DO WE HAVE AN ACT, ON WHICH TO MAKE A C.O.R.

DO WE HAVE AN ACT, ON WHICH TO MAKE A C.O.R.

Postby wanabfree » Thu May 05, 2011 6:20 pm

Rob Menard has said that the Canadian claim of right is available under the criminal Code act, section bla bla.

My question is has anyone knowledge or found the equivalent Act, we can use to demonstrate a claim of right.

He does also say the wording can be with lawful excuse or even with lawful authority, words to that effect.

There is a Scottish claim of right, but I don't think that's any help, not sure if there's anything under the HRA.

This is important, we do need to find this because, and it’s likely the only way to give the claim standing.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: DO WE HAVE AN ACT, ON WHICH TO MAKE A C.O.R.

Postby jonboy » Thu May 05, 2011 8:15 pm

"standing" according to whose rules? Their rules?

Who gives "them" the right to make the rules?

You are free because you say you are.

You do not ask "them" if you can be free. They are not in charge of you. That is just the sad illusion.
"Reason is the life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing else but reason. The law which is perfection of reason" Sir Edward Coke 1552-1634.

NO ONE RULES IF NO ONE OBEYS.

It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
User avatar
jonboy
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Albion

Re: DO WE HAVE AN ACT, ON WHICH TO MAKE A C.O.R.

Postby greg » Thu May 05, 2011 8:32 pm

Hi Wanabfree,

I see your point but my question is this; where do rights come from?

It's my belief that rights are innate and are not granted by parliament. If parliament granted rights then people would have no rights before the creation of parliament, which is not true, as evidenced by the Charter of Liberties 1100, Magna Carta, Acts of Union etc.

I believe that the problem we face is the abrogation of our natural rights by parliament and the judiciary as a consequence of the influence of Fabianism on our society. In the 1800s the Lords talked about natural rights all the time, now they talk about human rights - which of course were codified in our law by the Fabians via the Labour government.

I remind you of Lord Suffield's comments in the House of Lords:

"Lord Suffield rejoined that no man could be deprived of his natural rights by an Act of Parliament."

HL Deb 30 May 1833 vol 18 cc102-4

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1833/may/30/abolition-of-slavery#S3V0018P0_18330530_HOL_10

Greg
greg
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:36 pm

Re: DO WE HAVE AN ACT, ON WHICH TO MAKE A C.O.R.

Postby wanabfree » Thu May 05, 2011 9:26 pm

My point on trying to establish a claim of right is based on the fact you can prove you made a legal or lawful/legal claim.

My understanding on this is based on the observation can you prove you have a right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxVyj3RGmwE

Have a listen about 9 mins 50 secs in.

Rob Menard has hit on something very powerful in my opinion; it's about what you can prove that's important, can the other side do the same?

I would agree liberties are privileges granted by another, and what gives them that authority and more importantly can they prove the rights they grant exist?
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: DO WE HAVE AN ACT, ON WHICH TO MAKE A C.O.R.

Postby Freeman Stephen » Fri May 06, 2011 12:45 pm

i get what your getting at wbf. very subtle. but it needs some workable mechanism cos for them the fact that they have written it down in a statute is all the proof they need. how dare you question the supremacy of parliament, now pay your taxes and stfu.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: DO WE HAVE AN ACT, ON WHICH TO MAKE A C.O.R.

Postby wanabfree » Fri May 06, 2011 5:32 pm

Freeman Stephen wrote:i get what your getting at wbf. very subtle. but it needs some workable mechanism cos for them the fact that they have written it down in a statute is all the proof they need. how dare you question the supremacy of parliament, now pay your taxes and stfu.






The mechanism is going to be the Act we can use, to do the same as Rob menard has used the comedian criminal code, there has only been a bill written for the UK, I believe on this so far but not passed, but given the Canadian system came from the crown, it’s somewhere no doubt hidden in one of our statutes also.

As you said the “fact that they have written it down in a statute is all the proof they need”, but that is just there opinion, I would ask to see the facts.

Use the same tactics and defences they would use against us, in the same situation, try suing the police or the state for failing in it’s duty to protect you, because you say you have right’s and watch what happens.

If we do use section of one there statutes to file a lawful excuse/ claim of right, they would still likely behave the same way they do now to anyone filing a claim of right, but it becomes a lot more embarrassing and uncomfortable having to then explain why suddenly the rules don’t apply anymore or equally to everyone, point is they could never give a factual, logical answer only another opinion backed by nothing tangible.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: DO WE HAVE AN ACT, ON WHICH TO MAKE A C.O.R.

Postby Freeman Stephen » Fri May 06, 2011 6:54 pm

thats the way i already see the situation. they have nothing tangible already unless you count the army of people with big sticks as being an important ehement in making an opinion lawful.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: DO WE HAVE AN ACT, ON WHICH TO MAKE A C.O.R.

Postby wanabfree » Fri May 06, 2011 9:29 pm

so what are you going to get them to sacrifice first the pretense of fairness or the big sticks (violence), because of there public relations scam it's the hope it's wiil be the violence, this isabout exposing them for what they are, but get them to it for us.

if we make a claim of right were not so much drawing a line in the sand ,but presenting something tangiable and provable, it's going to be all the sweeter if this can also be done useing there own words.

finding these words is going to be main goal, i would have imagined this has been explored by people already, i'll have a chat with people on the thinkfree forum about this also, and ask if there's any more on this subject for UK statutes.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: DO WE HAVE AN ACT, ON WHICH TO MAKE A C.O.R.

Postby The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael » Fri May 06, 2011 10:06 pm

wanabfree wrote:Rob Menard has said that the Canadian claim of right is available under the criminal Code act, section bla bla.

My question is has anyone knowledge or found the equivalent Act, we can use to demonstrate a claim of right.

He does also say the wording can be with lawful excuse or even with lawful authority, words to that effect.

There is a Scottish claim of right, but I don't think that's any help, not sure if there's anything under the HRA.

This is important, we do need to find this because, and it’s likely the only way to give the claim standing.


The United Kingdom does not have a criminal code, which is one of the fundamental differences between the two nations, the legal effect of which is that the same rules do not apply. Specifically, a Claim of Right does not need to registered with an institution such as the PPSA to gain legitimacy.

Furthermore, with all due respect, your apparent contention that the Scottish Claim of Right Act 1689 has no effect in England is incorrect, as codified by Article IIII of the Union with Scotland Act 1706:

ARTICLE IIII

...And that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles.


Since there is no expression to the contrary in the rest of the Articles of the 1706 Act, and equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, a Claim of Right served upon the woman acting as soveriegn of these isles has exactly the same legal effect as the Act in question, which is why it is a much simpler process here than in Canada.

A perfected Claim of Right establishes a lawful excuse, and this factual truth is clearly expressed in the Theft Act 1968 and the Criminal Damage Act 1971, in relation to situations where the law creates and vests a specific right to disregard statutory obligations under certain circumstances.

Theft Act 1968:

11(3)A person does not commit an offence under this section if he believes that he has lawful authority for the removal of the thing in question or that he would have it if the person entitled to give it knew of the removal and the circumstances of it.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60

Criminal Damage Act 1971

5 “Without lawful excuse.”

(1)This section applies to any offence under section 1(1) above and any offence under section 2 or 3 above other than one involving a threat by the person charged to destroy or damage property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of another or involving an intent by the person charged to use or cause or permit the use of something in his custody or under his control so to destroy or damage property.

(2)A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—

(a)if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or

(b)if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—

(i)that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and

(ii)that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

(3)For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any right or privilege in or over land, whether created by grant, licence or otherwise.

(5)This section shall not be construed as casting doubt on any defence recognised by law as a defence to criminal charges.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5

In English law, a statutory breach made under a Claim of Right is considered to be a limited form of offence, as demonstrated in the case of Chamberlain v Lindon 1998 1 WLR 1252 [1], after Lindon demolished a wall to protect a right-of-way. Despite allowing nine months to pass before acting, Lindon honestly believed that it was immediately necessary to protect his legal rights without having to resort to civil litigation.

It is not necessary to decide whether Lindon’s action was justified as a matter of civil law. For the purposes of criminal law, what matters is whether Lindon believed that his actions were reasonable, i.e. a subjective test. Thus, a lawful excuse may be acknowledged by a Court to arise when an individual honestly, even if mistakenly, believes that their actions are necessary and reasonable.

Therefore, in the event that a man from these shores genuinely believes that his unalienable rights are being undermined by the legislation imposed by Her Majesty's Government, he has the right to revoke or deny his consent to be governed, especially when that corporatist regime has surrendered any dubious claim it has to legitimacy by committing multiple breaches of constitutional law and the murder innocent men, women and children in the waging of illegal wars. In fact, even if that were not the case, the right of self-governance is enshrined in international law.

Namaste
Nothing, except the truth, is like it seems to be.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
User avatar
The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:38 am

Re: DO WE HAVE AN ACT, ON WHICH TO MAKE A C.O.R.

Postby Freeman Stephen » Fri May 06, 2011 10:17 pm

what your saying is "prove parliament has the right to ... infringe on my right to wear red shoes on a tuesday afternoon"

how do you get them to comprehend what your telling them to prove because otherwise they are jusr gonnie go "i dont have to, its written down and ive got a big stick."

even if its not written down!!!

the whole written down bit is just a ritual to have people believe its somehow morally justified to hit people with big sticks if you dont get your way.

if they were convinced you were defying them by refusing to live in luxury on a superyaught, they would use their big sticks to see it happenned. i think the key is not in the legal system anymore but out ritualing the rituals.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Next

Return to General Freeman related questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron