The EU and what we could do to help Albert Burgess [Archive]

View Full Version : The EU and what we could do to help Albert Burgess

pleasuredome

08-01-2009, 01:24 PM

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6884017322536911169

i think it would be a great idea to use the NoU&CoR to contract the cheif constable of your county to investigate the crimes of sedition and treason at common law

here's a little something im working on.....

it is my understanding that serious crimes were committed by people who were in Her Majesty’s Government at the time of Prime Minster Edward Heath

and it is my understanding the crimes were: conspiracy to subvert the constitution, the crime of sedition at common law; and a conspiracy to hand the England to a foreign power, the crime of treason at common law.

and it is my understanding that duty of the police is to uphold the laws of England

and it is my understanding failure to uphold the laws of England is serious neglect and dereliction of duty

and it is my understanding that failure to investigate the aforementioned allegation of crimes is a crime of misprison of treason

and it is my understanding also that failure to investigate the aforementioned allegation of crimes would be because of political influence and interference

and it is my understanding that the Oath sworn by every police officer tells them, myself and everyone else that they are obligated to uphold the laws of England, which is what they are paid to do.

and it is my understanding that it is illegal under constitutional law for this country to be in the European Union

and it is my understanding that is illegal for Parliament to surrender any rights to govern to a foreign power unless England had been defeated in a war

and it is my understanding that England has not lost a war since 1066 A.D.

and it is my understanding that ANY person who hinders any police officer or officers from investigating the aforementioned allegation of crimes is committing the crime of perverting the course of justice and also committing the crime of misprison of treason

and it is my understanding that ANY police officer does not have the prerogative to decide whether a crime should or should not be investigated, or whether a law should or should not be upheld

and it is my understanding that any agreement that may have been or may be made between a police force of England and Her Majesty's Government or any other party to not investigate the aforementioned allegation of crimes is a crime of compounding treason

I hereby serve notice and state clearly, specifically and unequivocally that under the law and customs of England, of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has sworn oath to protect, that it is my intent that those who have committed the aforementioned crimes at common law be brought to justice and tried in a court de jure, and that European Communities Act 1972 be struck off the Statute Roll together with every other statute which has been added since that year.

I claim the right to hold you, .........., the chief constable of .......... police force, to account for this investigation

I claim the right to take legal action against you for any neglect of duty that either you or your officers perform in the investigation of the aforementioned crimes.

please feel free to mention anything else that would be good to add :cool:

yozhik

08-01-2009, 01:31 PM

pleasuredome

08-01-2009, 01:37 PM

so is the european union, so is the police force, so is the chief constable. do you reckon i should change united kingdom to england?

*edited to say ive changed it to england

pleasuredome

08-01-2009, 02:10 PM

albert01

09-01-2009, 09:06 PM

I think there might be flaws in this.

My questions and concerns are (but not limited to);

You refer to "United Kingdom", which is a corporation. There is no country by this name. It is a man made fiction.

What are the "laws of England"? Do they exist?

Is "Her Majesty's Government" the government of United Kingdom? Great Britain? England?

Also, check the ramifications of King John's "surrender" to Pope Innocent III in 1213.

Ist let us deal with Johns surrender to the Pope, in 1366 the Pope asked Edward 3rd for the 1000 marks a year promised by John to buy back his Kingdom. Edward spoke to the Bishops the Lords and the Commons who all told him not to pay because John never had the right to surrender England to the Pope and his action in doing so was illegal and uninforcable.

England does have a very old and well thought out set of constitutional laws which protect this country from outside intervention, the government is the government of Great Britain or the United Kingdom if you prefer. We are a United Kingdom not by treaty but by force of arms every part of the United Kingdom apart from England was captured by dint of arms but only because Scotland Wales And Ireland kept giving us trouble so much so that our King had to invade to protect his own subjects from attack, the later treaty agreements just formalised the status quo. Albert

yozhik

09-01-2009, 09:57 PM

Ist let us deal with Johns surrender to the Pope, in 1366 the Pope asked Edward 3rd for the 1000 marks a year promised by John to buy back his Kingdom. Edward spoke to the Bishops the Lords and the Commons who all told him not to pay because John never had the right to surrender England to the Pope and his action in doing so was illegal and uninforcable.

England does have a very old and well thought out set of constitutional laws which protect this country from outside intervention, the government is the government of Great Britain or the United Kingdom if you prefer. We are a United Kingdom not by treaty but by force of arms every part of the United Kingdom apart from England was captured by dint of arms but only because Scotland Wales And Ireland kept giving us trouble so much so that our King had to invade to protect his own subjects from attack, the later treaty agreements just formalised the status quo. Albert

Hi Albert01, and welcome to the forum/discussion.

Firstly, let me state I am not a history scholar, so my knowledge is fairly shallow and untested.

However, I'm not sure I can agree with the points you have raised, but rather than simply trolling and dismissing, let me detail my concerns, so that I can be dismissed as a lunatic and my knowledge debunked by all and sundry. :)

1. My understanding of the 1000 marks per year - and I might be wrong - that were due to the Pope after the gifting of England and Ireland in 1213 is that this was a "fee"; a payment for the use of the Pope's land. I have not seen any mention - and I might be wrong again - of this being a payment to "buy the land back".

2. By your comment, do I take it that no payment of this annual fee was made for 123 years? (1213 to 1336) Given that Lex Mercatoria was well and truly established, hence giving us contract law, by this time and the gift was a valid contract - would this not put the monarch, the bishops and the lords totally and completely in breach of contract; firmly in dishonour? Given also that I have never been able to find any documentation witnessing the ceremonial and factual "giving back" of allodial title to England and Ireland, the only assumption that can be made is it never was. In 1213, King John was the King; he was the land owner ... his Barons et al were assigned King's land, by the King. It was his to dispose of as he saw fit. Had England been invaded and the land taken from the King, the Barons et al could not have complained about it being unfair and thrown a tantrum to the conqueror. The Pope Innocenti had essentially "conquered" England and Ireland, by his actions following John's dismissal of the Papal powers. It was a bloodless coup. Acquisition by conquest - an act the "British Empire" and the East India Company (highly influential corporation on the world stage) became very familiar with in later years! Pope Innocenti III won the war; England and Ireland were his spoils. Whilst the Barons et al may have been "pretty pissed off" that he gave it away, the fact is he could and he did. The Magna Carta in 1215 still addressed the elite at the time in their bestowed titles and they still assumed the status of the privileged. Thus demonstrating that Pope Innocenti III was true to his word; he would hold allodial title, then "lease" it back to King John who would pay an annual fee to hold "property management rights" (fee-simple title), so that he could then conduct his business of being the King.

3. There is great debate re: whether or not England has constitutional laws. Despite my search, I am yet to find any irrefutable evidence that they exist.

4. The legitimacy of the government is highly questionable. It's definition as opposed to it's actions are diametrically opposed. Despite masquerading as a democracy serving the common people, it is a highly functioning feudal system, which increasingly ensnares the serfs into servitude.

5. United Kingdom is a corporation; it is not a country, nor a group of countries. Great Britain possibly comes under the same heading. No man, woman or their offspring is of a corporation. The EU too, is a corporation. The absorption of the UK Corporation into the EU Corporation would best be viewed as a company merger, rather than a national act of treason. The treason - if any - was committed centuries ago.

6. Attacking a sovereign country to protect his own subjects?? Sounds incredibly familiar. :D ... the King didn't happen to also decree ... "they're either with us, or with the terrorists", did he?

pleasuredome

15-01-2009, 03:03 PM

hi Albert, and welcome to the forum.

i have today sent my notice to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary. the notice is slightly revised to the one i had previously posted. i will keep the forum informed of any developments.

once i have agreement from the CC, either directly or implied, i will then report the crimes with the preliminary evidence at my local police station.

pleasuredome

18-01-2009, 11:53 PM

hmmm, it seems the chief constable of leicestershire prefers not to use his legal name. "Matt Baggott" is actually Mathew David Baggott, but you wont find that on the leicestershire constabulary website (http://www.leics.police.uk/about/4_our_people/3_chief_constable/). it seems wikipedia has its uses afterall. looks like our "Matt" is going to recieve a new notice with his legal name on it in the next 2 days.

there seems to be minority of chief constables who arent using their legal name too. only west midlands police have their offices names in all capital letters on their site

broccoligarden

12-03-2009, 01:33 PM

pleasuredome

12-03-2009, 09:26 PM

Hey there, only just found this thread, i posted a thread regarding the EU today.
This is great, how have you got on with this? do you have any more news?
:)

i've personally put this on hold due to what i now know about the nature of the UK and the EU, according to MY situation and understanding. it doesnt mean that ive dropped the matter though.

my best advice is to go through the process that Albert explains. make damn sure that the police give you a serious crime book number. they will try their level best not to, but stick to your guns because it is you who has the authority not them.

ask them do they have an oath, and put them on it. if you dont know what their oath is, look it up and realise the implications of it.

serve notice on them if you have to. if you dont know how to make a notice start learning. dont just copy mine, but it will help you understand what to put.

pass the information around to people you know, and tell them that they can do this too and that it isnt that difficult to do.

remember the police are scared of this stuff. you have the power.

the worm that turned

14-08-2009, 11:24 AM

where are we with this?

Is albert still a member on this forum?

I remain intrigued about this entire "sedition"/"treason" accusation and would love to hear more on how it is progressing.

How can the worm help?

albert01

05-02-2010, 01:33 PM

Hi Albert01, and welcome to the forum/discussion.

Firstly, let me state I am not a history scholar, so my knowledge is fairly shallow and untested.

However, I'm not sure I can agree with the points you have raised, but rather than simply trolling and dismissing, let me detail my concerns, so that I can be dismissed as a lunatic and my knowledge debunked by all and sundry. :)

1. My understanding of the 1000 marks per year - and I might be wrong - that were due to the Pope after the gifting of England and Ireland in 1213 is that this was a "fee"; a payment for the use of the Pope's land. I have not seen any mention - and I might be wrong again - of this being a payment to "buy the land back".

2. By your comment, do I take it that no payment of this annual fee was made for 123 years? (1213 to 1336) Given that Lex Mercatoria was well and truly established, hence giving us contract law, by this time and the gift was a valid contract - would this not put the monarch, the bishops and the lords totally and completely in breach of contract; firmly in dishonour? Given also that I have never been able to find any documentation witnessing the ceremonial and factual "giving back" of allodial title to England and Ireland, the only assumption that can be made is it never was. In 1213, King John was the King; he was the land owner ... his Barons et al were assigned King's land, by the King. It was his to dispose of as he saw fit. Had England been invaded and the land taken from the King, the Barons et al could not have complained about it being unfair and thrown a tantrum to the conqueror. The Pope Innocenti had essentially "conquered" England and Ireland, by his actions following John's dismissal of the Papal powers. It was a bloodless coup. Acquisition by conquest - an act the "British Empire" and the East India Company (highly influential corporation on the world stage) became very familiar with in later years! Pope Innocenti III won the war; England and Ireland were his spoils. Whilst the Barons et al may have been "pretty pissed off" that he gave it away, the fact is he could and he did. The Magna Carta in 1215 still addressed the elite at the time in their bestowed titles and they still assumed the status of the privileged. Thus demonstrating that Pope Innocenti III was true to his word; he would hold allodial title, then "lease" it back to King John who would pay an annual fee to hold "property management rights" (fee-simple title), so that he could then conduct his business of being the King.

3. There is great debate re: whether or not England has constitutional laws. Despite my search, I am yet to find any irrefutable evidence that they exist.

4. The legitimacy of the government is highly questionable. It's definition as opposed to it's actions are diametrically opposed. Despite masquerading as a democracy serving the common people, it is a highly functioning feudal system, which increasingly ensnares the serfs into servitude.

5. United Kingdom is a corporation; it is not a country, nor a group of countries. Great Britain possibly comes under the same heading. No man, woman or their offspring is of a corporation. The EU too, is a corporation. The absorption of the UK Corporation into the EU Corporation would best be viewed as a company merger, rather than a national act of treason. The treason - if any - was committed centuries ago.

6. Attacking a sovereign country to protect his own subjects?? Sounds incredibly familiar. :D ... the King didn't happen to also decree ... "they're either with us, or with the terrorists", did he?

England has never belonged to the King it belongs to the people who elect our Kings, the rule is and always has been that the Crown stays with the holder even if some one else has a better claim.

I do not know how long the 1000 marks was not paid only that Edward 3rd was asked for the monies claimed by the Pope, and that after considering the matter the Bishops, Lords, and Commons were all in agreement that England was not Johns he only held it in trust for those who followed on.

I am very sorry but I do not believe in the corporation concept, and I firmly believe the idea of honour and dishonour in the way mentioned is I believe pure unadulterated bilge. What I do know is that England is ruled by the law not parliament and not the King in parliament, Hentry DeBracton ruled the King is beneath no man but he is beneath God and he rules England as Gods Lt and according to Gods Laws, and he is beneath the law for it is by the law that he becomes King

The written part of the English Constitution comprises of Magna Charta 1215, the Petition of Right 1628, the Bill of Rights 1689, and the Act of Succesion 1701. We also have the Charta of Liberty's of Henry 1st 1190 The legal Codes of Alfred on which our entire legal system is based and which was issued as the Dome the first book of constitutional law for the English.

After the ruling from 1366 Edward 3rd it is clear that Her Majesty only holds Sovereignty in trust for those who follow on and as such cannot by the law of England surrender that sovereignty to anyone or anything else, the claim made by parliament i.e. the Commons that they are sovereign is nonsence and a clear act of treason.

I am sorry for the time taken to reply but I seldom vissit this site. Albert

micklemus

05-02-2010, 02:23 PM

England has never belonged to the King it belongs to the people who elect our Kings, the rule is and always has been that the Crown stays with the holder even if some one else has a better claim.

I do not know how long the 1000 marks was not paid only that Edward 3rd was asked for the monies claimed by the Pope, and that after considering the matter the Bishops, Lords, and Commons were all in agreement that England was not Johns he only held it in trust for those who followed on.

I am very sorry but I do not believe in the corporation concept, and I firmly believe the idea of honour and dishonour in the way mentioned is I believe pure unadulterated bilge. What I do know is that England is ruled by the law not parliament and not the King in parliament, Hentry DeBracton ruled the King is beneath no man but he is beneath God and he rules England as Gods Lt and according to Gods Laws, and he is beneath the law for it is by the law that he becomes King

The written part of the English Constitution comprises of Magna Charta 1215, the Petition of Right 1628, the Bill of Rights 1689, and the Act of Succesion 1701. We also have the Charta of Liberty's of Henry 1st 1190 The legal Codes of Alfred on which our entire legal system is based and which was issued as the Dome the first book of constitutional law for the English.

After the ruling from 1366 Edward 3rd it is clear that Her Majesty only holds Sovereignty in trust for those who follow on and as such cannot by the law of England surrender that sovereignty to anyone or anything else, the claim made by parliament i.e. the Commons that they are sovereign is nonsence and a clear act of treason.

I am sorry for the time taken to reply but I seldom vissit this site. Albert

I'm largely of that point of view too. Definitely agreed with your conclusion about treason. I think the Queen being complicit brings her into play on that point too.

the worm that turned

05-02-2010, 06:50 PM

So what can really be done about it (it being the EU sell out)?

mark1963

05-02-2010, 07:09 PM

This is a small point, but, could you not just call the United Kingdom the "United Kingdom the lands/sod"?

micklemus

05-02-2010, 07:21 PM

So what can really be done about it (it being the EU sell out)?

I'm not a ciminal lawyer, but I would think a private prosecution - each and every prime minister involved the process (and Major, Blair and Brown in particular) and Queenie.

yozhik

05-02-2010, 07:39 PM

I'm not a ciminal lawyer, but I would think a private prosecution - each and every prime minister involved the process (and Major, Blair and Brown in particular) and Queenie.

Which is exactly what Albert has advocated.
There are a few videos online on this topic.
I remember a campaign being established, whereby official complaints were made in various police stations, dotted around the country.

if the police station staff take it upon themselves not to act and not to investigate, they become {I believe] complicit in the crime of sedition [? ... is that correct].

Been a while since visiting this topic and this thread.
To be honest ... can't even recognise that post as mine :confused:

Oh how time and research flies by ...

micklemus

05-02-2010, 07:42 PM

Which is exactly what Albert has advocated.
There are a few videos online on this topic.
I remember a campaign being established, whereby official complaints were made in various police stations, dotted around the country.

if the police station staff take it upon themselves not to act and not to investigate, they become {I believe] complicit in the crime of sedition [? ... is that correct].

Been a while since visiting this topic and this thread.
To be honest ... can't even recognise that post as mine :confused:

Oh how time and research flies by ...

Yes, I picked up on that movement too. One now needs to find a criminal lawyer who is able/prepared to start drawing the strands together. Forget the police, it won't get beyond the front desk.

Is there a criminal lawyer within these ranks? Does anyone know one who might be interested?

yozhik

05-02-2010, 07:59 PM

I'm not a ciminal lawyer, but I would think a private prosecution - each and every prime minister involved the process (and Major, Blair and Brown in particular) and Queenie.

My question is a simple one ...

IF ... the politicians are guilty ... and
IF ... The Queen is guilty ... and
IF ... the Courts are the Queen's and take an oath to her first, the law second ... and
IF ... the policy enforcers are complicit and unwilling to fulfil their duties

THEN ... who the hell is going to bring justice?

the worm that turned

05-02-2010, 08:06 PM

My question is a simple one ...

IF ... the politicians are guilty ... and
IF ... The Queen is guilty ... and
IF ... the Courts are the Queen's and take an oath to her first, the law second ... and
IF ... the policy enforcers are complicit and unwilling to fulfil their duties

THEN ... who the hell is going to bring justice?

Casey Ribeck

the worm that turned

05-02-2010, 08:09 PM

In all seriousness Asky, Number 6 and Lightindarkness seem to have all the answers and the latter has a degree in law. Borrow one of Shayler's wigs and Icke's bible to swear on and we're away

shinobi

06-02-2010, 11:05 PM

So, they locked you up for some petty shit they were upset about, but they won't prosecute treason?:eek:

Aren't they in breach of their oath of office, which says they will do their duty "without fear or favour" ?

Maybe you could add that into the complaint?

yozhik

07-02-2010, 12:49 PM

England has never belonged to the King it belongs to the people who elect our Kings

[...]

England was not Johns he only held it in trust for those who followed on.

[...]

England is ruled by the law not parliament and not the King in parliament, Henry DeBracton ruled the King is beneath no man but he is beneath God and he rules England as Gods Lt and according to Gods Laws, and he is beneath the law for it is by the law that he becomes King

We also have the Charta of Liberty's of Henry 1st 1190 The legal Codes of Alfred on which our entire legal system is based and which was issued as the Dome the first book of constitutional law for the English.

Her Majesty only holds Sovereignty in trust for those who follow on and as such cannot by the law of England surrender that sovereignty to anyone or anything else, the claim made by parliament i.e. the Commons that they are sovereign is nonsense and a clear act of treason.

All very interesting points ... they demand further examination.
:)

A very brief journey into the bowels of ... <cough> ... Wiki ... show just how important some comprehension of The Dome / The Doom might be;
The Doom Book, Code of Alfred or Legal Code of Aelfred the Great was the code of laws ("dooms", laws or judgments) compiled by Alfred the Great (c. 893 AD) from three prior Saxon codes, to which he prefixed the Ten Commandments of Moses and incorporated rules of life from the Mosaic Code and the Christian code of ethics.

The title "Doom book" (originally "dom-boc" or "dom-boke") comes from dōm (pronounced "dome") which is the Anglo-Saxon word meaning "judgment" or "law" — for instance, see Alfred's admonishment: Doom very evenly! Do not doom one doom to the rich; another to the poor! Nor doom one doom to your friend; another to your foe! The following reflects Mosaic Law: "You shall do no injustice in judgment! You shall not be partial to the poor; nor defer to the great! But you are to judge your neighbour fairly!" (Leviticus 19:15).

F. N. Lee extensively documents Alfred the Great's work of collecting the law codes from the three Christian Saxon kingdoms and compiling them into his Doom Book. Lee details how Alfred incorporated the principles of the Mosaic law into his Code. He then examines how this Code of Alfred became the foundation for the Common Law. The three previous codes were those of Æthelberht of Kent (c. 602 AD), Ine of Wessex (c. 694 AD) and Offa of Mercia (c. 786 AD).

girlgye

07-02-2010, 01:13 PM

yozhik

07-02-2010, 01:18 PM

The Ramifications of King Johns Surrender to the Pope are it wasn't his to give.

What if a Trustee simply surrenders/resigns and transfers the role of Trustee, rather than 'gives' that which is entrusted?

girlgye

07-02-2010, 01:19 PM

Sorry but who is Albert Burgess? Why I'm I writing to my Chief Con (as if the 3rd and final Chief - hopefully hasn't had enough of me as it is):confused:

yozhik

07-02-2010, 01:22 PM

Sorry but who is Albert Burgess? Why I'm I writing to my Chief Con (as if the 3rd and final Chief - hopefully hasn't had enough of me as it is):confused:

Search for the free videos online :)

Here is a LIST TO START YOUR QUEST (http://video.google.ru/videosearch?q=albert%20burgess&oe=utf-8&rls=com.ubuntu:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#)

girlgye

07-02-2010, 01:22 PM

Well I've had this out with David Merrill and like him you have no proof of what you claim. You merely present an era in history whereby he surrendered to the Pope John and forced English to pay the Pope taxes.

It was wrested back of the Pope in 1215 and all succession of any form from the Vatican began in the Tudor reign.

I'm liking how spooks adopt this Trust law to explain everything away. Very funny indeed. As we know we can set up implied or hidden Trusts but I don't believe that area of law was around for a start of in medieaval England no.1 and no.2 it makes even more likely lets just say you insist that your point is right that it was and IS an unconscionable contract.

yozhik

07-02-2010, 01:38 PM

yozhik

07-02-2010, 01:43 PM

I'm liking how spooks adopt this Trust law to explain everything away. Very funny indeed. As we know we can set up implied or hidden Trusts but I don't believe that area of law was around for a start of in medieaval England

A very quick search gives us this;

The waqf in Islamic law, which developed in the medieval Islamic world from the 7th to 9th centuries, bears a notable resemblance to the English trust. Every waqf was required to have a waqif (founder), mutawillis (trustee), qadi (judge) and beneficiaries. Under both a waqf and a trust, "property is reserved, and its usufruct appropriated, for the benefit of specific individuals, or for a general charitable purpose; the corpus becomes inalienable; estates for life in favor of successive beneficiaries can be created" and "without regard to the law of inheritance or the rights of the heirs; and continuity is secured by the successive appointment of trustees or mutawillis."

The only significant distinction between the Islamic waqf and English trust was "the express or implied reversion of the waqf to charitable purposes when its specific object has ceased to exist", though this difference only applied to the waqf ahli (Islamic family trust) rather than the waqf khairi (devoted to a charitable purpose from its inception). Another difference was the English vesting of "legal estate" over the trust property in the trustee, though the "trustee was still bound to administer that property for the benefit of the beneficiaries." In this sense, the "role of the English trustee therefore does not differ significantly from that of the mutawalli."

The trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries. The trust was introduced by Crusaders who may have been influenced by the waqf institutions they came across in the Middle East.

girlgye

07-02-2010, 01:45 PM

Ah ya.

Look no further than where propagandists like to posit their crap.

Wikipedia.

girlgye

07-02-2010, 01:46 PM

the give away is the alienable. Just cracks me up. :D

girlgye

07-02-2010, 01:50 PM

I have a few questions;

So, what, exactly, is my 'claim' you elude to?
How and what was 'wrested back of the Pope in 1215'?
By mentioning 'Trust Law' it throws someone into the pool of spooks?

I don't comprehend your post; its logic, nor its intent.
Sorry.

Actually it seems to me that a manuscript written at the time in the British Library and which you read on the British Library is of no proof to you. Probably we needed to have kept John alive in Cryogenic chamber since horses mouth proof is all you seem to accept.

You don't seem to accept Acts of Parliament clearly denoting the invention of the strawman and dubiously claiming any child in this country to be dead at sea if not claimed by the age of 7 as no basis for the strawman argument either.

Thats my logic.
Your logic is going as far as wikepedia.

yozhik

07-02-2010, 01:50 PM

Ah ya.

Look no further than where propagandists like to posit their crap.

Wikipedia.

So you're refuting it with ... what exactly?

I have never held Wiki up as anything other than an initial source to act as a launchpad for further investigation.
However, the information it suggests is somewhat relevant and does act as a catalyst for further digging, does it not?

Please - if you can provide substantiated proof of anything that differs from this initial info - feel free to provide it.
Seriously ... I'm not married to the concept and am hungry to expand my knowledge; give me something more credible that rebuts Wiki's entry.

girlgye

07-02-2010, 01:55 PM

I may just like I may when a troll demands that I serve up proof to them. Yeh when you serve up some hard evidence yourself.

They never serve up jackshit proof of eff all and a remark in wikipedia that hey ho just happens to contain a collection of words that the AntiTerrorist has put out on his Court vids as well as the fact that Judges are now vacously hiding behind Trust law as well as a certain cop on here. Does not cut it with me.

Those Courts are Admiralty Courts and even if I come into a court as the the Trustee who must pay the benefactor it makes not one JOT of difference to the fact that they are dealing with a fiction and thus an unconcsionable contract whether you can find the information or not does not mean it is not there. Nor that it is not true.

Like I say go back through posts here instead of propaganda on wikipedia. It's not like you even have to try too hard is it?

yozhik

07-02-2010, 02:10 PM

Actually it seems to me that a manuscript written at the time in the British Library and which you read on the British Library is of no proof to you. Probably we needed to have kept John alive in Cryogenic chamber since horses mouth proof is all you seem to accept.

You don't seem to accept Acts of Parliament clearly denoting the invention of the strawman and dubiously claiming any child in this country to be dead at sea if not claimed by the age of 7 as no basis for the strawman argument either.

Thats my logic.
Your logic is going as far as wikepedia.

Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed today?

By;
"Acts of Parliament clearly denoting the invention of the strawman and dubiously claiming any child in this country to be dead at sea if not claimed by the age of 7"

... one can only assume you're referring to the much mentioned, seldom analysed, Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, yes?

Please ... again ... if you superior knowledge - share it.
Where/how does it invent the strawman and claim all children as being lost at sea?

I'd be happy as a pig in shit if it has been codified and legislated ... as would many exploring the FOTL ideology.

girlgye

07-02-2010, 02:13 PM

ooops I think I got on the wrong side of a post today. All that mixing up me topics Yozza seems to have got me posting on the wrong one.

I'll just go see if I can 'take it out'.

girlgye

07-02-2010, 02:14 PM

Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed today?

By;
"Acts of Parliament clearly denoting the invention of the strawman and dubiously claiming any child in this country to be dead at sea if not claimed by the age of 7"

... one can only assume you're referring to the much mentioned, seldom analysed, Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, yes?

Please ... again ... if you superior knowledge - share it.
Where/how does it invent the strawman and claim all children as being lost at sea?

I'd be happy as a pig in shit if it has been codified and legislated ... as would many exploring the FOTL ideology.

As would many exploring the Freeman technology?
Why would the Strawman argument and argument for and by redemptionists affect anyone who wants to work within the confines of the Constitution?

girlgye

07-02-2010, 02:15 PM

ho and as for MY superior knowledge where is yours matey. The one that says that it's all alot of tosh. That'd be nice code for starters.

shinobi

08-02-2010, 09:49 AM

One now needs to find a criminal lawyer who is able/prepared to start drawing the strands together. Forget the police, it won't get beyond the front desk.

Criminal lawyer - good if you can get one.

The officer on the front desk commits the crime of misprision of treason and is therefore implicated. It then goes up the ranks, adding each refusing officer into the charge. Then we complain en masse to the IPCC, as well as trying to force police forces to investigate each other for misprision/compounding treason.

Lots of people doing this is what will get us the results.

yozhik

08-02-2010, 10:06 AM

ho and as for MY superior knowledge where is yours matey. The one that says that it's all alot of tosh. That'd be nice code for starters.

Huh?

:confused:

I've already, repeatedly and clearly stated re: 'my superior knowledge' ... I don't have any.
Not sure how much clearer I can state that, but I'll try, for your benefit;

I do not have superior knowledge.

Satisfied?
Clear enough?

What have I said is 'tosh'?
Or are you eluding to the fact that before embracing something as 'the truth' I personally require more than hearsay, assumption, presumption, opinion and unsubstantiated connect-the-dots hypotheses?

Here's a little insight for you; it's not going to change.

I will ALWAYS demand proof, until the day I die.
Similarly, I will always question and maintain a right to be healthily cynical.
I see many, MANY merits in the FOTL ideology; a lot more than I do the current system.

However, I am not so blinded in the romance of the ideology to see it also has fatal flaws in its establishment of hard facts.
That's what my research is focused on; finding hard facts ... not more romance to cling to.
If I wanted romance, I'd read Mills and Boon ... not blindly follow the masochistic path of embracing the FOTL ideology with nothing more than blind faith.

I would rather my attraction to the FOTL ideology was also grounded in FOTL facts.
As, I am guessing, would many others.

micklemus

09-02-2010, 02:08 PM

Huh?

:confused:

I've already, repeatedly and clearly stated re: 'my superior knowledge' ... I don't have any.
Not sure how much clearer I can state that, but I'll try, for your benefit;

I do not have superior knowledge.

Satisfied?
Clear enough?

What have I said is 'tosh'?
Or are you eluding to the fact that before embracing something as 'the truth' I personally require more than hearsay, assumption, presumption, opinion and unsubstantiated connect-the-dots hypotheses?

Here's a little insight for you; it's not going to change.

I will ALWAYS demand proof, until the day I die.
Similarly, I will always question and maintain a right to be healthily cynical.
I see many, MANY merits in the FOTL ideology; a lot more than I do the current system.

However, I am not so blinded in the romance of the ideology to see it also has fatal flaws in its establishment of hard facts.
That's what my research is focused on; finding hard facts ... not more romance to cling to.
If I wanted romance, I'd read Mills and Boon ... not blindly follow the masochistic path of embracing the FOTL ideology with nothing more than blind faith.

I would rather my attraction to the FOTL ideology was also grounded in FOTL facts.
As, I am guessing, would many others.

Very well said

Is there a criminal lawyer within these ranks? Does anyone know one who might be interested? As per my previous questions.

yozhik

09-02-2010, 02:14 PM

Very well said

Is there a criminal lawyer within these ranks? Does anyone know one who might be interested? As per my previous questions.

Some would be so bold as to suggest all lawyers, are criminal :D

micklemus

09-02-2010, 02:19 PM

Some would be so bold as to suggest all lawyers, are criminal :D

They might indeed. O bugger, I'm shouting in a vaccuum!

:D

Maybe someday someone will pick up on those questions and the related points. Alternatively someone might try and take this thread on some unintelligible tangents. I live in hope on the former, expectation of the latter.

This is one subject matter that I think many of us could get our teeth into though.

signalnorth

09-02-2010, 02:40 PM

You don't seem to accept Acts of Parliament clearly denoting the invention of the strawman and dubiously claiming any child in this country to be dead at sea if not claimed by the age of 7 as no basis for the strawman argument either.

.

If you can show us this Act then I really think you should.

signalnorth

09-02-2010, 02:42 PM

Criminal lawyer - good if you can get one.

The officer on the front desk commits the crime of misprision of treason and is therefore implicated. It then goes up the ranks, adding each refusing officer into the charge. Then we complain en masse to the IPCC, as well as trying to force police forces to investigate each other for misprision/compounding treason.

Lots of people doing this is what will get us the results.

The only way to proceed really

yozhik

09-02-2010, 03:10 PM

If you can show us this Act then I really think you should.

I'm fairly certain the one being referred to is the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 (c.11)

asky

09-02-2010, 10:20 PM

Ah.... the one about peoples estates being shared out after they have been missing at sea for seven years.

:D

asky

shinobi

12-02-2010, 10:51 PM

Ah.... the one about peoples estates being shared out after they have been missing at sea for seven years.

:D

asky

Close - but not quite. It's if they've gone abroad (beyond the sea) or even remained in England but have not been heard from for 7 years. Then their heirs inherit. Their death (or not) would have been impossible to prove at that time, hence the reason for the act.

"cestui que vie" is someone upon whose life something depends.

If the "travelling landlord" had allowed someone to live on his land for the rest of his (the landlord's) life, the tenant would have been kicked out after 7 years if the landlord had not been heard from in that time.