Questions about common law jurisdiction in court

We welcome all new members and visitors to the Forum, please introduce yourself here, point to your own website/blog or point to articles of interest that you have created.

Questions about common law jurisdiction in court

Postby nimblereaper » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:33 am

Hi

Since I have been learning and following people relating to the common law vs statute law a few questions have arisen, finding these particular bits of information is proving difficult so i thought it would be best to ask those with more knowledge than me.

1) If all this information and lawful rebellion, claiming common law in court and refusing to sweat oath to the statutes in court is actually worth using, then why don't all the lawyers and solicitors use this information to make loads of money by getting people off things like council tax? If it was that simple wouldn't everyone be doing it?

2) If someone goes to court and states they claim common law jurisdiction can they be in contempt of court as a lot of these so call judges claim?

3) If someone claims common law in court and they actually accept it, does that mean then they are entitled to have the trial by jury? It's a bit confusing this one because every court recording I have seen where common law is claimed the magistrates/judge just leave the court room but non of the videos actually shows what happens if the common law is accepted by the court.

Maybe i am misunderstanding some of the concepts hence my questions, but I am here to learn and fight back!

Thanks in advance
nimblereaper
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:22 am

Re: Questions about common law jurisdiction in court

Postby cassandra » Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:26 am

Five gets you ten you do not get even a semblance of a real answer to this. It's too intelligent, man, dumb it down a bit.
But then, I think you already know the answer, don't you? It's all bollocks, isn't it?
Cassandra.
cassandra
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Questions about common law jurisdiction in court

Postby nimblereaper » Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:37 am

cassandra wrote:Five gets you ten you do not get even a semblance of a real answer to this. It's too intelligent, man, dumb it down a bit.
But then, I think you already know the answer, don't you? It's all bollocks, isn't it?
Cassandra.


Hi Cassandra,

What are you talking about here? What's too intelligent? Dumb down what? I asked a few basic questions based on the common law jurisdiction - I don't know the answer or I wouldn't be asking, so what are you referring to when you say "it's all bollocks"?

G
nimblereaper
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:22 am

Re: Questions about common law jurisdiction in court

Postby cassandra » Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:20 pm

nimblereaper wrote:
cassandra wrote:Five gets you ten you do not get even a semblance of a real answer to this. It's too intelligent, man, dumb it down a bit.
But then, I think you already know the answer, don't you? It's all bollocks, isn't it?
Cassandra.


Hi Cassandra,

What are you talking about here? What's too intelligent? Dumb down what? I asked a few basic questions based on the common law jurisdiction - I don't know the answer or I wouldn't be asking, so what are you referring to when you say "it's all bollocks"?

G


You are one step of logic away from the answers here which is why I said I think you already know the answer - freeman stuff does not work. Your first question contains the answer you need - if it worked they'd all be doing it so that tells you it doesn't work. None of it has ever worked for anybody - not Menard, not Croft and not Chapman. Nor you.
Cassandra.
cassandra
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Questions about common law jurisdiction in court

Postby nimblereaper » Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:39 pm

cassandra wrote:
nimblereaper wrote:
cassandra wrote:Five gets you ten you do not get even a semblance of a real answer to this. It's too intelligent, man, dumb it down a bit.
But then, I think you already know the answer, don't you? It's all bollocks, isn't it?
Cassandra.


Hi Cassandra,

What are you talking about here? What's too intelligent? Dumb down what? I asked a few basic questions based on the common law jurisdiction - I don't know the answer or I wouldn't be asking, so what are you referring to when you say "it's all bollocks"?

G


You are one step of logic away from the answers here which is why I said I think you already know the answer - freeman stuff does not work. Your first question contains the answer you need - if it worked they'd all be doing it so that tells you it doesn't work. None of it has ever worked for anybody - not Menard, not Croft and not Chapman. Nor you.
Cassandra.


So what i don't get is why are people constantly going on about this if it doesn't work? On paper it should work though, i'm not sure how it doesn't to be honest since all the legal and lawful stuff is correct, the council tax is actually an Act rather than a law... so why doesn't it work?
nimblereaper
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:22 am

Re: Questions about common law jurisdiction in court

Postby cassandra » Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:11 pm

Everything you need to know is contained in this site because it has been said many times.
Certain agents of control keep the myth of the freeman going – it keeps you on the wrong road.

The introduction of democracy took away your rights by getting you to assign them to another. The enticement was the lie that by voting you have a say in how things are run. Even if you don't vote, others who do will take you into the contract. The majority rules.
Your elected Member of Parliament is your representative who speaks on your behalf – as though you yourself said it.
This authority is granted him/her as a power of attorney by the vote of the constituents.
Statutes that bind you in law are agreed upon by these representatives and enacted in parliament.
As is income tax. Failure to pay income tax is a breach of a contract you were put into by your MP agreeing on your behalf to pay it. No, there is no "law" obliging us to pay – but we are in a contract agreed to by our MP so we are in breach of contract - which is why we go to County Court and not Criminal Court on a tax case. If it were criminal we'd go to common law courts, but the fact that they can take us to county court and get enforcement must mean that it's a contract. It's a civil matter and common law is irrelevant. The law of the contract is the only law that matters and we sign away our constitutional guarantees of our common law rights by verbal agreement expressed by MPs and written into statute, signed and witnessed and enforced as law. That we did not know we were in a contract is our own fault and no defence in law or reason to default. Equity says: let he who will be deceived be deceived. As we are dealing with equity, contract, we need to look at what brought us into equity. The answer is democracy, MPs power of attorney, statutes and ignorance.
There are Common Law Statutes, such as the Theft Act or Offences against the Person, 1861.
There are also Crown Statutes issued by the sovereign, such as Statute 22, passed by Henry 8th or the Statute of Acton Bumel, by Edward 1st.
Neither of these forms of statutes are dealt with by the freeman – they're awkward for him, as he would have to reject common law and the constitutional statutes, cherry-pick the ones he liked or abandon the whole freeman concept.
This is Musashi's much earlier take on it and I agree completely. If it isn't criminal then it must be civil. If its civil then someone or something signed us up for it. The answer is MPs voting for it on our behalf acting with power of attorney given him/her by the vote of the constituency.
The MP is our representative but we never instruct him in what we want.
Cassandra.
cassandra
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Questions about common law jurisdiction in court

Postby nimblereaper » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:59 pm

cassandra wrote:Everything you need to know is contained in this site because it has been said many times.
Certain agents of control keep the myth of the freeman going – it keeps you on the wrong road.

The introduction of democracy took away your rights by getting you to assign them to another. The enticement was the lie that by voting you have a say in how things are run. Even if you don't vote, others who do will take you into the contract. The majority rules.
Your elected Member of Parliament is your representative who speaks on your behalf – as though you yourself said it.
This authority is granted him/her as a power of attorney by the vote of the constituents.
Statutes that bind you in law are agreed upon by these representatives and enacted in parliament.
As is income tax. Failure to pay income tax is a breach of a contract you were put into by your MP agreeing on your behalf to pay it. No, there is no "law" obliging us to pay – but we are in a contract agreed to by our MP so we are in breach of contract - which is why we go to County Court and not Criminal Court on a tax case. If it were criminal we'd go to common law courts, but the fact that they can take us to county court and get enforcement must mean that it's a contract. It's a civil matter and common law is irrelevant. The law of the contract is the only law that matters and we sign away our constitutional guarantees of our common law rights by verbal agreement expressed by MPs and written into statute, signed and witnessed and enforced as law. That we did not know we were in a contract is our own fault and no defence in law or reason to default. Equity says: let he who will be deceived be deceived. As we are dealing with equity, contract, we need to look at what brought us into equity. The answer is democracy, MPs power of attorney, statutes and ignorance.
There are Common Law Statutes, such as the Theft Act or Offences against the Person, 1861.
There are also Crown Statutes issued by the sovereign, such as Statute 22, passed by Henry 8th or the Statute of Acton Bumel, by Edward 1st.
Neither of these forms of statutes are dealt with by the freeman – they're awkward for him, as he would have to reject common law and the constitutional statutes, cherry-pick the ones he liked or abandon the whole freeman concept.
This is Musashi's much earlier take on it and I agree completely. If it isn't criminal then it must be civil. If its civil then someone or something signed us up for it. The answer is MPs voting for it on our behalf acting with power of attorney given him/her by the vote of the constituency.
The MP is our representative but we never instruct him in what we want.
Cassandra.


That was a brilliant response thanks for that! The whole system is corrupt either way you look at it. So if we are deceived isn't that fraud in itself, meaning that any contract we were deceived into being part of is fraud?

I am starting to see this from both the freeman side and the statue law side now and it's a lot more complicated than they all make out. However, what I do understand here is that we are in a contract which we can refuse to consent to, after all contracts can only be enforced by consent. As you say though an MP is elected to do this, but I personally didn't vote for this nor do I recognise them at all since i am my own person who is entitled to decide which contracts I enter (doesn't the Magna Carte says something along these lines). But putting that aside i can see no matter how unlawful all this is with tax and council tax and so forth is that they are way too powerful for any single one of us so they win most of the time.

But, what about debt collectors and tv licence? Now from what I see debt collectors go and buy a debt and then start harassing you because you apparently owe them money, but how could a man or woman ever owe this company money when there has never been a consented contract? That means that i could send a debt collection letter under a company name to anyone and extortion money from them with no proof of actually who they are. I think this is where they start getting people by scaring them and tricking them yet again into entering a contract by consenting to represent their legal person. Even the citizens advice own website explains basically that they have no power until you give it to them. The TV licence is the same bullshit.

Please, correct me if i'm wrong or not grasping this correctly.
nimblereaper
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:22 am

Re: Questions about common law jurisdiction in court

Postby cassandra » Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:46 pm

We are not deceived into a contract. The political system set-up is the accepted system of Britain. There is full public disclosure of it. If people don't look at the fine print or look at the meanings of things it's hardly fraud. It's foolish people deceiving themselves with fanciful notions of reality.
You don't have to vote to be taken in by your local MP. It just happens because you live there and because someone voted for him. It's called democracy at work.
Go to getoutofdebtfree for full info on the debt matter.
Cassandra.
cassandra
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Questions about common law jurisdiction in court

Postby nimblereaper » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:30 pm

cassandra wrote:We are not deceived into a contract. The political system set-up is the accepted system of Britain. There is full public disclosure of it. If people don't look at the fine print or look at the meanings of things it's hardly fraud. It's foolish people deceiving themselves with fanciful notions of reality.
You don't have to vote to be taken in by your local MP. It just happens because you live there and because someone voted for him. It's called democracy at work.
Go to getoutofdebtfree for full info on the debt matter.
Cassandra.


There is the argument about the birth certificate that as a baby you're not old enough to prevent it happening so you're signed up to it without a choice. Isn't the point of the freeman idea supposed to be that we are entitled to choose? I have always had a problem with authority, like i was born to make my own decisions. I'm not claiming to be a freeman but the idea is appealing; maybe when my kids have grown up :)

Thanks for the link :)
nimblereaper
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:22 am

Re: Questions about common law jurisdiction in court

Postby cassandra » Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:53 pm

nimblereaper wrote:
cassandra wrote:We are not deceived into a contract. The political system set-up is the accepted system of Britain. There is full public disclosure of it. If people don't look at the fine print or look at the meanings of things it's hardly fraud. It's foolish people deceiving themselves with fanciful notions of reality.
You don't have to vote to be taken in by your local MP. It just happens because you live there and because someone voted for him. It's called democracy at work.
Go to getoutofdebtfree for full info on the debt matter.
Cassandra.


There is the argument about the birth certificate that as a baby you're not old enough to prevent it happening so you're signed up to it without a choice. Isn't the point of the freeman idea supposed to be that we are entitled to choose? I have always had a problem with authority, like i was born to make my own decisions. I'm not claiming to be a freeman but the idea is appealing; maybe when my kids have grown up :)

Thanks for the link :)


What makes you think a BC is relevant? An argument still raging on a topic you don't yet understand in a movement in which experienced active members have several times shown is unworkable no matter how right it all sounds or how appealing it is? Why join it when those experienced activists left it?

Isn't the point of the freeman idea supposed to be that we are entitled to choose?
We abandon choice for democracy when we let others speak for us. And all healthy people have a problem with authority.
Cassandra.
cassandra
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Next

Return to Welcome to the Freeman-on-the-land Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron