Make your own mind up.
Daily Archives: 2011-10-02
“Icelandic MPs have been pelted with eggs by protesters frustrated with government economic policy.”
Frim ITN: http://youtu.be/-Pio9ZzYdPQ
“The EU’s leadership remains unphased by the festering debt crisis in Greece, maintaining Athens should not, cannot, and will not default. Their message, however, is falling on increasingly deaf ears as leading economists, investors and academics say it’s inevitable. Greeks, meanwhile, are mobilizing for new mass rallies as government imposed austerity begins to break the back of the country’s economy. Salaries, pensions and jobs are free-falling, while taxes and cuts soar – all in an effort to satisfy EU demands in return for yet more debt – in the form of bailouts. And, according to William Dartmouth, an MEP for the UK Independence Party, the EU’s obsession with the Euro can only end in disaster.”
From RussiaToday: http://youtu.be/gtIcOGYWYxw
Please join. http://lawfulbank.com/
“The Lawful Bankprovides a gateway to ‘The Alternative Monetary System’ (TAMS) – a new and independent monetary and banking system owned and controlled by its users/members. The objective of TAMS is to take back control of the money supply for the benefit of the people of the nations that choose to use it… and by so doing, reassert the sovereign right of the people to self-governance – for a nation cannot truly govern itself unless it is in full control of the means by which its money is created.
That most nations around the world do not control their own money supply is not well known – but it should be – and it is our intention therefore to educate as many people as possible about this issue and explain its significance in terms of the impact it has on our freedoms.
TAMS has been developed to counter the destructive modern-day banking system that is the sole cause of the massive debt mountains that are now the burden of virtually every nation on this planet. It is our contention that people should be educated to the fact that the national debt would not exist if the creation of money was directly controlled by our elected government and that also, if this were the case, the taxes we pay could be dramatically reduced.
TAMS provides the means by which national debt mountains can be extinguished – for the universal benefit of us all – by creating streams of positive financial liquidity in the hands of the people – instead of the streams of negative debt that have been placed on the shoulders of national governments and which are being paid for by ever-increasing taxes. It is a statement of fact that these debt mountains were entirely unnecessary and exist simply because the political elite in national governments have been ‘persuaded’ (some would say bribed) to hand over the control of their nation’s money supply to the international banking cartel. In our view this is nothing short of criminal collusion.
The benefits TAMS will offer: –
• Interest free loans for home purchase – subject to an arrangement fee only.
• Interest free loans for businesses – subject to an arrangement fee only.
• Interest free loans for cars and other household goods – subject to an arrangement fee only.
• Interest free funds for community projects – subject to an arrangement fee only.
• Bonded car insurance – at massively reduced annual premiums – approx £100 per vehicle – subject to payment of a security bond of about £500. There are no investors to pay.
• Higher interest payments to deposit accounts – achieved through direct loans to other members.
• A large network of community branches.
• A positive credit system – for every £1 of cash deposited, each member creates £10 credit in their account. This credit (created by the system) on the back of the cash deposited is the property of the member and thus not a debt to the member. This will provided streams of credit to the system – and not debt.
To name just a few of the many benefits available.
TAMS also operates in conjunction with The Common Law Courts and The New Land Registry.”
Meet your evil twin.
By Roger Hayes from: http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/content/legal-fiction-how-they-control-us
“Throughout the ages mankind’s ingenuity has allowed one group of people to control others. The creation of the ‘legal fiction’ is a superb example – it is the very foundation of how we are controlled today and yet the knowledge of its existence eludes all but a tiny few of us.
Judges know how the ‘legal fiction’ applies to each of us, but barristers, solicitors, Magistrates and politicians mostly do not – it is a closely guarded secret. Our courts impose their will on us using the ‘legal fiction’ and it is through this imposition that governments are able to control every facet of our lives. Without the ‘legal fiction’ governments and an array of authorities have no power over us whatsoever and with this in mind it is perfectly clear that understanding the ‘legal fiction’ is a prerequisite to understanding how the world around us really works as distinct from how we think it does. Knowledge and understanding of the legal fiction is the first step on the road of freedom.
So What Is The Legal Fiction & How Does It Impact On Our Lives?
If you tried to explain the concept of the ‘legal fiction’ to the average individual in the context of how it applies to them, there is a high degree of probability that they would stare back at you as though you were quite mad… explanation rarely attracts a demand to know more, which it should, generally people find comprehension beyond their scope of understanding and they prefer therefore to dismiss it as an absurdity. The creators of the legal fiction knew this and have used our own ignorance to further their aims to control and dominate us, their ultimate weapon being ‘plausible deniability.’ But suddenly we are waking up to what is really going on and as we do the shackles of control are starting to loosen.
Imagine having a conversation in the 10th century in which you were describing a mobile telephone to an audience… they would to a man and woman think you were a complete lunatic… despite being able to explain the science behind it, and so it is with trying to explain the ‘legal fiction’ today. Fortunately, thanks to people like John Harris, Winston Shrout, Robert Arthur Menard and others, the secret of the ‘legal fiction’ also known as the ‘strawman’ has been laid bare and as a consequence those of us who are prepared to learn are now able to take advantage of this very important knowledge.
But bear in mind this… the ‘powers-that-be’ have a vested interest in us not knowing how they effect their control over us… and this translates into them being adamant that you must not know of the existence of the legal fiction, never mind understand it. So if you are thinking about writing to the government and asking them to confirm the existence of the legal fiction, may I suggest that your time would be better spent writing to the mafia and asking them to confirm in writing that they are indeed engaged in organised crime. Please let us know if you get a reply.
The legal fiction is described briefly as ‘a means by which something can be done in law, which, without the legal fiction, would not be possible.’ Look it up in a law dictionary. There are many applications of the legal fiction concept and only through study will you get to grips with the extent of its functions. It is not complicated, just confusing and understanding it requires that you resist the urge to dismiss it as a nonsense. Because we have limited understanding of the origins of the universe, that does not mean that it does not exist – and so it is with the legal fiction.
A Company Is A Legal Fiction
If we assume that your name is Roger Hayes… you could create a legal fiction called ‘ROGER HAYES LIMITED’ which you could own lock, stock and barrel. You could lend the company money and it in turn could buy and own plant, machinery and stock and build up an array of assets and wealth through trade – all of which would then belong to the company… but not you. Yes you would own the company, but the company would own the assets. If on behalf of the company you sold some stock, you would be required to put the proceeds into the company’s bank account and not your own private account. The company would be obliged to pay back the money that you lent it, but apart from that the only way that you could take any benefit from the company would be if it paid you a wage as a manager or a dividend as a shareholder and if the company went bust with net liabilities, you would not be liable for its debts.
It is easy to see then how despite you being the only owner and thus the controller of the legal fiction ‘ROGER HAYES LIMITED’ that it remains an entirely separate entity to you. You could sell the company and somebody else would then control it, despite it keeping your name. Now to deliberately confuse you… this entity was also given the generic name ’person’ and yes, it is meant to confuse you. In legalese (the language of law) the word ‘person’ means company or corporation; it does not mean man or woman. In an ordinary dictionary ‘person’ is described as an individual human being. In a law dictionary ‘human being’ is described as a monster. Do you think they were trying to bring clarity to the meaning of words or do you think they were trying to create confusion? Obviously it was the latter and it was both deliberate and calculated.
When you were born (still assuming that your name is Roger Hayes) and your parents registered your birth, the government set up a company which they called ROGER HAYES. If you look at all your official documents you will see that they are all represented with capital letters as a means of distinction. It is important to remember, that as it was the government that created this company, it is they that own and control it – despite it having your name. The deceit was in the fact that they did not tell you, nor did they want you to know, that they would use this company (person) as a tool to attach liabilities to the real you.
Thus, ROGER HAYES the company was created and existed alongside Roger Hayes the flesh and blood boy created and named by your parents. But in the absence of the knowledge of the existence of the former everybody was led to believe that everything applied to the latter – as devious a plan surely as selling land on the sun to the unsuspecting.
When officialdom then asks the question ‘Are you Roger Hayes?’ What they are really asking is ‘Do you accept the liabilities for ROGER HAYES the company (i.e. the person)?’ and when you say YES – you are unwittingly accepting the liabilities placed upon the ‘person’ (company) that they own and through which they establish their authority over you . How very clever and devious is that?
Roger Hayes is a flesh and blood man. ROGER HAYES is a person (company) – and they are separate entities. You control you, they control the person, if you accept the liability of the person – then they control you.
All Acts of Parliament are applied to the ‘person’ (the company), and not the man or the woman. This is self-evident in that the words man or women are never used in Acts of Parliament. So Acts do not therefore apply to the flesh and blood man or woman, if they did, they would say so. Acts of Parliament extend to you the man or woman only if and when (through your ignorance) you accept the responsibility and liability of the ‘person.’ When a policeman or a judge asks you for your name – they are tricking you into accepting their authority over you, because you have unwittingly assumed responsibility for the legal fiction (despite them also being ignorant of this fact) and the fact is that they must get you to acknowledge ‘the name’ i.e. ‘the person’ i.e. the ‘legal fiction’ ‘ROGER HAYES’ before they can assume their authority over you. When you say YES my name is ROGER HAYES, you are submitting/consenting to their authority, and conversely if you deny the liability of the corporate entity then you deny them the control that they need to enforce their penalty charge notices upon you. Denial of consent is denial of authority which means no penalties. It is as simple as that.
So now you know – government secures its authority over you by simply asking your name, or by getting you to fill in one of their forms. If you understand this then you can start to adjust the way in which you respond to their demands. Learn how to respond to this deceitful tyranny and your life will change; you will become freer in mind, in spirit and in reality. And the more of us pushing them back the faster we will take back control of our nation.
By denying the control that the legal fiction creates, you will be making an enormous stride in securing your freedom.
The fact remains that the Government and its institutions, i.e. the police, the courts, the taxman have authority over you by virtue of you unwittingly giving them your consent. But, whilst statutes (Acts of Parliament) apply only to the legal fiction – common law most definitely applies to YOU – the flesh and blood man or women. Be very careful to understand the difference. Common law which the police monitor as peace officers (constables) protects our natural rights, common law are the rules that govern how we behave towards our fellow men in order that we can all to live in peace and harmony with others without the threat of harm or loss.
So speeding, parking, council tax, VAT, PAYE etc all apply to the ‘legal fiction’ which you have an absolute right to reject if you so choose, but if standing up for your rights is too much trouble, you can chose to continue to remain compliant and obedient. Take your choice.
I have no objection to paying my fair share towards running a system of which we are all beneficiaries, but I will not be dictated to. If refusing to pay my council tax, speeding and parking fines is the way to bring about change that will benefit us all, then that is what I am going to do. Hopefully many more people will start thinking and acting like free men and women, the sooner we do then the sooner we will close down the tyranny and the sooner our lives will start to improve.
BUT… and there’s always a but, the ‘legal fiction’ has benefits as well as liabilities. The NHS, schooling, child benefits, land and home ownership, bank accounts etc, all come to you courtesy of the ‘legal fiction.’ If you want to dump the liabilities, you are potentially going to have to dump all the benefits as well. So you have to have a clear understanding on what it is you are letting yourself in for before you start messing with the system.
Dear reader, our controllers are not stupid… they have been working their scheme for a long time. They have devised a system that gives as well as it takes and it has been a careful balance of both of these that has allowed them to maintain their control. So if there are benefits as well as liabilities and we do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water, where do we go from here?
The answer to that dilemma is simple. The system can be used for our overall benefit. The bad guys have taken control of it and they are quite deliberately using it for their benefit at our expense. They are using it to fine us excessively and needlessly to feed their greed, to tax and persecute us; keeping us on a tread mill of servitude and making our lives a misery in the process. We have a right to take the benefits and reject the liabilities when the balance has been distorted to our detriment – which clearly it is.
The writer has been in court (on numerous occasions) denying the liabilities of the legal fiction – to date 100% successfully. There have been some feisty moments – it has been an interesting journey during which compliant servants of the system have watched in bewilderment (and ignorance) as we (many friends and activists) have turned up at court and said NO… we do not accept your authority. The shock to authority is palpable; they respond by shouting, barking orders for us to obey, they use threats, intimidation and occasionally they call their security guards and the police to try and force us into submission – all to no avail. We have stood our ground and witnessed the weakening of their resolve and have watched as they have instead slowly started to submit to our authority. In court now, we ask the questions and they do the responding. They become particularly more compliant when we remind them that the courts belong to the people… not them.
The flesh and blood man is considerably more powerful than their legal fiction controls; it is just a matter of discovering how it is that we can demonstrate our authority over them. It has been and will continue to be a bumpy ride, made smoother with the support of those who attend courts as witnesses. The British Constitution Group is pushing the tide of tyranny back slowly but surely, we do it with the knowledge that we are right and they are wrong as evidenced by their gradual submission to our demands. But we still have a long way to go. The more of us that join the fight, the faster we will take back control. We do not need elections or referendums or any other controlled mechanism to free ourselves from corrupt government be it in the UK or in Brussels, we just need the spirit, determination and courage to stand up and say NO.
We, the British people have right to govern ourselves, we have a natural instinct to want to preserve our sovereignty and our independence… but we have been lulled into thinking that we need the permission of a powerful elite to secure it… we do not.
We have become confused about our identity and our nationhood – we no longer understand the purpose of our constitution and the rule-of-law. Some of us have been fooled into thinking of ourselves as European, a universal description with as much meaning as calling ourselves earthlings. We are British – English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. We have amongst us people from every country on earth, here to share in what is unique to these islands and the British people – a nation of tolerance, compassion, fortitude, fair play and justice. We have taken these values to the world – and it seems that the time has come to do so again.
Our future will not be determined by a political party, it will not be determined by puppets like Clegg, Cameron or Brown (remember him?)… our future will be forged by those amongst us who find the courage to stand up for our rights and declare them to the world.
The tyranny that has been build up around us will crumble when we stand up and defend ourselves. This is a game of numbers… when there are more of us than there are of them… the job will be done.”
Know the difference between what is Lawful and what is Legal.
By Roger Hayes from: http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/content/living-rule-law
“Few of us would disagree that the world would be a better place if we all lived by the rule-of-law – but can the same be said about living by the rule of statute? The writer thinks not.
In making the case that ‘the law’ benefits our society as a whole but ‘statutes’ benefit special interest groups and have become a negative factor in our lives let me first put forward my views as to what the differences between laws and statutes are. Here follows a summary of my interpretation of the differences (not necessarily in order of importance, sometimes repeated and definitely not exhaustive) – please feel free to challenge me if you disagree.
Warning: My assumptions are based on my own logic and reasoning – I have the benefit of not having been ‘trained’ to think like a barrister or a solicitor – in fact I have not been ‘trained’ to think like anybody – I tend to think for myself, which it appears very few people do these days… most preferring it seems to being ‘guided’ conveniently to the same conclusions as the ruling elite – some might call it brainwashing, I wouldn’t be so rude. I invite you to think for yourself and make your own conclusions as to whether you think my assumptions are correct.
The basis of my thinking is that no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless they have given their consent. We are governed by consent. But we give our consent unwittingly – and that is how they control us. Withhold your consent and you take back control of your life.
- All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law – and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.
- A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.
- The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).
- There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.
- Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.
- Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.
- Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.
- The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.
- The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right – and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.
- A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance – but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.
- Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work). Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.
- If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.
- It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.
- If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.
- Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.
- Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.
- Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.
- Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.
- Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.
- We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
- We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.
- Law refers to common law.
- Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.
- Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.
- Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.
- Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.
- Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.
- Laws are used to keep the peace.
- Without law we have anarchy.
- The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.
- Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all.
- Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.
- Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.
- Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.
Courts, Judges & Juries
- If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.
- Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.
- Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.
- Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view… but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box – common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).
- The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.
- A jury can stand in judgement of anybody… nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)
- If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.
- A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.
- The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.
- Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution – they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment… which we must challenge.
- Magistrates Courts have become statute courts… mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.
- Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws – their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.
- Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically – the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.
- Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.
- If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.
- The courts belong to the people – they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.
- Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.
- Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented – (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) – is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’
- The courts are there to serve the interest of justice… they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.
- In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal… without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.
- The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.
- In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).
- You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.
- If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court… and that includes judges.
- Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes… by withholding their consent – the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control. Watch this space.
- A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes.
- The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes… all of their statutes… including the ones giving them the authority to tax us.
- This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European Union – because membership is determined by consent and I am withholding my consent to being governed by a foreign power.
- Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.
- Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.
KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it.
This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of the governing elite… but only because we allow it. Our freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to defend them when they are being snatched from us from right under our noses.”
Roger Hayes describes how the English Courts are now afraid of being confronted in court by the Lawful Rebellion movement which says the Judges are corrupt and are not following Common Law anymore. He also explains the workings of the Lawful Bank which will run parallel to the regular banks which are based upon debt. A whole new system based on Common Law…Banks and the Courts.
Lawful Bank (I’m a member/subscriber) can be found at: http://lawfulbank.com/