Q: What if you're charged with a common law crime?

[free2beme]

I had wondered this for a long time and am just posting it now.

We are experimenting with things that aren't common law. Some seem to have success, perhaps because of something other than what we think is happening i.e. the Freeman route, and many seem to be going nowhere.

However, what if you're charged under common law?

Do the courts have juridsiction over you even though they are/may be de facto courts?

Why do we not have de jure courts? Is the Old Bailey a de jure court? Is it because we have no real government?

What is the implication of this? and what happens if you try the Freeman route on a common law crime such as Fraud/Misrepresentation of facts?

[rosix]

I had wondered this for a long time and am just posting it now.

We are experimenting with things that aren't common law. Some seem to have success, perhaps because of something other than what we think is happening i.e. the Freeman route, and many seem to be going nowhere.

However, what if you're charged under common law?

Do the courts have juridsiction over you even though they are/may be de facto courts?

Why do we not have de jure courts? Is the Old Bailey a de jure court? Is it because we have no real government?

What is the implication of this? and what happens if you try the Freeman route on a common law crime such as Fraud/Misrepresentation of facts?

if you're charged with a crime under common law then you've done damage/injury to a human being's self and/or property. What Freeman route is there for that lol?

[tien an]

if you're charged with a crime under common law then you've done damage/injury to a human being's self and/or property. What Freeman route is there for that lol?

No laughing matter: You stand there and take your punishment like a man/woman, content in the knowledge that the same would happen to anyone doing the same to you.
There are always mitigating circumstances, others to give you a character reference.
In the suggested scenario, everyone is a human being.

The thing is, if you know how to present yourself in court, you may be able to literally get away with murder. (under the present 'legal' system of commercial, corporate entities).

tian an.

[deem]

If you've been charged under common law then you must have caused harm or loss to a living soul and not just a corporation, and should defend yourself in accordance as to whether you did it or not, and bear the consequenses. Freemen object to being treated as a corporation in a Admiralty court of law where there is no justice, just revenue to be collected.:D

[rosix]

No laughing matter: You stand there and take your punishment like a man/woman, content in the knowledge that the same would happen to anyone doing the same to you.
There are always mitigating circumstances, others to give you a character reference.
In the suggested scenario, everyone is a human being.

The thing is, if you know how to present yourself in court, you may be able to literally get away with murder. (under the present 'legal' system of commercial, corporate entities).

tian an.

the lol was to highlight the ludicrous premise of the question asked in the OP

[kenw232]

This is interesting. Its an awesome subject. From what I understand and would like someone to verify is there are no common law courts in north america anymore. and have not been for like a 100 years (since the 1933 bankruptcy). therefor there are no lawful courts or judges to pass judgement over you.

There are plenty of Admiralty courts with "court administrators" that want you to think they're judges but they're not.

So you can commit ANY crime and get away with it. For exampme drugs are restricted under a statute so its Admiralty so they don't apply under common law. Murder would be both, but if there is no common law court (de jure court???) then your case cannot be heard.

Now the "people of the land" can form a common law court and should. I think.

This is how the government nazi's handle a "license to kill". Its not just a James Bond movie. With that license your "exempt" from being charged under Admiralty. And since there is no common law court your free to walk.

Now, higher up the ladder is Natural Law, which is a different story again. For example "an eye for an eye" - Exodus 21:23–27. Or "Thou shall not Kill". Meaning you will pay one way or another.

Any comments?

[free2beme]

thank you for the reply kenw232 and to all who thought about it.

perhaps the people will need to form a de jure court in order for those who have committed war and conspiracy crimes to be stopped from doing any more harm.

if after the bankruptcy there are no lawful courts to pass lawful judgment in north america, then would there be a reason why this would not apply to any country in bankruptcy?

also, what other effects would apply to a country in bankruptcy other than no lawful courts?

[tien an]

the lol was to highlight the ludicrous premise of the question asked in the OP

No problem; sometimes the way I express myself makes it look/sound like I've got my head stuck up my a**e, but it's not the case.


tian an.

[yozhik]

The thing is, if you know how to present yourself in court, you may be able to literally get away with murder.

The penal sum for murder - last article I read - was USD$4,000,000.
Settle the account; no jail time required.

[yozhik]

thank you for the reply kenw232 and to all who thought about it.

perhaps the people will need to form a de jure court in order for those who have committed war and conspiracy crimes to be stopped from doing any more harm.

if after the bankruptcy there are no lawful courts to pass lawful judgment in north america, then would there be a reason why this would not apply to any country in bankruptcy?

also, what other effects would apply to a country in bankruptcy other than no lawful courts?

Why would being in bankruptcy abolish common law courts?
I don't comprehend the logic.
How are the two mutually exclusive?


EDIT
If you have the time and the patience, the following link will take you to an online version of "St. Germaine; The Doctor and Student (1513)".
It is regarded by many as the first serious analysis of Common Law verus Canon Law.
Was treated at the time as the primary textbook for students of law and will explain the early thinkings, when man's law was waxing whilst the church's influence was waning.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/stgermain/index.html

[bones]

a buddy of mine was attacked at his own car for parking infront of a garage.

he was kicked in ribs and had hospital treatment for head injury too.

police arrived 3 days later and was charged with assault(common law crime)

the guy was sent to court and got 180 hrs community service and cost of 280 quid.

the injured party recieved nothing... so he was charged with common law crime only to be dealt with using admiralty court for making cash!!!

[yozhik]

a buddy of mine was attacked at his own car for parking infront of a garage.

he was kicked in ribs and had hospital treatment for head injury too.

police arrived 3 days later and was charged with assault(common law crime)

the guy was sent to court and got 180 hrs community service and cost of 280 quid.

the injured party recieved nothing... so he was charged with common law crime only to be dealt with using admiralty court for making cash!!!

Did the man who was injured ask for costs?
Or was he re-presented as the "injured party"?

What jurisdiction was the common law crime adjudicated in?
Was there a jury of 12 peers?

[kenw232]

Why would being in bankruptcy abolish common law courts?
I don't comprehend the logic.
How are the two mutually exclusive?


Being in bankruptcy does not "automatically" remove common law courts. They are not directly mutually exclusive. It was simply developed/orchestrated that way over time intentionally by the creditors (International Bankers, Rothschilds, etc) who bailed the US (and other central bank based countries) out of bankruptcy.

They wanted to quietly hide common law (and the courts) as a requirement because they don't want you to think common law. Common law = freedom (and responsibility, and there are draw backs). By EVERYONE getting a birth certificate, SSN/SIN number, receiving benefits from the government (or Caesar for you bible thumpers because everything is in parallel with the bible) you are personally entering into military/admiralty law and voluntarily leaving common law. The 13th amendment of the constitution in the US only abolished FORCED slavery. If you could be tricked into giving up your rights then so be it. Now common law does not apply to you anymore. Its superseded by Admiralty. Thats why all common law laws (murder, theft, fraud, etc.) are also (and obviously must be) added to Admiralty law, which is coded in the UCC. The UCC is kept as a commercial exchange because the Jews are good at money and lies. This helps move YOUR money/wealth up the pyramid easily to the royal families (illuminati).

This is the ultimate crux of everything. This is biggest secret. The entire matrix falls on this one thing - making sure you (from birth) say your at war and need protection which is done with the birth cert, oaths (Christ said "take no oath", etc.) which removes you from a freeman status and puts you under the New World Order authority which is government by Admiralty Law which is soon to be negotiated under Quantum Language to help hide things even further.

So theres no common law courts because no one needs them. Everyone is in the matrix (UCC, Military / Admiralty, etc.) by choice and ignorance.

[kenw232]

a buddy of mine was attacked at his own car for parking infront of a garage.

police arrived 3 days later and was charged with assault(common law crime)

the injured party recieved nothing... so he was charged with common law crime only to be dealt with using admiralty court for making cash!!!

Assault or hurting someone is a crime under common law. But he was operating in Admiralty and they had jurisdiction over him with this. So he was charged with the equivalent in Admiralty/UCC law which was probably “Assault and Battery” or something. So they/he goes to see a “court administrator” (not a judge, that’s different) to find out what happens.

They don't care at all that the victim was hurt. They only care that the guy who did it can be soaked for X dollars for it.

[tien an]

Being in bankruptcy does not "automatically" remove common law courts. They are not directly mutually exclusive. It was simply developed/orchestrated that way over time intentionally by the creditors (International Bankers, Rothschilds, etc) who bailed the US (and other central bank based countries) out of bankruptcy.

They wanted to quietly hide common law (and the courts) as a requirement because they don't want you to think common law. Common law = freedom (and responsibility, and there are draw backs). By EVERYONE getting a birth certificate, SSN/SIN number, receiving benefits from the government (or Caesar for you bible thumpers because everything is in parallel with the bible) you are personally entering into military/admiralty law and voluntarily leaving common law. The 13th amendment of the constitution in the US only abolished FORCED slavery. If you could be tricked into giving up your rights then so be it. Now common law does not apply to you anymore. Its superseded by Admiralty. Thats why all common law laws (murder, theft, fraud, etc.) are also (and obviously must be) added to Admiralty law, which is coded in the UCC. The UCC is kept as a commercial exchange because the Jews are good at money and lies. This helps move YOUR money/wealth up the pyramid easily to the royal families (illuminati).

This is the ultimate crux of everything. This is biggest secret. The entire matrix falls on this one thing - making sure you (from birth) say your at war and need protection which is done with the birth cert, oaths (Christ said "take no oath", etc.) which removes you from a freeman status and puts you under the New World Order authority which is government by Admiralty Law which is soon to be negotiated under Quantum Language to help hide things even further.

So theres no common law courts because no one needs them. Everyone is in the matrix (UCC, Military / Admiralty, etc.) by choice and ignorance.

Hi kenw,
two (edit: 3 ) cracking posts since your arrival (welcome!), and then the nugget above in bold.

Just what do you mean by that?
What is Quantum Language?
Do you mean this?
http://www.biroz.net/words/irsonos.htm
tian an.

[merlincove]

Hi kenw,
two cracking posts since your arrival (welcome!), and then the nugget above in bold.

Just what do you mean by that?
What is Quantum Language?

tian an.

i think Quantum Language is a created linear tongue whereby every opening phrase within a new subject matter begins with the imortal words, 'Oh Boy...'

And the only person you can speak to in any reagrd of understanding is Al.

:D

A great thread, and a worthy consideration.

In a similar vein to what has been outlined abouve, we had a break in at our shop some months ago and lost considerable income and incurred dameages etc. We applied for compensation and recieved £250, despite recorded losses of over £3000.

The courts don't give a toss about anything other than profit, i think this is clear to see.

Now that juries are under threat of extinction, i wonder if we are seeing the dawn of the day when even percieved justice is a thing of the past.

[kenw232]

Hi kenw,
two (edit: 3 ) cracking posts since your arrival (welcome!), and then the nugget above in bold.

Just what do you mean by that?
What is Quantum Language?
Do you mean this?
http://www.biroz.net/words/irsonos.htm
tian an.


That URL is pretty good, but I don't think its specific to Quantum Language as applied to Admiralty law. I think that’s more of a general theory.

Quantum Language is a new style in "coding" or writing down law (or contracts because all/most law is contract). Or communicating in a court. Its still plays in and is a continuation of Admiralty/military/international law.

The purpose of it is "supposedly" to keep intentions crystal clear. It removes past and present tenses. Its difficult to explain actually. Its a new language all together. And suppose to be common for all countries. So this is the code that the one world government will use for all countries within it because its independent of the local language of the country somehow (when translated I guess).

In reality it makes it extremely difficult for the average man to use it to defend himself, understand and apply it. Which is probably the real purpose. If two people go see a “court administrator” and one is bringing his argument in Quantum Language and the other isn’t the quantum guy will probably win by default, even if he’s wrong.

They talk about it hear (Session 009):
http://www.creditorsincommerce.com/audio-living-temple.php
But beware that the guy talking is a shill. Its so obvious I was laughing at some of the stuff he was saying in other MP3s on that site. Americans buy anything they’re told.

Theres another angle that no one talks about too – if all law is contract, then all contracts must be and are based on trust. Think “adhesion” contract. This URL spells it out in theory:
http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V12N1-Trusts.pdf

[bones]

Did the man who was injured ask for costs?
Or was he re-presented as the "injured party"?

What jurisdiction was the common law crime adjudicated in?
Was there a jury of 12 peers?

he was re-presented and was magistrates court, so no peers.. i tried to explain the freeman way b4 he went but he aint to bright and just thinks his car is more important.

he also didnd ask for compensation i assume his liar has made a request for funds from the the criminal injurys board but hes to stupid to ask ,,,

[wez004]

a buddy of mine was attacked at his own car for parking infront of a garage.

he was kicked in ribs and had hospital treatment for head injury too.

police arrived 3 days later and was charged with assault(common law crime)

the guy was sent to court and got 180 hrs community service and cost of 280 quid.

the injured party recieved nothing... so he was charged with common law crime only to be dealt with using admiralty court for making cash!!!

I don't think he was charged with a common law offence. He would have been charged under the appropriate section of The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 which is on the statute books.

I don't think you can get charged under common law.

[danster82]

Essentially the people around could chose to do with you what they will, they could execute you if they so judged it would be appropriate.

[intellection]

"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply."

Nathan Rothschild

I have noted the quotation marks and wondered where this quote has been taken from. I have seen this quote, quoted a number of different ways and would like to know the source or understand whether it has just been repeated a number of times and has turned into a chinese whispers game.

without prejudice.

[yozhik]

"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply."

Nathan Rothschild

I have noted the quotation marks and wondered where this quote has been taken from. I have seen this quote, quoted a number of different ways and would like to know the source or understand whether it has just been repeated a number of times and has turned into a chinese whispers game.

without prejudice.

Found this ...

The Bank of England, chartered in 1694, despite its name, sought to concentrate private financial power into few hands. Its creation followed intense pressure from financial interests and the British East India Company, passage of the Free Coinage Act of 1666 overturning royal sovereignty over money, nullification of the Mixt Money case, and contrived commercial disasters and foreign wars (a similar rationale in countless other nations) that forced the state to seek private funds. Opposition to the bank came from those inside and outside of government who felt it would become the bank of the state but not controlled by it. Nathan Rothschild declared, "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." (8)

[...]

(8) Brown, Ellen Hodgson, Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System And How We Can Break Free, Baton Rouge: Third Millennium Press, 2008, p. 63.

http://www.poclad.org/bwa/August09.htm


Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System And How We Can Break Free (http://books.google.com/books?id=VBfc5lliml4C&lpg=PP1&ots=dctHp4S5u5&dq=Web%20of%20Debt%3A%20The%20Shocking%20Truth%20A bout%20Our%20Money%20System%20And%20How%20We%20Can %20Break%20Free&pg=PT76#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

[intellection]

thank you kindly for your effort yozhik.

the problem here is that the quote in question is cited from a book where it is stated as a declaration from Nathan Rothschild with no offer of proof. does an unsubstantiated declaration become a quote if cited from such a source?

i have a real problem with this because it is just repeating and if something is repeated enough people come to believe it as the truth. maybe he did say this - maybe he didn't; but it shouldn't be stated as a quotation when it cannot be verified. on the face it seems a very silly and self indulgent thing for a very intelligent and powerful being to say in the public domain.

my gut feeling is that it is hearsay. along with many other so called quotes trumpeted around this movement. we need to get away from this because it doesn't help when we are trying to find the truth.

[yozhik]

thank you kindly for your effort yozhik.

the problem here is that the quote in question is cited from a book where it is stated as a declaration from Nathan Rothschild with no offer of proof. does an unsubstantiated declaration become a quote if cited from such a source?

i have a real problem with this because it is just repeating and if something is repeated enough people come to believe it as the truth. maybe he did say this - maybe he didn't; but it shouldn't be stated as a quotation when it cannot be verified. on the face it seems a very silly and self indulgent thing for a very intelligent and powerful being to say in the public domain.

my gut feeling is that it is hearsay. along with many other so called quotes trumpeted around this movement. we need to get away from this because it doesn't help when we are trying to find the truth.

In the book, as cited, it is written he "notoriously commented", back in 1820, when head of the Bank of England.
Take from that what you will ... but at least it has a year and in what capacity the comment was "notoriously" made.
Narrows the search down.

[intellection]

Thanks again Yozhik.

Unfortunately that citation isn't solid enough for my satisfaction - so i guess it stays on my unverified list. Besides I'm not sure N. Rothschild was ever Head of the Bank of England - in fact i'm quite confident he wasn't. Further reason to doubt this source.

I appreciate your assistance in directing me to the source.

[yozhik]

Thanks again Yozhik.

Unfortunately that citation isn't solid enough for my satisfaction - so i guess it stays on my unverified list. Besides I'm not sure N. Rothschild was ever Head of the Bank of England - in fact i'm quite confident he wasn't. Further reason to doubt this source.

I appreciate your assistance in directing me to the source.

Something else to research ...

On Sunday, June 18, 1815, Rothworth, a courier of Nathan Rothschild, head of the London branch of the family, was on the battlefield, and upon seeing that Napoleon was being beaten, went by horse to Brussels, then to Ostende, and for 2,000 francs, got a sailor to get him to England across stormy seas. When Nathan Rothschild received the news on June 20th, he informed the government, who did not believe him. So, with everyone believing Wellington to be defeated, Rothschild immediately began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone else followed his lead, and also began selling, causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, his agents secretly began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices. On June 21, at 11 PM, Wellington's envoy, Major Henry Percy showed up at the War Office with his report that Napoleon had been crushed in a bitter eight hour battle, losing a third of his men. This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy, and forced England to set up a new Bank of England, which Nathan Rothschild controlled.

[intellection]

Yozhik,

Again this is purely conjecture and not verifiable. It may be true but I can't be confident of this. Further research offers another side to the story. Which to believe? I guess it's personal satisfaction but should never be presented as a fact; only a belief.

I feel like starting a thread titled 'Verifiable Facts' to compile a library of truth. Unfortunately, I know this wouldn't work.

[tien an]

Found this ...



Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System And How We Can Break Free (http://books.google.com/books?id=VBfc5lliml4C&lpg=PP1&ots=dctHp4S5u5&dq=Web%20of%20Debt%3A%20The%20Shocking%20Truth%20A bout%20Our%20Money%20System%20And%20How%20We%20Can %20Break%20Free&pg=PT76#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

Great link yozhik.
Thank you.

tian an.

[bones]

"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply."

Nathan Rothschild

I have noted the quotation marks and wondered where this quote has been taken from. I have seen this quote, quoted a number of different ways and would like to know the source or understand whether it has just been repeated a number of times and has turned into a chinese whispers game.

without prejudice.


http://www.911kemet.co.uk/nwoquotes.html


got it from here theres many other quotes which i found interesting!!! enjoy all...


the book in reference is the satanic rothchild dynasty i think!!!

[godspeed]

here's summit to think about...

i received a caution from local cop shop boss for having one cut down twig in a plant called cannibus....

whilst trying to be serious about the caution the sarg turned his pc monitor around for me to see....

a lone charge from 1980 breaking and entering property....

i asked to my dismay why it was still on record 20yrs later...

to which i was told because it was a common law crime it will remain on file for

the rest of my days............:eek:

i had to laugh at it cos i never did nowt....just got caught up in a stupid idiot smashing windows in city centre seeking attention i guess.......he got away and they arrested a group of us who were nearby.......so it stays on record......what a joke our cops and courts and lawyers have become.......to me.......;)

[rosix]

here's summit to think about...

i received a caution from local cop shop boss for having one cut down twig in a plant called cannibus....

whilst trying to be serious about the caution the sarg turned his pc monitor around for me to see....

a lone charge from 1980 breaking and entering property....

i asked to my dismay why it was still on record 20yrs later...

to which i was told because it was a common law crime it will remain on file for

the rest of my days............:eek:

i had to laugh at it cos i never did nowt....just got caught up in a stupid idiot smashing windows in city centre seeking attention i guess.......he got away and they arrested a group of us who were nearby.......so it stays on record......what a joke our cops and courts and lawyers have become.......to me.......;)

I'm not mighty knowledgeable about this sorta thing, but there should definitely be a way to lawfully get that off the record.

[intellection]

Interesting - is it a common law crime if breaking the windows of a corporation? Is it the case that their status as a 'person' affords them protection under common law? were you tried for this crime under common law? just me musing :)