Basic concept of lawful rebellion.

Basic concept of lawful rebellion.

Postby bustachemtrails » Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:31 pm

This is a long but short basic concept of lawful rebellion. It shows the process and your standing but the process is whatever you make it. It will be personal to your circumstances once you have served an Oath of allegiance to one of the barons' committee:

Lord Ashbourne I am informed is out of the scene with dementia. He was one of 4 'barons' who petitioned the (alleged) monarch in person. The other three are as follows.

Baron Hamilton of Dalzell-Betchworth house, Betchworth, Surrey RH3 7AU:

Viscount Massereene-C/O MD Barnard and Co 150 Minories, London EC3N 1LS:

Duke of Rutland-Hadden Hall, Bakewell,Derbyshire. DE4 1LA

More info on the other 21 barons of the committee and petition itself:

http://thesecretpeople.wordpress.com/lawful-rebellion/lawful-rebellion-the-peers/

you can for example de-register your private conveyance (motor) or reclaim your property, in fact you could even become apart of the sovereign state of Forvik (shetland Isles) and enjoy diplomatic immunity if you own land (or more accurately are a custodian of that land).... but that's another story. You can just simply 'contest' any claims made against you by using notices or affidavits if you are not in a position to be more pro-active. Conditionally accept things....I conditionally accept that I owe said fine/tax on proof of claim that you have authority to make the claim etc....


You may not want to go down that route and, you may just wish to report the treason matter to the police (as is your duty to stay within the law, or be guilty of 'misprision of treason' otherwise) and pay up (if it will cause you loss to do otherwise), under duress, but always deny the so called courts any jurisdiction whatsoever and, demand properly convened de jure (trial by jury) hearings in open forum for any matter, which cannot be delayed or denied under the constitution and the common law, which all stands under gods law.

Remember you are sovereign. You have entitlements not benefits. It is a system of service or treason must have been committed by its lack. Its very simple really. The system is supposed to serve you not the other way around.

The beauty of lawful rebellion is in its simplicity. To understand the simple process however requires you to understand a completely different way of thinking, it is a way of life even, it promotes mutual respect as we are all sovereign, we must be honourable in our dealings, we must know the truth in law and take responsibility for our actions or omissions. Because it is such a different world in reality from what we have all grown up to be conditioned too, and how it appears on soap opera's, it can seem a little complicated to some good folk.

The very basic concept goes something like this:

Firstly, understand that we are all sovereign beings (man and woman living breathing beings). That the legal system is totally corrupted and is usurping the common law blatantly, as it does not stand under the rule of law (CONSTITUTION) and is therefore unlawful (treasonous).

TREASON: To hand over the peoples sovereignty therefore, their right to consent to be governed by their own laws and customs, to a foreign nation or entity unless we have been conquered in war.

That the office of sovereign is either vacant or simply non existent at this time, as the sovereignty is by default back with the people. This occurred the very first time royal assent was given to a law that failed to correspond to the constitution (rule of law). The sovereignty was held under the coronation oath and contract and has been breached thousands of times.

That Elizabeth Mountbaton (AKA Windsor) deposed herself of the title of sovereign that was entrusted in her by the people under oath and contract. Or has been deposed of the title by treasonous quislings (traitors) in parliament and the corporate world. Parliament lies and states that 'it' holds the sovereignty, it does not, they are mere public servants yet in reality unelected and positioned by control of the media and voting fraud. They have been positioned by the Bilderberg Group since the Heath Administration in the early 1970's.

That we have an ancient written constitution that cannot be, and has not been repealed or replaced, of which Magna Carta 1215 cannot be touched by Parliament as it is pre- parliament and customary. Customs are thus also not subject to parliament under the rule of law.

That the constitution protects the sovereignty (the right to stand by our own laws and customs rather than a foreign jurisdiction i.e. the E.U.).

That we have a system of service that stands under common law and the rule of law (which EVERYONE IS SUBJECT TOO INCLUDING THE MONARCH) and, which all stands under the laws of god. Therefore we have god given rights or inalienable rights that were never given and cannot be taken away. We have the right to clean water and to fresh air as basic god given rights... we have the right to justice and a duty to protect our system of justice that we get within trials by jury traditionally. When did you last do jury service?

That it is treason to allow royal assent to be granted to any law that does not fall within the constraints of the constitution. Since the 1911 Parliament Act, all acts and statutes have been passed into law whilst the constitution has been subverted. The said Act diluted the royal prerogative (which is unconstitutional) so that royal assent could not be passed or revoked unless with the backing of a Parliamentary minister. The monarch is supposed to be the safety bar from treasonous (unconstitutional) acts being passed into law. She (Elizabeth Mountbaton) should of at least of prorogued Parliament (dissolved it and called an election). Some say she cannot and is trapped. I think not, but a jury should decide her collusion/innocence in the treason plot.

That within that system of service we are happy to stand under common law, which is simple and common sense. it is just. It is unwritten and is 'of' the constitution and gods law (the commandments are inline with justice, morality and natural law, ethics and the common law).

That we are no longer deceived by the treasonous rules of the corporate regime, administrative hearings under the rules of shipping and contract law. Which require your consent to act unlawfully against you. There is a maxim in law that they use to their advantage: "let those who will be deceived be deceived". Stop being deceived people.

That under the constitution, common law and gods law, it is a criminal offence to aid and abet treason, terrorism and war crimes (obviously). All these are well evidenced crimes that ONLY require a proper hearing to be exposed in open forum, and the evidence is readily available to the discerning.

That it is our solemn duty under the constitution to report the crimes of treason to a justice of the peace. That we can be charged with 'misprision of treason' (1795 treason Act Sec 1.) if we know of an act of treason being planned or committed and not to report the crime to a justice of the peace as soon as possible. Therefore we have no choice but to act according to the law.

Do not be decieved when someone tells you that Tony B-liar repealed the 1795 Treason Act and the death penalty for high treason he did NOT. It was an Act of Treason at common law to even attempt to do so.

That once someone has been given 'Notice' of the crime of treason they MUST report that crime or, we hold the evidence against them for their wilful act of treason i.e. high treason with the copies of the notices and evidence we have served. Including postage receipt as proof of receipt and signatory witnesses to the notice/affidavit.

That the situation today has become very dangerous indeed. More and more austerity, payouts for the wealthy and blatant acts of treachery will at some stage bring civil unrest, they want that to impose further more draconian restrictions and, so that they can enforce micro chips on the people and ethically cleanse the unwanted, under marshal law (most likely).

That we have 'Lawful excuse' to commit lesser crimes in order to avoid committing a bigger crime, think about it. We cannot pay into a treasonous regime as aiding and abetting treason is more of a criminal act than failing to honour our agreements i.e. pay taxes, fines etc (which were created fraudulently anyway).

That we have a duty to distress the monarch and its institutions under constitutional law, until redress of the crime of treason has been remedied. Its right there in the unrepealed current Magna Carta 1215 Article 61, which HAS been lawfully invoked according to the constitution and was reported within the media (daily Telegraph and Daily mail).

That we must peacefully reject the regime and do so by standing under the constitutional and common law principle of 'cause no harm' (except where the crown is concerned though we cannot cause bodily harm nevertheless). We can hold their possessions and take over public buildings lawfully.

That it is unlawful to give any aid and comfort to anybody of this realm who is not standing by the barons' committee at this time in lawful rebellion. We can even remove them from their houses and leave them with nothing "no aid and comfort" under the constitution (Magna Carta 1215 Article 61).. We must demand our fellow sovereign beings support the invoked Magna Carta article 61 according to the constitution/Rule of law.

That the law society nor the crown prosecution 'service' have any authority over you. They are criminal public servants. Unless you give your consent to their jurisdiction tacitly or otherwise they cannot act against you lawfully. The constitution provides remedy but only when we reject this criminal regime en masse.

That at least 1.4 million courageous beings of these Islands died protecting what? They died in two (contrived) world wars protecting your right to self governance, that we have foolishly ALLOWED to be handed to the European Union by traitors within our midst in our profound ignorance.

That the Lisbon treaty is the European Union's constitution which is a dictatorship (corpus juris). This Act of treason at common law was committed by the Brown administration in 2008. He must be arrested for this crime as well as a few others.

That it is fundamental that we all stop consenting to the 'summonses' (WHICH ARE INVITES ONLY) and demand remedy within a common law (de jure) court rather than the de facto trust hearings run by the mob.

That the legislation now being rubber stamped through parliament are directives emanating from the EU constitution (which proves treason is being committed).

That traitors/imposters are within the halls of Westminster and all of our public services, who are all compounding treason, terrorism, war crimes, fraud, and many more crimes besides. All can be evidenced quite succinctly but will only be justly affective in a trial by jury hearing, standing under common Law and the consitution.

You will NOT receive justice or remedy in their de facto (so called) courts, or in ANY other jurisdiction except possibly Queens bench however, queens bench stands under the queen who is NOT the reigning monarch therefore it would be unconstitutional to do so, even though, on the other hand, it is a common law jurisdiction (allegedly) and as long as it stands under common law entirely, justice would be seen to be done.

In the maritime de facto hearings they simply commit blatant perjury and get away with it, that is how bad we have allowed it to get!....what do we expect when imposters are positioned into power by the Bilderberg group? whom of course should normally be voted into 'service' in a fair election but which instead, the process is fronted by the illusion of a fair general election by the controlled main stream media, who make light or fail to report on the constant voting fraud and, who are also corporations hell bent on destroying our sovereignty?

That the peace constables must stand under their oaths of office and investigate allegations AND EVIDENCE of crime, and make arrests on that evidence without bias, simply by discerning the facts and thus the credibility of the evidence. If they do not do this then they are committing a 'serious neglect of duty and misprision of treason' at this time. Once notified by lawful notice we retain evidence against them and secure our own lawful defence of innocence (or lawful excuse), which we can easily prove to a jury of our peers.

That it is the people who are sovereign not the alleged monarch, who only have to consent to the laws and customs of the land, and who defend the right to self governance by standing under the constitution with vigilance.

That under the law of this land and by your birthright, the highest jurisdiction is the laws of God, then you stand under god, and only then does the judge stand as a public servant. You stand with more authority than ANY public servant (judges/magistrates/Peace constables etc). You are sovereign.

It is time that we each take back our power and peacefully do our duty in protecting our sovereignty. Without sovereignty there is only slavery. We are many and they are few...

We need to get the peace constables to do their job first and foremost. We use the truth of TETRA to prove that the government is intent on destroying our police service and emergency services also. The microwaves from TETRA are extremely harmful. Many policy enforcement officers are too stupid or conditioned to look at the evidenced facts so THEY NEED A WAKE UP CALL ! The fire service are kept ignorant too. All emergency service workers use TETRA communication system.

Lawful rebellion done correctly, peacefully, honourably and with determination using only the lawful truth, which we cannot acquiesced too if we want justice to prevail, is essentially an individual stance that when done en masse is omnipotent. It is an unassailable defence and by the notices/affidavits we serve on the public servants (not hard to learn to create - have fun), we provide our own defence under the rule of law that cannot be denied unless someone wants to blatantly commit treason against us. They tend to stop writing to you for some odd reason?

When we deny them the opportunity to trade in their de facto courts by not going, and serving non jurisdiction notices on them when we are invited (summonsed), they would soon not be getting paid anymore. The 'service' they pretend to be (Her Majesty's Court 'Service'- HMRC) is unlawful and, we must reestablish properly convened court de jure hearings in open forum so that " justice can be seen to be done". Without those courts how can we hope to prosecute the traitors within our services?

There are notices and affidavits available to look at in the files and some down on the wall (may have to dig - Facebook group - 'Practical lawful dissent').

What do you want to do is the question? Serving conditional acceptance notices on whosoever makes a claim against you for monies is the best way in my view. I conditionally accept your demand for monies on proof of claim that a), the demand is lawful b). you are acting in accordance with Article 61 etc.... More in the templates of notices provided in the files.

Learn the power of lawful notices. An unrebutted Notice once delivered by recorded delivery (therefore accepted in law if signed for), which is unrebutted in the time frame you reasonably allow for a reply to be made or, by lack of 'substance' (without addressing or rebutting the points you conditionally accept) becomes your truth in law and, we can make law in this way.

All we need to do is use evidential facts proven by written laws that are contained within our constitution and or the bible. It is an entirely lawful, moral and peaceful defensive action as otherwise, we are aiding and abetting the crimes by giving our tacit consent.

Peace.
Last edited by bustachemtrails on Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Basic concept of lawful rebellion.

Postby Too Far Gone » Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:21 am

Thanks for that post. I've been looking for something like this for ages.

However, I'm going to be the devils advocate or more accurately, your average guy, when when responding and questioning this. The reason is I want as much information to give out as possible to the regular people on this.
User avatar
Too Far Gone
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:59 pm

Re: Basic concept of lawful rebellion.

Postby bustachemtrails » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:00 am

Please feel free to question everything. I don't have all the answers and of course I am liable to make mistakes which I have done in some of my notices etc...

All I can do is report on my individual circumstances and the reactions or omissions to my notices served. Thanks for the comment I trust it helps.
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Basic concept of lawful rebellion.

Postby musashi » Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:15 pm

Equality before the law is paramount, therefore
There is no title of nobility in court, as
All men are born free and equal, so
No-one may sit in judgment of another without the lawful consent of both parties.

A small point, Dave. Magna Carta is a peace treaty. A unilateral abrogation of such a treaty, which ended civil war in the land, returns the land to a state of war. We are in that war, a "mixed war" as it is called, in which the state has declared war upon the people.

For those who have not seen it - because it is several years old, now - you can see a sample oath to the barons which I posted up here.

Go on to the British Constitution Group website for more info. Also The Magna Carta Society site and, if you have not seen any of the footage, then google "Birkenhead: Judge Arrested" which was a Lawful Rebellion action.

Fraternal regards, musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Basic concept of lawful rebellion.

Postby Too Far Gone » Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:12 pm

I remember roger being arrested and sent down for 30 days. If this is lawful, how did they convict him. It's one thing to say they don't recognise lawful rebellion but its another to say it's a prosecutable offence.

I'm going to assume he was unlawfully detained in some way. If this is right, does he not have a case against the cops?
User avatar
Too Far Gone
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:59 pm

Re: Basic concept of lawful rebellion.

Postby musashi » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:03 pm

Too Far Gone wrote:I remember roger being arrested and sent down for 30 days. If this is lawful, how did they convict him. It's one thing to say they don't recognise lawful rebellion but its another to say it's a prosecutable offence.

I'm going to assume he was unlawfully detained in some way. If this is right, does he not have a case against the cops?


In a war there are at least two sides - they have chosen theirs. We have chosen ours.

He was not convicted for being a lawful rebel but for the council tax issue. They avoid all talk of magna carta and, when pushed, talk only of the statute of magna carta - most of which has been repealed. They may be obliged by the treaty of magna carta to take up the rebellion but, by not doing so they may only be convicted if and when we win. If they win then no crime has been committed.

The redoubtable John Hurst was also convicted and bankrupted on the same issue. His defence is reproduced here with his permission. They are criminals so they do not heed the law when it does not operate in their favour. Remember, this is a war.

Musashi.

In Brecon Magistrates Court

Between Powys County Council (Claimant)
And John Bernard Hurst (Respondent)

Skeleton Argument on behalf of the Respondent.

1. Introduction
i. The respondent resides in a rented cottage in Powys and the Claimant has presented him with a bill for Council Tax for £900 in the name of The Queen.

ii. The Respondent has made a conditional offer to pay if the claimant can produce evidence that the claim is made lawfully. In the absence of such evidence, he is asserting that breaches of treaty obligations between The Crown and the people and the activation of the procedure specified by Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and, alternatively, the Common Law defence of duress of circumstances justify his withholding of the payment.

iii. The first matter at issue is the authority of The Queen (and Her officials) to issue demands for taxes at a time when she is under the supervision of a Barons Committee lawfully constituted under Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215. If the demand was made in the name of a Corporation and not The Queen then the Respondent has no contract with them and therefore no liability.

iv. The second matter at issue, which the Respondent alternatively and independently relies on, is the Common Law right of the subject to invoke the defence of duress of circumstances because The Queen has breached her Common Law treaty obligations with the people that were confirmed in Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights 1688 and as a consequence the Respondents life, liberties and property are threatened.

2. Evidence.
In defending against this application using Ch. 61 of Magna Carta I will refer to:
i. The Magna Carta Society 2000 Research Paper (prefaced by a letter to Leolin Price QC from the societies Chairman).

ii. The views of Leolin Price QC on the research paper.

iii. A copy of the Barons Petition served on HM The Queen on 7th February 2001.

iv. A copy of an article in the Daily Telegraph about the Barons Petition.

v. A copy of my letter to Powys Council on 4th September 2010.


In defending against this application using duress of circumstances I will refer to:

vi. Any refusal by identifiable officials of Powys Council or the Judiciary to acknowledge Ch. 61 of Magna Carta’s effect on themselves when a Baron’s Committee has been established.

vii. A Daily Mail article dated 2nd August 2010 “EU police knocking on your door. Surgery halted by the 48-hour week. So much for Tory promises on the EU”.


3. Authorities.
In defending against this action I will rely upon:
i. Chapters 61 and 63 of Magna Carta 1215.

ii. The Confirmation of the Charters Act 1297.

iii. The Petition of Right Act 1627.

iv. The Judicial Studies Board Practice Directions on duress of Circumstances.


4. Supporting Material.
i. Article “All Legislation Passed Since 2000 is Null and Void”.

ii. An explanation of each paragraph of my letter of 4th September 2010. This document was prepared for the information of other “lawful rebels” who are taking similar action.


5. Background.
i. The respondent has been a legal researcher for the Magna Carta Society (the MCS) since 1998 and helped produce the research paper on the possibility of raising a Barons Committee in 1999.

ii. Michael Burke, also a member of the society, petitioned the Courts to uphold the Declaration and Bill of Rights in 1998 and 1999 without success. The Judgments were referred to in the research paper and were part of the material relied upon in its arguments.

iii. Members of the public were invited to send postcards to The Queen urging her not to give Royal Assent to any statute which purported to give effect to the Nice Treaty in the UK. Several hundred thousand did so.

iv. The Queen failed to respond to public petitioning and there was no evidence that the then Prime Minister intended to change his counsels.

v. Members of the society petitioned each member of the Houses of Lords and Commons not to give their support to any statute relating to the Nice Treaty.

vi. 65 Peers selected a quorum of 25 of their number to address the petitions from the MCS and members of the public. They were satisfied that the conditions required to justify the use of the procedure specified in Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 were established. Four of their number served the petition on Her Majesty on 7th February 2001.

vii. No response was made to the Barons Petition within the specified 40 days or has been to date. The conditions for Lawful Rebellion came into effect.

viii. The then Government used a purported statute (the House of Lords Act 1999) and the Rules of Parliament to deny a majority of the Hereditary Peers access to the House which prevented them exercising their Common Law right to be consulted about and vote on statutes. Officials took possession of their Letters Patent. They were replaced by hereditary Peers, many in dubious circumstances (the cash for Peerages scandal).

ix. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Nice Treaty on 26/2/2002.

x. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Lisbon Treaty on 19/06/2008. Direct rule from the European Union commenced in late 2009.

xi. Displaced hereditary Peers challenged the validity of the House of Lords Act and obtained an admission that it was invalid from a Government Minister, Baroness Ashton, on 20th September 2008. To date, no remedial action has been taken. This is described in the submission listed at Para 4. i. Above.


6. The Respondents Submissions Opposing a Liability Order.

i. I am a British subject of good character and have twice sworn the Oath of Allegiance, as a soldier and as a police officer. Both of those oaths require allegiance to the law, not an office holder, and require the individual concerned to make judgments about the lawfulness of his, or her, actions. So does the Judicial Oath.

ii. Regarding Ch. 61 of Magna Carta, I submit that a Baron’s Committee was lawfully raised, that their Petition was served on The Queen on 7th February 2001 and that the provisions of Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 apply until the Committee or a duly constituted Constitutional Convention decides otherwise. I have sworn allegiance to that Committee. In these circumstances I submit that Powys Council has no authority to issue a tax demand to me.

iii. Regarding the defence of “duress of circumstances”, I have an honestly held belief that my life, liberty and property are at risk because laws that are repugnant to the Common Law are being applied within the UK. I did not place myself voluntarily in this position. Refusing to pay taxes to The Queen, who, together with certain evil counsellors, is responsible for this situation and is in breach of the Common Law and her Coronation Oath is an act of self defence on my part. Any refusal by Crown Officials to acknowledge the restraints that they are subject to will be further evidence that my beliefs are well founded.

iv. The Judicial Studies Board document referred to at Para. 3. iv. above confirms that it is for The Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt the defence of duress does not apply.

7. Remedies Sought by the Respondent.

i. For the reasons given above I respectfully submit that no properly directed Court has authority to try me for refusing to pay Council Tax. If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to make a ruling on this I claim my right to have the issues that I have raised put before a lawfully constituted (complete with all hereditary Peers and without post 1999 Life Peers) House of Lords in order for a case to be stated. That is because the defects in the House of Lords Act 1999 noted above call into doubt the validity of the new “Supreme Court”.

ii. If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to do that I ask for these matters to be put before the Supreme Court for a case to be stated. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of that Court for the reasons given.

Respectfully submitted,


John Hurst.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Basic concept of lawful rebellion.

Postby musashi » Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:32 pm

If you go onto the lawful rebellion forum and look at my stcky post "Oath to the Lords" you will several pages of eloquent and informative discussion that may assist you.

Musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Basic concept of lawful rebellion.

Postby squark » Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:02 pm

I think lawful rebellion is the wrong approach. Sorry I should say for me its the wrong approach.
What did it say, swearing allegiance to a committee of Barons? WTF? Allegiance, Barons. That's too much like Allegiance, Queen for my liking.

The maxim says "Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory," therefore if you find your self in a situation of inequality, like a copper or magistrate ordering you about or some councillor doing your shopping for you (local council services) it must logically be because you are AFTER the LAW.
Law is Contract. Therefore you must be suffering the terms of a contract.

I got a reply from Newcastle Borough Council. "Citizenship is the only contractual issue" and it is an implied contract. Its no good petitioning the Queen, she is Queen of the Society nowadays, Queen to and of those who consent to being in her club.
I don't believe they will pretend she has a divine right. Barons and Earls are in the past. Contract is a realistic, modern, common thing. You are contracted to a society. That society has joined a bigger one and intends to join an even bigger one again. One world government, which I don't mind the idea of, I have met people from right round the world. We have more in common that we have differences. If One World Government is coming for the purpose of ensuring I have all the rights in the UN Dec I don't mind one bit, but if I don't have those rights now....that's an issue.

Its a Society. Don't like it, leave and join another, just leave, whatever but nowadays, it's contractual.
The problem comes when they start saying things like "You cant own a home unless you are in our club" a clearly discriminatory practice. "You can't drive without a license and only citizens may have a license" is discrimination for whatever reason. They stress certain reasons, sexual orientation, race, religion, but they are not limits.

I like this guys work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B_GMTi-ZSQ
He shows not all your rights are written into statute, there are still some you have to claim and fight for!

And I'm still waiting for a definition of Person (must be nearly 3 years now)
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
squark
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: Basic concept of lawful rebellion.

Postby musashi » Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:07 pm

The council's opinion is just that - an opinion. Who says they know it for certain? Councils want you to pay up and shut up and go away. Have you not read of them sending out bogus summonses, hiring courts and rubber stamping their own claims to give themselves the results they want? And you actually believe it when one of these rogues tells you that you are in a citizenship contract? Citizen? We are subjects in a constitutional monarchy. Citizen is what you get in a republic or socialist state if you are unlucky enough to live in a country with no common law but plenty of corpus juris. You need to wake up.

Because some cop or magistrate is ordering you about does not meant to say that they are acting lawfully and that you come after law (whatever that means!?) so there's nothing logical about it at all. And what law might you be ordered about in? Contract? Well, if it is contract law, and you seem to have believed the council wallah that all is contract, there is no place for the cop to order anyone about because contract is civil and the only law that applies is the law of the contract. Cops just don't come into it, do they?

Who says the law is contract? Some money grubbing hireling in a council? Some law is contract but most is not. That must be self evident. There is common law, familiy law, commcercial law, shipping law, civil law, criminal law and others. Are you reaaly trying to tell everyone here that all is contract? Get a grip.

And you don't mind a world government? Jesus Christ on a bike, wtf are you doing here on this site? Who the fuck needs a governemt? Any government? Have you not realised that governments are criminal gangs intent on raping you, me and every other poor fucker who isn't them? name one fucking government that is not in the business of fucking us all over big time, quicktime and anyfuckintime! Name just one! You can go back in time as far as the entire length of humanity's history to find one, if you like. I'll wait for your answer but I will neither hold my breath nor fast while I do so.

Jumping fuckin Jesus, what the hell have you been doing on this site? Have you actually read anything or paid attention? Oh well, we stay in school until we learn our lessons, or are you just another troll?

Musashi
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Basic concept of lawful rebellion.

Postby squark » Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:04 pm

Yes Musashi, I know perfectly well the government is screwing us over.
What I said is I don't mind government, even one world government, if it going to ensure all the rights laid out in the UN Dec.
From those rights I can see, quite clearly, that I have the right to just be me, without their rules. If I don't infringe on anothers rights, and they don't infringe on mine, there is no problem. Currently they infringe on mine, maybe I have not clearly expressed my non consent to citizenship. There are benefits I will have to learn to live without.

All the problems I have with the UK is that they won't let me be ( at present) without them.
The councils response is their official response, not opinion, or at least that is the basis I have accepted it on. If they are incompetent, that's up to them.

An open mind is what is important, until we know the truth. Law is Contract (all the statutes, corporate policy) , between equals, its the only way that makes sense.
Lawful rebellion has been on the net, on the table for discussion, for years, John Harris is how I found this concept. Who has been freed by it????
What happens once the voters have fixed the chosen issue, the cause of the rebellion? You go back to subject status? We quit treasonous Europe? Fine, rebellion over. Now what about Cancer Cures, free energy, hemp, etc.?

The UK is a democratic society. A society has a membership list. Get your name off that list and how will they even write to you? How can they apply the rules of a club to non club members?

Having an official response, why would I start to look elsewhere? Is my time not valuable? Is there anything else that makes the Queen above me in a hierarchy other than my consent to be a society member?

Here's my view of the path......Get out of the society, don't use their stuff, maintain , protect, enforce your own human rights.
I have slept under a bridge before now, if that makes a troll?
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
squark
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Next

Return to Lawful rebellion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron