Frankly I think its all double think lance.... but then I am coming strictly from a lawful rebellion angle. Just saying.

There is a good reason why individuals cannot withdraw their consent - they never gave their consent in the first place. Every single individual bound (in a practical sense) to obey the powers that be (whether that be described as "law", legal obligations or simply "because we said so") is a slave in just the same way that any recognised system of slavery has slaves described as a slave.

We may not call these individuals slaves. We may not call the system a system of slavery but for all intents and purposes these individuals are bound to obey another by the threat of force. "Legal force" is still force and you will note that in systems commonly recognised to be slavery, the force used against slaves to compel them to obey is still "legal force".

The main difference between systems commonly recognised to be slavery and the system that these individuals live in is that it is just sophisticated enough to convince many of these individuals that slavery is something other than what they live in. This is achieved by interfering in the development of the individuals in early childhood conditioning them to associate the condition of slavery with the condition of being brutalised. Note that only disobedient slaves are brutalised in systems of slavery including the more sophisticated one these individuals live in.

This false association between slavery and brutality, along with other false notions such as the existence of freedom or the benevolence of the system which enslaves people are infused into slave children from early childhood through the systems education system which also teaches the slaves just enough useful information to do productive labour to keep the system going. After their childhood has passed the false associations continue to be reinforced in the now labouring slave through the mediums of television, radio, newspapers and of course now there is twitter and facebook and the like.

The slave is convinced that his condition is unlike that of a slave because there is no brutality as they falsely expect unless one is disobedient which they have been led to believe is a legitimate reason why they should deserve brutality. The systems they are "educated" to believe as slavery bear little resemblance to their own condition for if there was much resemblance they would be censored to such extent that few slaves would ever find such "education".

They perceive the goods which their masters allow them to possess as their property, never question the superior right to that property that their masters have and since they dont perceive themselves as slaves, they dont perceive their masters to be masters so they consider their possessions to be property, their masters are happy with such false beliefs and they deduce that they are not slaves.

They are free to come and go with their masters permission but since they perceive no masters they believe they are free to simply xome and go with restrictions on such freedom they are led to perceive as legitimate because its been legitimate since their early childhood.

Their master doesn't feed and shelter them, they feed and shelter themselves ... from the proportion of their labour their masters allow them to keep.

Its sophisticated in the sense that many are blind to the reality of their condition and the false narrative within which these slaves live is so appeallingly happy that to embrace the truth is perhaps to embrace a deep depression.

People feel sorry for me living as free as possible from this condition, but it is me who feels sorry for those mentally enslaved to believe there is no alternative.

As the police enforce both statute and law it is not possible to avoid being policed.
In the first instance it is possible to challenge the validity of any policing action as statutes are merely corporate rules which apply only to people acting within the jurisdiction of that corporation which created the rules, but that would be a matter to be dealt with at court level - once the policing, rightly or wrongly, has already taken place.
In the latter instance, no one is above the law and so it is impossible to withdraw consent to be policed according to the law.

Examples:
1. I get pulled for doing 100mph on the motorway. The police catch me and issue me a PCN. I challenge the PCN on the basis that I was acting outside of statutory jurisdiction. The charge is dropped.
2. I commit murder. The police catch me and I end up in court. There is no way I can argue that I was acting outside of lawful jurisdiction because no one is above the law. I go to jail.

The above is all a perfect world theoretical perspective of course. In reality some people actually ARE above the law. Others have a hard time withdrawing their consent to be governed by statute - even though they have every right to do so.

Alot of goons perceive the difference between a speeding offence and a murder offence as seriousness as opposed to principle. Its like killing is only a wrongful act because their superiors say so and bearing this out you will note that some killing even beyond self defence is not called murder and the goons dont consider it to be wrongful.

That's the mentality your up against with goon police in goon courts for goon statutes.

See it for what it is. Its much simpler to look at the planets rotating round the sun rather than the complex trajectories they appear to make in relation to the earth. The system is slavery in the real sense of the word - its no exageration or metaphor - it really is slavery. See this snd you will see the system as it really is - very simple and uncomplex and something other than the multitude of complex trajectories of things to get your head round and come up still blind and confused to the nature of the earth.

the below quote,needs to be displayed,in huge font,in every possible location.
ie-bus stops-billboards,particularly around....WESTMINSTER.
also between the ad breaks in the soaps...

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.”
― Pierre-Joseph Proudhon





Giving,the slaves,the illusion that money=wealth...allowed the owners to release
the slaves,into a free range prison.

this,of course had many benefits...for the owners.
ie....the cost of maintaining the slave population.
it also created competition,which increased production

which increased...PROFITS



I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
No, I aint gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
Well, I wake up in the morning
Fold my hands and pray for rain
I got a head full of ideas
That are drivin' me insane
It's a shame the way she makes me scrub the floor
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.

I ain't gonna work for Maggie's brother no more
No, I aint gonna work for Maggie's brother no more
Well, he hands you a nickel
He hands you a dime
He asks you with a grin
If you're havin' a good time
Then he fines you every time you slam the door
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's brother more.

I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more
No, I aint gonna work for Maggie's pa no more
Well, he puts his cigar
Out in your face just for kicks
His bedroom window
It is made out of bricks
The National Guard stands around his door
Ah, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more.

I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more
Well, when she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa
She's sixty-eight, but she says she's fifty-four
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.

I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
I aint gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
Well, I try my best
To be just like I am
But everybody wants you
To be just like them
They say sing while you slave and I just get bored
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.

the only thing,that keeps the[unhappy] slaves,on the farm,is
an eclectic...fence..[no...misspelling. ]

as steven,pointed out,some are actually incapable of rational thinking,due to the
indoctrination recieved,from birth..[parents/school/peerpressure]

others give consent,quite willingly,for various reasons.

But,what is quite plain to see,with a little investigation,is...maggies farm..is
a massive criminal enterprise.

run for the benefit,of a bunch of cunts,with delusions of granduer.
who mutter...honour from one side of their mouth,and lie,or
obfuscate the truth,from the other.

I make no firm assertions here, really, only point one or two things out for consideration.
The whole policing by consent thing, and the possibility of withdrawing that consent, is a work in progress - know one really knows, all is in flux and nothing stands. What does always come out of this questioning is more ifnormation.

And of course there is no getting away from common law - there was never any suggestion of that. This is a given and needs not be mentioned as we only ever are talking about statute policing and, somehow, removing it.

Sarah's work is valuable if only to investigate a possibility and remove an approach or a process that does not work. If we do not test it then we will never know if its a valid path or not. If it is - we gain. If it isn't - we still gain by removing a false possibility and can then focus our minds and energies elsewhere.

My opinion is that the new world order has been here for a very, very long time - that we are already fucked, and our task is to find the ways and means to unfuck us wherever and whatever they may be.

Musashi.

And the double think goes on unabated.

I thought about just leaving the above statement and moving on, but I just have to spell it out one more time before I do. I've got to say that it seems pointless but here goes.

All the processes above on this thread are NOT in compliance with common law and the constitution. Whereas they are not in line with the constitution they must be criminal acts. Any actions, omissions or processes that do not conform strictly to the rule, letter and spirit of law are obviously unlawful. Surely that is just common sense?

I get told all the time by those who profess to stand under common law, that they don't have to back the petition of the barons. "I don't have to do what you tell me" they say whilst I explain that its not my ruling but that of the law.... "I'm not handing all my rights to some poxy barons" they say....

That is hypocricy. It is impossible to stand under common law without observing the letter and spirit of the law. If we deviate from the letter of the law (constitution - Invocation of article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and its contents in its entirety) then we can hardly expect others to obey the law either can we!?

Now it defies logic and reason to suggest that we can even lawfully consent to these corporate hearings of our own volition for example, and then not be in breach of constitutional law. What does Article 61 state? "together with the whole realm"...."distress and distrain us".

ANYONE who has not declared allegiance to the constitution via the barons committee's invocation of Article 61, is (according to the article) to be given "no aid or comfort" until they damn well do!

Lawfully we can evict them from their homes if they refuse to abide by article 61, and we must by law deny them any aid and comfort because they are either defending our right to self determination or aiding and abetting its destruction by their acquiescence. There is no middle ground. They are to be considered an enemy of the country and quislings unless and until they relent and stand by the constitution.

The other more seemingly rational arguement for not standing under the petition of the barons, is that the petition was served upon a deposed or usurped monarch therfore, the petiton does not stand. This at first glance seems to be a fair arguement until you think a little deeper about it. The facts are simply this.

1). The barons committee was convened correctly according to constitutional law, to prevent royal assent being granted to ratify the treasonous treaty of Nice (If the alleged queen ratified the treaty but it doesn't count because she wasn't the holder of the office of sovereign, then the ratification is also void).

2). The justification for serving the petition was satisfied by the quorum according to constitutional law.

3). The petition was served on the office of sovereign (which has been vacant since the first breach of the Coronation Oath and contract) via Janvin, the alleged queens private secretary.

4). The petition was recieved by the office of sovereign, regardless of whether the alleged holder of the office was an imposter at the time, whom had been usurped of the title of holder or whom had deposed herself of the same. This is arguable but, whereas the office was vacant, as the sovereignty is back with the people by default of the breach of the Coronation Oath, it could not be responded too in substance anyway, therefore no redress was inevitable and Article 61 was both lawfully invoked and stands to this day.

Furthermore, and a more compelling arguement I feel, Is the fact that no redress of the ratification of the treasonous treaty of Nice has ever been forthcoming, indeed if it was even ratified as said, and that an unsatisfactory reply from a deposed or usurped monarch/imposter makes little to no difference to that fact. Therefore to state that the petition does not stand according to law, would be contrary to the constitution and therefore treasonous to make that ruling. The letter and spirit of the law, with regard to the petition of the barons must surely to be taken into consideration.

Treason has, and is being committed to this very day. That is an easily provable fact which cannot go unredressed by the sovereign (people). BUT WE MUST USE THE REMEDY PROVIDED.

Lawful rebellion protects us with an unassailable defence. "Are you standing by the petition of the barons sir? No!! then not bugger off!.... the law clearly forbids me from doing business with you sir!..... Are you attempting to coerce me into committing a serious criminal offence sir? which I would be doing under the constraints of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 if I were to pay"... the tax, fine, water, TV licence etc, in fact any request made by even your neigbour would be unlawful, if that neighbour had not sent an oath of allegiance in support of the barons petition.

We all have 'lawful excuse' to commit a lesser crime if that is the only way not to commit a more serious one. It is much less serious a crime to default on a contract for examle than to aid and abet treason, terrorism, war crimes, genocide etc, etc... We also have 'duress of circumstances' as a get out clause to pay up if it is likely that we will be made to suffer a loss or harm by criminal policy enforcers et al if we don't. To remain consistent to the law we must then report any unlawful coercion and/or extortion to the police if we are being forced under duress to pay up or consent. In turn we cannot give authority to police constables if they too are not in support of the barons or not investigating evidence of crimes. The law forbids us to do otherwise, anyone not adhering to the law at this time is committing treason, high treason if they do so after being fully informed of the treason matter and their wilful collusion in the plot.

So guys please stop with the criminal processes and double think. We are fast running out of time and must protect the constitution by using it without deviation. The remedy is sound and can be used in all matters not only with regard to the criminal legal regime, but also on anyone who makes demands on us in these treasonous times. How bad do things have to get before we unite under constitutional law, reject the regime and demand that the police do the duty they swore an oath to do?

We need to 'lobby the bobby' with a strong emphasis on education rather than confrontation. If they deny due processes of law then we gather our evidence against them, inform them that they have been added to the lawful rebellion data base for future prosecution, and then arrest them if necessary. With the weight of the people upon them in numbers, acting peacefully, videoing the evidence and demanding their oaths, the silent majority would be encouraged (if not intimidated) into acting according to the rule of law. We have allies within the police as well as in other institutions.

What have we to lose? Stop consenting to summonses en masse and they would not be trading for profit for very long, and thus getting paid for their 'services' by the tax payer. We are aiding them simply by entering their hearings!

It seems crass to me that although we know that the constitution protects our national sovereignty and, that without our national sovereignty there can only be slavery and tyranny, yet very few are standing truly under the law, in protection of it and bringing the remedy to fruition when it is a criminal offence at common law not to do so!

Constitutional law/common law..... use it or lose it!!

I'm glad you posted that because now I finally understand where you are coming from. I still don't agree with you though.
Here's why.

The Magna Carta (MC) was a contract between King John et al. I wasn't there and no one currently alive was there, so we weren't party to the contract.

A simple maxim of law applies - No Man is liable for the actions of another.

King John stated that the MC would apply to all his heirs. Can that be enforced? Obviously not. His heirs were sovereigns in their own right and therefore able to disregard any contracts they were not a party to - if they so wished.
Similarly Parliament is sovereign. It cannot be constrained by any earlier parliament or, by extension, any earlier sovereign.

Really, does it make any sense at all to state that anyone alive today is constrained by any contract they were not a party to? And the MC is nearly an 800 year old contract that none of us were a party to!

BY LAW NONE OF US are constrained by the MC unless we consent to it. In order to have any kind of force or effect the MC would have to be ratified regularly by the people of the country.

The whole situation can be easily summarised.

1. The only rights we have are those we are prepared to fight and die for.
2. The only rights rulers don't have are those that the ruled do not allow them to have. See 1.

A piece of paper, no matter how old, how many signatures or whose signatures it has - can do absolutely NOTHING by itself.

Oh on the contrary thank you Dreadlock...now I finally understand that you do not stand under common law and the constitution.

The Coronation oath is effectively Magna Carta brought up to date, along with the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9. It is intrinsic and a fundamental treaty that provides us all with remedy to tyranny....why on earth would you not support it?

You WRONGLY claim that "Similarly Parliament is sovereign."...which is not true. Only treasonous criminals would attempt to usurp the sovereignty of the people. THE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN! not parliament.

You also state "BY LAW NONE OF US are constrained by the MC unless we consent to it." I agree absolutely with that statement and I DO consent to it without hesitation. Within MC we have remedy in tmes of tyranny why wouldn't I consent to it? So you don't consent to stand by common law then Dreadlock...hmmmm?

You summarise with 2 points at the end which are but a guide to your ignorance.

1). We have inalienable rights and also, rights and customs that our forefathers/mothers already fought and died for! (LEST WE FORGET).
2). Everyone has equal rights under the law if the rule of law has not been usurped.

So Dreadlock.....it appears that you do not stand under common law and are unwilling to abide by the rule of law. In point of fact that makes you a criminal sir! You are aiding and abetting the destruction of national sovereignty by your acquiescence sir! thank you for your confession...sir!

Dreadlock wrote:I'm glad you posted that because now I finally understand where you are coming from. I still don't agree with you though.
Here's why.

The Magna Carta (MC) was a contract between King John et al. I wasn't there and no one currently alive was there, so we weren't party to the contract.

A simple maxim of law applies - No Man is liable for the actions of another.

King John stated that the MC would apply to all his heirs. Can that be enforced? Obviously not. His heirs were sovereigns in their own right and therefore able to disregard any contracts they were not a party to - if they so wished.
Similarly Parliament is sovereign. It cannot be constrained by any earlier parliament or, by extension, any earlier sovereign.

Really, does it make any sense at all to state that anyone alive today is constrained by any contract they were not a party to? And the MC is nearly an 800 year old contract that none of us were a party to!

BY LAW NONE OF US are constrained by the MC unless we consent to it. In order to have any kind of force or effect the MC would have to be ratified regularly by the people of the country.

The whole situation can be easily summarised.

1. The only rights we have are those we are prepared to fight and die for.
2. The only rights rulers don't have are those that the ruled do not allow them to have. See 1.

A piece of paper, no matter how old, how many signatures or whose signatures it has - can do absolutely NOTHING by itself.

What a load of mackintosh!

Musashi