The Principles of Common Law

The Principles of Common Law

Postby Veronica » Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:38 pm

It is imperative that you understand them. They are really not hard, because they are based entirely on the Common Sense of peaceful and equitable co-existence.

Under Common Law crimes are, of course, possible. These will have the following components:

1. A description of the crime, being the Act that was criminal (e.g. murder, fraud, etc)

2. A party who was injured – suffered harm, or loss, or was deceived by mischief. This must be a Human Being.

3. Someone who makes this claim. This must be a Human Being. It cannot be “THE COURT”, or “THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE”, etc, because these are not Human Beings.

In summary, therefore, a crime comprises THE ACT COMMITTED, the INJURED PARTY, and the CLAIMANT.

In any circumstance, therefore, someone who is being accused of anything at all, can reasonably ask “What is the CRIME, who makes the CLAIM, and who is the INJURED PARTY?”

And these questions will be unanswerable if no Common Law transgression had occurred.

Perhaps it is also essential to point out that a CRIME itself has two components, being the ACT itself, and that the action was DELIBERATE.. This takes into account genuinely accidental damage, which could not have been reasonably foreseen. In other words, for a crime to be proven, it has to be proved that the transgressor was Guilty of Mind (“mens rea”, in legal terms)

CONTRACTS are also possible in Common Law. Contracts between two Human beings. And this is the crux of the “Freeman business”. And this is why Legalese attempts the subterfuge to define PARTNERSHIPS as equivalent to Human Beings. (The “legal fiction PERSON” we are all now familiar with). Because, for a CONTRACT to be lawfully-binding, it must have four components:

1. FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties, such that no party can ever claim: “I wasn’t told about that bit”

2. EQUAL CONSIDERATION by both parties. Items of value which are being exchanged contractually.

3. LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS, obviously under all other Principles of Common Law.

4. WET (i.e. hand-written) SIGNATURES of both parties affirming their consent to the contract. This must be done by Human Beings, because only Human Beings have the hand in which a pen can be held. However a witnessed Verbal Agreement is also lawfully-binding in place of Wet Signatures.

If it can be shown that any one of those four components are not met, then the CONTRACT is null & void.

The only positive way to avoid entering into a lawfully-binding CONTRACT is to use the fourth component by stating, up front, “I do not consent” (in front of witnesses). Although a better way, which requires no witnesses, is to state it in a letter.

It is also possible to argue components (1) and (2) at a later date if your REFUSAL TO CONSENT is not acknowledged. Arguing on the basis of (1) and (2) – and quite possibly on (3) – can be used to support your REFUSAL TO CONSENT.
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Veronica
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 4536
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: The Principles of Common Law

Postby Veronica » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:49 am

There still seems to be a lot of confusion

There is only ONE LAW. It is called Common Law.

On the other hand there are a myriad of Company Policies. For example “International law”, “Uniform Commercial Code” (note, “code”, they do not even have the audacity to call this “law”), “Fleet law”, “Statute law”, “Merchant law”, “Equity law”, etc.

Although the word “law” is in the title, this is just an attempt to confuse. And it is essential NEVER to forget that. These are nothing more than Company Policies, on the same level as “Sainsbury’s law” or “Tesco’s law”.

You will see the word “law” bandied about willy-nilly. As I said, this is just an attempt to confuse. Do NOT be confused. If you are, then you will walk into never-ending cul-de-sacs, and up blind alleys. And completely waste your time.

All these other so-called “laws” are constructs in Legalese. Which is a construct of FICTIONS.

ILLUSIONS, in other words.

And a moving carpet, to boot.

Personally speaking I do not allow myself to be caught up in this morass. If you want to, then that’s your choice.

Unless you see the word “Common”, as the adjective to the word “Law”, then the discussion is about fiction, whatever the surrounding circumstances, and however ‘impressive’ those surrounding circumstances may appear.
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Veronica
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 4536
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England


Return to Frequently Asked Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests