A freeman in Lawful Rebellion under article 61 of the Magna Carta is stopped by the police... | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 03:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted,to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another [link to www.constitution.org] This explains all of OP's positions. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25238407 Nepal 10/09/2012 03:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25238407 Nepal 10/09/2012 03:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Oh yea, here's the link for the Living Free in a Fem Nazi World eBook again: [link to mensbusinessassociation.com] This book explains very clearly how to become a sovereign. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 03:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Daersoulkeeper User ID: 1140482 United States 10/09/2012 03:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You're an idiot to try and behave in lawful rebellion with the joint in your pocket. Enough said the real reason most people on this planet are the most ignorant gullible people that have ever lived is a little thing called the TELL-LIE-VISION television when you watch it, you put the I(you) in television and you get tel(i)evision tell lie vision |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 03:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Oh yea, here's the link for the Living Free in a Fem Nazi World eBook again: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25238407 [link to mensbusinessassociation.com] This book explains very clearly how to become a sovereign. I read enough to know that the author hates women, probably a fag and that he is the only person who will get a benefit from the book. That benefit would be selling this worthless garbage to suckers like OP |
PeterAndrewNolan User ID: 9143050 Germany 10/09/2012 03:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Dude, given that the entire text of the Magna Carta is in my second book which also has a guest chapter by my friend John Rambo why would you attempt to slur him when he says thank you for posting section 61 of the Magna Carta with the lie that he is not smart enough to find it and post it himself? That is a lie and it is a deliberate slur on someone whom I would judge to be far more intelligent than you. Further. John Rambo genuinely cares about the welfare of other men and has devoted a great deal of time to assist me get some of the most important information ever written out to young men. He managed to get more than 2,000 downloads of my second book by posting links to it in hundreds of places. He will have saved many young mens lives by doing that. I hear women moan about "show respect for women" when it is neither earned or deserved. John Rambo has earned my respect. He has earned your respect. You are obliged to show that respect or expect none for yourself. That is how respect works. I expect a public apology for the lie and attempted slur. Here is The Truth Be Told. You can see the guest chapter by John Rambo...and you can see the Magna Carta in it. John has been handing this book our for months. [link to www.mensbusinessassociation.com] Last Edited by PeterAndrewNolan on 10/09/2012 04:37 PM |
PeterAndrewNolan User ID: 9143050 Germany 10/09/2012 04:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I read enough to know that the author hates women, probably a fag and that he is the only person who will get a benefit from the book. That benefit would be selling this worthless garbage to suckers like OP Quoting: Anonymous Coward 878841 Dude, the lie that I hate women is just that. A lie. And so many people like to tell that lie. Try going over to www.the-spearhead.com and asking men there how men are treated in divorce. Women who commit the crimes of perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse are somehow "entitled" to do so. Apparently destroying a mans life and impoverishing him does not make a woman a "man-hater". But oh...when a man puts his story into writing to save the lives young lads suddenly HE is a "woman hater" just because he wants to save the lives of young men. This is why I tell young men they have NO OBLIGATION to show ANY respect to ANY woman or ANY man over the age of 40 unless that man has really earned it. Because young men have less legal protection than a STRAY DOG and ALL adult women and ALL men over the age of 40 know this to be true and are perfectly happy with that situation. I actually care about the lads and the fact they are being lied to and victimised. So call me a "woman hater" all you like. It just shows your own moral bankruptcy, you own inability to make an argument let alone write a book. Men like you deserve to die. You really do. Last Edited by PeterAndrewNolan on 10/09/2012 04:02 PM |
PeterAndrewNolan User ID: 9143050 Germany 10/09/2012 04:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What hard evidence do you have that this stuff works? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24996072 You're obviously fanatical about it so convert us. You are listed as being from Australia. This is video from inside the Australian Federal Magistrates Court. This is the PROOF that what I did works. If you are intelligent enough to understand what is happening. We are about to remove all federal members in Australia. While you were busy watching football and drinking beer my colleagues and I were busy saving your arse from being killed. I spent most of 2008/09 learning how to create the remedy and I tested the remedy on November 26th 2009. Quite a few men went to jail to get the information in the remedy. Trial and error. I then spent nearly another year learning things and assessing what else could be improved and released the living free book in October 2010. Anyone who does not use such a resource offered for free deserves to be enslaved or killed. [link to www.youtube.com] By the way? Convert you? You need to be CONVERTED to wish to live in freedom and to not be enslaved or killed? FFS. Go kill yourself now in some mans rose garden and become fertilizer. If you DEMAND that some man spend his time CONVERTING you from wanting to be a slave OR DEAD to being a live sovereign you have no right being alive. You are an oxygen thief. Last Edited by PeterAndrewNolan on 10/09/2012 04:10 PM |
PeterAndrewNolan User ID: 9143050 Germany 10/09/2012 04:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If all this freeman shit is based on law, then quote the letter of said laws. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24996072 There here you go....quoted and read aloud for morons like you. "What is law" [link to www.youtube.com] The definition of a sovereign is in Genesis 1:26. For those of you too stupid or lazy to be bothered to google it? It says this. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Note. "Dominion over all the earth" That is what a sovereign like me has. Dominion over all the earth. I have sent this to the Pope, Angela Merkel and the head of the catholic church in germany and asked them how it might be that the German guvment is making the claim that it somehow outranks GOD HIMSELF. Since Angela Merkel is the daughter of a minister she seems to be having problems answering that question because she knows that to claim to be above God is Blasphemy. By the way? Here is a letter I sent to more than 800 incumbent politicians pointing out the same thing and more. For some reason NONE of more than 800 politicians can explain to me how they come to outrank GOD HIMSELF. [link to www.youtube.com] And all those people who just go "well the guvement has the right to make laws because we voted for them"? That is pretty damn stupid! Last Edited by PeterAndrewNolan on 10/09/2012 04:20 PM |
PeterAndrewNolan User ID: 9143050 Germany 10/09/2012 04:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Part of the reason for licensing drivers is to insure they have sufficient physical and mental skills to operate a vehicle. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1031952 You ARE kidding me, right? Driving licenses have NOTHING to do with ensuring people have sufficient physical and mental skills to operate a vehicle...I would have thought that any one of 10,000 videos on you tube of women driving cars would have convinced you of that. Wow...some people are such morons. The REAL reason for driving licenses is as a control mechanism to threaten to take it off you if you cause your slave masters any trouble. |
PeterAndrewNolan User ID: 9143050 Germany 10/09/2012 04:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This thread is not about whether or not the traffic stop cited was legitimate, it is about one person's belief that he does not have to conform to laws (statutes or whatever semantic spin you put on it) that most reasonable people woulld accept as agreeing with common law principles. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1031952 No one HAS to conform to legislation. Period. It does not matter that most people FALSELY believe legislation is law. By the way? They used to be called PEACE OFFICERS and they were GUARDIANS of the PEACE. There were there to provide the PROTECTION OF THE LAW. They are now called POLICE OFFICERS and they are POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS and they are there to ENFORCE THE POLICIES AND LEGISLATION OF THE GUVMENT which are falsely called LAWS. Just because lots of stupid people accept something does not make it true. Not that long ago lots of people accepted the world was flat. Everything if which we speak was well understood in 1776 in the US....a child of TEN would run rings about ignorant people like you when it came to the matter of law vs legislation and the various jurisdictions of the courts. Try reading the declaration of independence of the US....I put the whole thing into this video....it is so amusing to see very stupid and very ignorant people so arrogant about their stupidity and ignorance they argue completely falsely in the fact of well established facts. [link to www.youtube.com] Last Edited by PeterAndrewNolan on 10/09/2012 04:35 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 16975066 United Kingdom 10/09/2012 05:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Common Law is where we get the term, Common Sense. I think you will find that it is most peoples common sense not to be told what to do. Robert Menard. Dean Clifford. Both great videos, but the first is most entertaining. Have Fun and be free. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 05:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This thread is not about whether or not the traffic stop cited was legitimate, it is about one person's belief that he does not have to conform to laws (statutes or whatever semantic spin you put on it) that most reasonable people woulld accept as agreeing with common law principles. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1031952 No one HAS to conform to legislation. Period. It does not matter that most people FALSELY believe legislation is law. By the way? They used to be called PEACE OFFICERS and they were GUARDIANS of the PEACE. There were there to provide the PROTECTION OF THE LAW. They are now called POLICE OFFICERS and they are POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS and they are there to ENFORCE THE POLICIES AND LEGISLATION OF THE GUVMENT which are falsely called LAWS. Just because lots of stupid people accept something does not make it true. Not that long ago lots of people accepted the world was flat. Everything if which we speak was well understood in 1776 in the US....a child of TEN would run rings about ignorant people like you when it came to the matter of law vs legislation and the various jurisdictions of the courts. Try reading the declaration of independence of the US....I put the whole thing into this video....it is so amusing to see very stupid and very ignorant people so arrogant about their stupidity and ignorance they argue completely falsely in the fact of well established facts. [link to www.youtube.com] You called me stuoid about 6 times. I guess that makes you right. But really, can you show me on example of this common law De Jour jury thing cactually working without a code of criminal law and statue law to enfoce the principles? If I am not subject to the law enforcers how can I be mage to comply with any ruling by a de jour jury? I simple refuse my consent to be governed. In other word, it only works if we AGREE and ACCEPT the juristiction of a given court, jury or officer of the law. Sinece that hold true for common law, it also holds true for the defact law we have in most countries. 99.9% of people, practially ALL SANE peole accept the current laws as wriietn and applied because those laws make life safer and offers more redress for any offenses (injury) caused to them. If yo asult me, in your world what are my options? How can I be compensated UNLESS you agree and consent to the juristiction of a jury and if you consent to be held for trial. What if you refuse consent to be governed or if you do not accept the officers right to even summon you to jury? What options do I have if you refuse to pay for my injuries? In your system I have NO OPTIONS except to HOPE you do the right thing. In my world, I file a complaint, the state charges you with a crime. Then the only thing possibly required of me is testmony as a witness. I have no legal expenses. I have little fear of you trying to intimidate me into dropping charges because I didn't bring the charge, the state did. I also have the option of suing in civil court and your presence is MANDITORY and usually judgements will be enforced with laws of qarenshee or you might be further charged with contempt if you refuse to pay. You system sucks. Your system will not work. The system I submit to is far from perfect, but it works more often than not. And people with poor vision will not be issued a driver's license. Repeat drunk drivers will have theirs revoked. My 8 year old son is too young and will be denied. Just those few examples make the roads safer for everybody to use. The traffic cop pulling over an erratic driver could easily save your life...or mine. The officer stopping you to inform you that you have lights not working could also prevent an accident. I don't know when OP moved out and you moved in, but it seems you refuse logical arguments as well as he does. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 05:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Common Law is where we get the term, Common Sense. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16975066 I think you will find that it is most peoples common sense not to be told what to do. Robert Menard. Dean Clifford. Both great videos, but the first is most entertaining. Have Fun and be free. But without some method of enforcing 'common law' it is useless. And OP declared he does not consent to the authority of the police. So how do we enforce the common law for the few who do not have enough sense and refuse to be subjected to any law, as OP does? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 05:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Common Law is where we get the term, Common Sense. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16975066 I think you will find that it is most peoples common sense not to be told what to do. Robert Menard. Dean Clifford. Both great videos, but the first is most entertaining. Have Fun and be free. Judging by the screen shot of the 1st video, God is the only authority above OP, who does not submit to the established law enforcers. According to that, he can kill and rape and steal as he pleases and still answer to no man. Great idea. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 05:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Common Law is where we get the term, Common Sense. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16975066 I think you will find that it is most peoples common sense not to be told what to do. Robert Menard. Dean Clifford. Both great videos, but the first is most entertaining. Have Fun and be free. Judging by the screen shot of the 1st video, God is the only authority above OP, who does not submit to the established law enforcers. According to that, he can kill and rape and steal as he pleases and still answer to no man. Great idea. |
Top Hat Top Hat User ID: 4430290 United States 10/09/2012 06:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 06:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | My 42 year old son has 3 kids with a particular woman he was married to. As a parent he did have a financial (and other) obligations to his kids. Any who disagrees with that is not a human being. He did not pay any support to his wife nor was he emotionallt supportive of of kids for over 7 years. He recently went to court, received a judgement of the amount of money he owes his ex, won custody of 2 of the 3 kids, and now he pays his ex no money and the debt he owes her is reduced monthly in lieu of her paying support to him. I don't know how OP or the German can say that is unfair in any way or that the court is biased toward women. This whole thing is merely a way for some people to shirk their MORAL and legal obligations and to place themselves in a higher position than other men by placing themselves above accepted law (replace with the semantics or your choice). |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 06:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Common Law is where we get the term, Common Sense. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16975066 I think you will find that it is most peoples common sense not to be told what to do. Robert Menard. Dean Clifford. Both great videos, but the first is most entertaining. Have Fun and be free. But without some method of enforcing 'common law' it is useless. And OP declared he does not consent to the authority of the police. So how do we enforce the common law for the few who do not have enough sense and refuse to be subjected to any law, as OP does? ding to the German, women are not human, so the 1st video must be garbage. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 06:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just look at the world you live in. Tink hard about all the rules and regulations we have. Sure some are arbitrary, some are unfair, some are only for the powerful to exert power or collect money (fines). That is all true. But look past that at the laws that protect you and your safety more that they restrict you. We hate to slow to 20 MPH in a school zone. But kids were getting hit and killed or maimed, so to REDUCE the chance of more kids getting hit the speed limit is lowered. Op would call that a law to raise revenue. In a really liberal city in California where public nudity is legal, there is a law requiring nude peolle place a towel on a public bench before sitting. Anyone here think that is a bad law? Or would you rather sit in someone elses ass matter? Someone here said commonlaw is common sense. If you think this through to a logical conclusion you will probably agree, most accepted law IS common sense. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25264577 Sweden 10/09/2012 06:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP I`m proud of you! I myself would rather pay cartaxes to be less troubled by them parasites, but... That doesn´t matter. What all the nay-sayers do not realise is that everyone is entitled to live their life how they please. I was forced to dive even more in the statues as being totally overrun by the SSystem which denies my origin. So whatever you chose it is your right to do so. One day I´ll stop paying taxes; that is my goal.;-) Good luck brother! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 07:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | There is a law (semantics) in the state where i live that bans smoking in all public places (of business) for patrons and employees. Bars included. I think it sucks and I wish I was like OP, a freeman who is not subject to law that is not based on common law. This MUST be a case of our masters ruling by fiat, probably to exact money from fines. Not so fast Skippy. It seems a group of folks had an idea of this law, circulated a petition and got sufficient signature to place the issue on the state ballot for the public to vote on. It passed, the majority of voters wanted this law. Yes, there is a fine asociated with violating the law, but officials don't know who to fine. If the business removes ashtrays and puts up no smoking signs it has fulfilled it's obligation. If a patron (freeman) smokes in disregard of the owner asking him not to, well, police must catch him in the act, which is almost impossible. No fines. So the question is, since this law originated with the people and was enacted by the people, is it not a COMMON LAW? And we would never break a common law, would we mr freeman? Nope. Freeman will do as he please, smoke wherever and whenever he please because he is above any law. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 07:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP I`m proud of you! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25264577 I myself would rather pay cartaxes to be less troubled by them parasites, but... That doesn´t matter. What all the nay-sayers do not realise is that everyone is entitled to live their life how they please.I was forced to dive even more in the statues as being totally overrun by the SSystem which denies my origin. So whatever you chose it is your right to do so. One day I´ll stop paying taxes; that is my goal.;-) Good luck brother! Not true. We are entitled to live in a manner that does not interfere with the rights of others. Unless you are like OP and think yourself better than everyone else. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 07:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP I`m proud of you! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25264577 I myself would rather pay cartaxes to be less troubled by them parasites, but... That doesn´t matter. What all the nay-sayers do not realise is that everyone is entitled to live their life how they please. I was forced to dive even more in the statues as being totally overrun by the SSystem which denies my origin. So whatever you chose it is your right to do so. One day I´ll stop paying taxes; that is my goal.;-) Good luck brother! You might stop paying taxes but I'll bet you'll feel entitled to avail yourself of the benefits of the taxes other folks pay. You'll use the roads, schools, libraries and subsidised housing and yuor national medical system. You would be a leach on society, but then again, you and OP are better then everyone else. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25267079 Nepal 10/09/2012 07:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This thread is not about whether or not the traffic stop cited was legitimate, it is about one person's belief that he does not have to conform to laws (statutes or whatever semantic spin you put on it) that most reasonable people woulld accept as agreeing with common law principles. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1031952 No one HAS to conform to legislation. Period. It does not matter that most people FALSELY believe legislation is law. By the way? They used to be called PEACE OFFICERS and they were GUARDIANS of the PEACE. There were there to provide the PROTECTION OF THE LAW. They are now called POLICE OFFICERS and they are POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS and they are there to ENFORCE THE POLICIES AND LEGISLATION OF THE GUVMENT which are falsely called LAWS. Just because lots of stupid people accept something does not make it true. Not that long ago lots of people accepted the world was flat. Everything if which we speak was well understood in 1776 in the US....a child of TEN would run rings about ignorant people like you when it came to the matter of law vs legislation and the various jurisdictions of the courts. Try reading the declaration of independence of the US....I put the whole thing into this video....it is so amusing to see very stupid and very ignorant people so arrogant about their stupidity and ignorance they argue completely falsely in the fact of well established facts. [link to www.youtube.com] You called me stuoid about 6 times. I guess that makes you right. But really, can you show me on example of this common law De Jour jury thing cactually working without a code of criminal law and statue law to enfoce the principles? If I am not subject to the law enforcers how can I be mage to comply with any ruling by a de jour jury? I simple refuse my consent to be governed. In other word, it only works if we AGREE and ACCEPT the juristiction of a given court, jury or officer of the law. Sinece that hold true for common law, it also holds true for the defact law we have in most countries. 99.9% of people, practially ALL SANE peole accept the current laws as wriietn and applied because those laws make life safer and offers more redress for any offenses (injury) caused to them. If yo asult me, in your world what are my options? How can I be compensated UNLESS you agree and consent to the juristiction of a jury and if you consent to be held for trial. What if you refuse consent to be governed or if you do not accept the officers right to even summon you to jury? What options do I have if you refuse to pay for my injuries? In your system I have NO OPTIONS except to HOPE you do the right thing. In my world, I file a complaint, the state charges you with a crime. Then the only thing possibly required of me is testmony as a witness. I have no legal expenses. I have little fear of you trying to intimidate me into dropping charges because I didn't bring the charge, the state did. I also have the option of suing in civil court and your presence is MANDITORY and usually judgements will be enforced with laws of qarenshee or you might be further charged with contempt if you refuse to pay. You system sucks. Your system will not work. The system I submit to is far from perfect, but it works more often than not. And people with poor vision will not be issued a driver's license. Repeat drunk drivers will have theirs revoked. My 8 year old son is too young and will be denied. Just those few examples make the roads safer for everybody to use. The traffic cop pulling over an erratic driver could easily save your life...or mine. The officer stopping you to inform you that you have lights not working could also prevent an accident. I don't know when OP moved out and you moved in, but it seems you refuse logical arguments as well as he does. Wrong. You cannot claim to be above COMMON LAW. The three basic common laws were already written repeatedly in this thread. For example, if you kill someone. You CAN be punished by a common law court even if you deny the jurisdiction of the UCC courts, what you call the legal system. And one more time- you are referring to LEGISLATION as "laws". Really, pull your head out of your ass, man. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 07:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This thread is not about whether or not the traffic stop cited was legitimate, it is about one person's belief that he does not have to conform to laws (statutes or whatever semantic spin you put on it) that most reasonable people woulld accept as agreeing with common law principles. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1031952 No one HAS to conform to legislation. Period. It does not matter that most people FALSELY believe legislation is law. By the way? They used to be called PEACE OFFICERS and they were GUARDIANS of the PEACE. There were there to provide the PROTECTION OF THE LAW. They are now called POLICE OFFICERS and they are POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS and they are there to ENFORCE THE POLICIES AND LEGISLATION OF THE GUVMENT which are falsely called LAWS. Just because lots of stupid people accept something does not make it true. Not that long ago lots of people accepted the world was flat. Everything if which we speak was well understood in 1776 in the US....a child of TEN would run rings about ignorant people like you when it came to the matter of law vs legislation and the various jurisdictions of the courts. Try reading the declaration of independence of the US....I put the whole thing into this video....it is so amusing to see very stupid and very ignorant people so arrogant about their stupidity and ignorance they argue completely falsely in the fact of well established facts. [link to www.youtube.com] You called me stuoid about 6 times. I guess that makes you right. But really, can you show me on example of this common law De Jour jury thing cactually working without a code of criminal law and statue law to enfoce the principles? If I am not subject to the law enforcers how can I be mage to comply with any ruling by a de jour jury? I simple refuse my consent to be governed. In other word, it only works if we AGREE and ACCEPT the juristiction of a given court, jury or officer of the law. Sinece that hold true for common law, it also holds true for the defact law we have in most countries. 99.9% of people, practially ALL SANE peole accept the current laws as wriietn and applied because those laws make life safer and offers more redress for any offenses (injury) caused to them. If yo asult me, in your world what are my options? How can I be compensated UNLESS you agree and consent to the juristiction of a jury and if you consent to be held for trial. What if you refuse consent to be governed or if you do not accept the officers right to even summon you to jury? What options do I have if you refuse to pay for my injuries? In your system I have NO OPTIONS except to HOPE you do the right thing. In my world, I file a complaint, the state charges you with a crime. Then the only thing possibly required of me is testmony as a witness. I have no legal expenses. I have little fear of you trying to intimidate me into dropping charges because I didn't bring the charge, the state did. I also have the option of suing in civil court and your presence is MANDITORY and usually judgements will be enforced with laws of qarenshee or you might be further charged with contempt if you refuse to pay. You system sucks. Your system will not work. The system I submit to is far from perfect, but it works more often than not. And people with poor vision will not be issued a driver's license. Repeat drunk drivers will have theirs revoked. My 8 year old son is too young and will be denied. Just those few examples make the roads safer for everybody to use. The traffic cop pulling over an erratic driver could easily save your life...or mine. The officer stopping you to inform you that you have lights not working could also prevent an accident. I don't know when OP moved out and you moved in, but it seems you refuse logical arguments as well as he does. Wrong. You cannot claim to be above COMMON LAW. The three basic common laws were already written repeatedly in this thread. For example, if you kill someone. You CAN be punished by a common law court even if you deny the jurisdiction of the UCC courts, what you call the legal system. And one more time- you are referring to LEGISLATION as "laws". Really, pull your head out of your ass, man. And I asked you, you prick, to substitute whichever word you want to use when I say law. You know whay I mean you smug idiot. You repaet three common laws. Fine. Tell me how anyone is made to comply with these laws? I have asked and asked and you just call me stupid. How are these laws enforced? Is there a police force? Is there a collection system to pay for damages to another freeman? Is there a consequence for not paying your obligations and how are consequences administered? What if I am found liable by a jury but refuse to pay. Big whoop, right? Fuck you, I'm simply not paying you and heres another bloddy nose for trying make me pay. What part of that don't you get? How does it all work in your dream world? And what is the (legal)definition of 'harm', harm to me could mean something totally different then to you. We need a legel definition if we intend to agrue a case to a jury, and the jury needs to understand what 'harm' means. You are half cocked arrogant better than thou son of a bitch. Is that harm? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 07:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What is legislation? leg·is·la·tion [ lèjji sláysh'n ] 1.making of laws: the process of writing and passing laws 2.law or laws: a law or laws passed by an official body, especially a governmental assembly What is law? The result of legislation. Idiot. Your semantic tricks are so lame. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 07:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I cam to be above common law. Try to stop me dirty coppers. I do not submit. Fuck all of you, I am above all law. I do as I please. I answer only to me and I judge me not guilty of any and all crimes and all trespass. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878841 United States 10/09/2012 07:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This thread is not about whether or not the traffic stop cited was legitimate, it is about one person's belief that he does not have to conform to laws (statutes or whatever semantic spin you put on it) that most reasonable people woulld accept as agreeing with common law principles. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1031952 No one HAS to conform to legislation. Period. It does not matter that most people FALSELY believe legislation is law. By the way? They used to be called PEACE OFFICERS and they were GUARDIANS of the PEACE. There were there to provide the PROTECTION OF THE LAW. They are now called POLICE OFFICERS and they are POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS and they are there to ENFORCE THE POLICIES AND LEGISLATION OF THE GUVMENT which are falsely called LAWS. Just because lots of stupid people accept something does not make it true. Not that long ago lots of people accepted the world was flat. Everything if which we speak was well understood in 1776 in the US....a child of TEN would run rings about ignorant people like you when it came to the matter of law vs legislation and the various jurisdictions of the courts. Try reading the declaration of independence of the US....I put the whole thing into this video....it is so amusing to see very stupid and very ignorant people so arrogant about their stupidity and ignorance they argue completely falsely in the fact of well established facts. [link to www.youtube.com] You called me stuoid about 6 times. I guess that makes you right. But really, can you show me on example of this common law De Jour jury thing cactually working without a code of criminal law and statue law to enfoce the principles? If I am not subject to the law enforcers how can I be mage to comply with any ruling by a de jour jury? I simple refuse my consent to be governed. In other word, it only works if we AGREE and ACCEPT the juristiction of a given court, jury or officer of the law. Sinece that hold true for common law, it also holds true for the defact law we have in most countries. 99.9% of people, practially ALL SANE peole accept the current laws as wriietn and applied because those laws make life safer and offers more redress for any offenses (injury) caused to them. If yo asult me, in your world what are my options? How can I be compensated UNLESS you agree and consent to the juristiction of a jury and if you consent to be held for trial. What if you refuse consent to be governed or if you do not accept the officers right to even summon you to jury? What options do I have if you refuse to pay for my injuries? In your system I have NO OPTIONS except to HOPE you do the right thing. In my world, I file a complaint, the state charges you with a crime. Then the only thing possibly required of me is testmony as a witness. I have no legal expenses. I have little fear of you trying to intimidate me into dropping charges because I didn't bring the charge, the state did. I also have the option of suing in civil court and your presence is MANDITORY and usually judgements will be enforced with laws of qarenshee or you might be further charged with contempt if you refuse to pay. You system sucks. Your system will not work. The system I submit to is far from perfect, but it works more often than not. And people with poor vision will not be issued a driver's license. Repeat drunk drivers will have theirs revoked. My 8 year old son is too young and will be denied. Just those few examples make the roads safer for everybody to use. The traffic cop pulling over an erratic driver could easily save your life...or mine. The officer stopping you to inform you that you have lights not working could also prevent an accident. I don't know when OP moved out and you moved in, but it seems you refuse logical arguments as well as he does. Wrong. You cannot claim to be above COMMON LAW. The three basic common laws were already written repeatedly in this thread. For example, if you kill someone. You CAN be punished by a common law court even if you deny the jurisdiction of the UCC courts, what you call the legal system. And one more time- you are referring to LEGISLATION as "laws". Really, pull your head out of your ass, man. Funny how you simply ignore and avoid answering my examples of how most LEGISLATION adheres to the principles of COMMON LAW, that is the spirit of most LEGISLATION is to prevent (or punish) harm to others, to enforce contracts and whatever the third one was (it repeated 1 or 3 I know). More stupidity. 3 common laws but 2 are the same. lolol |