Jump to content

Common Law Muppetry


Recommended Posts

Over the years there has been some real muppets out there, shall we say, all of whom are attempting in vain to make sense of the system and Matrix around them. They all have two things in common, they all fail, and they’re all complete muppets.
 
Let’s take the latest topic of muppetry that seems to have exploded onto our screens, the BBC, YouTube channels and various 'freedom' or 'truther' websites over the last few months - the phenomenon of “common law”.
 
So, what are the facts that none of these muppets comprehend?
 
Well, the “common law” is not;
 
1. The “the law of the land”.
2. Some mythical jurisdiction separate from “the law of the sea”.
3. Indifferent to “statutory law”.
4. Applicable to men or women on the land that are not “lost at sea”.
5. Related to contracts or “Magna Carta”.
 
So what is “common law”?
 
1. Common law is statutory, matters being more ‘commonly’ referred to in the administrative courts as being ‘at law’, this as opposed to matters in equity and the beneficiary being recognised in equity.
2. Every relationship in this financial system is a trust, there being a legal side and an equitable side in every trust. The ‘at law’, or legal side of the trusts are administered in ‘at law’ courts, County, Magistrates', Queen’s Bench and so forth. The equitable side of the trusts are administered in Chancery and in equity – a wholly different jurisdiction which few comprehend. Indeed, those that do comprehend refer to themselves as being in the “Just us” club, as opposed to the “Just Ice” club.
There are those who are competent, the rest being assumed and presumed to be idiots. An idiot is a person without legal training or a comprehension of the law, such as a solicitor or barrister, who simply ‘practice’ the law as opposed to comprehending it, with “common law” idiots not even getting on the scale of idiocy being 'absolute' muppets (they have full Title to the word Muppet).
3. The Legal side of the trusts with respect to banking are expressed by the settlor, and are subsequently construed upon the beneficiary by the assigned and or appointed agents on behalf of the trustees. If the beneficiary is indolent, which is almost always the case, the ‘at law’ side of the trust, the “common law” if you may, will carry on regardless leaving the oblivious beneficiary up the Khyber.
4. The assumed and presumed construed trust is not a trust at all, moreover a construed relationship over the beneficiary. Such construed relationships may take the form of a mortgagor, borrower, obligor, customer, debtor etc., and will leave the beneficiary none the wiser, the agents and trustees unjustly enriching themselves. This is all perfectly ‘legal’, in fact it is nothing more than a ‘legal upon legal’ chose, and in no way an equitable right or chose.
5. A trustee or an agent to a trustee shall not benefit from a property as though they were a beneficiary, and so, claiming one is “standing under common law” is the highest form of ignorance one can exhibit in any Court.
 
Such muppetry basically means dishing out more of the same construed debt, construed so called offences or contradictions, or whatever else the legal side may choose to construe for their own amusement or enrichment.
 
What a bunch of muppets these people really are!
 
Visit us at Debt-Less Facebook group and www.debt-less.co.uk to find our more.
 
David - you are being fed a load of muppetry by a load of muppets, and the system knows it.   Equity and trusts are the Achilles heel of the Banks you have yet to discover on your magnificent journey - now there is a topic for London Real with proven success against the Banks in and out of court, and repeatedly so over 20 years.   
 
 

common law.jpg

Edited by Debt-Less
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

As someone who doesn't understand legalese, could you explain in plain English the above? Also, I've been wondering if an organisation could invoke Common Law for sinister reasons, e.g. to impose rules that are even more draconian than those of the National Government. Is it possible? 

Edited by Grumpy Grapes
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 9:21 PM, Grumpy Grapes said:

 I've been wondering if an organisation could invoke Common Law for sinister reasons, e.g. to impose rules that are even more draconian than those of the National Government. Is it possible? 

 

The conscience of the people determines our collective moral boundaries and the COMMON LAW is meant to be the consolidation of the judgement of juries

 

At its best common law should uphold natural law

 

The ability of common people in juries to decide the outcome of a case and to change law through 'annulment by jury' is the basis of true democracy and not the voting of a political party every 5 years.

 

Common law recognises everyones unalienable rights and personal sovereignty and if the state is operating lawfully it should then support that. However if the state becomes corrupted then the politicians may seek to pass laws that trample on peoples unalienable rights and personal sovereignty

 

So for example if a state rules it mandatory for people to be injected with an experimental drug then they are causing harm and are therefore in breach of common law. Under the british constitution the state is only supposed to pass laws if they are in alignment with the common law and therefore if they breach common law then the government become ILLIGITIMATE

 

Treason is the attempted destruction or a conspiracy to destroy a nations sovereignty and people therefore the globalists like tony blair, boris johnson, bill gates et al are all guilty of treason

 

The problem is that rights are won or lost by assertion. If we don't assert our rights then the bad guys will continue to trample on them

Edited by Macnamara
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

The problem, though, is that many people who assert their rights get trampled on in one way or another by law enforcement.

 

It's true

 

How far are we willing to go? Are we willing to take a crack to the skull from a nightstick? Are we willing to go to jail? Are we willing to die?

 

Are enough people willing to do these things to actually overturn tyranny because it isn't the efforts of one person that changes things. It is the aggregate of everyones efforts

 

So are enough people willing to assert their rights even though it might cost them in some way? One thing i do believe though is that if we don't make a stand we are going to lose everything anyway

Edited by Macnamara
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a complex scenario. There are millions of people scared of catching a "horrific virus" and wear face coverings to the point of stupidiy, i.e. while driving a car, while out in the countryside. They believe what the TV tells them; they believe what politicians tell them; they swallow lies wholesale without realising it. And they will not listen to reason from individuals because "they ain't on the telly." This great majority are not going to budge unless their food source is removed, and even then a great many will merely look to some other persons or organised body to save them. The so-called vaccine is believed to be a saviour from an annual flu-like virus that strikes people down dead! Bluntly, if the masses are continually preached shit then they will come to believe shit, and anyone seen to oppose the shit is a heretic. It is almost laughably tragic.

 

A laudable notion is calling for a boycott of social media - but that is not going to happen. Way, way too many people are addicted and hypnotised by it first thing in the morning and last thing at night. Many are utterly lost without their iphone/tablet, etc. Society in general has no backbone, no critical thinking processes. Independent, widespread news media had been stolen just as our freedom to walk the streets has.

 

When you are up against tyrannical overlords who have it all mapped out it is fine to make a stand individually, but it is collectively where power may come from, and unfortunatley the way it looks is that as long as there's food on the table and EastEnders on later no collective effort will be seen. It is left to influential individuals to hoist the flag of opposition, and it takes a lot of beating on the doors of power to tear it down.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...