Magistrates

Re: Magistrates

Postby pitano1 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:11 pm

Hi. joe
Sorry for the late reply re;...It may be ringing my bell due to some other oddities in the same vein over the last few years - for instance the black-and-blue Union Jack appearing on police uniforms. i am aware of the purported explanation for this ie it's for a police charity for 'fallen comrades', but i remain unconvinced - possibly due to the exact same thing happening across the pond with our colonial cousins. The police there have taken to wearing a black-and-blue corrupted version of their Union flag for exactly the same purported reason. Unlike here there is some organised objection and campaigning for it to be removed. For those whose heart-strings are tugged by the "..they're just honouring colleagues..." narrative, the killer question is simple:

Why don't they just stitch them on their street clothes instead of their uniforms...?

At around the same time as these black/blue false flags appear we have the Queen (and Trump) visiting the Pope with the subsequent loss of the royal household guard from prominence at the palace. We lost the pomp-and-ceremony of the 'changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace', in which every aspect screamed "(Eng)land, land, land" from the large-land-animal fur hats to the blood-red tunics (btw now replaced with royal purple) and beautiful horses to be replaced by the sea-faring forces in blue... bit of a comedown,no? Yet no media-spotlit fanfare...

Is it all co-inkydink we go from red (blood, common-law) to blue (water, commerce)? Does flag protocol mean nothing? Perhaps we'll have to wait and see.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I must admit I have not researched this question in-depth, I will offer an educated guess or two.

1] As we know, the common law went with THE MONEY,[and Queen Elizabeth.2] which left the man on the street at the mercy of the merchants.[MARITIME]

2] Due to SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT/AGENDA 2030, whereby ALL nations will be brought under the full control of the UNITED NATIONS
world army
world police force.etc


IE...no religion, no royalty...
I think they like the colour blue. :giggle:
ps.
This leaves me with the questions of...why retain the colour purple, and why did
QUEEN ELISABETH.2 open parliament wearing a blue pisspot.?
cheers.
chris.
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: 1157
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: Magistrates

Postby technique » Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:52 pm

Hi iamani

Your consent to statutes was given long before your arrest. You can't reserve common-law rights while operating from the ALLCAPS and title, and besides

Statutes are fraudulent,I didn't have the mental capacity to consent at birth.Statutes were written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely,which is in force today.So,I do have a lawfully right to reserve my common law rights not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly,voluntarily and intentionally.

...Because we seek agreement there is no obligation for full disclosure.

I seek remedy under my common rights,therefore I am not liable for any undisclosed terms of any agreement.

I know the difference between 'crime' and 'offence' and warrants under common law.My question was "can't warrants be issued without consent"

"...Shouldn't judges be on their common law oaths when making orders to remove someone from court?....If someone has been removed from court against their will,then there has been no proper due process of law or order..."

I am aware there has been no proper due process.My question was "must a judge be on is common law oath when ordering police to remove someone from court"
technique
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 1:12 am

Re: Magistrates

Postby iamani » Sat Feb 29, 2020 4:14 pm

Hi pitano1

Those are two good points.

Sporting a true-blue titfer, was she? Didn't know that... certainly adds weight to the mystery.

Be interesting to find out if any other nation's police force are 'honouring fallen comrades' with a blue-corrupted flag...

Hi technique,

On the down-side: you don't seem to be paying attention... but on the up-side, your spelling seems to have improved. Things just always seem to have a way of balancing out, don't they?

i believe i have answered all of your questions. You seem to be operating from a confirmation bias rather than an open and enquiring mind... but just in case it is down to poor communication on my part I'll give it another go:

"...Statutes are fraudulent..."  -  perhaps, but not in the way you think.

"...Statutes were written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely,which is in force today..."

Common-law has long been merged with merchant-law, up to the present point of being submerged under the law of the sea. Commerce, contracts, agreements and trusts are the order of the day and being subject to water-laws means you need a metaphorical 'ship' to get by in life. You may indeed have several.

Common-law still exists  -  but you can't access it without having  (under)standing.

"...I didn't have the mental capacity to consent at birth..."

Correct, as a baby you have no capacity to consent  -  but your parents do, and 'your' birth-registration is an agreement they enter into, not you. At around about the age of consent you are offered the chance to claim berth-rights generated by 'your' birth-registration, via a member -'ship' of the Public Trust for your exclusive use in the form of a national-insurance/social security card and number (imo the name and number of the biblical Beast).
If in response to such notification you or your legal guardian should in timely manner happen to submit the correct paperwork to the correct person then you will in due course attain the majority of your infant/minor estate and gain standing and easy access to common-law/equity. If such paperwork is not submitted and instead you make unqualified (and, technically, unauthorised) use of the commercial capacity inherent to the legal-identity attached to the NAME and number (of the Beast) by, for example, opening a personal bank account, or claiming welfare benefits  -  you are instantly reduced to bonded servitude to the Crown Corp. That then is your first agreement with the State and implies consent (by your action) to abide by its statutes. You have now volunteered to act as debtor and surety for the NAME to our (bankrupt) nation's creditors (banksters) and to pay off the national debt with the fruits of your labour and your loins and your inheritance.

"...So,I do have a lawfully right to reserve my common law rights..."

You traded your inheritance/estate/standing-on-the-land/access-to-common-law-rights to one born after you, for the bowl of soup (ie. state benefits/privileges) mentioned in biblical allegory. The 'second-born' gory takes the glory (but that's another story...).

"...not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly,voluntarily and intentionally..."

Have you filed paperwork to establish your assertion as fact...? No...? Then you are still a volunteer; also:

Standing and/or knowledge  =  access to common-law rights;

Consent to statutory 'law'  =  no access to common-law rights;

Use of Crown currency  =  Consent to statutory 'law';

Personal bank account  =    Consent to statutory 'law';

Claiming state benefits  =  Consent to statutory 'law';

Paying income tax  =  Consent to statutory 'law';

Registering a car  =  Consent to statutory 'law';

Being on the electoral-roll/voting  =  Consent to statutory 'law';

Etc. ad nauseum... these intentional actions on your part continuously confirm your consent to statutory law and will continue to do so until you change your status and gain standing.

The following bracketed text is all yours...

((  I know the difference between 'crime' and 'offence' and warrants under common law.My question was "can't warrants be issued without consent"

"...Shouldn't judges be on their common law oaths when making orders to remove someone from court?....If someone has been removed from court against their will,then there has been no proper due process of law or order..."

I am aware there has been no proper due process.My question was "must a judge be on is common law oath when ordering police to remove someone from court"  ))

...and you seem to be taking umbrage at your own comment/question (which i have already answered in prior post). Not sure how i can help you with that.

That any clearer...?

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: Magistrates

Postby technique » Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:50 pm

Hi iamani

but on the up-side, your spelling seems to have improved. Things just always seem to have a way of balancing out...don't they?

So you discriminating me for my bad grammar,you must be a minor with your childish rants and sarcasm.Move along now,leave it for the adults.

If you believe I'm clueless to this topic doesn't give you the right to belittle me or make you a better man than me.If someone want to learn about any topic on this forum,then shouldn't they be able to receive that advice without someone belittling them due to their bad grammar or lack of knowledge on the topic.

"You seem to be operating from a confirmation bias rather than an open and enquiring mind"

So where did you get your beliefs from?

Doesn't this site operate from a Confirmation bias ie: http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/heirarchy-authority

"Correct, as a baby you have no capacity to consent - but your parents do, and 'your' birth-registration is an agreement they enter into"

So,someone can makeup a fraudulent document (without full disclosure) have your parents sign the document and its legal.How can a document be legal if full disclosure of T&Cs are not disclosed...wouldn't the agreement be fraudulent and void? Do you believe parents would have signed their child over to the state if they knew the truth behind the fraudulent birth Certificate.

"Use of Crown currency = Consent to statutory law"

So have you invented bottle tops to use as legal tender bc there is no other alternative we have to accept the benefit.

So,the Government can taking away our common law right with a fraudulent piece of paper (BC).A fraudulent piece of paper that cannot speak has no power or rights over the living wo/man,the name is owned by the Crown it has nothing to do with the living wo/man, unless I voluntarily consent is given.Under common law you can call yourself different names everyday of your living life.

"Because we seek agreement there is no obligation for full disclosure"

So,do these agreements have a right to withhold full disclosure?

Keep a check on my grammar :wink:
technique
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 1:12 am

Re: Magistrates

Postby iamani » Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:19 pm

Hi technique

Remind me - what do i get from giving you my time...?

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: Magistrates

Postby technique » Sun Mar 01, 2020 7:07 pm

Hi iamani

Aren't you a volunteer like everyone else you say is, or is it an excuse to not answer the questions in my last post?
technique
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 1:12 am

Re: Magistrates

Postby iamani » Sun Mar 01, 2020 7:59 pm

Hi technique

commonlawcourt.com

Adieu.
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Previous

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron