Affidavit served today..

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Dreadlock » Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:15 pm

Just a few points though I think we will end up having to agree to disagree.

First of all clarification.
Your point that Statutes cannot be unlawful because they cannot Act loses me, they are unlawful whether they are acted upon or not.


A statute cannot be lawful or unlawful. It is an insubstantial thing, a concept or set of concepts. It is the act itself, the implementation, which is lawful or unlawful. If I were to create a statute "All foreigners outdoors after sunset are to be shot on sight." is that unlawful? No of course it isn't. It would however be totally unlawful to put that statute into action, just as it would be unlawful to pick up a rock and smack a stranger over the head with it for no good reason. A rock isn't lawful or unlawful either.

In answer to this (emphasis mine)
Its actually a criminal offence to consent to any statutes since the 1911 parliament Act.


I made my point about drinking and driving. It was not nit picking at all. It was making a very important point, being that consenting to the rules of a traitor does not necessarily make one a criminal, or a traitor for that matter. It is entirely dependent upon which rules you consent to and furthermore, upon acting upon those rules. Do you disagree?

I think the main bone of contention lies here:
I advocate the fact that we are not free to consent to Acts and Statutes under the present criminal regime and, we are not lawfully bound by Acts and statutes in any way even in times of a lawful administration because, Acts and statutes are legislative RULES not laws which do not adhere to Gods law, which all laws must adhere to to be lawful. Man made laws/rules are entirely unlawful which is demonstrated within the coronation Oath contract thus, if we consent to Acts and Statutes then we are in direct violation of Gods law which is a crime under common law and Gods law whether we are religious or not.


I disagree wholeheartedly with "I advocate the fact that we are not free to consent to Acts and Statutes under the present criminal regime..." We are free to do so. Doing so may or may not make us criminals depending upon which statutes we choose to consent to and act upon. In any case we are free to be criminals if we so wish.

I totally agree with, "...we are not lawfully bound by Acts and statutes in any way even in times of a lawful administration because, Acts and statutes are legislative RULES not laws..."

"...which do not adhere to Gods law..." This is something of a blanket statement. To state that ALL statute does not adhere to God's law is almost certainly not true. Given that neither of us has read every single statute I'm sure you see my point.
"...which all laws must adhere to to be lawful." As I said earlier, I don't think a statute can be lawful or unlawful. To carry out the act described in the statute is another matter altogether.
"Man made laws/rules are entirely unlawful..." Assuming that you mean the implementation of man's rules is entirely unlawful, then my answer is maybe - maybe not. It would depend entirely on the rule - as in my drinking/driving example.
"...which is demonstrated within the coronation Oath contract..." You've lost me there. Could you clarify?

"...if we consent to Acts and Statutes then we are in direct violation of Gods law which is a crime under common law and Gods law whether we are religious or not." If you can quote or tell me where in God's law it states that man is not free to create his own rules and regulations and apply them then I will agree with you. However I know of no such law. My position, currently, is that some statutes may be a violation, some may not. This seems to be our main point of disagreement.

Of course I have read the Magna Carta, but your interpretation may well be different to mine. I'm sure you accept that two or more people can read the same thing and come up with many different meanings. So what I should have said is, what is your definition of lawful rebellion?

It is the duty of ALL sovereign beings to stand under constitutional law...

There is no such thing as constitutional law. Constitutions limit government and state laws which already exist. At the risk of being accused of nit picking, this is a very important point. If "law" were to be created by a constitution, then the constitution would be no more than statute.

we have a duty to preserve our right of self governance. Sovereignty - Use it or lose it.

Well on this, which is probably the most important of all the points we are making, we agree. :cheer:
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:34 pm

Sorry Dreadlock but I cannot see the point in debating the issues with you we will just go round and round forever most likely, yes lets agree to disagree.

You state that you don't know much about lawful rebellion but its fairly clear and simple.

I am a man of action not talk and am too busy to waste my time debating philosophy to be frank.

I wish you well and trust that you will take action too if and when you can, time is running short. Namaste.
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Dreadlock » Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:12 pm

You state that you don't know much about lawful rebellion but its fairly clear and simple.


Actually I didn't state that at all, but yes we can agree to disagree.
I am a man of action also and am taking action in my own way, as are you, but I also enjoy a good debate as they can lead to better understanding.
I wish you well also and we have another point of agreement - time is running short.

Good luck.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Rongo121 » Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:31 pm

Hi Guys

I can see where you’re both coming from here, and in a way you’re both right, but we’re overcomplicating things,

Back to basics, statutes do not apply to any of us as long as we remember who we are.

Firstly I agree with Busta re. lawful rebellion being our duty at this time, but lawful rebellion against which crown? (See comments below).

I think what dreadlock is pointing out is that involuntary servitude/slavery is unlawful, whereas voluntary servitude is perfectly lawful as long as it is achieved fairly and openly with full disclosure and without deception.

I doubt that any statute would comply with the above, if only because the definitions of the words have been changed, so as to be incomprehensible to the general public.

@Busta

“When I state "my legal fiction" I am acting as a third party representative to the legal fiction/person under duress of circumstances as a defensive act.
I have withdrawn my consent and have made clear that the crown has no authority and that they have no claim against my legal fiction nor my sovereign being.”


I can see where you’re coming from with this, and I agree the Crown has no authority over your sovereign being without your consent; however I’m not so sure with regards to the legal fiction, i think this is playing with fire and you could be stepping right into their jurisdiction.

What they need is somebody to step up and agree to represent a person/legal fiction, without that they have no case. You can’t fine or imprison a fiction, only a man who agrees to represent it.

I remember Dean Clifford saying that everyone in the court is acting as an agent for the legal fiction, or they wouldn’t be there. And remember they are all trustees, which is not where you want to be.

Do you not think that it would be a much safer position to state your role as the sole beneficiary of the John Doe estate, (the sole beneficiary can appoint himself as executor at any time, a very powerful position)

@Dreadlock

You may be right about CROWN COPYRIGHT just referring to the right to reproduce the birth certificate, but what about “a certificate is not proof of identity”.

After all even a gas bill can be used as proof of identity, so why not a birth certificate?

Personally I think that it’s because the birth certificate is relating to the estate, whereas a gas bill is addressed to a legal person.

“I don't agree that I don't own my socks. I have the bill of sale.”

I think what Marcus’s attorney meant was a “person” doesn’t even own his socks, makes sense if you think about it.

Also in the real world we never really own anything anyway, the best we can hope for is “the right of use” which we can pass on to our heirs, so it’s just as good. If you think about it we came into this world with nothing and we’ll go out the same way, can’t even take your body with you when you go.



Some other points to ponder: credit to ETYPE from TPUC for some of this info.

There is more than one CROWN.

1. Her majesty the crown Queen Elizabeth II of the house of Windsor.

Magna Carta relates to this Crown.

2. HER MAJESTY THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. (Used to be called “THE EAST INDIA CORPORATION apparently)

It operates out of the city of London which is a state within a state, much like the Vatican in Italy or Washington DC in America. (Queen has to be escorted by the Mayor if she enters, presumably because it’s a foreign jurisdiction.)

Created the UNITED KINGDOM, CANADA, AUSTRALIA and countless other commonwealth countries/corporations.

The UNITED KINGDOM is foreign to the British Isles.

A post code is a revenue district of the UNITED KINGDOM.

Our correct status in regard to the UNITED KINGDOM is “NON RESIDENT ALIEN”. We are not the “RES” as Res is also a very common Latin word meaning “THING” so resident talks about the identity of the thing in relation to the jurisdiction.

We are all NON RESIDENT ALIENS of the UNITED KINGDOM because we are the sovereign people of the British Isles. Any officer of the “UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION” has no office with us.
Rongo121
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:51 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:49 am

As already stated I would rather not get drawn into a philosophical debate about perceptions of law and whether or not we can lay claim to legal fictions but, in the interest of clarity I will again make clear my understanding which is actually well evidenced within the very first notice/affidavit at the start of this thread and, in other notices served.

I have a legal fiction but it is not me. I can choose to represent that legal fiction in the corporate arena as a third party representative under normal conditions but, I am not bonded and I cannot choose (lawfully) to represent that legal fiction in times of treason unless under duress as a defensive act, especially whereas I have declared my sovereign being by affidavit to be in lawful rebellion, it would be double think to do so and also a criminal offence.

Lawful rebellion stands against the tyrannical monarch and the system pertaining to the monarch i.e. the crown corporation, government, policy enforcers and judiciary etc, In my view it is all encompassing.

If voluntary servitude is deemed by yourselves to be lawful as long as full disclosure has been gained then, if no deception exists it cannot be lawful in times of treason can it. You may not lawfully serve an unlawful regime it is an oxymoron.

How can I possibly be stepping into their jurisdiction by representing my legal fiction when they have no jurisdiction ? I have made that very clear at all times and evidenced as much. I can represent the legal fiction under duress to defend myself only if I am kidnapped into their so called courts. To enter their courts of my own volition would be complete double think and folly, It just gives them credulity by doing so.

If representing the legal fiction as stated above, I would be doing so as the chief executor and sole shareholder of the trust which removes the 'presumption' that the judge or magistrate is running the show.....again I have stated that clearly in the paperwork already served.

If we complicate the issues with regard to article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 we will likely be debating this stuff until the cows come home ! The fact that treason has and is still being committed is well evidenced and, that lawful rebellion has been invoked and remains the political state of the country by un-rebutted affidavit/petition is in no doubt. Under the constraints of the constitution we ALL have the duty to distress and distrain the monarch and its institutions in defence of our inalienable sovereign rights and customs. Under the 'rule of law' anyone who is not standing in lawful rebellion at this time is a traitor to their country and deserves no aid and comfort until they do.

Consenting to rules is optional depending on the institution that supplies those rules. Rules are not laws of course and cannot be lawfully consented to by us if the institution implementing them is a criminal enterprise. If we consent to the rules/laws of say a traitor then yes it does make one a criminal...if I consent to the rules of a treasonous government then obviously I am compounding treason by doing so and ignorance is no defence in law.

OK I agree you are free to be a criminal if you so choose to be, what I perhaps should have stated is that we are not 'lawfully' free to consent to Acts and Statutes....nit picking is really tiresome but I admit you are correct.

Gods law does not permit the usage of man made laws and this is what was sworn to by Elizardbreath Mountbatton on the signing of the coronation Oath contract. Statutes are NOT laws and thus are man made therefore ALL statutes do not adhere to Gods law....I trust that clears up that point. If you are in doubt as to what Gods laws state then please do some research of your own. I have no time nor duty to provide you with evidence of Gods laws. Please watch 'Elizabeth 2 go ripple affect' for clarity on this point.

Lets just keep things simple and apply common sense OK ? The Crown/Monarch including the institutions at this time are treasonous. We have a duty to stand in peaceful defiance of this treason and withdraw consent to be governed/served by such unjust institutions. The rule of law applies to all beings including the so called monarch and none stand above the rule of law....Magna Carta 1215 creates a remedy in times like this and we are bound by this constitutional constraint to act accordingly with no exceptions.

There is so much double think that everything can be debated but, we have little time to debate these issues so lets just stand together to preserve our right to self governance and stop consenting to the will of quislings. If we do not make this stand many people will die the evidence to support this claim is very clear, the depopulation programme is well under way and we have a duty to our children to protect and serve them as sovereign beings.

The police need to be made accountable for their criminal acts and/or omissions which we can do if we have the numbers to make it happen. Fear is not an option we have literally no choice if we desire to preserve our lives, rights and customs. I have clearly stated my standing in affidavits and notices earlier on in this thread. You are free to agree or disagree with them as you wish. I would hope that you would feel inclined to report the crimes that are well evidenced to a justice of the peace as is required by all who know that treason is being planned or committed, if you do not then you are also guilty of the crime (misprision) and a traitor to your country. That is not my opinion it is the law. Take it or leave it as you wish. The time for talk is over it is action that is required in the now.

That is my final word on the matter(s).

David of the Family Robinson.
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:29 pm

@ Rongo

Yes you get where I'm coming from.
As far as proof of identity goes. The "proof" is in the eyes that accept it, meaning anyone can consider anything as proof of identity. If you ask me for proof of my identity and I give you a brick and you accept it as proof then job done. :grin:

@ Busta
OK I agree you are free to be a criminal if you so choose to be, what I perhaps should have stated is that we are not 'lawfully' free to consent to Acts and Statutes....nit picking is really tiresome but I admit you are correct.

You call it nit picking, which is somewhat derogatory. I call it being clear and concise and when dealing with law and legalities this is extremely important, as I'm sure you'll agree. I try to be as clear in my writing as I can be, in order to communicate as efficiently as I can by doing my best to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. I don't always get it right, but practice makes for improvement and we all have room to improve.

This is why I distinguish between statutes as concepts and the implementation of statutes which constitutes action. The distinction may appear to be entering the realm of philosophy to the layman, but really it isn't. It is about defining the terms being used as clearly as possible in order to communicate efficiently and promote understanding.

Gods law does not permit the usage of man made laws and this is what was sworn to by Elizardbreath Mountbatton on the signing of the coronation Oath contract.

She swore to uphold the law of the land which is the common law, customs and traditions. She did not swear to forbid statute.

therefore ALL statutes do not adhere to Gods law....I trust that clears up that point

Let's not forget that the original purpose of statute was to encode the law of the land in writing. Statute was originally SUPPOSED to be in harmony with the law and no doubt some of them are. Hence I'm afraid you are incorrect. To claim that ALL statutes do not adhere to Gods law you must claim to have read ALL statutes. I would be very impressed indeed if that were the case.

...Magna Carta 1215 creates a remedy in times like this and we are bound by this constitutional constraint to act accordingly with no exceptions.

I am not bound by Magna Carta unless I choose to be. Constitutions constrain government not the people.

Having said all that Busta, don't think for one minute I don't respect your position as I absolutely do. Our points of contention are really minor compared to the big picture - such as the depopulation agenda you mentioned which is about to accelerate with the introduction of smart meters (death ray machines) and if I can help you in anyway just pm me and I'll see what I can do. :yes:
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:41 pm

bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:17 pm

Thanks for the link, though I have actually seen that video before.

I'm afraid there is nothing in her promise which forbids or excludes the use of statute. The laws of God are not necessarily exclusive of the rules of man.
Furthermore another point arises. She has qualified her promises by using the phrase "to the utmost of my power" or similar.
To argue that the Queen is a traitor one would have to prove that she was not acting to the utmost of her power... What if her power has been taken away from her? In that case she may appear to be a traitor while in fact being a victim.
I'm not saying this is the case, but there may well be factors involved here of which we are unaware.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby pitano1 » Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:53 pm

an article by-bob lomas `the magna carta society.

it is rather long,so, will not copy/paste.

The Magna Carta Society


[snippet]


Was it realistic to expect the British to integrate with the Germans? That is what the Treaty of Rome demanded.

Was inviting a German Royal family to take the British throne a long term recipe for disaster? If so, is that disaster now upon us?



James McCabe wrote of the Assyrians, the ancestors of the German peoples, (History of the World), “…a fierce and treacherous race – they never kept faith when it was in their interest to break treaties”. Harry Beckough wrote, (The Four Reichs), “Unprovoked war, without warning, i.e. ruthless treachery, lies and deceits are all common in German history from the outset.” The German philosopher Nietzsche is reported to have said, “The German is an expert on secret paths to chaos.”
The Great Betrayal

full article.. http://captainranty.com/the-great-betrayal/

this is interesting..http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/?p=6982
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Previous

Return to Lawful rebellion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests