British Constitution Forum and John Harris [Archive]

View Full Version : British Constitution Forum and John Harris

wakeupworld

28-03-2010, 03:38 PM

I`m sure a lot of you have heard about the British Constitution Group, I hadn`t until last night when found a thread on their forum via other research and subsequently a thread here.

Forum member and Independent PPC Aardvark has some strong words about John Harris particularly refering to part 2 of John`s "It`s An Illusion" speech in Stoke.

Yes John has made some errors I`m sure but can he be this wrong?

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/vogon-britain/64589-john-harris-its-illusion-2-a.html

dreamweaver

28-03-2010, 04:00 PM

There's a bit of a backlash going on against JH in some parts of the movement, including from some people I know and trust.

I've never been convinced by the stuff about Dunn & Bradstreet listings. As Aardvark says in that thread, D&B is a credit reference agency and if it lists certain entities as corporations for credit purposes, that's a huge "so what?" for me.

The thing about JH is that he's on his own journey of discovery and he hasn't finished it yet. What is really needed is some serious investigation of our constitutional laws and how they have been (ab)used to bolster the blatant tyranny that has been constructed before our very eyes.

wakeupworld

28-03-2010, 04:13 PM

prajna

28-03-2010, 05:31 PM

The thing about JH is that he's on his own journey of discovery and he hasn't finished it yet.

Haha, I was just saying precisely the same thing to a friend this afternoon. I know, from my own experience of my own voyage of discovery, how easy it is to think you have 'the answer' with each discovery you make. The mistake is then to start telling everyone 'the answer'. Interesting as it is to see JH's enthusiasm it is also painful to watch him going off half cocked.

prajna

28-03-2010, 05:49 PM

Thanks dreamweaver, yes so much to understand but those men who hosted a Freeman Conference in Derby seem to be proving to themselves if not others as yet that the Freeman way is working for them.

Worth looking at Aardvark`s other posts re freeman at some time as he raises some good points, and I`d like to know where you and others stand (as mentioned in the forum link) that the Magna Carta 1215 has been repelled and that lawful rebellion is not possible.

Cheers

That section may or may not have been repealed but it matters not. You have a perfectly moral and ethical right to rebellion. Given that most of the repression of people's freedom is put in place and kept in place with 'law', why would one look to that same law to authorise rebellion against it?

There is no law, except the laws of nature and those you are prepared to bow down to. I was put off tpuc within a very short time by JH's kow-towing to queen Betty. How ridiculous: to try to throw off the yoke of statute law while prizing the yoke of monarchy. In fact, this is the reason the whole 'waking-up' movement is getting nowhere fast: it is still encapsulated within 'patriotic' movements and nationalistic thinking.

I know it takes time to progress through the various stages towards enlightenment but it is wearying to see people think that 'common law' will save them from statute law. It is time to see that it is our underlying human rights that are the only justification we need for any action or choice not to act.

girlgye

28-03-2010, 06:11 PM

Thanks dreamweaver, yes so much to understand but those men who hosted a Freeman Conference in Derby seem to be proving to themselves if not others as yet that the Freeman way is working for them.

Worth looking at Aardvark`s other posts re freeman at some time as he raises some good points, and I`d like to know where you and others stand (as mentioned in the forum link) that the Magna Carta 1215 has been repelled and that lawful rebellion is not possible.

Cheers

Well yes that's because Michael, Amit and Santa have worked bloody hard over decades. Michael being the junior out of the three has probably been the most obsessive and learned in the shortest space of time. So I totally trust these guys and believe me they put it up there with ease of expression but it don't mean they are having it large and easy either.

There have been idiots accuse them of being spooks too but I can honestly say that I truely believe them to be genuine guys not in it for sex, money or profit and truely conscious people at heart.

That isn't a poke to those that do established research and do charge either. For I believe if you have spent your lifetime wading through this capricious crap then so you should. They work purely from donations. They have to live somehow and the freeman movement is about exchange of energy. Not ripping holes out of people.

girlgye

28-03-2010, 06:16 PM

That section may or may not have been repealed but it matters not. You have a perfectly moral and ethical right to rebellion. Given that most of the repression of people's freedom is put in place and kept in place with 'law', why would one look to that same law to authorise rebellion against it?

There is no law, except the laws of nature and those you are prepared to bow down to. I was put off tpuc within a very short time by JH's kow-towing to queen Betty. How ridiculous: to try to throw off the yoke of statute law while prizing the yoke of monarchy. In fact, this is the reason the whole 'waking-up' movement is getting nowhere fast: it is still encapsulated within 'patriotic' movements and nationalistic thinking.

I know it takes time to progress through the various stages towards enlightenment but it is wearying to see people think that 'common law' will save them from statute law. It is time to see that it is our underlying human rights that are the only justification we need for any action or choice not to act.

oooh becareful there. Our human rights. For a start off the term Human is a weasel word construct and don't rely on that weasle worded Human Rights/UN stuff either.

I think you're point is just say no to the lot. This is john harris simplistic view but I'm afraid it won't work. Largely because it has been tried and tested. You have to get off your backside and learn this stuff, pulp your brain to the max and max it out in front of these men in court. Bear in mind most are corrupt in any regard and just ignore what you say. You have to know why they can do that in law otherwise you simply do not stand a chance.

What you say is right you just have to substantiate it in order to keep your property and your chattels tiz all.

hogglepop

28-03-2010, 06:28 PM

That section may or may not have been repealed but it matters not. You have a perfectly moral and ethical right to rebellion. Given that most of the repression of people's freedom is put in place and kept in place with 'law', why would one look to that same law to authorise rebellion against it?

There is no law, except the laws of nature and those you are prepared to bow down to. I was put off tpuc within a very short time by JH's kow-towing to queen Betty. How ridiculous: to try to throw off the yoke of statute law while prizing the yoke of monarchy. In fact, this is the reason the whole 'waking-up' movement is getting nowhere fast: it is still encapsulated within 'patriotic' movements and nationalistic thinking.

I know it takes time to progress through the various stages towards enlightenment but it is wearying to see people think that 'common law' will save them from statute law. It is time to see that it is our underlying human rights that are the only justification we need for any action or choice not to act.

Great point !! The thing that worries me is who defines the morals and ethics though ?

I so do want to break from the yoke of repression, i just fear that there are those whose ethics and morals are no way in kilter with my own good ways(we know this from just looking at the troll posts on this forum!) - my fear is that without the current yoke of repression, who will 'repress' the evil doers, the criminally insane, the dawnright dangerous.... who will arrest the peadophiles, the murders and rapists , who will convict them, who will protect me from them ??

I search for the answer , and the only protecction i feel i have from these people (i am pacifist, so i would never forceably resist anything)is by some kind of higher organisation ? HOW CAN WE BEAK THIS YOKE ?? There must be a way...

prajna

28-03-2010, 06:40 PM

oooh becareful there. Our human rights. For a start off the term Human is a weasel word construct and don't rely on that weasle worded Human Rights/UN stuff either.

I think you're point is just say no to the lot. This is john harris simplistic view but I'm afraid it won't work. Largely because it has been tried and tested. You have to get off your backside and learn this stuff, pulp your brain to the max and max it out in front of these men in court. Bear in mind most are corrupt in any regard and just ignore what you say. You have to know why they can do that in law otherwise you simply do not stand a chance.

What you say is right you just have to substantiate it in order to keep your property and your chattels tiz all.

I think my freedom and 'rights' are more important than my chattels anyway. Sure, I risk my freedom, and what few chattels I have left, in sticking to my insistence that my fundamental rights trump any law or legislation, but until those cards are played they can't trump anything.

So far it has worked and my experience is that I am better off studying my own heart than I am studying law. Having said that, it is certainly useful to find examples where law has recognised those underlying rights.

Don't get too hung up on language, like what 'human' means. This is exactly the game they play in court: changing the meaning of words and using pedantry to avoid addressing simple truths. Instead, rescue the truth from their pile of verbiage, dust it off so that it is simple and pure, and present them with that. And I can quote Fictio cedit veritati; fictio juris non est, ubi veritas (Fiction yields to truth. Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.) to back that up, showing that it can be helpful to know the maxims they go by, but knowing they accept that maxim does not change the truth; the truth stands for itself however you choose to express it.

prajna

28-03-2010, 07:13 PM

Great point !! The thing that worries me is who defines the morals and ethics though ?

I so do want to break from the yoke of repression, i just fear that there are those whose ethics and morals are no way in kilter with my own good ways(we know this from just looking at the troll posts on this forum!) - my fear is that without the current yoke of repression, who will 'repress' the evil doers, the criminally insane, the dawnright dangerous.... who will arrest the peadophiles, the murders and rapists , who will convict them, who will protect me from them ??

I search for the answer , and the only protecction i feel i have from these people (i am pacifist, so i would never forceably resist anything)is by some kind of higher organisation ? HOW CAN WE BEAK THIS YOKE ?? There must be a way...

Ahh, you see, this is the problem: morals are values that are generally accepted in a society, whereas ethics are values accepted by an individual. It is quite possible to be unethical and, at the same time, perfectly moral.

That same entity you look to for protection is completely amoral in any case. They have a law, published in 1948, prohibiting waging aggressive wars. In fact, Chief Justice Jackson, in announcing it, described the act of waging an aggressive war as the 'supreme crime'.

I can't speak for you or for anyone but myself, but having studied myself deeply and having examined my own nature, I have found it to be loving, peaceful, generous, compassionate, and to have many other worthy qualities. I have also seen that influences throughout my life encouraged me to go against my nature; so I am careful these days to examine my actions and motivations to make sure I am acting according to my nature rather than from some other motivation. It seems that you have formed much the same conclusion from examining yourself. I doubt there are only two of us with that nature. In fact, I think it likely that it is the real 'human nature', rather than the 'human nature' people use in justifying their belief that there will never be peace on earth.

You have been taught to be scared of all the boogeymen you listed but what is your actual experience? If people relied on their own experience of life rather than the acquired one they have imposed on them by authorities (including parents, teachers, doctors, TV, newspapers, ...) they would be much less fearful and considerably more trusting. You won't give up that yoke while you are still under the yoke of fear.

What is the worst that has happened to you? When you have remembered that then ask yourself, did the yoke you were taught to rely on to protect you from it actually perform as advertised? Notice that your beliefs have no foundation in experience, indeed they often are contrary to your experience. So drop all your beliefs, drop all your fears, and begin again from your own experience. Then you will have no need for any 'authority' to protect you; instead you will develop and perfect the skills you need to protect yourself (what little protection is actually needed).

hogglepop

28-03-2010, 08:51 PM

Ahh, you see, this is the problem: morals are values that are generally accepted in a society, whereas ethics are values accepted by an individual. It is quite possible to be unethical and, at the same time, perfectly moral.

That same entity you look to for protection is completely amoral in any case. They have a law, published in 1948, prohibiting waging aggressive wars. In fact, Chief Justice Jackson, in announcing it, described the act of waging an aggressive war as the 'supreme crime'.

I can't speak for you or for anyone but myself, but having studied myself deeply and having examined my own nature, I have found it to be loving, peaceful, generous, compassionate, and to have many other worthy qualities. I have also seen that influences throughout my life encouraged me to go against my nature; so I am careful these days to examine my actions and motivations to make sure I am acting according to my nature rather than from some other motivation. It seems that you have formed much the same conclusion from examining yourself. I doubt there are only two of us with that nature. In fact, I think it likely that it is the real 'human nature', rather than the 'human nature' people use in justifying their belief that there will never be peace on earth.

You have been taught to be scared of all the boogeymen you listed but what is your actual experience? If people relied on their own experience of life rather than the acquired one they have imposed on them by authorities (including parents, teachers, doctors, TV, newspapers, ...) they would be much less fearful and considerably more trusting. You won't give up that yoke while you are still under the yoke of fear.

What is the worst that has happened to you? When you have remembered that then ask yourself, did the yoke you were taught to rely on to protect you from it actually perform as advertised? Notice that your beliefs have no foundation in experience, indeed they often are contrary to your experience. So drop all your beliefs, drop all your fears, and begin again from your own experience. Then you will have no need for any 'authority' to protect you; instead you will develop and perfect the skills you need to protect yourself (what little protection is actually needed).

Wow- excellent ,thank you ..so much to take in !!

You have vividly explained alot to me, but i must admit to still being a little confussed( being dim as usual i expect !!lol).

Myself, like all other, I am. And I am as a result of my experience (as you say), but I do have to admit they have not all been good, not with other people, at least. I still carry the facial scars (and metal plates) from a vicious unprovoked attack on me whilst at uni in the 90's. Basically I was beaten by youths , one whom had an iron bar. I was in a coma for 2 weeks, and still suffer the effects today. The chap who did this was caught , charged, imprissioned. The police on the night were very good apparently(good apple in a rotten lot, perhaps ?!), apprehending him only minutes after the attack (i was not aware at the time as i was being rushed to hostpital, comatose, in the back of a ambulance). Apparently the man was thouroughly vicious and it took over 30 police officers to subdue him and his croonies....

I found out very recently that upon his release he went onto murder his new partner and there very young baby daughter..he now resides in Broadmoor, the prison for the criminally insane. This man is clearly wicked - evil if you like (i doubt he was born like that, but the poor souls experiences must have effected him in such a bad way, that he went onto become such a wicked individual). So i do have experence of people like this, and if they are allowed 'freedom' they abuse it.

My fear is that in the free world that is coming (very soon, from the looks of it on this forum, thank God :) these people will have the chance to destroy the greatness that we seek to create. One hundred men with good intention can ethically and morally oust and evil spirits, but when these evil spirits have guns, knives, broken bottles, iron bars, savage dogs, chains, clubs and the like, then what are we to do ?

I hope i do not sound paranoid, but my fear is that by giving so much to the world (ther FREEDOM, if they want it!)there will be those who take. How shall we protect our brave new world of peace and unity from such people. I know my fears are shared by others - we search for a new way, we require a new way, let us find a new way !!!

Peace and love

prajna

28-03-2010, 09:44 PM

Wow- excellent ,thank you ..so much to take in !!

You have vividly explained alot to me, but i must admit to still being a little confussed( being dim as usual i expect !!lol).

Myself, like all other, I am. And I am as a result of my experience (as you say), but I do have to admit they have not all been good, not with other people, at least. I still carry the facial scars (and metal plates) from a vicious unprovoked attack on me whilst at uni in the 90's. Basically I was beaten by youths , one whom had an iron bar. I was in a coma for 2 weeks, and still suffer the effects today. The chap who did this was caught , charged, imprissioned. The police on the night were very good apparently(good apple in a rotten lot, perhaps ?!), apprehending him only minutes after the attack (i was not aware at the time as i was being rushed to hostpital, comatose, in the back of a ambulance). Apparently the man was thouroughly vicious and it took over 30 police officers to subdue him and his croonies....

I found out very recently that upon his release he went onto murder his new partner and there very young baby daughter..he now resides in Broadmoor, the prison for the criminally insane. This man is clearly wicked - evil if you like (i doubt he was born like that, but the poor souls experiences must have effected him in such a bad way, that he went onto become such a wicked individual). So i do have experence of people like this, and if they are allowed 'freedom' they abuse it.

My fear is that in the free world that is coming (very soon, from the looks of it on this forum, thank God :) these people will have the chance to destroy the greatness that we seek to create. One hundred men with good intention can ethically and morally oust and evil spirits, but when these evil spirits have guns, knives, broken bottles, iron bars, savage dogs, chains, clubs and the like, then what are we to do ?

I hope i do not sound paranoid, but my fear is that by giving so much to the world (ther FREEDOM, if they want it!)there will be those who take. How shall we protect our brave new world of peace and unity from such people. I know my fears are shared by others - we search for a new way, we require a new way, let us find a new way !!!

Peace and love

Well Hogglepop, you started out commendably. :) You said, "Myself, like all other, I am." but then you ruined it by saying, "I am as a result of my experience."

The truth is that you are. The result of your experience is not who you are but who you mistake yourself to be. If you can ever get back to the pure 'I am' then you will know your nature, as opposed to your culture (or nurture, as the behaviourists would have it).

The fact of the matter is that all the 'protection' came to nought when you were attacked. Hypothetically locking that guy up may have prevented him from attacking you again but, as you relate the events, it would appear the 'protection' failed on three occasions. Does it not strike you as pitiful that after 600 million years of evolution the best we can do with such dysfunctional individuals is to lock them up, probably heavily sedated, for the rest of their lives?

What made them become like that in the first place? Did you ever wonder? You consider yourself to be the result of your experience (which I have already stated is a misconception, however...) do you not think that perhaps that psychopath is the way he is, not because he is inherently evil but as a result of his experience? I am of the view that the 'I am' both you and he actually are, is one and the same thing, and what is wrong with both is that you mistake the 'I am' for the idea you have of who or what you are.

The very system that created you and him is still steering people away from a realisation of who they really are, encouraging them to measure themselves in terms of money, prestige, etc. and making the world an unsafe place to be. Certainly for a time there will be a need to protect much of society from the few dysfunctional individuals who present a danger. There will be a time where greed, jealousy, and all the other disgraceful traits that have become part of society, need to be kept in check also. But there may come a time when there is little or no need for such protection. That time will not come while the system that created those evils is still shaping our culture. As Einstein said, problems are not solved by the same thinking that created them.

freemanandhisdog

28-03-2010, 10:42 PM

John Bingley: The British Constitution...
o www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105717 (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105717)

John Bingley: The British Constitution

A nation's, country's or society's Charter or Constitution is a document of Trust that not only empowers some legal Body to act but also limits the powers, domain and jurisdiction of that Body when acting (7 parts)...

1. www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSvJlbv_LkU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSvJlbv_LkU) (8 mins 33 secs)
2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqkO3FhoyUc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqkO3FhoyUc) (10 mins 46 secs)
3. www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_zocQYdl6c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_zocQYdl6c) (10 mins 45 secs)
4. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAv1_eCN0sQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAv1_eCN0sQ) (9 mins 48 secs)
5. www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9vejbXaWAA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9vejbXaWAA) (9 mins 30 secs)
6. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na--n7-OIjw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na--n7-OIjw) (10 mins 57 secs)
7. www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzDnfn7YAhY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzDnfn7YAhY) (8 mins 55 secs)

Note. An "alien (http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105502)" value-system is one that cannot be liened, i.e. liens may not be placed upon it so it cannot be held liable (lien-able) for its actions or mis-actions.

More information on the Constitution is given in the following two articles...

o The British Constitution Group: British Historical Overview (Part 1) (http://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/alxw0/the_british_constitution_group_british_historical/)
o The British Constitution Group: British Historical Overview (Part 2) (http://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/aq6nt/the_british_constitution_group_british_historical/)

...and on their site: www.thebcgroup.org.uk (https://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/)

-------

Notes on Constitutions, Trusts and Limitations of Power...

Just as the Constitution for the United States of America, 1787, is a Trust Document at common law, establishing a Trust - the United States of America - on behalf of the People that already stood on those lands [1] (http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm). [2] (http://teamlawproductions.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=716). [3] (http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?p=20684#p20684)., then the established Powers on the British Isles and its Agents thereunder are limited and entrusted by Constitution.

The only difference is that the Constitution for the United States of America both provides for (creates) and limits the powers of the United States of America, whereas the British Constitution only limits the powers of the existing Powers on the British Isles that conquered the lands in 1066, i.e. there was no need to provision for it in the Constitution as it already existed.

There are a number of documents that make up this Constitution, including the Magna Carta, 1215, that was accepted by the established Powers as indicated in their in internal statutory document - the Confirmatio Cartarum of 1297 (an effective Bill, also named internally the "Magna Carta" of 1297 as it references that Order and Declaration of 1215), and the Declaration of Rights, 1688, that was accepted by the established Powers That Be as indicated in their internal statutory document - the Bill of Rights of 1689.

A jurisdiction is the created positive law of a Society that members / subjects of that society agree to stand under when they enter it.

Understanding Jurisdiction: 1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurisdiction.htm (http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurisdiction.htm)

Note that your "standing" decides the "jurisdiction", and the "jurisdiction" decides your "standing". The two are inseparable - The "jurisdiction" is the body of "Laws" of a created Society, and your "standing" is what body or bodies of "Law" you stand under or don't stand under (i.e. have no relation to).

When you stand out from all "jurisdictions" you stand at common law equal with your fellow man; not to kill or harm others, not to steal other's property, and not to dishonour your contracts, agreements & promises (your duties and obligations that you voluntarily take on).

No one has authority over you unless you grant them that authority (the right to author writs) by your words or actions, or even accept one by your silence. (What is not disagreed, is agreed.)

-------

Suits / Actions at Law (Common Law)...

With respect to protecting your unalienable rights as "one of the People" (a sovereign free man and a flesh & blood human being) at common law, claims and counterclaims are settled in a court of record ( - a court proceeding according to the common law)...

o Court of Record (http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm) (1215.org)
o Court of Record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_record) (Wikipedia)
o Seminars by Bill Thornton (http://www.reddit.com/r/CLVideos/comments/93sxh/bill_thornton/) <-- valuable seminars and information

...which contrast to a court acting as a Nisi Prius Court (http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/nisiprius.htm) ( - a court by prior agreement, for example i. by contract, license or voluntary use of third party service such as bank credit (credit cards etc) under their commercial codes, ii. by the "registration (http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=4073)" of some right or property in Trust in which a fiduciary duty is established, or iii. by standing in a created role and office such as a "driver", "citizen", "res-ident", "tax-payer", claiming to be carrying out the duties of such a role, or not denying you stand in such a role thus [tacitly] accepting that you have such duty by silent acquiescence - failure to object).

On the British Isles, the following courts of record are provided and maintained by the established Order w.r.t. to the Order of the Magna Carta, 1215, and the Declaration of Rights, 1688, amongst other Orders on Society (thus resulting in Bills therein on its subjects)...

-- The COP (Court of Protection) is a superior "court of record" and is able to set precedents. The court has the same powers, rights, privileges and authority as the High Court.
-- The Employment Appeal Tribunal is a superior "court of record" and therefore not subject to judicial review
-- The Crown Court is a superior "court of record".

...though that list certainly may not be exhaustive. Just a few examples.

( The Common Law (http://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/9dwti/the_common_law_by_oliver_wendell_holmes_jr/) | Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/) | Fundamentals of the common law etc. (1-5) (http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3303) )

-------

>> Introduction and Overview to the Common Law Subreddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/8ttp9/introduction_and_overview_to_the_common_law/)
.

Also see "In Law and Equity (http://www.ohiolawnotes.netne.net/beginner/inlawandequity.html)" and "Common Law vs. Statutory Law (http://www.ohiolawnotes.netne.net/beginner/commonlawvsstatutorylaw.html)".

By standing as "one of the People" you stand sovereign, as a "free man", and as a real flesh & blood human being.

On the other hand, if you stand in a created role such as a "citizen", "res-ident", "driver", "tax-payer", "a-lien" of some body (some created legal entity) then you are submitting to the created "positive Law" (Statutes, Acts, Codes, etc) of that body (e.g. "United Kingdom", "United States", "Canada", "Australia" etc).

( Registration - the process of entrusting a right or property (http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=4073) | Fundamentals of Trusts (http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20684#p20684) | A brief overview of creating your own Trust at law subject to no other (http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=3749&start=10#p36337) )

hadabusa

28-03-2010, 11:42 PM

hogglepop

29-03-2010, 03:44 AM

erm.

can somebody,uhhh, show me the british constitution?

really, is there a constitution ??

Im pretty sure there is - it must include the Magna Carter , and other similar documents that we can rely on to prove our Freeman status to those who run the current (sham) system...

dreamweaver

29-03-2010, 05:40 AM

erm.

can somebody,uhhh, show me the british constitution?

really, is there a constitution ??

There is, but it's a combination of treaties, common law, customs and statutes (except Freemen don't recognise the statutes, of course ;)), it is not neatly set out in a single document like most other countries.

jackieg

29-03-2010, 07:23 AM

There is, but it's a combination of treaties, common law, customs and statutes (except Freemen don't recognise the statutes, of course ;)), it is not neatly set out in a single document like most other countries.
I think it is all laid out in a single document.
It is known as the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form.
The original Latin version of the Magna Carta 1215 as interpreted by William Witaker.
I don't think any constitution trumps that.
All others are merely color of Law.

hadabusa

29-03-2010, 10:14 AM

I don't think
this seems to be the problem

if magna carta was the constitution , itd be stated somewhere that it is.

dreamweaver, that sounds reasonable, i mean, parliament passes legislatures into law, right?
according to what?surely not magna carta.

girlgye

29-03-2010, 11:21 AM

I think it is all laid out in a single document.
It is known as the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form.
The original Latin version of the Magna Carta 1215 as interpreted by William Witaker.
I don't think any constitution trumps that.
All others are merely color of Law.

Quite. Yozhik and I state this ad nauseum.

All other constitutions are just watered down versions of the original magna carta. Though I love the Canadian Constitution more thought out than the American.

I had a chat with Roger once (the guy who founded the BCG) and he really states that it is as Prajna feels it is constitutional as long as you let them do it to you. You can call anything constitution and they do don't they?

Roger is only just into Freeman ideology and framework too. Most of us have a long way to go to catch up with our American counterparts. The most experienced Freemen in this country are Amit and the Anti-Terrorist.

miked

29-03-2010, 11:38 AM

Hi everyone

It is my humble understanding that a constitution is better known as the Articles of Association which is what every incorpoarted body needs to exist. There is no British constitution because Britain is not a corporate fiction, it is simply an Island.

Maybe the question should be " What is the UK constitution?". The UK is not Britain, never has been never will be!

Girlgye is right about Roger and others, they have been learning much along with everyone else. There are those within the BC Group who now have a much better understanding of what a constitution is. I went to a meeting in Blackpool recently and the direction has moved on, dramatically!!

They are moving away from the age old idea of taking back control of 'our country' and trying to empower the people with the information we have all been studying. It is not easy.

We all have our own path to walk, just make sure you enjoy the sights along the way!!

Peace all

Mike

hogglepop

29-03-2010, 04:23 PM

The very system that created you and him is still steering people away from a realisation of who they really are, encouraging them to measure themselves in terms of money, prestige, etc. and making the world an unsafe place to be. Certainly for a time there will be a need to protect much of society from the few dysfunctional individuals who present a danger. There will be a time where greed, jealousy, and all the other disgraceful traits that have become part of society, need to be kept in check also. But there may come a time when there is little or no need for such protection. That time will not come while the system that created those evils is still shaping our culture. As Einstein said, problems are not solved by the same thinking that created them.[/QUOTE]

I see . This is all starting to make a lmore sence to me now..although I can still see a long way to go on my particular journey!

Am I right in thinking that your saying that at the present we are in a 'tranitional' phase ? It appears that there is still a lot of work to be done , but currently #I guess that would make us the pioneers of this movement ? ?

What a great feeling :-)

prajna

29-03-2010, 04:58 PM

I see . This is all starting to make a lmore sence to me now..although I can still see a long way to go on my particular journey!

Am I right in thinking that your saying that at the present we are in a 'tranitional' phase ? It appears that there is still a lot of work to be done , but currently #I guess that would make us the pioneers of this movement ? ?

What a great feeling :-)

Perhaps we have always been in a 'transitional' phase, because things are always changing, and it is just now you have opened your eyes to it; something like when you buy a new car and then notice the same model everywhere.

If you look carefully at what you wrote, you will probably find it was a thought rather than a feeling; first there was the thought (that you might be a pioneer) then followed a feeling, which you approve of because ego likes to feel special. As you continue 'pioneering' you will find it helps not to mistake thoughts for feelings or feelings for thoughts, otherwise you will find yourself ruled by ego rather than wisdom.

jackieg

29-03-2010, 06:43 PM

The Ontario Superior Court says they are founded and bound by the Magna Carta, not the exclusive Canadian Constitution, as most would think.
The Magna Carta is the only document enshrined forever in the House of Parliament in Ottawa.
No one can say that about the Canadian Constitution Act 1982.
Everything else is pure hog-wash for the simple fact that it can be changed on the whim of the PTB.
In other words, "it isn't too f&#king reliable."

freemanandhisdog

30-03-2010, 07:40 PM

Worth looking at Aardvark`s other posts re freeman at some time as he raises some good points, and I`d like to know where you and others stand (as mentioned in the forum link) that the Magna Carta 1215 has been repelled and that lawful rebellion is not possible.

The powers that be that currently hold power on the British Isles came to these lands in 1066 during the Norman Conquest and subsumed the Kingdoms before it. On arrival they introduced their own roman civil legal system based set of created / legislated "positive Law" that applied only to those that stood subject to the body by sworn oath (juris-diction).

o 1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurisdiction.htm (http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurisdiction.htm)

On swearing oath, one would become subject to the jurisdiction of the body to which the oath was sworn.

In 1100, the Crown swore not to infringe on the existing laws that existed before their arrival here before 1066, i.e. what is now known as the common law, but in a less developed system back in those days.

The Magna Carta 1215 was a declaration of the claim of rights that shall not be infringed and was addressed to the powers that be on the British Isles at that time and the various roles / servants / subjects of their jurisdiction(s).

The Magna Carta 1215 was addressed to the roles of king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciars, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and the bailiffs and subjects (non entitled) of the powers that be.

What was not written by them (the powers that be) cannot be repealed by them, as they did not author it and have no authority to repeal it.

On the other hand, the powers that be did write the Confirmatio Cartarum of 1297 (a.k.a. the Magna Carta of 1297) that is an internal document - an internal statute - from the principal of the hierarchy of the powers that be directed to the various roles / servants / subjects thereunder telling them not to infringe on the people's rights (the free men's rights) as was declared previously and chartered to be upheld in the 1215 document written by the people (the free men).

They (the powers that be; the judiciary (Temple(s)), the legislature (Parliament(s)), and the executive (Crown and other corporations)) may repeal articles of the 1297 document that they authored as they see fit, so long as they replace it with other equivalent Acts, Statutes etc that fulfill the requirements of the Magna Carta 1215 as imposed on them, entrusting them (in ways similar to what would be an injunction in equity today) not to infringe on the people's un-a-lien-able rights at law.

In summary, the Magna Carta 1215 was a declaration in use / trust / confidence for the benefit of the free people to stop their natural and un-a-lien-able rights being denied them.

A modern constitutions does two things; it creates the Body and the Res and empowers it with certain duties and rights granted to it by the authors or those who the authors are acting in the name of, and it limits the power, domain and jurisdiction of the created Body (and agents / servants / subjects acting in its name thereunder).

As the Magna Carta 1215 was addressed at an already existing body (the powers that be that conquered these lands in 1066), then it clearly wasn't creating a new Body and Res and didn't need to empower it with certain duties and rights. The Magna Carta 1215 merely gave notice by declaration (the written form being the paper charter) to the existing powers that be that they have limited power, domain and jurisdiction, such as [39] "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."

Where "free men" as used in Magna Carta 1215 parlance would by "people" in today's parlance, and "free man" would be "one of the people" today in modern constitutions at law (common law) and as seen in cases in "courts of record" (courts proceeding according to the common law).

Note, a constitution at law is supreme whereas a constitution in Act of a body is still subject to that body and clearly cannot be supreme as an Act may be repealed, though may appear supreme in the colour of law.

By the 17th century, trust law (equity) had become well developed as an outgrowth of common law from the uses, trusts and confidence between each of the people standing at common law and acting on their own cognizance (i.e. not subject to another's created "positive Law" - their statutes, acts, codes, etc).

From this, it was well known that the powers that be were entrusted and had oath and duty in Trust on behalf of the people, though still, the executive (Crown and certain other corporations) overstepped their granted powers, dominion and jurisdiction acting on the people (the "free men") without cause.

This was solved after the Civil War in the mid 17th Century when again on behalf of the people a notice of a claim of right was declared known as the Declaration of Rights 1688/89, which again limited the powers, dominion and jurisdiction of the powers that be by giving Order upon the Trust (the Trust held on behalf of the people) to which all entrusted agents / servants / subjects thereunder had to obey and injunc (refrain from certain actions - such as infringing the people's natural and un-a-lien-able rights).

The Order on the Trust that the powers that be held resulted in an internal Bill on the Trustees of that Trust (i.e. all the agents / servants / subjects acting thereunder in its name). That Bill was the Bill of Rights of 1689 and binds all public servants and all up unto the principal (King / Queen) and anyone who is subject to the jurisdiction thereunder.

Outside of the Magna Carta 1215 and Bill of Rights 1688/89, a number of other cases in "courts of record" (at common law) in which action / suit is made against the established powers are also binding and forms part of the Constitution (limitations on the power, dominion and jurisdiction).

if magna carta was the constitution , itd be stated somewhere that it is.
No need to state it. The Magna Carta 1215 was limiting the powers, dominion and jurisdiction of an existing body or set of bodies. It had no need to bring the body into existence in the first place. With the acceptance of the Magna Carta by the body (the powers that be) it effectively became a constituting document / a trust document / trust indenture, placing use, trust and confidence upon that body and its agents / servants / subjects thereunder.

So, in our modern day, if you stand as a civil servant or in the role of another created office such as "citizen of the United Kingdom", or other roles such as "driver", "res-ident" etc, then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the body that created that role and office, and you are bound by the Magna Carta 1215 (actionable by the Confirmation Cartarum of 1297 and other replaced Acts and Statutes under which you stand when in that role), by the Declaration of Rights 1688/89 (actionable by the Bill of Rights of 1689 under which you stand when in that role), and all the other Statutes, Acts, Codes, Rules and Regulations that apply to that created role and office in which you are standing.

However, if you stand as "one of the people" (a sovereign, a free man, and a flesh & blood human being) on your own cognizance then you are not subject to the various Bills, Statutes, Acts, Codes, Rules, Regulations, and you stand out from under their jurisdcition as a free man at common law.

Just be careful of the ways you submit, including by use of certain created benefit-privileges (by which you become entrusted and subject), and through silence (tacit acceptance by not objecting or counterclaiming, silent acquiesence, and estoppel by silence).

Regarding the difference between "England", "Great Britain", "British Isles", "United Kingdom"...

The British Isles is the name given to the physical land mass of islands upon which we live.

Great Britain is the name given to the largest physical island amongst the British Isles.

England is a Kingdom and goes back to before the Norman Conquest of 1066, though the Kingdom of England was subsumed by the conquerors.

The United Kingdom is a created body / legal-fiction created by Acts of Parliaments (private "positive Laws" of private societies, but that are entrusted by the people) formed in 1707 and reformed in 1801.

As the United Kingdom is a legal-fiction body, if you state you are "in the U.K." then that is implying you are subject to the various

The jurisdiction of the United Kingdom does not always stretch to every man on the British Isles all the time, and the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom even stretches beyond the British Isles to overseas assets and territories under its specific jurisdiction.

If you intend to stand as "one of the people" (a sovereign, a free man, and a flesh & blood human being), then you stand on te physical land mass (such as British Isles), and NOT in a fiction (such as "U.K.") created through Act or declaration of a body.

Also see "In Law and Equity (http://www.ohiolawnotes.netne.net/beginner/inlawandequity.html)" and "Common Law vs. Statutory Law (http://www.ohiolawnotes.netne.net/beginner/commonlawvsstatutorylaw.html)".

By standing as "one of the People" you stand sovereign, as a "free man", and as a real flesh & blood human being.

On the other hand, if you stand in a created role such as a "citizen", "res-ident", "driver", "tax-payer", "a-lien" of some body (some created legal entity) then you are submitting to the created "positive Law" (Statutes, Acts, Codes, etc) of that body (e.g. "United Kingdom", "United States", "Canada", "Australia" etc).

Note. By "man", I include both wereman and woman, and any other form of a real man / flesh & blood human being.

( Registration - the process of entrusting a right or property (http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=4073) | Fundamentals of Trusts (http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20684#p20684) | A brief overview of creating your own Trust at law subject to no other (http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=3749&start=10#p36337) )

prajna

30-03-2010, 10:09 PM

The powers that be that currently hold power on the British Isles came to these lands in 1066 during the Norman Conquest and subsumed the Kingdoms before it.

...

A brief overview of creating your own Trust at law subject to no other

Wow. Excellent post. I just read through the jurisdiction link as well. Very enlightening. Thank you.

jackieg

31-03-2010, 02:07 AM

girlgye

31-03-2010, 02:11 AM

Yes FAHD is very intense and erudite about his learning I've noticed in correspondence with him. One to watch. Welcome aboard we are sure lucky to have you here mate.

girlgye

31-03-2010, 02:17 AM

jackieg

31-03-2010, 02:23 AM

In the real world a man makes a claim and stands upon it till someone convinces him to abandon his claim.....or that someone agrees to join him.
Arguments are a futile exercise in mental masturbation.
Affidavits issued pursuant to the rules of common law are still part and parcel of all common law courts today.
The Ten Maxims of Commerce rule.

jackieg

31-03-2010, 02:31 AM

Yes but you know, you've been to jail how they ignore what you say and send you down anyway. However, when it comes to answering for their perjury and malfeance of office upon your release watch the feathers cascade then. Suddenly they are not around any longer. Any one you do have to address is suddenly a temp even though you know fully well they are employed full time.

I think the UCC as in the Code of Law for all maritime nations deals with their punishment for such treason of office quite severely.
When I look back...I find that I failed to right a wrong when, I may have had an opportunity to do so.
That said....I went to jail by agreeing to go there.
I didn't rebutt the charges when I should have.
I waited too long.
He who does not deny....admits....that the charges are true and correct.
I continually showed up to argue and fight.
Bad move.

girlgye

31-03-2010, 07:56 PM

yeaherno.

You can show up so long as it is on dry land. Otherwise el capitano can do what the hell he likes - as you know.

However, if you make the sea dry land and he ignores this then shit hits the fan. I mean if you are dragged off the street kicking and screaming there ain't much ya gonna be able to do except be dragged onto a ship by the policies who share the dividends with them. So one has to know how to be competent suitor indeed.

freemanandhisdog

31-03-2010, 09:08 PM

Here is a perfect example as to how the Magna Carta is mis-interpreted:

39. No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any other way harmed. Nor will we [the king] proceed against him, or send others to do so, except according to the lawful sentence of his peers or according to the Common Law.

And here is the original latin version of the Magna Carta as interpreted by William Whitaker the worlds foremost Latin to English interpretor:

39) “Nullus liber homo capitur vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatur, aut exuletur, aut aliquot modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicum parium suorum vel per legem terrae” becomes:- No free man shall be taken indeed imprisoned, either dispossessed, or outlawed, or exiled or in any manner destroyed, nor passed over him, nor sent over him, except by means of the legal judgement his own equals indeed the law of the land.
That's the way I understood it. - "of the legal judgement his own equals indeed the law of the land."

By studying court procedure of a "court of record (http://www.reddit.com/r/CLVideos/comments/93sxh/bill_thornton/c0id4of)" (a court proceeding according to the common law) then it becomes clear exactly this point.

Particularly the difference between the magistrate and the tribunal. - Don't assume the man sitting on the bench who is playing the role of the magistrate is also the tribunal, although he/she may play that role too if the plaintiff of the court does not take up that role or any counterplaintiff in any countercourt (the court of the counterplaintiff as established through a counterclaim) doesn't or if a jury at law is not demanded.

A "court of record" (at common law - a court of a sovereign) contrasts with of a Nisi Prius Court (http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/nisiprius.htm) (a court by prior agreement, for example, a traffic court, which is effectively a private business).

Note. Just because a court may have a record doesn't necessarily mean that it is a court of record. Many Nisi Prius Courts obviously maintain their own record but are clearly not proceeding as a court of record. When a court is being proceeded as a court of record (according to common law) then it would clearly contrast with that of a Nisi Prius Court.

You may submit to the jurisdiction of a Nisi Prius Court in several ways; by (1) specific prior agreement such as driver's license, marriage license, any license, any contract with specific remedial terms of settlement, by (2) standing in a specific created entrusted role such as "citizen", "res-ident", "tax-payer", "a-lien", "driver" that is a role and office with duties under the created positive Law of a body, or by (3) by not objecting or counterclaiming when a claim is made against you implying that you are subject to some created positive Law (such as Statutes, Acts, Codes, Rules, Regulations or even anything made up on the spot, such as "failure to file" indicating you failed in your duty as a trustee, implying firstly that that duty existed a priori).

If you have not submitted or agreed to their positive Law, and a claim is made against you claiming you are subject to something you have never agreed with, then object and counterclaim to challenge jurisdiction, asking them to present a proof of claim of authority or jurisdiction over you, but absolutely first being sure to establish your standing sufficient to make counterclaim (i.e. as "one of the people" - a sovereign and free man) before establishing the forum (the "court of record") which can be done in the first line of the counterclaim.

Also change your standing from "defendant" (subject of the court of the plaintiff) to "counterplaintiff", and the "plaintiff" to the "counterdefendant" (the subject of your court to counter the original court).

Note. A court is not the courtroom / courthouse. A court is generated by the plaintiff, the defendant and the claim against the defendant (the subject of the claim and court created thereof). By counterclaiming you create your own court, so make sure you then can proceed it correctly, or you'll lose it.

Here is an Example (http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/example/index.html) of establishing a "court of record" to claim damages at law (common law), including court transcripts from a case in 1999.

To learn how to make suit / action at common law, establishing your standing (as "one of the people" - a sovereign and free man) and the court of record, then check out Bill Thornton's seminars...
o www.reddit.com/r/CLVideos/comments/93sxh/bill_thornton/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/CLVideos/comments/93sxh/bill_thornton/) <-- proceeding your common law court ("court of record")

...three seminars of over 7 hours each. See the supporting material, particularly Procedure (http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/procedure.htm), for the material covered including example court documents and an example counterclaim to challenge jurisdiction of the other party before making claim for damages due to (cause of action being) trespass on his person and trespass on the case. Example from a winning case.

Back to the difference between the magistrate and the tribunal in a court of record...

The Magistrate is not the tribunal (though would assume that role if the plaintiff doesn't reserve the right to stand as tribunal within his own court).

Correctly, the tribunal is either the sovereign himself, or a fully empowered jury (not paid by the government).

On "courts of record" and what is "the tribunal" (http://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/b479g/the_peoples_court_judge_throws_out_defendant/c0kwg7w)

It is the court of the plaintiff (as he/she ought to be the tribunal), and is for this reason why it is necessary to establish your own court as counterplaintiff to challenge jurisdiction so you don't immediately stand as defendant of the plaintiff's court until the burden of proof of that claim has been presented before your court.

For example documents, see Action at Law (http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/example2/index.html).

( Bill Thornton's Foundation (http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/foundation.htm) | Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/blackstone.asp) | Maitland's Equity and the forms of action at common law (http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Equity%20also%20the%20forms%20of% 20action%20at%20common%20law%20Maitland) )