freeman, notice of intent etc!!!

[bones]

ive written this as my first draft, if anyone has any ideas on how to improve it im open to suggestions.



22nd June 2008
To: Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, the woman acting as the queen regnant for the United Kingdom and the commonwealth realms
To: Gordon brown acting as the prime minister for England

To: Patricia Scotland the woman acting as attorney general for England and Wales

To: sir Ian Warwick Blair the man acting as chief police commissioner for the metropolitan police

To: Tim Hollis the man acting as chief constable for Humberside police area

To: DVLA

To: Dave Hartnett CB, Acting Chairman of HM revenue & customs





Dear madams and sirs:
I am serving herewith, my notice of understanding and intent and my claim of right for your understanding. You will find the enclosed intact and complete, for now.
Yours truly,


Alan lee redgrift ,
Freeman- on -the -land

NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT AND RIGHT OF CLAIM

I Alan lee of the redgrift, a flesh and blood living soul hereby make oath and state the following is my truth and my law.

Whereas it is my understanding England and all of her people enjoy the protection of the common law, and whereas it is my understanding equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and
Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law, and
Whereas it is my understanding a freeman- on- the -land is not bound by any statutes created by the government and I alan lee redgrift will not pay any taxes at all as long as I am a freeman -on –the- land, and I will reclaim any taxes associated with, fuel and vat, and,
Whereas it is my understanding a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and
Whereas it is my understanding the only form of government recognized as lawful in England is a representative one, and
Whereas it is my understanding representation requires a mutual consent, and
Whereas it is my understanding that in the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist, and
Whereas it is my understanding those who have a national insurance number are in fact government employees and are thus bound by statutes created by the government, and it is lawful to abandon my national insurance number.
It is also my understanding people in England have the right to revoke or deny consent and exist free of government control and statutory restraints and,
Whereas a freeman on the land who has lawfully revoked consent and does exist free of statutory restrictions, obligations and limitations and,
Whereas I alan lee redgrift am a freeman- on –the- land and,
Whereas it is my understanding that acting peacefully within community standards does not breach the peace and,
Whereas it is my understanding that any action for which one can apply for a license must itself be a fundamentally lawful action and,
Whereas as I am a freeman on the land who operates with full responsibility and not a child, I do not see the need to ask for permission to engage in lawful and peaceful activities, especially from those who claim limited liability and,
Whereas it is my understanding a by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation and,
Whereas corporations are legal fictions and require contracts in order to claim authority or control over other parties and,
Whereas it’s my understanding legal fictions lack a soul and cannot exert any control over those who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless fictions to dictate ones actions and,
Whereas It is my understanding that I have to right to use my property without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it and,
Whereas it is my understanding that a summons is merely an invitation and I have no obligation to attend.

It’s also my understanding that peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statues and law and those who attempt to enforce statues against a freeman- on- the- land are in fact breaking the law and,
Whereas I have the power to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers who have no observed me breach the peace and,
Whereas permanent estoppels by acquiescence barring any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a freeman on the land under any act is created if this claim is not responded to in a stated fashion and time.

Therefore let it now be known to any and all concerned and affected parties, that I,
Alan lee redgrift A freeman -on –the- land do hereby state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statuary obligations restrictions and maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter.

Furthermore, I claim that these actions are not outside my communities’ standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.

Furthermore I claim that the courts in England are de-facto and bound by the law and equity act and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.

Also I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I do hereby deny consent to any transaction of a security interest issuing under any act for as herein stated as a freeman on the land I am not subject to any act.

I furthermore have the right to de-register any private conveyance which is my property, and use my private conveyance still without having to pay any taxation or insurance and not need to have permission to travel on a public road, as it’s my right to travel.



Furthermore I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgression by peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is (TWO HUNDRED POUNDS PER HOUR) or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and (TWO THOUSEND POUNDS PER HOUR) or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported ,incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process and I also claim a FEE SCHEDULE of (FIVE THOUSEND POUNDS) per day if my private conveyance is towed and in pounded without my express written and notarized consent, also any property seized will be (FIVE THOUSEND POUNDS PER DAY) unless stated in my written and notarized consent.




Furthermore, I claim the right to use a notary public to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressor who by their actions or omissions harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.

Furthermore, I claim the right to convene a proper court de-facto in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, government principles or agent or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with a lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.

Furthermore, I claim the law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both.

Furthermore, I claim the right to deal with any counterclaim or disputes publicly and in open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video tape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.
Affected parties wishing to dispute the claim made within THIRTY (30) days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under oath upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in a notary office herein provided no later than (THIRTY) 30 days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.

Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppels by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or act against myself freeman on the land

[Mo0n5tar]

You showed it to a notary?

I think it's brilliant mate!
Did you get the template off thinkfree?

There are some serious gems of knowledge in there I hope your successful!

[duckingdafta]

there is an irony to me by submitting this VERY WELL WRITTEN letter, it immediately becomes part of the laws and subjects mentioned within it... I suppose the only way around this is to get someone else to submit this information on your behalf...not sure about that either as I am currently tipsy!..lack of thought and need to re-read later...TIC this when I submit my opinion.. I am usually wrong.:D
I would change the word 'Understand' to 'comprehend' as to understand is to agree to Stand Under the law provided and the judgement given, you are submitting yourself as a person who is under standing of the laws and allowance of it's judging.. that's admiral [currency] law, not common law.

[majicdragon]

Whereas It is my understanding that I have to right to use my property without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it and,
Whereas it is my understanding that a summons is merely an invitation and I have no obligation to attend.



Change "to right" to: "the right"

[Mo0n5tar]

there is an irony to me by submitting this VERY WELL WRITTEN letter, it immediately becomes part of the laws and subjects mentioned within it... I suppose the only way around this is to get someone else to submit this information on your behalf.

Yes i belive this is why you utilise a notary public, they will sign and seal this notice of intent on your behalf which according to Robert Menard will make it legal and law of the land, every time you wish to travel (without a passport now as you are no longer Chattel) you will use the notice of intent method and get it legalised by Notary public then you will have right of law to travel to your destination, if anyone denies you they are acting contrary to the law, genius.

[duckingdafta]

Yes i belive this is why you utilise a notary public, they will sign and seal this notice of intent on your behalf which according to Robert Menard will make it legal and law of the land, every time you wish to travel (without a passport now as you are no longer Chattel) you will use the notice of intent method and get it legalised by Notary public then you will have right of law to travel to your destination, if anyone denies you they are acting contrary to the law, genius.

MANY thanks for that.. kind of clears a lot up for me.:cool:

[truthcommission]

I would interested in how this would apply to a non national living permanently in Australia, given that Australian law is modeled on the English Common Law system.

[bones]

brilliant replys guys thanks alot!!!

i still made a error in spelling "to right" instead of "the right" lol.

the last post was can a non national use the same withing aussy land?

depends on what nationality you are i suppose but im not sure what aussy laws are regarding it. sorry.

i will seek a solicitor to check it all out this week and if he believes its ok ill get info on notorizing it. kinda scary knowing ill be taking on the laws.

any advice would be great!!!

cheers guys...

[duckingdafta]

brilliant replys guys thanks alot!!!

i still made a error in spelling "to right" instead of "the right" lol.

the last post was can a non national use the same withing aussy land?

depends on what nationality you are i suppose but im not sure what aussy laws are regarding it. sorry.

i will seek a solicitor to check it all out this week and if he believes its ok ill get info on notorizing it. kinda scary knowing ill be taking on the laws.

any advice would be great!!!

cheers guys...


No advice.. just best of luck and all I can offer is energy as support.

[danster82]

Keep us updated bones on the sort of replies you get

[seanie]

yeah keep us updated any chance of getting this stickied

[bones]

i have an appointment tomorrow with a solicitor and notary, fingers crossedxxx

190.00 quid an hour its costing me. bloody robbing buggers...

[bones]

went to see a notary today and recieved this response by email.




Dear Mr Redgrift,
You called to see me today for "Notarial Advice". I had not at first
made the connection between your appointment and the unsolicited e mail
of 19.6.08. I have perused your papers and I find that I am, in all the
circumstances, unable to assist notarially. I would not wish to take any
fee from you concerning the matters discussed or our correspondence. I
wish you and yours well.
Yours sincerely,
Paul R Sheridan TD BA Notary Public, Grimsby UK

what you think guys?

do i just find another ?

[danster82]

I wish I understood more, what exactly is a notary and why are they required? and if they are required for certain legal procedures then is it lawful for them to decline to assist you? I mean hes not running a private business he cant pick or chose his clients, its a public office and he has a duty towards you..

The duties and functions of notaries public are described in Brooke's Notary on page 19 in these terms:

"Generally speaking, a notary public [...] may be described as an officer of the law [...] whose public office and duty it is to draw, attest or certify under his official seal deeds and other documents, including wills or other testamentary documents, conveyances of real and personal property and powers of attorney; to authenticate such documents under his signature and official seal in such a manner as to render them acceptable, as proof of the matters attested by him, to the judicial or other public authorities in the country where they are to be used, whether by means of issuing a notarial certificate as to the due execution of such documents or by drawing them in the form of public instruments; to keep a protocol containing originals of all instruments which he makes in the public form and to issue authentic copies of such instruments; to administer oaths and declarations for use in proceedings [...] to note or certify transactions relating to negotiable instruments, and to draw up protests or other formal papers relating to occurrences on the voyages of ships and their navigation as well as the carriage of cargo in ships."

I guess you could either find another notary or ask him why he is unable to assit, that seems a fair question you obviously want to know.

[duckingdafta]

He's scared. IMO.. I read the following on THIS (http://www.nationalnotary.org/news/index.cfm?Text=newsNotary&newsID=78) website
What many Notaries do not realize is that many seemingly harmless actions fall under this category. Any information provided or decisions made on behalf of a signer - even if given inadvertently or at the signer's explicit request - can potentially leave the Notary liable.

also note the illuminati triangle at the top of the page...I think it's the same thing

[Mo0n5tar]

Well alot of Notary publics bulk up there earnings by being practicising lawyers, if this one you saw was a member of The Law Society it would explain his inaction re: undermining the law society and making you a freeman.

As you say this is a public service but as I say some are legal professionals and may have a conflict of interest, find out about the Notary society and how or if they can help you find some answers.

It would take a notary with an interest in constitutional matters and big fat grapefruit bollocks to attach his name to this kind of notice.

As i say research a few differant Notaries and see how some differ and how they differ from lawyers or if they are affiliated to the Law Society.

And remember "fools rush in where angels fear to tread", haste will get us nowhere here we need to be thoroughly aware of what we are doing and confident in our use of English/Legalese.

Peace

[stickwhistler]

I suggest that every Notary in the UK is a solicitor.

A lot of solicitors have taken extra courses on being a Notary.

To be a Notary, you have to have a degree, and have taken 'the course',
and as all solicitors have to have a degree in law, they are 'nearly there'
so to speak.


Why not wait for a while and see what events are about to unfold!

Why not - just for now - use a NUI & COR to the people who NOTICE you first.
Conditionally accept their offer with a NOTICE of Understanding & Intent & Claim Of Right with a time limit of say 10 days.
Send a DEFAULT NOTICE ( if they don't respond in the stated time) with;

"Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein and then successfully defeating these claims in a proper court of law will result in an automatic default judgment securing forevermore all rights herein claimed and establishing permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act or regulation against My Self Freeman John Thomas for exercising these lawful and properly established rights, freedoms and duties."

as the last paragraph.

The above is borrowed, with gratitude, from Robert Arthur: Menard in his published Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right.


John Thomas is a euphemism :p

[bones]

I suggest that every Notary in the UK is a solicitor.

A lot of solicitors have taken extra courses on being a Notary.

To be a Notary, you have to have a degree, and have taken 'the course',
and as all solicitors have to have a degree in law, they are 'nearly there'
so to speak.


Why not wait for a while and see what events are about to unfold!

Why not - just for now - use a NUI & COR to the people who NOTICE you first.
Conditionally accept their offer with a NOTICE of Understanding & Intent & Claim Of Right with a time limit of say 10 days.


Send a DEFAULT NOTICE ( if they don't respond in the stated time) with;

"Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein and then successfully defeating these claims in a proper court of law will result in an automatic default judgment securing forevermore all rights herein claimed and establishing permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act or regulation against My Self Freeman John Thomas for exercising these lawful and properly established rights, freedoms and duties."

as the last paragraph.

The above is borrowed, with gratitude, from Robert Arthur: Menard in his published Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right.


John Thomas is a euphemism :p

im currantly seeking witnesses to my nui and cor, ill kepp you all informed.

also im currantly discharging a parking notice i recieved, ill post the reply notices when i bye a scanner.

[devin]

http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5086

[whitenight639]

I suggest that every Notary in the UK is a solicitor.

A lot of solicitors have taken extra courses on being a Notary.

To be a Notary, you have to have a degree, and have taken 'the course',
and as all solicitors have to have a degree in law, they are 'nearly there'
so to speak.


Why not wait for a while and see what events are about to unfold!

Why not - just for now - use a NUI & COR to the people who NOTICE you first.
Conditionally accept their offer with a NOTICE of Understanding & Intent & Claim Of Right with a time limit of say 10 days.
Send a DEFAULT NOTICE ( if they don't respond in the stated time) with;

"Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein and then successfully defeating these claims in a proper court of law will result in an automatic default judgment securing forevermore all rights herein claimed and establishing permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act or regulation against My Self Freeman John Thomas for exercising these lawful and properly established rights, freedoms and duties."

as the last paragraph.

The above is borrowed, with gratitude, from Robert Arthur: Menard in his published Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right.


John Thomas is a euphemism :p

all notarys have to have passed the bar, there are only a few hundred notarys in the England they are authorised by the arch bishop of canterbury.

see here on rules that a notary governs himself by http://www.facultyoffice.org.uk/Page2.html

[lastmanstanding]

I've just read over this thread and wanted to put my Two cents in.

Firstly.....why would you want to seek a solicitor on this matter?

They, unless he//she has unplugged from the Matrix are still within that framework and will not be on the same wavelength as you.

Secondly....in my notices to the ATO Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Australia, I had not notarised my notice other than with my signature and it had been duly accepted as per his response.

"We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 14th January 2005 with regard to the invoice for compensation for the collection of the goods services (GST) and apologise for the delay in responding."

Now, it take be taken that they have accepted the Notice as presented by an Elector, free sovereign being etc, etc as witnessed by their response.

I believe that the witnessing is not completely necessary but doesn't hurt to do.

One of the key lessons that I have learnt with such matters is to keep records of what is what.

Register all notices as you then have Post as a witness to having sent said notice to said parties.

And if you think about it....when you sign for such instruments such as licenses, contracts etc, some have witnesses while many don't but for some reason, they all fall into law, contract or just agreement with other parties.

As I stated. It is only my cents on the matter, but that is in light that I was
researching on how to structure my notices to the Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Doctors, Teachers and Counselors who are intent on prescribing and medicating the millions of young and not so young minds, around the world.

Starting with Australia, but would be more than happy to share with any others who might be seeking to stopping the madness.

Yours in truth, spirit and justice,

Rob

[whitenight639]

I heard somewhere that a norary is the only person that can overturn judges decisions and are the big guns basically, they come from common law side of things, so there are benifits to having things notarised.

and as for soliciters they are tools that you use, tell them what to sign or interpret for you, the idea is not to use one where ever possible though.

[scottmurray]

Brilliant

[yozhik]

I heard somewhere that a norary is the only person that can overturn judges decisions and are the big guns basically


I have not heard of this.
Could you verify it?
Maybe provide a source?

From what I have read, a judge's decision can only be overturned by a judge in a higher court ... and usually on points of law or on issues of jurisdiction.

Also of interest is that whilst a judge takes an oath to be impartial, he is not bound to be impartial unless his oath is present in the court room.

To ensure impartiality, you must invoke his oath and have it present and on the record. Once his oath has been invoked and put on the record as being present, then he is bound to it and thus provide impartiality. Until this is done, he acts as an officer for the court, which means his primary role is to act on behalf of the court in terms of seeking judgement for the benefit of the court.

[the worm that turned]

Has this thread died or moved elsewhere?

[h2pogo]

" I will not pay any taxes at all as long as I am a freeman -on –the- land, and I will reclaim any taxes associated with, fuel and vat,"

i do like that bit.
how about adding

"and I will reclaim any taxes associated with, fuel and vat in the form of working family tax credits.
and by using my person to sign a self assesment form to reclaim these taxes is in no way consenting to any contract with the government."

i have been looking for a way round claiming tax credits.
i think i just found it
thans bones

[jimmi]

Bones, please don't mistake this for criticism, there are a few spelling mistakes such as license should be spelt licence, I assume that for the purpose that you intend to use the notice that the way it is written is extremely important! and as it is going to bind you to behave in a certain manner then you should be fully aware of the implications of every term contained therein. What I'm getting at is if you spell it 'license' (American spelling) then you might be binding yourself to statutes passed in America , I'm not saying that this is the case but hope you see what I'm trying to say.

Again , your use of the word 'understand', it is my 'comprehension' that you are using the word 'understand' inappropriately! If you are 'understanding' something then you are ... 'standing under' it! ... you are saying that it is above you and therefore has jurisdiction over you, you are inadvertently handing over your sovereignty!

[arten]

22nd June 2008
To: Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, the German Reptile acting as the queen regnant for the corporation of United Kingdom and the commonwealth realms

To: Gordon Brown Scotchman acting as the prime minister for the corporation of England

To: Patricia Scotland the woman acting as attorney general for the corporate enitites of England and Wales

To: sir Ian Warwick Blair the man acting as chief police commissioner for the corporation of the metropolitan police

To: Tim Hollis the man acting as chief constable for the corportaion of Humberside police area

To: DVLA corporation

To: Dave Hartnett CB, Acting Chairman of the corporation of HM revenue & customs


Etc can you all spot the differences I have inserted? I think John Harris really makes the point that everything is a bloddy well corporation and we are slaves to all of them. Apart from that, and your spelling mistakes; I say Brill m8 it warms my cockles to see the Robots Rebellion predicted by the Man and great Visionaray David Icke.

[the worm that turned]

I sent a copy of the NOI and COR in the opening post (with all names etc removed PROMISE) to my solicitor. I also asked if he had heard of the Freeman-on-the-land movement. Here is his reply:

"In short, it's a bag of crap!!! I wouldn't worry too much about it."

???

[arten]

PMSL mate why bother with solicitors they are part of the system they sold out years ago. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. If you or any one else is going down the Freeman route then you must be prepared to defend yourself and be your own advocate.

[the worm that turned]

PMSL mate why bother with solicitors they are part of the system they sold out years ago. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. If you or any one else is going down the Freeman route then you must be prepared to defend yourself and be your own advocate.

So do you think it is a knee jerk reaction. Bear in mind that I have known the person for about 15+ years (although more of a colleague than a friend) and I have NEVER asked him anything outside of the "comfort" zone before.

Perhaps he has never heard of it before and is too proud to admit that he knows nothing of the system he works in. Or perhaps it is all a load of crap and will fall apart at the first hurdle!

Other examples include free energy by Lou Britts in Australia, the answer to all our prayers. 10 years on, I'm still being ripped-off by huge corporations that burn coal and oil out of the ground!!!!

Please do not think I am anti this at all, because I am not. I just want to be certain of exactly what we are dealing with here.

[arten]

Mate when I read his reply my first thought was he is being ambiguous. I suspect that most people in the legal profession are going to have a certian amount of Disdain for the FreeMan movement. You have to remember, and I have pointed this out before that Lawyers like Soldiers and Policemen have to swear on oath an allegiance to the Crown.
I bet behind closed doors there are meetings going on all over the place.
Mi5 will be involved and we have seen how they react to anyone or anything that remotely resembles a threat to the Reppies on the throne.
A few years ago I sent an e-mail off to Blair at number 10 castigating him for being a war criminal and a Satanist. I had M15 knock on me door getting stroppy. :eek:

[the worm that turned]

Mate when I read his reply my first thought was he is being ambiguous. I suspect that most people in the legal profession are going to have a certian amount of Disdain for the FreeMan movement. You have to remember, and I have pointed this out before that Lawyers like Soldiers and Policemen have to swear on oath an allegiance to the Crown.
I bet behind closed doors there are meetings going on all over the place.
Mi5 will be involved and we have seen how they react to anyone or anything that remotely resembles a threat to the Reppies on the throne.
A few years ago I sent an e-mail off to Blair at number 10 castigating him for being a war criminal and a Satanist. I had M15 knock on me door getting stroppy. :eek:

So are you working for them now? :D

EDIT - just noticed this was post 33!!! You must be an insider ;)

[arten]

So are you working for them now? :D

EDIT - just noticed this was post 33!!! You must be an insider ;)

LOL nope I am going to declare my Free Man Status once I am fully armed with all I need to know to beat the system.:cool:

[notmarkk]

d (TWO THOUSEND POUNDS PER HOUR) or po

thousand*

[bsmurph83]

I sent a copy of the NOI and COR in the opening post (with all names etc removed PROMISE) to my solicitor. I also asked if he had heard of the Freeman-on-the-land movement. Here is his reply:

"In short, it's a bag of crap!!! I wouldn't worry too much about it."

???

worm, i'd like to see what he says if you ask him if he is prepared to swear on an affidavit under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury! maybe you can find out *grin*

[girlgye]

I suggest that every Notary in the UK is a solicitor.

A lot of solicitors have taken extra courses on being a Notary.

To be a Notary, you have to have a degree, and have taken 'the course',
and as all solicitors have to have a degree in law, they are 'nearly there'
so to speak.


Why not wait for a while and see what events are about to unfold!

Why not - just for now - use a NUI & COR to the people who NOTICE you first.
Conditionally accept their offer with a NOTICE of Understanding & Intent & Claim Of Right with a time limit of say 10 days.
Send a DEFAULT NOTICE ( if they don't respond in the stated time) with;

"Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein and then successfully defeating these claims in a proper court of law will result in an automatic default judgment securing forevermore all rights herein claimed and establishing permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act or regulation against My Self Freeman John Thomas for exercising these lawful and properly established rights, freedoms and duties."

as the last paragraph.

The above is borrowed, with gratitude, from Robert Arthur: Menard in his published Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right.


John Thomas is a euphemism :p

What can I do to become a Notary. I don't need a degree in Law?

[girlgye]

I have not heard of this.
Could you verify it?
Maybe provide a source?

From what I have read, a judge's decision can only be overturned by a judge in a higher court ... and usually on points of law or on issues of jurisdiction.

Also of interest is that whilst a judge takes an oath to be impartial, he is not bound to be impartial unless his oath is present in the court room.

To ensure impartiality, you must invoke his oath and have it present and on the record. Once his oath has been invoked and put on the record as being present, then he is bound to it and thus provide impartiality. Until this is done, he acts as an officer for the court, which means his primary role is to act on behalf of the court in terms of seeking judgement for the benefit of the court.

So this is why they get riled then? This is why they threaten to call in security and have you arrested? When they do this what do you suggest?

[sherrieandblakk]

He's scared. IMO.. I read the following on THIS (http://www.nationalnotary.org/news/index.cfm?Text=newsNotary&newsID=78) website


also note the illuminati triangle at the top of the page...I think it's the same thing

They can be scared and apparently there is a clause that forces them also
to do the things you ask as they are held by it.

Check more with Rob Menard.

[deem]

I hope it works, keep us posted on your journey to freedom.:D

[dolores1]

I got my Notice of intent and claim noterised on the 9th. August. It cost me £30.00 and took less that 10 minutes.

[wakeupworld]

This is great news.

[vienna]

went to see a notary today and recieved this response by email.




Dear Mr Redgrift,
You called to see me today for "Notarial Advice". I had not at first
made the connection between your appointment and the unsolicited e mail
of 19.6.08. I have perused your papers and I find that I am, in all the
circumstances, unable to assist notarially. I would not wish to take any
fee from you concerning the matters discussed or our correspondence. I
wish you and yours well.
Yours sincerely,
Paul R Sheridan TD BA Notary Public, Grimsby UK

what you think guys?

do i just find another ?

john harris mentioned in his latest lecture a notary or solicitor is unnecessary all you need are 3 o witne your claim - im seeing if there's further info in the forums and tempate section

[the worm that turned]

brilliant replys guys thanks alot!!!

i still made a error in spelling "to right" instead of "the right" lol.

the last post was can a non national use the same withing aussy land?

depends on what nationality you are i suppose but im not sure what aussy laws are regarding it. sorry.

i will seek a solicitor to check it all out this week and if he believes its ok ill get info on notorizing it. kinda scary knowing ill be taking on the laws.

any advice would be great!!!

cheers guys...

I don't think you are taking on the laws, you are just learning them and using them to your advantage. :)

Good luck and keep us posted

[owltui]

In Australia under the Bills if Exchange Act 1905 Section 100 it states
"Protest when notary not accessible
Where a dishonoured bill or note is authorized or required to be protested, any householder or substantial resident of the place where the bill is dishonoured may, in the presence of two witnesses, give a certificate, signed by them, attesting the dishonour of the bill, and the certificate shall in all respects operate as if it were a formal protest of the Bill."

I have used a householder and two witnesses successfully on numerous occasions including my NOUICOR.

Notary Publics in Australia are all members of the Law Society and have sworn an oath to that society, so are not going to help any of us to be free sovereigns now are they? I dare say the same is true in many other places.

[tien an]

I got my Notice of intent and claim noterised on the 9th. August. It cost me £30.00 and took less that 10 minutes.

If I'd had my NOUI & CoR notarised, I think I would remember the date...

This link is to another thread in which you maintain that you've had your documents notarised.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1208794&postcount=86

Given that everyone I've seen attempting to do this in the UK has been unsuccessful, I'd really like to know who notarised them.

Here's where you didn't answer my question the last time...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1219051&postcount=103

Perhaps it's different, in Northern Ireland?

tian an.

[vienna]

nice bit of detective work that man ;)

is dolores1 = Shayler ?

the John Harris method is certainly cheaper (basically achieving it by the fact they don't contest your claims - 'estoppal by aquiesence'- there are downloadable templates at TPUC.org if anyone wants to use this method) and it 'feels' right too, especially to anyone loathe to giving their money to solicitors

[dolores1]

If I'd had my NOUI & CoR notarised, I think I would remember the date...

This link is to another thread in which you maintain that you've had your documents notarised.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1208794&postcount=86

Given that everyone I've seen attempting to do this in the UK has been unsuccessful, I'd really like to know who notarised them.

Here's where you didn't answer my question the last time...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1219051&postcount=103

Perhaps it's different, in Northern Ireland?

tian an.

You are right I left of the 1, I had a flood in my office and the mess is my
only excuse.

The Notary was Michael Flannagen, Falls Road. Belfast. If you send me your email I will attach a notarised copy.

[tien an]

How about that...only one notary public listed in Belfast (notarysociety.org)...and his name isn't Flanagen, Flanagan...or even Flanigin.


I smell porky-pies.


tian an.

EDIT: "If you send me your email I will attach a notarised copy." Yeah right: rock on.

[dolores1]

How about that...only one notary public listed in Belfast (notarysociety.org)...and his name isn't Flanagen, Flanagan...or even Flanigin.


I smell porky-pies.


tian an.

EDIT: "If you send me your email I will attach a notarised copy." Yeah right: rock on.

I do NOT lie, I made you an offer in good faith to send you a copy. I am on a different computer from my main one at present. I have a LAN.

I smell porky-pies?

How infantile!

[dolores1]

How about that...only one notary public listed in Belfast (notarysociety.org)...and his name isn't Flanagen, Flanagan...or even Flanigin.


I smell porky-pies.


tian an.

EDIT: "If you send me your email I will attach a notarised copy." Yeah right: rock on.


I feel very angry at your non response to my first offer. I offer a copy of it to anyone who would like to see it, but I will send it through a moderator.

I have been unable to watch all the recent posts because of a close family death. My sister.

[dolores1]

nice bit of detective work that man ;)

is dolores1 = Shayler ?

the John Harris method is certainly cheaper (basically achieving it by the fact they don't contest your claims - 'estoppal by aquiesence'- there are downloadable templates at TPUC.org if anyone wants to use this method) and it 'feels' right too, especially to anyone loathe to giving their money to solicitors

?

[tien an]

I feel very angry at your non response to my first offer. I offer a copy of it to anyone who would like to see it, but I will send it through a moderator.

I have been unable to watch all the recent posts because of a close family death. My sister.

dolores1, there is no need to feel angry: I am simply very interested in the subject of having a notarial seal affixed to my NOUI & COR.
It seems, so far, that this is impossible in the UK.
I'm not hounding you, I just want to get my NOUI & COR sealed by a Notary.
My freedom, and that of my family depends on it and to say I'm passionate about the issue would be an understatement.

Your revelation (20th August) that you had achieved this awoke my curiosity and I (as well as The Worm That Turned) asked you for the name of the Notary.

Later (31st August), I asked you to confirm whether it was the 9th or 19th that you'd had a Notary seal your documents.

You replied that it was indeed the 19th and that you were distracted (and made an error in typing) because you had a mess due to a flood.

Then, on 1st September, you posted that it was a notary named Flanagen on the Falls Road in Belfast.

You offered to send me a copy if I would divulge my email address!

Now you're angry that I didn't take up your offer.
(You're angry over my refusal to share my identity with you?)

You say that you're on a different computer than your own at the time of posting. You have a LAN.
Whilst I appreciate that you might not have access to a scanner or even the documents in question if you're on a different computer...what does having a LAN have to do with the price of eggs?

Was my 'porky pies' comment infantile?
Perhaps.
It was side-stepping the issue of calling you a liar outright.

I offer you my heartfelt condolences for the death of your sister, but I'm afraid that using her demise as an excuse (for an excuse) of not being able to read posts on this subject is also questionable:
A quick look at your posting record shows that between the 20th August and today, you have posted every day except the 31st August and 4th September.

I'll leave you alone now; I have no wish to be accused of harassment.

I might suggest, though, that you google 'imageshack' or 'photobucket', both sites where you can upload images and provide a link to them here on the forum...completely anonymously.

Heavenly Peace,
tian an.

[dolores1]

You are right I left of the 1, I had a flood in my office and the mess is my
only excuse.

The Notary was Michael Flannagen, Falls Road. Belfast. If you send me your email I will attach a notarised copy.

Tel: 02890233309 M. Flannagan - Notary Public

[tien an]

Tel: 02890233309 M. Flannagan - Notary Public

Right...can you explain to me just how this proves that you have had your NOUI & COR sealed by this solicitor?

(I can't see on his website that he's a Notary Public, and he's not listed as such on the Notary Society's website).

What am I supposed to do?
Call him and ask?

What do you think will happen?
He'll tell me he's not at liberty to divulge that information to me...and rightly so.

You must take me for a complete idiot...I could do the same by giving you the name and telephone number of any solicitor in the UK...

I've since found out that a Notary in NI is something quite different from those in the rest of the UK.
(Some information that will be useful in the future).

I'm not interested in your bogus claims any more: I have other, more pressing engagements.


'Bye.

tian an.

[takawa]

I got my Notice of intent and claim noterised on the 9th. August. It cost me £30.00 and took less that 10 minutes.

Where did you get it notarized? I am been denied all the time.

[ninad]

When i sent it to him my friend replied as follows:

"Having renounced your Queen, imprisoned as she is by her own approval, you sir, cease to exist as you are bereft of citizenship of any land all by your own doing. In such a case as yours all is lost even the soul that struggles for the feedom you seek to create.
Even the piece of land you occupy in this imaginary freedom will last only as long as you are strong enough to fight for it “Common land has always been susceptible to encroachment for private gain: its very nature encourages it, because the benefit gained by the individual is a powerful motivation”. Many will come and fight you to occupy it as it has now been restored to the commoners. Only a citizen can rest assured that Her Majesty’s constables will be available to see off any trespassers or those seeking to take it by way of adverse possession. I have known good men to fight to the death for such a prize.
Even if you live, your soul is left to the merciless demons occupied in the corners of consciousness – there is no safety in isolation from forces you neither see nor understand. Freedom is a concept originated in ancient Rome to trick the peasants into fighting wars in its name.

