The Purpose of Oaths

The Purpose of Oaths

Postby musashi » Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:33 pm

This attachment is a little bit on the long side, and might seem a bit too academic at first, but it is a damn good read and very worthwhile. Not my work, alas, but from a trusted, reliable and very good source indeed. Oaths are important, as you will see of you read it, and remember that all our elected officials are under oath.
Lance.
ps. Remember that everything Adolph Hitler did was legal and in this country, here and now, it is not politics which are enslaving and destroying us - it's law.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: The Purpose of Oaths

Postby Dreadlock » Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:45 pm

I reached the bottom of page 8 before finding what I consider to be errors. I'll read the rest later.

On each point, the Coronation Oath has been badly traduced under the royal perjurer Elizabeth II.
The fact that Common Law is the fundamental law of the land, as indicated in the Coronation Oath, was long recognised in courts of law. Neither the Crown nor the Crown in Parliament had the right to impose laws that flagrantly contravened the Common Law.

This is where people are going wrong - because of failure to comprehend jurisdiction. Birthed people are at sea. The Law of the Land does not apply to them. The queen can only uphold the common law and the English Constitution for those on the land. She can do nothing for birthed people. She therefore should not be accused of perjury for failing to uphold the law for people who are outside of her jurisdiction (in her capacity as Queen of England & Wales) – almost everyone.
Furthermore, when Parliament and the Crown create unconstitutional statutes they are in fact not contravening common law. These statutes apply to those citizens who are birthed and have voluntarily surrendered their right to be governed according to the common-law.
The most famous example of a court decision upholding this principle is the case of Thomas Bonham v. the College of Physicians, normally known as Dr Bonham’s Case, where the chief justice, Sir Edward Coke, ruled in the Court of Common Pleas in 1610 that
And it appears in our books that, in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such an Act to be void.14

This case is irrelevant to today and here's why. In 1610 no one was birthed (apart from sailors!), therefore statutes were written to be applied to those under common-law jurisdiction. Coke was perfectly correct in his statement, but unfortunately modern conditions render his verdict unusable. Today, almost everyone is birthed. Statutes are now mostly written to be applied to those under admiralty jurisdiction. The common law controls the land – not the sea. Note in 1610 there was no United Kingdom – it was not created until 1707.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am


Return to Lawful rebellion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron