consideration and lawful signiture in scotland

[sindakit]

Quick qestion regarding some stuff i seen on dealing with contemp of court from fmotl.com with regards to Scottish Law. for those that haven't seen this site, i'll show below.

Contempt of Court

Whatever you try to do you are likely to be threatened with Contempt of Court. There is even the story of someone who had said nothing at all and was threatened as "I told you to remain silent! If you persist you will be in Contempt of Court". That indicates how desperate the sharks can get.

The appropriate response to such a threat is "Would that be Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt?". The result will be a long pause. (A Bench may even retire to consider). Do not say anything at all until an answer is given.

If, eventually, the answer is "Criminal", then the appropriate response is "Who makes the CLAIM, what is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?".

Then wait again, saying nothing else. There is no answer to that one. The Recorder on the Bench, or the Judge, might make the CLAIM, but the remainder of the question is fundamentally unanswerable.

They may say (in the United Kingdom, for example) "The Crown", or "The Ministry of Justice", or whatever. This is rant. The response is "You know only a HUMAN can make a CLAIM, so where is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?"

If, on the other hand, the answer is "Civil", then the appropriate response is "Where is the CONTRACT between myself and yourselves? I do not agree to any CONTRACT. I would not agree to any CONTRACT between myself and yourselves for many reasons, not least of which you have not provided FULL DISCLOSURE, you have not offered any CONSIDERATION, and have shown no intent to provide a LAWFUL SIGNATURE as a party to one"

('Consideration' in this context, means 'something of value', for example an amount of money, or an object of value)

At this point you have them acting CRIMINALLY outside any lawful jurisdiction, and outside of IMMUNITY in their own courtroom. It is only lawful for HUMANS to make a contract, so a 'court' has no power to do that, because a 'court' is not a human being. Sure, an 'officer' could sign on behalf of the 'court', but they would NEVER do that because they know the ramifications of the LIABILITY that would entail. There will NEVER be 'Full Disclosure' (quite the opposite!) and they have nothing of value to offer.

When you say "I don't agree to the terms of the contract" the Bench will know they do not have a contract with you, and if you have committed no crime they have no authority to arrest you or even be conducting the hearing - they are OUT of their lawful jurisdiction and OUT of their IMMUNITY

The result will be a long bout of silence from the Bench or any Judge.

My post is relating to Scotland btw. In Scottish Law consideration and a Lawful signature are not needed from what i've seen from certain acts (i'll try to find the exact act and edit it in). Thus asking for these would be a useless defence.
Now I may have got all confuzzled in all this and have some crossed wires but is the above passage refering to common law irrespective of country boundries, that you claim to be under once you have served a NOUCOR or as a standard even without declaring freeman staus?

If it's the latter then i suppose it's only applicable to english law, but is there a scottish alternative?

Thanks

[sindakit]

ok rather than edit in i'll post some info here

Contract
Main article: Scots contract law
Contract is created by bilateral agreement and is distinguished from unilateral promise, the latter being recognised as a distinct and enforceable species of obligation in Scots Law. The English requirement for consideration does not apply in Scotland, so it is possible to have a gratuitous contract, i.e. a contract where only one of the parties comes under any duties to the other (e.g. a contract to perform services for no consideration).

Note however that not all declarations made by a person to another person will amount to a promise that is enforceable under Scots law. In particular, a declaration of intention, a testamentary provision and an offer will not be a promise.

At common law, a promise had to be proved by writ or oath. However, after the introduction of the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995, a promise need only be evidenced in writing for:

• the creation, transfer, variation or extinction of an interest in land (s 1(2) (a)(i) of Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995); and

• a gratuitous unilateral obligation except an obligation undertaken in the course of business (s 1(2) (a)(ii) of Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995.) [Note that this section has caused great debate amongst academics as to the meanings of "unilateral" and "gratuitous". Some believe that the inclusion of the two terms in this section points to a desire of the drafters that they be given different meanings. This would allow some promises to be unilateral but not gratuitous. This argument was particularly discussed by both Martin Hogg (Edinburgh University) and Joe Thomson (Glasgow University) in articles for the Scots Law Times (News) in 1998 and 1997 respectively. See also "Contract Law in Scotland", by MacQueen and Thomson (3rd edition, 2007), and "Obligations" by Martin Hogg (2nd edition, 2006).

thats what give rise to my question :D

[saul]

Note however that not all declarations made by a person to another person will amount to a promise that is enforceable under Scots law. In particular, a declaration of intention, a testamentary provision and an offer will not be a promise.

You are not a person, you have a person, thus then can only act against this legal fiction.

At common law, a promise had to be proved by writ or oath. However, after the introduction of the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995, a promise need only be evidenced in writing for:

An Act/Statue in any common law country is not law, if you are bound by an act/statue then abide by it, if not, ignore the act, it has no jurisdiction over you.

Never be in dishonour and be sure to always ask questions, a master asks and a servant answers.

[sindakit]

yeh i guess i was just confused. i'm reading so much i sometimes miss the key words.

So do I need to declare myself a freeman via NOUCOR or can I just begin to act like one because I realise that, by the very nature of it, I was born free.
I don't want to send a NOUCOR off just yet cause I want to cover other areas, particularly relating to Scottish law documents, such as the declaration of rights 1689 and other founding documents.

[saul]

yeh i guess i was just confused. i'm reading so much i sometimes miss the key words.

We have all done that at times, we need to remember that it is all an illusion.

Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921]

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

Edward Mandell House founded the Council on Foreign Relations.

So do I need to declare myself a freeman via NOUCOR or can I just begin to act like one because I realise that, by the very nature of it, I was born free.
I don't want to send a NOUCOR off just yet cause I want to cover other areas, particularly relating to Scottish law documents, such as the declaration of rights 1689 and other founding documents.

When doing you`re NOUCOR make sure you understand what you are saying, i recommend you have a look at this website.
http://www.freemanhighland.co.uk/

He lives in Scotland and has done his NOUCOR.

[sindakit]

thanks for that info.

I've had a look at that site before, which is good but he does use the Magna carta in his NOUCOR but that is only an applicable to England, as it is an english legal charter. So i was unsure of what the scottish equivalent would be or if that could be used now because of the UK union.