From FMOTL Wiki
A Society is nothing more than
A group of like-minded individuals who come together to deliberate, determine, and act towards common goals.
A Society must, therefore, have:
- A Name, such that – for "legal purposes" - it can be distinguished from all other Societies & individuals;
- Published its "common goals" - such that individuals can determine whether or not they are "like-minded" - and, if so, to join the Society (become Members, and thus bound by the Society's Legislated Rules i.e. Statutes);
- A set of determined Legislated Rules i.e. Statutes (which may always be under review, extension, repeal – as deliberations continue);
- A defined Membership – such that individuals bound by its Legislated Rules can be distinguished from all others. Including: A method of application to join, with a corresponding method for resignation – whenever an individual may feel that he or she can no longer support the “common goals”. "Applications to join" cannot be under duress, or any kind of deception. Similarly "Resignations" must be free from any recrimination, otherwise questions about the integrity of the Society are raised.
Article excerpted from .
To reiterate: Individuals who become Members must have applied to join without duress, and without deception. Members so joined are bound by the Society’s Legislated Rules. Members can – by their own free will – resign at any time, without recriminations.
And this leads to the problem of applying Parliamentary Statutes to those people who populate any Nation, calling that Nation "a society".
- What is the "legal Name" of the Society?
- What are the published Common Goals?
- How did those people join the Society, in order to become accredited Members?
- How do those who are Members actually hand in resignations, and leave, if there is no mechanism for doing so?
- Bearing in mind that "all are equal", by what Right does anyone else have to assume 'consent' by those who would choose to withhold consent?
The answer to (1), above, is that there is no Name and hence no Society in legal terms.
The answer to (2), above, would take the form of a written Constitution. However, in the UK, much of the so-called Constitution is unwritten, and therefore is variable at the whim of whoever assumes authority to decide any matter. Much of this takes place behind closed doors, and does not get exposed to the light of day.
The answer to (3), above, is - quite simply - they didn't. Not of their own free will. Any assumption that they "became joined", by virtue of a Birth Certificate created on the basis of information supplied by parents, cannot be taken as an assumption of "Membership Application" by the individual concerned.
The answer to (4), above, is - quite simply - there isn't. (At least any known mechanism. Thus the integrity of any such Society is immediately called into question).
The answer to (5), above, is that no-one has the Right to assume another's consent, with an express contract in place.
Thus, before attempting to apply a Statute to any individual i.e. before considering any individual is bound by any Society's Legislated Rules, it must be shown that:
i. The Society who's Legislated Rules are being imposed, has a distinct Name.
ii. The Society has published its "common goals";
iii. The individual had joined under said individual's own free will, without any duress imposed, and without any deception imposed. By this means the Member has decided to TRUST the Society, and has CONSENTED to the AUTHORITY of the Society's Disciplinary Body e.g. a Courts de facto;
iv. The individual has not subsequently resigned, and thus remains a current Member.
If it is not possible to show (i) through (iv), above, and action is taken against the individual, then such action is a CRIMINAL TRESPASS upon said individual's SOVEREIGNTY, and an abuse said individual's Natural, Inalienable, Rights - under the Common Law-of-the-Land. In a word: TREASON.
And this must apply equally to all individuals without fear or favour, because everyone is equal under the Law-of-the-Land.
Problems in understanding these arguments & concepts are easily resolved by considering the difference between your Doctor and your Solicitor.
Your Solicitor consented, of his or her own free will, to be bound by the Rules & Regulations of the Law Society, when he or she studied and became one.
Your Doctor consented, of his or her own free will, to be bound by the Rules & Regulations of the British Medical Association (another 'society' … see the "soc" within the word), when he or she studied and became one.
Trying to apply the Rules & Regulations of the BMA to your Solicitor is not possible. He or she will say: "The Hippocratic Oath, and those Rules don't apply to me … I'm not a Doctor, and only bound by the Rules & Regulations of the Law Society".
Trying to apply the Rules & Regulations of the Law Society to your Doctor is not possible. He or she will say: "The Law Society's Rules & Regulations don't apply to me. I'm not a Lawyer, I'm a Doctor. I'm only bound by my Hippocratic Oath, and the Rules & Regulations of the BMA".
And thus, for these self-same reasons, attempts to enforce the Rules & Regulations of a Society that one has never joined of one's own free will, is the CRIMINAL TRESPASS upon that individual.