Real freedom is nothing more or less than the courage to be "

best wishes to you all - Nina

[dontpushme]

there is an irony to me by submitting this VERY WELL WRITTEN letter, it immediately becomes part of the laws and subjects mentioned within it... I suppose the only way around this is to get someone else to submit this information on your behalf...not sure about that either as I am currently tipsy!..lack of thought and need to re-read later...TIC this when I submit my opinion.. I am usually wrong.:D
I would change the word 'Understand' to 'comprehend' as to understand is to agree to Stand Under the law provided and the judgement given, you are submitting yourself as a person who is under standing of the laws and allowance of it's judging.. that's admiral [currency] law, not common law.

If 'by submitting this VERY WELL WRITTEN letter, it immediately becomes part of the laws and subjects mentioned within it', then surely you would want to 'stand under' the laws that you are creating in your noui? So would it be wise to change understand to comprehend?

[asky]

Understand doesnt mean stand under its an anachranism.
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/to+stand+under

This is the most detailed description of understand I have found
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_m7k1Oi-cakC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=an+analytical+dictionary+of+english+etymology+u nderstand&source=bl&ots=eud6xzGsWj&sig=-3nI02gyzNR2xqajruOZ5-2Q9MA&hl=en&ei=yv8wS8D2E8GC4Qbf3Y2qCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

asky

[yozhik]

Understand doesnt mean stand under its an anachranism.
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/to+stand+under

This is the most detailed description of understand I have found
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_m7k1Oi-cakC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=an+analytical+dictionary+of+english+etymology+u nderstand&source=bl&ots=eud6xzGsWj&sig=-3nI02gyzNR2xqajruOZ5-2Q9MA&hl=en&ei=yv8wS8D2E8GC4Qbf3Y2qCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

asky

This has already been posted and discussed.
I think the most accurate summary is; the jury is still out.

[dontpushme]

Understand doesnt mean stand under its an anachranism.
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment....to+stand+under

hmm so you think it is a word with a meaning from another time? if that is the case what does understand in the current age?

[asky]

Dont you have a dictionary?

understand
–verb (used with object)
1. to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend: to understand Spanish; I didn't understand your question.
2. to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of: to understand a trade.
3. to assign a meaning to; interpret: He understood her suggestion as a complaint.
4. to grasp the significance, implications, or importance of: He does not understand responsibility.
5. to regard as firmly communicated; take as agreed or settled: I understand that you will repay this loan in 30 days.
6. to learn or hear: I understand that you are going out of town.
7. to accept as true; believe: I understand that you are trying to be truthful, but you are wrong.
8. to construe in a particular way: You are to understand the phrase literally.
9. to supply mentally (something that is not expressed).

Show me a reference anywhere that shows understand to mean stand under someones authority?

asky

[dharmic one]

Understand doesnt mean stand under its an anachranism.
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/to+stand+under

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anachronism
anachronism
–noun
1. something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, esp. a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time: The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare.
2. an error in chronology in which a person, object, event, etc., is assigned a date or period other than the correct one: To assign Michelangelo to the 14th century is an anachronism.

a·nach·ro·nism
n.

1.The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.

2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time: "A new age had plainly dawned, an age that made the institution of a segregated picnic seem an anachronism" (Henry Louis Gates, Jr.)

Asky are you proposing that the meaning of the word understand has changed over time, or that the use of understand as stand-under has changed over time or belongs to another time and therefore is sort of an out of date interpretation?



This is the most detailed description of understand I have found
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_m7k1Oi-cakC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=an+analytical+dictionary+of+english+etymology+u nderstand&source=bl&ots=eud6xzGsWj&sig=-3nI02gyzNR2xqajruOZ5-2Q9MA&hl=en&ei=yv8wS8D2E8GC4Qbf3Y2qCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

asky

though very informative I could not really find anything in the context of law here....so did not quite grasp the link's relevance to the discussion...is it elaboration upon your anachronism point?

Dont you have a dictionary?
Show me a reference anywhere that shows understand to mean stand under someones authority?

asky

Which dictionary did you use as the source of the definition?

Because I found the first link very interesting with regard to stand under.....particularly mentions of force, efficacy and validity and to abide

15. (Law)
(a) To be or remain as it is; to continue in force; to
have efficacy or validity; to abide. --Bouvier.
(b) To appear in court. --Burrill.
[1913 Webster]


abide (also from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abide)

abide verb accept, acknowledge, acquiesce, adhere, agree, assent, carry into execution, comply, concur, cooperate, endure, execute, follow, heed, obey, perform, permit, respect, sanction, stare, submit, subscribe to, suffer, tolerate, yield

I would propose that when I am cautioned and asked whether I understand, as the enforcer of a law the officer is speaking in terms of law. Or is my comprehension of a law a prerequisite of me being liable for punishment for breaking it? Isn't ignorance of the law no excuse? Therefore I would propose that it is not your comprehension of the events that is in question, it is your agreement/acceptance/acquiescence or compliance as a man to or with their authority.

Though I would agree that exactly which meaning of the words they use they actually intend is a moot point, I think it highly illogical that they insist that you comprehend otherwise no drunk and disorderly could be arrested could they? Or someone who doesn't speak english? Any help here from any officers by any chance?? I suspect only officers or their trainers could actually answer this question once and for all....

I fear that on close inspection the source you use to discredit the synonymy of understand and stand under actually goes some way to proving the opposite........

understand (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/understand)

understand verb absorb, apperceive, appreciate, apprehend, assimilate, be apprised, be informed, cognize, comprehend, conceive, conclude, conjecture, deduce, discern, fathom, gather, glean, grasp, infer, intellegere, internalize, know, learn, master, perceive, retain, take to mean

See also: agree, appreciate, apprehend, comply, comprehend, conceive, construe, deduce, deduct, digest, discern, discover, find, infer, interpret, perceive, pierce, presume, presuppose, read, recognize, resolve, solve, surmise, suspect, sympathize, think

[dontpushme]

In response to your question

Show me a reference anywhere that shows understand to mean stand under someones authority?

Well the way I see it (tho i cant prove it beyond doubt, yet) is the whole legal process (in what ever form it takes) is some corporation(s) trying to force your person (what i believe also to be some kind of corporate entity) in to a contract for breaking one of there corporate rules/regs (aka acts/statutes). Wikipedia (not the most reliable of sources, but until i can find better it will have to do) has this to say about the law of contracts...

Contract law concerns enforceable promises, and can be summed up in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law#Contract_law

once you agree to the terms and conditions of the contract with the corporation acting against you. Well the way i see it is, you agree with the corp, you broke the rules, now you must make sure all the parts of the contract are obliged. ie £100 or face our wrath. You agreed to it.

The way it looks to me sitting here is, that you sign the contract that gives the corporations the authority to act against you.

so with that in mind, i'd say..

5. to regard as firmly communicated; take as agreed or settled: I understand that you will repay this loan in 30 days.

would seem to be the quote you require.

edited to add link

[yozhik]

Dont you have a dictionary?



Show me a reference anywhere that shows understand to mean stand under someones authority?

asky

So from your post asky, it is implied that if any one turns up in court armed with a standard dictionary, they will comprehend everything that is said and asked.

Is that correct?

That any 'legal' document, 'legal' terms and conditions ... a common English dictionary will suffice and serve as a suitable means of interpretation?

Is that your statement of fact?

That there is no such thing as 'legalese'?
That legal wording and plain English are wholly and completely interchangeable?

[asky]

OK
Have it your way
I provide a detailed explanation of the origins of the word understand and its etymology which originates from stand under but it is an anachronism in the fact that it no longer means to stand under it now is used to mean comprehend.

So if you want it your way just dont say "yes" when asked do you understand and you will be fine.
It will be your bulletproof vest in dealing with the police and courts you will be as invulnerable as Superman

asky

[tien an]

Right...can you explain to me just how this proves that you have had your NOUI & COR sealed by this solicitor?

(I can't see on his website that he's a Notary Public, and he's not listed as such on the Notary Society's website).

What am I supposed to do?
Call him and ask?

What do you think will happen?
He'll tell me he's not at liberty to divulge that information to me...and rightly so.

You must take me for a complete idiot...I could do the same by giving you the name and telephone number of any solicitor in the UK...

I've since found out that a Notary in NI is something quite different from those in the rest of the UK.
(Some information that will be useful in the future).

I'm not interested in your bogus claims any more: I have other, more pressing engagements.


'Bye.

tian an.

I'd just like to add, given that this thread has been resuscitated, that dolores1 has since proven that her NOUI & CoR has been sealed by a Notary Public.

Thank you.

tian an.

[yozhik]

OK
Have it your way
I provide a detailed explanation of the origins of the word understand and its etymology which originates from stand under but it is an anachronism in the fact that it no longer means to stand under it now is used to mean comprehend.

So if you want it your way just dont say "yes" when asked do you understand and you will be fine.
It will be your bulletproof vest in dealing with the police and courts you will be as invulnerable as Superman

asky

asky ... stop throwing your toys out of the pram.

Did you not already post this in another thread?
Was it no pointed out that the conclusion was inconclusive?
It is an opinion that could not reach a definitive opinion.

Sure, it adds to the discussion and gives a different slant on the debate, but it in no way settles the matter and offers unquestionable information!!


EDIT
Actually ... in hindsight, for the sake af accuracy, it may have been number_6 that posted it, crediting you with the info.
However, the crux of the issue is still relevant; the conclusion of the 'detailed' analysis is inconclusive and can not stand as irrefutable evidence that the word 'understand' can not [and is not] used to indicate a status of subordination [to stand under].

From that previous discussion on your 'detailed' examination, as posted on tpuc under your other name of Jargon Buster;
Six pages of hypothesising with an inconclusive outcome.
Interesting read, but not helpful.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=552&pictureid=6156

I would suggest the 'meaning' is conveyed by the 'application'; i.e its 'intent' and its 'effect'.

[dharmic one]

Which dictionary did you use as the source of the definition?

Because I found the first link very interesting with regard to stand under.....particularly mentions of force, efficacy and validity and to abide

15. (Law)
(a) To be or remain as it is; to continue in force; to
have efficacy or validity; to abide. --Bouvier.
(b) To appear in court. --Burrill.
[1913 Webster]


abide (also from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abide)

abide verb accept, acknowledge, acquiesce, adhere, agree, assent, carry into execution, comply, concur, cooperate, endure, execute, follow, heed, obey, perform, permit, respect, sanction, stare, submit, subscribe to, suffer, tolerate, yield

I would propose that when I am cautioned and asked whether I understand, as the enforcer of a law the officer is speaking in terms of law. Or is my comprehension of a law a prerequisite of me being liable for punishment for breaking it? Isn't ignorance of the law no excuse? Therefore I would propose that it is not your comprehension of the events that is in question, it is your agreement/acceptance/acquiescence or compliance as a man to or with their authority.

Though I would agree that exactly which meaning of the words they use they actually intend is a moot point, I think it highly illogical that they insist that you comprehend otherwise no drunk and disorderly could be arrested could they? Or someone who doesn't speak english? Any help here from any officers by any chance?? I suspect only officers or their trainers could actually answer this question once and for all....

I fear that on close inspection the source you use to discredit the synonymy of understand and stand under actually goes some way to proving the opposite........

understand (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/understand)

understand verb absorb, apperceive, appreciate, apprehend, assimilate, be apprised, be informed, cognize, comprehend, conceive, conclude, conjecture, deduce, discern, fathom, gather, glean, grasp, infer, intellegere, internalize, know, learn, master, perceive, retain, take to mean

See also: agree, appreciate, apprehend, comply, comprehend, conceive, construe, deduce, deduct, digest, discern, discover, find, infer, interpret, perceive, pierce, presume, presuppose, read, recognize, resolve, solve, surmise, suspect, sympathize, think

OK
Have it your way
I provide a detailed explanation of the origins of the word understand and its etymology which originates from stand under but it is an anachronism in the fact that it no longer means to stand under it now is used to mean comprehend.

Ok so you have claimed that you have shown that the meaning of understand, though it has it's origins with stand-under (you do not deny that there is a link then?), they are not now synonymous. What part of the links you quoted do you feel shows this conclusively? And what authority do you claim this publication has? I could write ten pages of detailed etymology but never gain the ability to claim it is conclusive without quoting it! Detailed is not the same thing as conclusive.

I find either your claims are proposed with no conclusions or the conclusions are made but you refuse to show how you arrived at them. You flip between these MO's so regularly that it is hard even to keep up with what your actual point of view is, furthering my suspicion that you are here to obfuscate (albiet for the purposes of "fun") instead of helping anyone learn anything.

Are you willing to state categorically that you have shown that understand does not mean stand under in any circumstance, especially those involving the law, police and the courts??

I find the language you use very telling. I think you make broad ambiguous remarks about " having it your way" as if your our mom frustrated that we won't just listen, that we want to discover how to walk on our own. This is just mommy having a tantrum cos the people she views as her poor stupid kiddies won't listen. It is condescending and so far removed from actual conclusive research that it is mind boggling. Yet you exclaim it ( very very ambiguously) as proof. You do this on every thread, harrass, chastise and snipe but provide such fragile opinions that my 5 yo nephew would laugh at them!

You claim to be the only one who answers questions put to him but much of the time you respond with nothing more than a disguised tantrum or snide remark rather than an informed, logical opinion. You then leave the thread just as your "answers" and "proofs" are being dissected as the crocks of shit they really are.

Based on ignorance = strength
Conformism = individuality
Accusation/harrassment/ridicule/vitriol/tantrum = actual impartial provision of helpful information.

I propose that you indeed have many things going on in that mind of yours that are very very backwards and confused.....



So if you want it your way just dont say "yes" when asked do you understand and you will be fine.
It will be your bulletproof vest in dealing with the police and courts you will be as invulnerable as Superman

asky

see? sarcasm and bile. Not logical argument, of which I actually view you as so incapable it is actually worrying.

Because I have outlined above that your link provides under stand under, definition 15. Law, to mean "abide". (This is the link you posted.)

Do you deny that the legal dictionary definition of abide is agree?

Therefore....stand under (in law from your link) = abide

abide = agree

therefore agreement is consent?

Considering........



Fromhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/understand

understand verb See also: agree,

agree

agree (Comply), verb accede, accept, accommodate, accord, acknowledge, acquiesce, adapt, adjust differences, adopt, allow, approve, assent, avow, be accordant, be at one with, be in harmony with, be in unison, be willing, come to an understanding, come to terms, comply with, componere, concede, concinere, concord, concur, confirm, congruere, consent, cooperate, correspond, fit, give assent, give consent, homologate, ratify, reconcile, settle, subscribe to, suit, understand, unite, yield assent
Associated concepts: agreed case, agreed order, agreed statement of factsagree

(Contract), verb adjust differences, arrive at a settlement, bargain, bring into concord, come to an agreement, come to an understanding, come to terms, consent, consentire, constituere, cooperate, covenant, engage, give assurance, make a bargain, make an agreement, make terms, mutually assent, pacisci, pact, pledge, promise, settle, settle by covenant, stipulate

[dharmic one]

OK
Have it your way
I provide a detailed explanation of the origins of the word understand and its etymology which originates from stand under but it is an anachronism in the fact that it no longer means to stand under it now is used to mean comprehend.

So if you want it your way just dont say "yes" when asked do you understand and you will be fine.
It will be your bulletproof vest in dealing with the police and courts you will be as invulnerable as Superman

asky

Who are you referring to here asky???

[asky]

Are you willing to state categorically that you have shown that understand does not mean stand under in any circumstance, especially those involving the law, police and the courts??

I am willing to accept that when a police officer asks you do you undersatnd he/she is asking you if you comprehend what he/she has said to you.

The weight of evidence on this being the version of the truth is overwhelmingly in its favour.

You are clutching at straws to think its anything else.

its the same as the sun coming up tomorrow, it may not happen but the chances are it will.

asky

Oh and I was refering to Yozick

[dharmic one]

I am willing to accept that when a police officer asks you do you undersatnd he/she is asking you if you comprehend what he/she has said to you.

The weight of evidence on this being the version of the truth is overwhelmingly in its favour.

You are clutching at straws to think its anything else.

its the same as the sun coming up tomorrow, it may not happen but the chances are it will.

asky

Oh and I was refering to Yozick

Wow! what a phenomenally detailed and informative ACCEPTANCE of your own point of view! What a surprise! ZERO mention of any detail of what this "overwhelming weight of evidence" ACTUALLY IS.

Ambiguity and empty criticism does not constitute any information or evidence for us all to peruse so that we may join you in the acceptance of this evidence. All of this DESPITE the fact that I used the link YOU provided to show the contrary.

I think you really need some help my friend. How you assure yourself that your faculties are working correctly I don't know.... Did you actually read what I posted? Which bits of it did you actually comprehend?

How about taking the questions I asked and actually answering them??? Just like you like to claim you do......

Acceptance of a POV does not give it undeniable status of fact ASKY, no matter how carefully vague you try to be about it. You actually quoted the question I asked then answered a completely different one that you seem to have made up for yourself! All the while pretending to everyone and yourself that you have actually answered the question. I propose that you actually answer only the questions you want to in a way that they were not actually asked. This is phenomenal bigotry, bordering on absolute self-deception at it's best........absolutely staggering.......

[dharmic one]

I am willing to accept that when a police officer asks you do you undersatnd he/she is asking you if you comprehend what he/she has said to you.

That cannot be an answer to the question you have quoted.....how you even think it can be anything close is nothing more than the evasive, deceitful and very much akin to the indoctrinated and morally bleached MO of an actual police officer......

Procedure being....

State POV
Repeat POV
If challenged by contradictory info.....Repeat POV differently...
Answer no questions and get them to answer all of yours
Pretend whenever possible that you have actually answered their questions..

The weight of evidence on this being the version of the truth is overwhelmingly in its favour.

Ok, what and where? And how is this assertion even possible in light of what I produced from legal dictionaries from the last "evidence" you provided???

Is it your position that Police are not speaking in law or legal terms but just plain English? If so, how do you propose it is a requirement that I comprehend their words? How does this fit into procedure? In other words, where in law is it stated that a man who does not comprehend a situation of arrest cannot be arrested?

If this is irrelevant, why is it procedure?

You are clutching at straws to think its anything else. I feel that this is a classic pot kettle black moment. Could you please define the term "clutching at straws" and show why this is the case?

its the same as the sun coming up tomorrow, it may not happen but the chances are it will.


Irrelevant little side story there asky, great work in your proofs and evidence.....I stand absolutely corrected.

[yozhik]

Oh and I was refering to Yozick

asky/Jargon Buster ... Your conclusive evidence and analysis of 'understand';

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=552&pictureid=6156

... as taken from your own link.

[morethanatheory]

You have covered pretty much all of it, i'm really impressed. Let us know what kind of feedback you get. If you get any.

Good luck, and well written.

Peace

[asky]

In reference to "understand" meaning to "stand under my authority"

OK lets say your right and that is the "exact" word (not "comprehend" or "know what I mean" ) they have to use to gain jurisdiction and enable them to contract with you.

OK
What happens when they arrest a foreign national who doesnt speak English?

Every word that the translators use in place of understand would have be interchangeable to the equivelant of "stand under" in the persons own tongue to enable them to gain jurisdiction/contract.
Each word would have to mean exactly the same to give it any validity and as you must admit that cannot be the case.

asky

[yozhik]

All they would have to translate is;

ignorance is no defence :rolleyes:

[asky]

yozhik wrote
All they would have to translate is;

ignorance is no defence


So by your own admission the word understand is irrelevant

I rest my case

asky

[dontpushme]

What happens when they arrest a foreign national who doesnt speak English?


hmm, could be wrong here, but when you are dealing with law enforcement peeps, they all speak in legalese anyway? so what does english have to do with anything? do the law enforcement agencys provide us british nationals with a translator to translate from legalese to standard common tongue english?

[yozhik]

yozhik wrote


So by your own admission the word understand is irrelevant

I rest my case

asky

Then your case is as useful as a tissue in a hurricane.

If the 'person' is in custody, subordination and jurisdiction has already been consented to, which means they have contracted to understand the authority of the arresting officer.

Capiche?

[asky]

dontpushme wrote
but when you are dealing with law enforcement peeps, they all speak in legalese anyway?

Are you sure because I have spoken to a great many police officers who have no idea that they are asking someone to stand under their authority

asky

[asky]

yoshik wrote
If the 'person' is in custody, subordination and jurisdiction has already been consented to, which means they have contracted to understand the authority of the arresting officer.

Really?

Example
Knife wielding Eastern European who speaks no English is seen by the police and by your stance cannot be lawfully arrested until he understands!!!
So by wrestling him to the floor they are commititing assault on his person

Are you for real

asky

[yozhik]

dontpushme wrote


Are you sure because I have spoken to a great many police officers who have no idea that they are asking someone to stand under their authority

asky

Exactly.

Pay peanuts; get monkeys.
Compartmentalisation.

But will they admit to being instructed to ask someone if they 'understand'?
They're just doing what they were told, without questioning why.
Their comprehension is not required to understand their superior officer's demands.

[yozhik]

yoshik wrote


Really?

Example
Knife wielding Eastern European who speaks no English is seen by the police and by your stance cannot be lawfully arrested until he understands!!!
So by wrestling him to the floor they are commititing assault on his person

Are you for real

asky

How do you twist what I have posted into that hypothetical???
WTF. :eek:

[asky]

Yozhik wrote
If the 'person' is in custody, subordination and jurisdiction has already been consented to
Then wrote
How do you twist what I have posted into that hypothetical???
WTF
The knife wielding manic would be in custody Im sure of that.

And without consenting to anything Im sure of that too because he doesnt understand a word of English.
If he doesnt understand English how can he have consented to their jurisdiction

Come on yozhik keep up

asky

[yozhik]

Yozhik wrote

Then wrote

The knife wielding manic would be in custody Im sure of that.

And without consenting to anything Im sure of that too because he doesnt understand a word of English.
If he doesnt understand English how can he have consented to their jurisdiction

Come on yozhik keep up

asky

If he was wielding a knife, then he could be arrested under common law breach of the peace.

England is still a common law jurisdiction, is it not?

A 'knife wielding maniac'?
Seems to me we're talking about someone looking to cause harm, injury or loss.

No statutes necessary.
We can all agree this man should be detained by peace officers.

Where is the issue?

[asky]

yoshick wrote
someone looking to cause harm, injury or loss

Still no loss or harm caused but you still agree for him to be arrested.
Now where getting somewhere.
Not be long before your firmly in statute land

OK
What if a peacable man was ignoring an officer and just kept walking away after he was questioned and continued to ignore the officers requests.
Would they let him go or detain him?

asky

[yozhik]

yoshick wrote


Still no loss or harm caused but you still agree for him to be arrested.
Now where getting somewhere.
Not be long before your firmly in statute land


asky

common law breach of the peace

I stated it above; can't you read?


No statutes necessary.
We can all agree this man should be detained by peace officers.

Where is the issue?

[asky]

didnt you read my peacable man example

asky

[yozhik]

What if a peacable man was ignoring an officer and just kept walking away after he was questioned and continued to ignore the officers requests.
Would they let him go or detain him?

asky

I can't be expected to answer that hypothetical; too many unknowns.

So he was 'a peacable [sic] man'?
Why was an officer questioning him if he was peacable?
Sounds like harrassment to me.

Was he under arrest?
Was he being detained?

You are aware of Rice v Connelly?

[asky]

Never mind all that

Given the information I have given do you think they would let him go or detain him.
It is irrelevant if it is harrassment or wrongful arrest that would be established later.

Come on Yoz I give you straight answers stop playing about

asky

[yozhik]

Never mind all that

Given the information I have given do you think they would let him go or detain him.
It is irrelevant if it is harrassment or wrongful arrest that would be established later.

Come on Yoz I give you straight answers stop playing about

asky

I'm not prepared to answer with so little information.

If he was a peacable man, why was he being questioned?
You said he walked away AFTER questioning, which suggests it had been concluded, but then imply it hadn't been.

If their questions did not lead to any reasonable and lawful arrest and he was free to walk away ... then why would he return?

I suspect your question is a leading one; hence the lack of sufficient detail.

[asky]

Troll

:rolleyes:

asky

[yozhik]

Troll

:rolleyes:

asky

Is that your final answer to the questions asked?

[asky]

Im taking your tack of not answering questions yoz

asky

[yozhik]

Im taking your tack of not answering questions yoz

asky

Thats nothing new for you asky ... this forum is littered with unanswered questions awaiting your response.

However, I did answer appropriately.

Rice v Connolly

[asky]

Your entitled to your opinion on if you answered or not.

Who cares about Rice v Connelly :rolleyes:

asky

[bones]

Your entitled to your opinion on if you answered or not.

Who cares about Rice v Connelly :rolleyes:

asky]

you still here assface? go to bed!

[asky]

Nighty night bones
xxx

see you soon

asky

[yozhik]

Who cares about Rice v Connelly :rolleyes:

asky

Hmmmm ... given its relevance to your hypothetical question; you should :)

[dharmic one]

asky/Jargon Buster ... Your conclusive evidence and analysis of 'understand';

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=552&pictureid=6156

... as taken from your own link.

Gone quiet though haven't they? What a surprise....still makin out like it's them that likes the specifics of the arguments though on the person/corporation thread - hilarious.......

[dharmic one]

In reference to "understand" meaning to "stand under my authority"

OK lets say your right and that is the "exact" word

How about I say I'm right and why, then you say I'm not and why, instead of diverting the debate on the point any further from where you actually refused to look at your own posts, compare them to mine and realise that you actually have not in your possession the faculties to actually argue ANY points that I have raised. The further you drift from your logical fallacies the more you ignore your own ignorance.....it's a downward spiral of disinformation and distraction........



OK
What happens when they arrest a foreign national who doesnt speak English?

asky

You mean a bit like this........

Though I would agree that exactly which meaning of the words they use they actually intend is a moot point, I think it highly illogical that they insist that you comprehend otherwise no drunk and disorderly could be arrested could they? Or someone who doesn't speak english?

Amazing....you completely ignore the fact that the same logic you use to further your point can be used just as easily to prove it (your point) to be yet another logical fallacy......

If COMPREHENSION is a prerequisite to an arrest, how can this be a concrete interpretation of this word when that too can be shown to be illogical in the same circumstances?

In more simple words.........if understand means to comprehend, how can it be a prerequisite of arrest if you don't speak English?




Which dictionary did you use as the source of the definition?

Because I found the first link very interesting with regard to stand under.....particularly mentions of force, efficacy and validity and to abide

15. (Law)
(a) To be or remain as it is; to continue in force; to
have efficacy or validity; to abide. --Bouvier.
(b) To appear in court. --Burrill.
[1913 Webster]


abide (also from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abide)

abide verb accept, acknowledge, acquiesce, adhere, agree, assent, carry into execution, comply, concur, cooperate, endure, execute, follow, heed, obey, perform, permit, respect, sanction, stare, submit, subscribe to, suffer, tolerate, yield

I would propose that when I am cautioned and asked whether I understand, as the enforcer of a law the officer is speaking in terms of law. Or is my comprehension of a law a prerequisite of me being liable for punishment for breaking it? Isn't ignorance of the law no excuse? Therefore I would propose that it is not your comprehension of the events that is in question, it is your agreement/acceptance/acquiescence or compliance as a man to or with their authority.

understand (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/understand)

understand verb absorb, apperceive, appreciate, apprehend, assimilate, be apprised, be informed, cognize, comprehend, conceive, conclude, conjecture, deduce, discern, fathom, gather, glean, grasp, infer, intellegere, internalize, know, learn, master, perceive, retain, take to mean

See also: agree, appreciate, apprehend, comply, comprehend, conceive, construe, deduce, deduct, digest, discern, discover, find, infer, interpret, perceive, pierce, presume, presuppose, read, recognize, resolve, solve, surmise, suspect, sympathize, think

Ok so you have claimed that you have shown that the meaning of understand, though it has it's origins with stand-under (you do not deny that there is a link then?), they are not now synonymous. What part of the links you quoted do you feel shows this conclusively?

I find either your claims are proposed with no conclusions or the conclusions are made but you refuse to show how you arrived at them. You flip between these MO's so regularly that it is hard even to keep up with what your actual point of view is, furthering my suspicion that you are here to obfuscate (albiet for the purposes of "fun") instead of helping anyone learn anything.

You claim to be the only one who answers questions put to him but much of the time you respond with nothing more than a disguised tantrum or snide remark rather than an informed, logical opinion. You then leave the thread just as your "answers" and "proofs" are being dissected as the crocks of shit they really are.

Based on ignorance = strength
Conformism = individuality
Accusation/harrassment/ridicule/vitriol/tantrum = actual impartial provision of helpful information.


(This is the link you posted.)

Do you deny that the legal dictionary definition of abide is agree?

Therefore....stand under (in law from your link) = abide

abide = agree

therefore agreement is consent?

Considering........



agree

agree (Comply), verb accede, accept, accommodate, accord, acknowledge, acquiesce, adapt, adjust differences, adopt, allow, approve, assent, avow, be accordant, be at one with, be in harmony with, be in unison, be willing, come to an understanding, come to terms, comply with, componere, concede, concinere, concord, concur, confirm, congruere, consent, cooperate, correspond, fit, give assent, give consent, homologate, ratify, reconcile, settle, subscribe to, suit, understand, unite, yield assent
Associated concepts: agreed case, agreed order, agreed statement of factsagree

(Contract), verb adjust differences, arrive at a settlement, bargain, bring into concord, come to an agreement, come to an understanding, come to terms, consent, consentire, constituere, cooperate, covenant, engage, give assurance, make a bargain, make an agreement, make terms, mutually assent, pacisci, pact, pledge, promise, settle, settle by covenant, stipulate

Anymore to say Asky???

[asky]

Understand does not translate into stand under.
Not in common usage
Your clutching at straws.
Do you realise you can get from "understand" to mean "refuse" if you keep clicking enough synonyms.

asky

[hypha]

It matters only when you are governed x

[asky]

You are ;)

asky

[hypha]

You are ;)

asky

A society is governed not the Human Being

[asky]

Thats your belief and your entitled to it.

asky

[merlincove]

How can a human being be gouverened if he does not consent to it, are all human beings not equal?

Given that they are equal, who then has the juristiction to gouvern another?

[hypha]

that's great, so you could go upto a judge and say that it's your belief and you are entitled to it, mine is different so we go seperate ways? let me out the court room now! no because what i believe is law of god, so you can't leave says the guy in the wig

[asky]

that's great, so you could go upto a judge and say that it's your belief and you are entitled to it, mine is different so we go seperate ways? let me out the court room now! no because what i believe is law of god, so you can't leave says the guy in the wig

Spoken by someone who has never been in a courtroom;)

asky

[merlincove]

How can a human being be gouverened if he does not consent to it, are all human beings not equal?

Given that they are equal, who then has the juristiction to gouvern another?

Spoken by someone who has never been in a courtroom;)

asky

skillfully avoided

[asky]

Born equal you can have.

Apart from that no not equal at all.

asky

[hypha]

Spoken by someone who has never been in a courtroom;)

asky

Why go in, in the first place?

[number_6]

Why go in, in the first place?

Ever been arrested, hypha?

[hypha]

yes :D

[number_6]

yes :D

Was there a subsequent court hearing, and did you not attend?

[merlincove]

Born equal you can have.

Apart from that no not equal at all.

asky

Equality is a maxim of law, so given that maxim, again i ask, who has juristiction over another where such is not consented to?

Choose to answer or choose to dissent / wriggle out of it, but you know there is only one answer.

[asky]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/17921/response/58044/attach/html/3/TO%20Parliamentary%20Jurisdiction.doc.html

Those born in the UK are subjects of the Crown, who summons Parliament to provide advice and to legislate. Parliament is the representative of the people through election to the House of Commons. Members of Parliament are elected to represent the people and by those elections they have been legitimately handed the power to assess, enact or reject legislation. The laws are enforced by the judicial system, not by Parliament.

asky

[the worm that turned]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/17921/response/58044/attach/html/3/TO%20Parliamentary%20Jurisdiction.doc.html



asky

How can you be born IN anything? You can arrive on a piece of land fair enough. What is your interpretation of being subject to? Do you believe that you have the right to opt out of this subjection?

P.S. I'm not training to gain authority so no need to answer with questions?

[asky]

Of course you can opt out
You can do it anytime you choose.

But the reality is you dont really want too.
Not really

asky

[dharmic one]

Procedure being....

State POV
Repeat POV
If challenged by contradictory info.....Repeat POV differently...
Answer no questions and get them to answer all of yours
Pretend whenever possible that you have actually answered their questions..

Ok, what and where? And how is this assertion even possible in light of what I produced from legal dictionaries from the last "evidence" you provided???

Is it your position that Police are not speaking in law or legal terms but just plain English? If so, how do you propose it is a requirement that I comprehend their words? How does this fit into procedure? In other words, where in law is it stated that a man who does not comprehend a situation of arrest cannot be arrested?

If this is irrelevant, why is it procedure?

I feel that this is a classic pot kettle black moment. Could you please define the term "clutching at straws" and show why this is the case?

Irrelevant little side story there asky, great work in your proofs and evidence.....I stand absolutely corrected.

asky/Jargon Buster ... Your conclusive evidence and analysis of 'understand';

... as taken from your own link.

I am willing to accept that when a police officer asks you do you undersatnd he/she is asking you if you comprehend what he/she has said to you.

The weight of evidence on this being the version of the truth is overwhelmingly in its favour.

You are clutching at straws to think its anything else.

State POV
Repeat POV
If challenged by contradictory info.....Repeat POV differently...
Answer no questions and get them to answer all of yours
Pretend whenever possible that you have actually answered their questions..

How about I say I'm right and why, then you say I'm not and why, instead of diverting the debate on the point any further from where you actually refused to look at your own posts, compare them to mine and realise that you actually have not in your possession the faculties to actually argue ANY points that I have raised. The further you drift from your logical fallacies the more you ignore your own ignorance.....it's a downward spiral of disinformation and distraction........

You mean a bit like this........??

Amazing....you completely ignore the fact that the same logic you use to further your point can be used just as easily to prove it (your point) to be yet another logical fallacy......

If COMPREHENSION is a prerequisite to an arrest, how can this be a concrete interpretation of this word when that too can be shown to be illogical in the same circumstances?

In more simple words.........if understand means to comprehend, how can it be a prerequisite of arrest if you don't speak English?


Understand does not translate into stand under.
Not in common usage
Your clutching at straws.
Do you realise you can get from "understand" to mean "refuse" if you keep clicking enough synonyms.
asky
State POV
Repeat POV
If challenged by contradictory info.....Repeat POV differently...
Answer no questions and get them to answer all of yours
Pretend whenever possible that you have actually answered their questions..


http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/17921/response/58044/attach/html/3/TO%20Parliamentary%20Jurisdiction.doc.html


Yeah let's ask our masters if we can be free......while we're there we could just say "please sir, I want some more"........
Somewhat contradicts your point here though don't you think?? ..............................
(Don't worry, my questions of you are now only rhetorical....)

Of course you can opt out
You can do it anytime you choose.
But the reality is you dont really want too.
Not really
asky

[dharmic one]

You heard it here first folks!!!......we can opt out any time we choose....let's see if we can pre-empt the useless and completely impossible to substantiate argument that he comes up with next....

You can opt out only by leaving the country and abandoning your place of birth and your life, home, work and family.

I wonder what he'll quote to substantiate it???

Gordon Brown?

The bank of England?

NASA??

"We can't opt out peacefully and file COR's with anyone, it's ridiculous so why try??"

I think the Notice was another great example of someone trying to take responsibility for his life. None of what has been said against it can be substantiated with anything other than government quotations or more hearsay but they are independent so we can believe them, right?

Good on ya bones...keep revising it, my only suggestion would be that you are completely happy and that it conveys your law and truth as honestly and solemnly as you can.

1 question though RE currency. As it is the issuance of a private company, authorised as the national currency by the Government, do you believe there could potentially be any claims made against you for still being a recipient of the benefits of UK PLC, therefore still obliged in your duties towards it and it's jurisdiction???

V interested in what you think about this......

[dharmic one]

"Those born in the UK are subjects of the Crown, who summons Parliament to provide advice and to legislate. Parliament is the representative of the people through election to the House of Commons. Members of Parliament are elected to represent the people and by those elections they have been legitimately handed the power to assess, enact or reject legislation. The laws are enforced by the judicial system, not by Parliament."

SUBJECT:

–noun
1. that which forms a basic matter of thought, discussion, investigation, etc.: a subject of conversation.
2. a branch of knowledge as a course of study: He studied four subjects in his first year at college.
3. a motive, cause, or ground: a subject for complaint.
4. the theme of a sermon, book, story, etc.
5. the principal melodic motif or phrase in a musical composition, esp. in a fugue.
6. an object, scene, incident, etc., chosen by an artist for representation, or as represented in art.
7. a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign.
8. a person who owes allegiance to a government and lives under its protection: four subjects of Sweden.

Here we go again on person......


Great proof of your claims Asky...more great wisdom from the mouth of the beast.....

Hold on, the government isn't a corporation though......is it???


The Crown
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article refers to the Commonwealth concept of state legal authority. For all other articles about the term "crown", see Crown.

"The Crown" is also used to refer to state prosecution services: the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland.

The Crown is a corporation sole that in certain countries of the Commonwealth of Nations, as well as in any provincial or state sub-divisions thereof, represents the legal embodiment of executive government. It evolved naturally first in the United Kingdom as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation state from the person and personal property of the monarch; a concept which then spread via British colonisation and is now rooted in the legal lexicon of the other 15 independent realms. It is thus not to be confused with any physical crown, such as those in the Crown Jewels, which are the property of the Crown and not the reigning monarch.

So I am born under the dominion of a corporation sole? Oh wait, that's what the Crown says...... How many ppl think this is acceptable as a man or woman, gifted with free will??

But hey Asky said we could opt out any time we wanted so what's the problem? If we can opt out what is the significance of his post? How can we opt out though when are we born under the dominion of a corporation??

He is very confused and completely unable to consistently substantiate his assertions once they have been shown to be completely fallacious......

[dharmic one]

Understand does not translate into stand under.
Not in common usage
Your clutching at straws.
Do you realise you can get from "understand" to mean "refuse" if you keep clicking enough synonyms.

asky

I agree, not in common usage, but we weren't debating its common usage were we? Convenient how you just forgot.

I'm clutching at straws......Legal dictionaries and inductive reasoning is clutching at straws.....what was the procedure?? Keep saying the same things differently???

I used your link to logically rebut completely your insistence that Understand is not synonymous with stand under and you carry on pretending to yourself that it didn't happen.........

Bigotry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Origin:
1665–75; bigot + -ry, formation parallel to F bigoterie

Synonyms:
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

[the worm that turned]

Of course you can opt out
You can do it anytime you choose.

But the reality is you dont really want too.
Not really

asky

Are you referring to me? Let's not get personal here. I think my contributions through my actions at least show that I am testing the system.

What is the point of rules and boundaries if we don't challenge them? A society that doesn't question will soon become stale and fail to progress.

We here in Britain are not just stale, we have almost gone completely rotten through to the core.

Just the way those that believe they are in control want it...

And just think of the millions in history that have sacrificed themselves for our freedom...such a waste

That is unless we try to actively change things. It's time to think outside of our own little bubbles and realise that it is not all about me me me but us, as we are all connected consciously anyway, of that I have no doubt.

Peace and unconditional love to you all.

Night night

[dharmic one]

Are you referring to me? Let's not get personal here. I think my contributions through my actions at least show that I am testing the system.

What is the point of rules and boundaries if we don't challenge them? A society that doesn't question will soon become stale and fail to progress.

We here in Britain are not just stale, we have almost gone completely rotten through to the core.

Just the way those that believe they are in control want it...

And just think of the millions in history that have sacrificed themselves for our freedom...such a waste

That is unless we try to actively change things. It's time to think outside of our own little bubbles and realise that it is not all about me me me but us, as we are all connected consciously anyway, of that I have no doubt.

Peace and unconditional love to you all.

Night night

Brilliant words!!! This is what the forum is really for........

[asky]

And just think of the millions in history that have sacrificed themselves for our freedom...such a waste

What in all the wars that were started and bankrolled by the Rothschilds.
According to the other forums there has never been a war that was based on anything only control of the money.
So if you believe that, everyone who has fought in a war has unknowingly added to the restriction of freedoms not fought for them.

Just a thought

[h2pogo]

What in all the wars that were started and bankrolled by the Rothschilds.
According to the other forums there has never been a war that was based on anything only control of the money.
So if you believe that, everyone who has fought in a war has unknowingly added to the restriction of freedoms not fought for them.

Just a thought

the post you referred to had the word freedom in it some where..your missing the point somewhere..
i could easy explain but i doubt you would get it..

but for other readers i would like to point out that some people fight wars because they choose to, others because they have a gun in their back...choice to me is a fundamental of freedom.

[the worm that turned]

What in all the wars that were started and bankrolled by the Rothschilds.
According to the other forums there has never been a war that was based on anything only control of the money.
So if you believe that, everyone who has fought in a war has unknowingly added to the restriction of freedoms not fought for them.

Just a thought

Seriously??? I don't think that even warrants a response! Perhaps think about what you have written again in the context of what I actually said.

[merlincove]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/17921/response/58044/attach/html/3/TO%20Parliamentary%20Jurisdiction.doc.html

asky

You still managed to avoid giving an answer, but i'll make do with what you supplied:

Those born in the UK are subjects of the Crown, who summons Parliament to provide advice and to legislate. Parliament is the representative of the people through election to the House of Commons. Members of Parliament are elected to represent the people and by those elections they have been legitimately handed the power to assess, enact or reject legislation. The laws are enforced by the judicial system, not by Parliament.

Equality is a maxim of law, no matter which law we are talking about, be it Common Law or Statute Law, the maxim of equality still prevails.

So WHO has jurisdiction to judge another? No one has any jurisdiction if the players on the field are all equal.

And yet the law of statute legislation as deferred trough ACTs of parliament does not recognise equality, it contradiocts it’s own maxim and it recognises ONLY its own power of oppression and enFORCES such upon the masses. That is not the weight of an equal society it is the show of a dictatorship masquerading as democracy. And that is what the Freeman movement rally against.

Read what you quoted: The laws are enforced by the judicial system, not by Parliament

The law is enforced - by force where necessary, as is usually the case - by the judicial system.

FFS, smell the coffee asky. If something, any thing, is enforced upon another then where does the maxim of equality fit in? Where is freedom in that society that enforces the will of the few over the many? And you are supporting that system and condescending those who appose it - the freeman, people who want to bring a better and more peacefull reality into the one we have been forced to accept under threat of force / tazers / CS gas / imprisonment / duress / breach of human rights / violence.... the list could go on and on.

It is a fucked up arguement asky and YOU KNOW it is fucked up, you can't be that dumb to believe all the shite that is given to you by the enforcers out there, please tell me that you don't believe all the ACTs, all the enforcement and all the stealth-tax-collection statute's have any benefit to anyone except the few who create and enforce the status quo.

Where the state forces it's will upon its subjects (which is exactly how the UK corporation is run) then it is clearly evident to anyone with a half brain that the maxim of law purported is a lie.

Asky I am sure that you do indeed have more than half a brain, and I would urge you to put such to use rather than condescending us all with your worthless little asides and then you may be able to offer something much more constructive to the debates here.

Do us all a favour and try waking uop a little before you post - coffee helps ;)

[yozhik]

I would invite all to read the following.

For me, it embodies EVERYTHING being discussed here; sovereignty, contract, fraud, obfuscation, duress, force, 'the system' ... to name but a few ...

It is the history [theft/rape] of New Zealand.
The sovereign Maori, the intrusion and cancerous growth of the 'British Empire', the fraudulent contracts, the reneging, the lies, the nefarious means of distorting 'the system' and the destruction of the original society by the force, terror and trickery ...

With increasing Christian missionary activity, growing European settlement in the 1830s and the perceived lawlessness of Europeans in New Zealand, the British Crown, as a world power, came under pressure to intervene. Ultimately, Whitehall sent William Hobson with instructions to take possession of New Zealand. Before he arrived, Queen Victoria annexed New Zealand by royal proclamation in January 1840. On arrival in February 1840, Hobson negotiated the Treaty of Waitangi with northern chiefs. Other Māori chiefs subsequently signed this treaty. In the end, only 500 chiefs out of the 1500 sub-tribes of New Zealand signed the Treaty, and some influential chiefs — such as Te Wherowhero in Waikato, and Te Kani-a-Takirau from the east coast of the North Island — refused to sign. The Treaty made the Māori British subjects in return for a guarantee of Māori property rights and tribal autonomy.

Dispute continues over whether the Treaty of Waitangi ceded Māori sovereignty. Māori chiefs signed a Māori-language version of the Treaty that did not accurately reflect the English-language version. It appears unlikely that the Māori version of the treaty ceded sovereignty; and the Crown and the missionaries probably did not fully explain the meaning of the English version.

Māori set up substantial businesses, supplying food and other products for domestic and overseas markets.

Among the early European settlers who learnt Māori and recorded Māori mythology, George Grey, Governor of New Zealand 1845-1855 and 1861-1868, stands out.

In the 1860s, disputes over questionable land purchases and the attempts of Māori in the Waikato to establish what some saw as a rival to the British system of royalty led to the New Zealand wars. Although these resulted in relatively few deaths, the colonial government confiscated large tracts of tribal land as punishment for what they called rebellion (although the Crown had initiated the military action against its own citizens), in some cases taking land from tribes that had taken no part in the war.

I see a lot of the FOTL and anti-FOTL in this brief history lesson.

Now, the major disappointment I have with the Maori leaders of the last 20 to 30 years, is when addressing the grievances of the fraud committed by the Crown regarding the Treaty of Waitangi, they have been lured and seduced by the £££ and have settled for compensation in the form of monetary payment for the 'wrongs'.

That, in my mind, is bullshit.

Its not about money.
Its about sovereignty.
The sovereignty that a minority of Maori chiefs never relinquished (500 out of 1500 signatories) and a surrendering of sovereignty that was not agreed to (contract singed in Maori language was not the same as the contract in the English language).

However, by going through the British court system and recognising their jurisdiction, they had to play by their rules, which meant that the subject matter at the heart of the issue - sovereignty - has never been addressed.

The contract - the Treaty of Waitangi - is fraudulent.
It did not have the consent of the majority and there was never a meeting of minds., nor was their full disclosure, making agreement, impossible.
Any way you look at it, the contract is null and void ab initio.

Sovereignty prior to the fraud was in the hands of the Maori; its where it needs be put back.
The Europeans were the lawless settlers; they caused the problems.
It is because of their actions that the 'Crown' was 'urged to intervene'.

PROBLEM -------> REACTION -------> SOLUTION


So many parallels ... and still we haven't learnt.
The examples of how 'the system' works is right on front of our faces, if we just step back and LOOK.

[dharmic one]

What in all the wars that were started and bankrolled by the Rothschilds.
According to the other forums there has never been a war that was based on anything only control of the money.
So if you believe that, everyone who has fought in a war has unknowingly added to the restriction of freedoms not fought for them.

Just a thought

Well if you control the issue of money (nowadays it is credit) you control everything by proxy. Though I do not think the wars were just about controlling money I do agree that the millions who died (though many had no choice due to conscription) did actually facilitate the growth of fascism - not the end of it. Growth of big government and the forwarding of the NWO agenda.

I love how loads of people derided those who even mentioned the NWO as "nutcases" etc, I recently saw a cbs clip of 2 presenters saying this and that now, because you can't feckin see anythin on telly without hearing about it they seemed like they felt a bit guilty because they had joined in the ridicule previously.

I even saw it in 6 foot letters behind a newsnight presenter not long ago.



but for other readers i would like to point out that some people fight wars because they choose to, others because they have a gun in their back...choice to me is a fundamental of freedom.

I can't accept that people actually deep down want to fight in a war. A seeking of justice for crimes against oneself could be a justification but I feel that most men would regret their actions in war. I do not believe that it is a natural state for man. It happens and sometimes I think rightly so.....but I can't see why someone who understood the world and his/her own country could actually choose to fight......

Peace to you folks....

[dharmic one]

Though the P-R-S method varies from country to country the basic princples are the same everywhere.

Haiti is the same. Economic policy co-ordinated by the US for years previously lead to the complete breakdown of agricultural industry in favour of mechanized factory production as they were assured by secretaries of state for the US that it was where the financial future of the country lay. When this corrupt structure collapsed (guess who many of the contracts were awarded to,,,) many millions moved to the cities and built houses on top of each other. Poverty soared as the jobs they were assured of never materialised.

So when a 7.0 earthquake hits they fall like house of cards.

Who's now controlling the airport and managing the "relief" effort? I find it sickening. Classic FM even reported yesterday that the US were facing accusations that they were actually occupying the country......

Same old procedure..............

[yozhik]

Who's now controlling the airport and managing the "relief" effort? I find it sickening. Classic FM even reported yesterday that the US were facing accusations that they were actually occupying the country......


... and there are reports that the oil reserves in Haiti versus Venezuela's oil reserves are like a cask of wine versus a glass ...

Just a coincidence, I guess ...
:rolleyes:

Question:
How do you prop up a failing currency?

Answer:
Control the commodity that the failing currency controls/monopolises trading of.

[h2pogo]

I can't accept that people actually deep down want to fight in a war. A seeking of justice for crimes against oneself could be a justification but I feel that most men would regret their actions in war. I do not believe that it is a natural state for man. It happens and sometimes I think rightly so.....but I can't see why someone who understood the world and his/her own country could actually choose to fight......

Peace to you folks....

off topic but
i would suggest reading George Orwells, homage to Catalonia..i think he understood the world back then..and causes worth fighting for..
the point i was trying to make was about choice and freedom..
people in Europe resisting Nazi occupation were not being bank rolled by the Rothschild..it was their choice to resist..but i am also sure deep down they didnt want to..peace

[raton]

I am in the process of writing up my notice of understanding and intent and claim of rights but have a quick question,i have dual nationality british and italian but i will be dealing with the british side first.At the moment i am in italy but travel a lot but to notarize my claim of intent i thought the british consulate would nave a somebody capable,so i called them and they were more than helpfull but admited they had never done it before and that all they could do is certify my signature.So im wondering....if they are representatives of that corporation they who better that to serve my notice to????

thanks:)

[armoured_amazon]

*subbed* :)

[ipso facto]

I am in the process of writing up my notice of understanding and intent and claim of rights but have a quick question,i have dual nationality british and italian but i will be dealing with the british side first.At the moment i am in italy but travel a lot but to notarize my claim of intent i thought the british consulate would nave a somebody capable,so i called them and they were more than helpfull but admited they had never done it before and that all they could do is certify my signature.So im wondering....if they are representatives of that corporation they who better that to serve my notice to????

thanks:)

I wouldn't waste your time - no one will notarize it :)

[bones]

I wouldn't waste your time - no one will notarize it :)


i wouldnt listen to ipso hes brainwashed.:D

[ipso facto]

i wouldnt listen to ipso hes brainwashed.:D

I wouldn't listen to Bones either, he tried and didn't get anywhere but will tell you differently but my suggestion would be, before you decide to go through with this - seek proper legal advice (a free half hour session should do it), see what you are advised (mind you I guess you can't because they work for 'them') - ok don't bother with that - just go for it, you'll see for yourself it's not going to work and you're only going to make an idiot of yourself. :D

Just ask the members of this forum for PROOF that they have actually managed this process and it is working for them - then just watch them squirm their way out of it.

[bones]

I wouldn't listen to Bones either, he tried and didn't get anywhere but will tell you differently but my suggestion would be, before you decide to go through with this - seek proper legal advice (a free half hour session should do it), see what you are advised (mind you I guess you can't because they work for 'them') - ok don't bother with that - just go for it, you'll see for yourself it's not going to work and you're only going to make an idiot of yourself. :D

Just ask the members of this forum for PROOF that they have actually managed this process and it is working for them - then just watch them squirm their way out of it.

ill conditionally accept your claim ipso on proof that it didnt?

find a rock baby.

[ipso facto]

ill conditionally accept your claim ipso on proof that it didnt?

find a rock baby.

Likewise - I'm not needing the proof, so me proving my claim is immaterial - if you've got it, I'm sure the enquirer would be grateful of some proof as you started the post before he goes making a complete eejit out of himself :)

More to the point - if you DID have proof I think you'd be shouting it from the rooftops so that you could rub it in the face of the non-believers :D Oh well, must try harder :)