COMMON LAW, we have the lawful right to refuse to pay tax, and there's nothing they can do about it!!

Get some decent education, then come back with a DECENT and LOGICAL argument with VALID points and a SOURCE to prove yourself.

reply to post by domasio

Common Law does cover everything !
You know what is right and what is wrong ?
You are correct concerning tax but that was not the issue I was addressing with Essen ?
I think you may have got my statememnts confused !

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by domasio

 

Common Law does cover everything !
You know what is right and what is wrong ?
You are correct concerning tax but that was not the issue I was addressing with Essen ?
I think you may have got my statememnts confused !

I have nothing confused. You were making it clear that statutes HAVE to be followed just like Common Law, in fact you said they were the same thing, when in fact they are definitely not. Common Law regards anything that you KNOW to be wrong, such as murder, fraud etc, and the "laws" enacted by Government are the statutes, which do not have to be adhered to as they are forced upon you if you give consent, and your birth gives your consent, as when you are born your birth certificate hands your legal body over into the hands of business, and you are a tradeable asset that belongs to the business that is your Government, therefore until you withdraw your consent, you have to follow the statutes, but you can very easily just refuse to follow them, as they are not national Common Law. A free person in a real democracy can not be forced to hand over money for the "good of the entire community" ... that is totally against freedom.

reply to post by ANOK


Indeed... I have argued to dealt the idiot "Freemen" in the US orientated threads, where they harp on about going back to "English Common Law" as if it is some mystical and long forgotten time where everyone was free and pink bunnies bounced through meadows...

Basically it boils down to a catastrophic intellectual failure in understanding law at all. In it's most basic form, Common Law is case law, set by precident and Statute Law is one produced by the legislative, which itself is then subject to interpretation by the Courts (in the UK at least), which sets precedent leading to a common law interpretation of the statute.

And I have no idea why the OP thinks the Government is a legal "company", it's a logical fallacy if anything. By what law was the Government (which creates law) created, if it is "legal"?

Originally posted by domasio
A statute is NOT a law, it is a piece of written LEGISLATION with the FORCE OF LAW should the person who is governed GIVE THEIR CONSENT TO THAT STATUTE!!

A statute is a Law, which is then interpreted by the Courts (or even struck down in some cases) leading to a Common law interpretation.

Originally posted by domasio
COMMON LAW must be obeyed at all times, in other words they are laws that guarantee Human Rights that make it a crime to hurt a human or cause another human loss, but STATUTE is what Governments make, and the only reason Governments exist is because the average person ALLOWS THEM THROUGH CONSENT!!

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? Statutes are laws, but how they are interpreted and enforced leads to common law; law by precedent.

Originally posted by domasio
LOOK IN A DICTIONARY OF LAW ... the Law and Statutes are even given totally different LEGAL TERMS!

I love irony... Mmmmmm, yum, yum...

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ANOK

 

Indeed... I have argued to dealt the idiot "Freemen" in the US orientated threads, where they harp on about going back to "English Common Law" as if it is some mystical and long forgotten time where everyone was free and pink bunnies bounced through meadows...

Basically it boils down to a catastrophic intellectual failure in understanding law at all. In it's most basic form, Common Law is case law, set by precident and Statute Law is one produced by the legislative, which itself is then subject to interpretation by the Courts (in the UK at least), which sets precedent leading to a common law interpretation of the statute.

And I have no idea why the OP thinks the Government is a legal "company", it's a logical fallacy if anything. By what law was the Government (which creates law) created, if it is "legal"?

In the list of the 160 million or so businesses worldwide, this country is registered as a company, as are the Prime Minister, the diplomat Alistair Darling, The Prime Minister, the Courts, the Military, the Police, the NHS ... everything ... al registered as private limited companies ... need I go any further to prove you wrong?

reply to post by domasio


Well, yes. A link to this supposed registartion at Companies House would be a good start, without which your talking out your arse.

Certain entities are registered as coporations for various reasons, it will be interesting to see what you pull out the bag but I am pretty sure you've got the wrong end of the wrong stick

reply to post by stumason


I'll save you the effort as if you could find them, you would have them by now.

It took me 2 minutes to establish that David Cameron isn't a Ltd Company.

The Office of the Prime Minister, or any variation, isn't a Ltd Company.

I also checked Thames Valley Police, again not a Ltd Company.

Just for giggles, I checked the Royal Berkshire NHS Trust. Again, nothing.

EDIT: Here is the link to the online webtool at Companies House, which lists all the companies ever to be registered in the UK, past or present

creditreports.dnb.com...

There you go dude, any single discrepancy that we've discussed, you will find on there with the search bar on the home page ... done and dusted

Well done for finding the hidden door.

Ignore Essan and Stumason, they're the same blokes will try convince you the government was voted in, and is your best option for the rest of your life, until you die and your estate can be raped.

It all starts with the birth certificate, where your mother begs the state to be primary caregiver (she completes an APPLIcation for REGIStration of live BIRTH). In exchange, the state offers a book of rules (benefits and priviledges) that are ONLY applicable to members of the state. That's where the free will bit is, everything AFTER that rules that you have already given your consent. Right now you do not have free will, because you have traded away that right for benifits and priviledges of citizenship, which include the right to be gaoled for drinking and driving, littering, and not paying rates and taxes. While unpleasant, none of those directly harm others, unlike rape, or assault.

If you withdraw your consent, the only laws you will be OBLIGED to follow is God's laws, and your own. Anyone else who wishes you to DO something has to have your permission, express permission, otherwise you will be acting under duress, a common law crime against YOU, even more so if the person committing the crime against you has a weapon.

Traffic violations are the most typical "statute" and curiously, the ocifers are only offering a service, which you enter into willingly. Should you wish to decline the service, they will point out that by citizenship, you are already subscribed, and because you are already subscribed, any attempt to decline service is met with: further charges.

They claim to rule over you, with your consent. Withdraw your consent, and they have no rights over you. You will however have not a ruler, but an enemy. Which is all the government is anyway. Better to see things as they are and not how they are trying to convince you it is.

It becomes a moral duty to object when you understand how these concepts are woven into the banking system, and how we are all duped and robbed at the pleasure of those who know.

Some interesting information here, watched the video's but a little unsure how anyone can use the information practically in a real life situation, if you refuse to acknowledge the statues as having governance over you those then same statutes offer you no protection either

Will have to look into this a lot more I think

Originally posted by domasio
In the list of the 160 million or so businesses worldwide, this country is registered as a company, as are the Prime Minister, the diplomat Alistair Darling, The Prime Minister, the Courts, the Military, the Police, the NHS ... everything ... al registered as private limited companies ... need I go any further to prove you wrong?

A corporation is not a business, it is a legal collection of companies, or individuals. A lot of wealthy individuals incorporate for the same reason businesses do, the tax breaks, and other perks such as distancing their personal wealth from their companies. so if the business goes bad they don't lose anything much.

A corporation has legal privileges that it's members, businesses and individuals, do not have. A corporation has limited liabilities, the owner/share holders are not held responsible for company debts if it goes bust.

Corporations become government lobbyists for it's members. It's like welfare for capitalists. It all started with 'Mercantilism', in which the government controlled foreign trade on behalf of the merchants, from the 1600 to 1800's. The state monopolized trade by building ports, and waged war in order to control trade. They encouraged a larger population growth, in order to form bigger markets and armies.

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
Some interesting information here, watched the video's but a little unsure how anyone can use the information practically in a real life situation, if you refuse to acknowledge the statues as having governance over you those then same statutes offer you no protection either

Will have to look into this a lot more I think

If it meant true freedom, in the proper meaning of the word, then i'd happily give up the "protection" that having governance offers.

Basically, it is not outright giving up anything to do with your country, it is stating to the Government that you take back the ownership of your name, and that you will continue to comply with Common Law and live peacefully on the land that the society uses, but you reserve your right to not have to comply with the statutes of the Government, as you are in ownership of your own being.

It involves notifying the Queen and such things, through letters that are to be given time-limits on which they are to reply,and serving a notice that you understand your rights to be Common Law only.

It has to be researched very thoroughly, and most people are put off due to the idea of losing protection, such as how to eat and such, but you can start your own business, and do not have to pay any tax on your own business, because your business would operate under your own laws, and as such, you can make your method of charging people for your services, whether it be bank notes, or bananas if you wanted. The Government couldn't stop you from using Common Law land for growing your own food, and raising your own cattle if you so wished, and they could not stop you from using your own power sources, and reneweable energy. Technically, you could do things that you wouldn't be able to do under Government rule.

I don't really like calling them Government, as a Government is technically supposed to work for the good of it;s citizens, which most Governments nowadays do not.

reply to post by domasio


I understand what you are saying, but you have missed my point, when I mean protection, I mean protection by law, for example you say we can grow on common law land, so I plant my food there, they remove it, what can I do to stop them? Nothing, I have no legal redress, I cannot take them to court because if I do I automatically reinsert myself back into that system, I have to acknowledge that that particular legal system has authority over the decision, over me, it is a catch 22 system

If they come and lock you up, who do you have to defend you?, by trying to address the court, any court whether that be in the UK or the EU I have to acknowledge the authority of that court and uphold its decision, do you see my point?

I do not disagree with the information in the OP, I just cannot see any practical way we as an individual can utilize it to our benefit without the whole of society also adopting it, this is why I said I need to loo into it more, to see if there is any useful application for this knowledge

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer... you say we can grow on common law land, so I plant my food there, they remove it, what can I do to stop them?

Nothing. Under Common Law, you have very specific rights as to what you can and cannot do on Common Land And even if you are a Commoner, growing crops is not one of them. Though you may graze livestock and collect firewood. Of course, if you don't live in the relevant Parish, and therefore not a Commoner, you can't even do that.

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
reply to post by domasio

 

I understand what you are saying, but you have missed my point, when I mean protection, I mean protection by law, for example you say we can grow on common law land, so I plant my food there, they remove it, what can I do to stop them? Nothing, I have no legal redress, I cannot take them to court because if I do I automatically reinsert myself back into that system, I have to acknowledge that that particular legal system has authority over the decision, over me, it is a catch 22 system

If they come and lock you up, who do you have to defend you?, by trying to address the court, any court whether that be in the UK or the EU I have to acknowledge the authority of that court and uphold its decision, do you see my point?

I do not disagree with the information in the OP, I just cannot see any practical way we as an individual can utilize it to our benefit without the whole of society also adopting it, this is why I said I need to loo into it more, to see if there is any useful application for this knowledge

Actually you will have the protection of Law. If they were t take your crops away, then that would cnstitute that they have cost you to lose something, and Common Law states that if one causes lss upn another, then you are to be punished.

Without the ability to read how could you know what written rules say? Someone explaining them to you may be mistaken or lying. If you didn't understand the language spoken in the area you found yourself in communication would be limited to the old fashioned mime and pictures scratched in the sand. But you would still understand it was wrong for someone to harm you, take your food, break your digging stick or fool you.

A gorilla in a zoo once ran at an open gate during feeding time. Two keepers tried to hold the gate shut but the gorilla was too strong. Desperately one of the keepers jumped back and gave a horrified look over the gorillas shoulder. The gorilla spun round to see what the danger was and the other keeper slammed and locked the gate. The gorilla flew into a rage realising that he had been a victim of fraud. You don't have to be human to understand the Law.

Statutes are something else entirely. Statutes generate revenue. They only apply with consent. For many generations a considerable proportion of the population has enriched themselves one way or another through the process of statute enforcement. These people are very eager to call statutes Law. Those whose knowledge comes from the written word will insist they understand the different types of 'law' and our obligation to prostrate ourselves before our perceived masters. Those whose knowledge comes from the heart are of a different opinion.

Statutes have to be written down because they are not part of our collective moral code. No one could possibly know all the statutes that are said to apply to them, there are far to many to memorise them all. With the exception of the mentally ill we all know what the Law is because we wouldn't want those things done to us.