Jump to content

NOT TAKING VACCINE / BEING RESTRICTED / COMMON LAW


Pwr2us1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wondering whether people that totally refuse to get vaccine and arent allowed to travel can protest/sue under common law or human rights and prove by fighting this tooth and nail that it is oppressive lying nonsence by providing evidence to the contrary as in the Bernicians lawsuit that i am donating to, that cannot fail only by corruption by these slugs in government. I have recently taken common law identity card ownership but not sure where i stand with it regarding my rights. If professors,doctors and mathematicians are proving this covid,lockdown is false how can they in the long run stop peoples liberties that dont take this poison on the Bernician and his partners evidence alone. Please advise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basket Case changed the title to NOT TAKING VACCINE / BEING RESTRICTED / COMMON LAW
  • 2 months later...

talking about such a topic is a way towards. There's a bit a chunk of knowledge to re-explore.. at when the level of awareness can argue seriously on subject.
Of course, class actions are more of 'a muscle', but a living a 'private' enterprise status is definitely a no-contract no obligation mean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I would advise you to find a tame doctor and try to get a medical exception stating you have a anaphlylactic reaction to previous vaccines or whatever.

 

Common-law or FMOTL or whatever has never worked out for anyone, only led to unnecessary court summons and jail time over not paying speeding fines or such.

 

I've seen them all come and go.. Sadly it's a non-starter. Might rules the world, whether it's right or wrong. You just have to try to cheat or trick the system. You just won't win by appealing to Magna Carta anymore. We live in a post democracy, post morality and post rational world. Just accept that and find a survival strategy because pretty soon people will start dropping dead from the Covid vaccine. That is your biggest survival threat right now. Avoid it all costs but do it properly not by sounding like a crank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Truthspoon said:

I would advise you to find a tame doctor and try to get a medical exception stating you have a anaphlylactic reaction to previous vaccines or whatever.

 

Common-law or FMOTL or whatever has never worked out for anyone, only led to unnecessary court summons and jail time over not paying speeding fines or such.

 

I've seen them all come and go.. Sadly it's a non-starter. Might rules the world, whether it's right or wrong. You just have to try to cheat or trick the system. You just won't win by appealing to Magna Carta anymore. We live in a post democracy, post morality and post rational world. Just accept that and find a survival strategy because pretty soon people will start dropping dead from the Covid vaccine. That is your biggest survival threat right now. Avoid it all costs but do it properly not by sounding like a crank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason why magna carter wont work is because there are only a few statutues left on the books, like 3 or 4. Also, it was originally drafted to give barons some control over the king, not for the rights of peasants. It was never for that. Magna carter existed long before there was any sort British democracy and is not some guarantee of democratic rights for anybody.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Truthspoon said:

Common-law or FMOTL or whatever has never worked out for anyone, only led to unnecessary court summons and jail time over not paying speeding fines or such.

 

That's not true

 

Common law worked for a longtime but has been overwritten by statute law. However jury nullification is still used in the US.

 

It really boils down to a mindset because it all hinges on whether or not you believe that parliament has absolute power. When we watch clips of the police bullying people during lockdown they always say the same thing which is that they are simply enforcing the law (statute law made in parliament) thereby implying that they have no freewill of their own and are simply bound to do whatever the politicians tell them to do.

 

But if tomorrow the politicians created a new statute law that said that all the families of policemen and women must be rounded up and put into concentration camps they wouldn't comply. They would not enforce that law so even the police don't really as individuals believe in the absolute power of parliament.

 

They just haven't reached their line in the sand yet

 

But if people can consciously realise that parliament doesn't have absolute power and that we are not compelled to obey or enforce laws that are immoral then that is really the turning point for everything. That's when we start to see a society shaped by morality and not by corruption

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen OP, we are in full on tyrannical world now.

There is no use in discussing Magna Carta, Common Law or relying on the justice system.

Take a look this footage. This is coming to you soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVawIAoobio

 

They were protesting about vaccine, vax passport, corruption of the system.

Their legal representative used the Magna Carta and sieged the common land. It went straight up to the High Court within days....DAYS!

They presented the law to the judge and he said NO. So they appealed and there is a stay of execution but the corporate goons with no IDs removed them anyway.

You are trying to rely on this and that law.....they will ignore you even if you are correct. We have come this far.

 

A comment from the video above.

Panspermia Hunter FYI the mercenaries have a license to kill given by Priti Patel beginning of the year, it is coming!

 

So the question is WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO NOW?

 

It is starting with careworkers' mandatory vaccine human experimentation....then it will move up/downards. Just as they dragged a tent with person/children still inside, it will be you who will be dragged out of your own home.

 

YOU WILL OWN NOTHING and BE HAPPY.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, elongated1 said:

Listen OP, we are in full on tyrannical world now.

There is no use in discussing Magna Carta, Common Law or relying on the justice system.

Take a look this footage. This is coming to you soon.

 

They were protesting about vaccine, vax passport, corruption of the system.

Their legal representative used the Magna Carta and sieged the common land.

 

I don't really see common law as this kind of magic get-out-of-jail-free card that you just flash to the cops by using the right words and they then back off because of some archaic law.

 

It doesn't work without being upheld by the people but the people won't uphold something if they don't understand it

 

If you understand it and its historic precedence then you understand how your rights and freedoms have been stripped away but it gives you a target to aim for in the sense that it empowers you by knowing that something wrong has been done to you and that you are justified in seeking to put right that injustice. It's about arming your mind even though the system itself has been remoulded against you

 

Its like how ford said that if the american public understood how the banking system really worked there would be a revolution tomorrow. Well yeah but they don't understand it and that's why they are paralyzed and unable to move forward in the right direction. They are rudderless.

 

Knowledge gives you that rudder and if enough people have that knowledge then society develops new direction

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Macnamara said:

Its like how ford said that if the american public understood how the banking system really worked there would be a revolution tomorrow. Well yeah but they don't understand it and that's why they are paralyzed and unable to move forward in the right direction. They are rudderless.

 

well I think this is an important point.

Do YOU really think there will be Covid revolution IF 2 million people marched?

It's all very well that we are standing, walking together but THAT doesn't change anything. There has to be another step which is to either we go and arrest many or go via legal route. Either way, marching is only a show of numbers.

 

If people can't understand about the US banking system..... If people hasn't woken up that 911/77 was a psy-op to say the least....

Why do you think people will wake up from the Covid scam now? I wonder....

Edited by elongated1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, elongated1 said:

well I think this is an important point.

Do YOU really think there will be Covid revolution IF 2 million people marched?

 

no which is why you won't hear me talking about marching in my thread in the 'solutions' section of this forum

 

I talk about changes people can make to their lives and spending habits in order to change the world

 

that's not to say that there is no point in 2 million people marching as it shows them and others that they are not alone which in terms of mental health and momentum is very important. But what is needed is for those 2 million people to then turn their lives into living protests

 

There is no point shouting in the street and then going and buying corporate products from corporations pushing he covid agenda and covid vax. You have to boycott those groups and pro-actively support alternatives and that is how you bring about actual change

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

no which is why you won't hear me talking about marching in my thread in the 'solutions' section of this forum

 

I talk about changes people can make to their lives and spending habits in order to change the world

 

that's not to say that there is no point in 2 million people marching as it shows them and others that they are not alone which in terms of mental health and momentum is very important. But what is needed is for those 2 million people to then turn their lives into living protests

 

There is no point shouting in the street and then going and buying corporate products from corporations pushing he covid agenda and covid vax. You have to boycott those groups and pro-actively support alternatives and that is how you bring about actual change

 

Yes, which is precisely my point in posting the video above.

These protesters aren't just camping to protest which would be the same as walking the streets. They are using the law (going to court) to force the system to answer about the corruption but my point is that they were shoved by the judge who completely ignored the law he is supposed to acknowledge.

 

So where to from here?

I'm sure 1 million people who attended the march in May would probably want to do something but when it is convenient....like on Saturdays.

But the time is now, we really need to set our priority right and be in full swing to ramp up the pressure....because we need to hit it now or we will go down forever.

To put it simply, we need to act NOW. There is no time left to mess about.

 

EDIT: We need to start citizens' arrests. If we waited for their system to arrest corporate murderers, criminals will not be jailed because 1) the system is geared towards supporting the criminals, 2) it will make us wait forever to get a justice when they are disadvantaged. Don't wait for them to sort it out. WE need to sort it out. This is the solution.

 

Edited by elongated1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Pwr2us1, thank you for raising this issue.

 

What I think we all can do now is opt-out from any personal data processsing in regards of we all know what. 

 

Please start from opt out from NHS data processing here (please share asap with anyone who knows whats going on, we need united front with this and we have very limited time - only 2 weeks as far as I remember):

 

https://www.nhs.uk/your-nhs-data-matters/manage-your-choice/

 

What we can do next is opt out from any additional data processing carried out by NHS, NHS digital an the ministry of health (and death). I porpose the below text and an open discussion what should be included and wording:

 

[Your full address]
[Phone number]
[The date]

[Name and address of the organisation]
[Reference number (if provided within the initial response)]

Dear Sir or Madam

Right to object

[Your full name and address and any other details such as account number to help identify you]

I wish to exercise my right under data protection law to object to the processing of my personal data.

I do not consent, give permission or allow under any circumstances to process any of my personally identifiable information in regards of :

  1. Any artificial, semi artificial, natural or modified virus or bilological weapons.This includes, but is not limited to SARS, SARS CORONA VIRUS, CORONA VIRUS, SARS COV2, COVID-19 and any of it variants or mutations. This includes but is not limited to the viruses and any biological weapons a;ready patented, newly developed and developed in the future.

  2. Vaccination or non-vaccination information and medication in regards of the above. This includes, but is not limited to Track and Trace, any digital or non digital tracing system, and any international border, travel and transmission monitoring system.

You can find guidance on your obligations under information rights legislation on the Information Commissioner’s Office website (www.ico.org.uk) as well as information on their regulatory powers and the action they can take.

Please send a full response within one calendar month confirming if you will comply with my request. If you cannot respond within that timescale, please tell me when you will be able to respond.

If there is anything you would like to discuss, please contact me.

Yours faithfully
[Signature]

 

 

For NHS Digital and automated data processing:

 

[Your full address]
[Phone number]
[The date]

[Name and address of the organisation]
[Reference number (if provided within the initial response)]

Dear [Sir or Madam / name of the person you have been in contact with]

Information rights concern
[Your full name and address and any other details such as account number to help identify you]

I am concerned that you have not handled my personal information properly.

I do not consent, give permission or allow under any circumstances to process any of my personally identifiable information in regards of :

  1. Any artificial, semi artificial, natural or modified virus or bilological weapons.This includes, but is not limited to SARS, SARS CORONA VIRUS, CORONA VIRUS, SARS COV2, COVID-19 and any of its variants or mutations. This includes but is not limited to the viruses and any biological weapons already patented, newly developed and developed in the future.

  2. Vaccination or non-vaccination information and medication in regards of the above. This includes, but is not limited to Track and Trace, any digital or non digital tracing system, and any international border, travel and transmission monitoring system.

I understand that before reporting my concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) I should give you the chance to deal with it.

If, when I receive your response, I would still like to report my concern to the ICO, I will give them a copy of it to consider.

You can find guidance on your obligations under information rights legislation on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk) as well as information on their regulatory powers and the action they can take.

Please send a full response within one calendar month. If you cannot respond within that timescale, please tell me when you will be able to respond.

If there is anything you would like to discuss, please contact me on the following number [telephone number].


 

Yours faithfully
[Signature]

 

Very intresting point with Citizen arests. Has anyone ever done this? any examples how to do it?

 

Lets start people, the future is ours :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO - Don't ever go to court or seek to use any kind of legal system remedy. If you ever get arrested then say nothing and don't even accept a cup of water.

 

I think folk who want to operate under common law need to bear in mind this taken from an introduction to a set of legal maxims based on obscured, but to my mind, obvious truth (common law):

 

It is important to distinguish between commercial law and maxims of law, when quoting from their law. We should never, ever quote their codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, common law, merchant law, public policies, constitutions, etc., because these are commercial in nature, and if we use their commercial law, they can presume we are engaged in commerce (which means we are of the world), which will nullify our witness (because we are not of the world). Maxims of law are not commercial law, but are mostly based upon scripture and truth.

 

http://ecclesia.org/TRUTH/maxims.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)
On 6/19/2021 at 8:45 AM, Macnamara said:

Common law worked for a longtime but has been overwritten by statute law.

 

It's not as simple as that.  From Blackstone:

 

The manner of making these statutes will be better considered hereafter, when we examine the constitution of parliaments. At present we will only take notice of the different kinds of statutes; and of some general rules with regard to their construction.53

 

First, as to their several kinds. Statutes are either general or special, public or private. A general or public act is an universal rule, that regards the whole community: and of this the courts of law are bound to take notice judicially and ex officio [officially]; without the statute being particularly pleaded, or formally set forth by the party who claims an advantage under it. Special or private acts are rather exceptions than rules, being those which only operate upon particular persons, and private concerns: such as the Romans entitled senatus-decreta [Senate decrees], in contradistinction to the senatus consulta [Senate acts], which regarded the whole community:54 and of these (which are not promulgated with the same notoriety as the former) the judges are not to take notice, unless they be formally shown and pleaded. Thus, to show the distinction, the statute 13 Eliz. c. 10. to prevent spiritual persons from making leases for longer terms than twenty-one years, or three lives, is a public act; it being a rule prescribed to the whole body of spiritual persons in the nation: but an act to enable the bishop of Chester to make a lease to A. B. for sixty years, is an exception to this rule; it concerns only the parties and the bishop's successors; and is therefore a private act.

Statutes are also either declaratory of the common law, or remedial of some defects therein. Declaratory, where the old custom of the kingdom is almost fallen into disuse, or become disputable; in which case the parliament has thought proper, in perpetuum rei testimonium [as its lasting testimony], and for avoiding all doubts and difficulties, to declare what the common law is and ever has been. Thus the statute of treasons, 25 Edw. III. cap. 2, does not make any new species of treasons; but only, for the benefit of the subject, declares and enumerates those several kinds of offense, which before were treason at the common law. Remedial statutes are those which are made to supply such defects, and abridge such superfluities, in the common law, as arise either from the general imperfection of all human laws, from change of time and circumstances, from the mistakes and unadvised determinations of unlearned (or even learned) judges, or from any other cause whatsoever. And this being done, either by enlarging the common law where it was too narrow and circumscribed, or by restraining it where it was too lax and luxuriant, has occasioned another subordinate division of remedial acts of parliament into enlarging and restraining statutes. To instance again in the case of treason. Clipping the current coin of the kingdom was an offense not sufficiently guarded against by the common law: therefore it was thought expedient by statute 5 Eliz. c. 11. to make it high treason, which it was not at the common law: so that this was an enlarging statute. At common law also spiritual corporations might lease out their estates for any term of years, till prevented by the statute 13 Eliz. before-mentioned: this was therefore a restraining statute.
 

1. There are three points to be considered in the construction of all remedial statutes; the old law, the mischief, and the remedy: that is, how the common law stood at the making of the act; what the mischief was, for which the common law did not provide; and what remedy the parliament has provided to cure this mischief. And it is the business of the judges so to construe the act, as to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

Edited by theo102
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, theo102 said:

It's not as simple as that.  From Blackstone:

 

The country has been lead away from its constitution over a period of time with the process accelerating after world war 2. The cabal have done this so that they can make their own decrees the highest authority which they enshrine through statute law. They control that process and therefore they make the laws and if individuals are not protected by the common law then they become powerless peons

 

Book Review Part 2:

The British Constitution and the Corruption of Parliament by Ben Greene

 

This is another short read mentioned in the UK Columns 'A Dissident's Guide to the Constitution', this time by a relative of the novelist Graham Greene. The author, Ben Greene, ran the gambit of the various political groups that were kicking around in the pre and post-war years including groups on both the left and the right so needless to say he got himself on the radar of the authorities and was locked up under regulation 18b during the war as a potential security risk.

 

Reading this book though, which is a collection of essays on the subversion or rather negation of the British constitution, a picture emerges of a man who was in fact loyal to his country to the degree that he sought to repair what he saw as a disastrous development in British politics and Law.

 

Also included in the book is a piece by his daughter who writes of a mission Ben took to germany on behalf of the quakers to look into the issue of the persecution of the jews. Many of the wealthy jews with the money to travel and the contacts abroad to start a new life had already left germany and what was left behind was the poor and desperate. Financial help was offered to them by: the quakers, the protestant churches, the catholic church and the red cross but the stumbling block was apparently the jews themselves who refused the help for their fellow jews to deny the foreign currency to Germany. She writes 'This was International Finance with a vengeance!'

 

She goes on to say: 'In this case Ben could not persuade  Rothschild to soften his stance. It was not that he did not believe the hardship stories Ben told him. He must have believed them for he phoned them throught to Reuters in Ben's presence without checking them in any way. But then it was the same reply-no help could cross German frontiers'.

 

In the first essay, this time written by Ben himself, he mentions prime minister Disraeli who was of course jewish but to what extent was he an asset of the Rothschilds? I'm reminded of that famous quote by Disraeli:

 

“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”

 

Greene writes:

 

'It is now one hundred years since the modern system of disciplined and caucus controlled political Parties founded by Joseph Chamberlain and Benjamin Disraeli established a complete domination over the elected membership of the British House of Commons. This has resulted in the greatest revolution in the principles of English Law and government since the dawn of English national existence. This revolution has however never been acknowledged. By retaining the forms, institutions and ceremonies of our Parliamentary heritage, though now rendered meaningless, the magnitude of the constitutional convulsion has been successfully disguised.'

 

The shift Greene outlines is to our current party political system through which a then unaccountable cabinet assumes total control of the country. Of the parties he writes:

 

'...the parties consist of private unincorporated oligarchical association under no legal or public control. Of the management and activities of these associations we know little or nothing. We know little or nothing of the rules governing these associations, though these now represent the basis of national authority. We do not know under what influences the Parties act. We have little or no information as to the sources from which the Parties derived their huge financial requirements, the sources of which must play a part in Party direction. We are ignorant as to how this finance is expended'.

 

Greene also critiques the current practise of the party whip which prevents individual politicians from acting from their own conscience and instead pursuing the party line on every issue.

 

He argues that the danger with the party system v's totalitarianism is that the party system may lay a specious claim to representing the will of the people and therefore creates a kind of totalitarianism by stealth.

 

He discusses how the party system and its subversion of parliament strips away the rights of the individual under common law and allows career politicians to assume a position of absolute authority.

 

There is much more besides but the importance of this book and this struggle between the inalienable rights of the individual and the absolute power of parliament goes right to the heart of our current covid crisis and for that reason this book is highly recommended reading.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Macnamara said:

The cabal have done this so that they can make their own decrees the highest authority which they enshrine through statute law.

 

At common law it's a vain pursuit, since the Creator is the highest authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, theo102 said:

At common law it's a vain pursuit, since the Creator is the highest authority.

 

exactly but they are satanists so everything they do is a counterfeit of Gods creation

 

statute law is a counterfeit of true common law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

exactly but they are satanists so everything they do is a counterfeit of Gods creation

Satan, in the original context, simply means adversary. If you've going to identify a counterfeit you first have to know what the original is. At common law people are created by the creator, but legal persons are created by governments. Natural persons are like people, but they don't have the natural rights that people have.

 

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...