V……CONSENT of the Governed: The Freeman Movement Defined (FULL FILM)
This Page contains information relating to a Freeman-on-the-Land - YOU!
Magna Carta June 15, 1215
Clause /Article 45 of 63: We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly.
…………..As stated in the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane……………. 62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ... 63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"
My name is Richard, of the family Crabtree (also known as Richard Charles of the family Crabtree - but I don’t answer to Mr Crabtree or Mister Crabtree or Mr Richard Crabtree or any other form of "legal title" because these names of “legal title” are purely a “legal fiction”, and as such are not/could never and would not be my name)......January 1st 2007
Richard of the family Crabtree Freeman-on-the-Land ( Member of The British Constitution Group)
(Also known as Richard Charles of the family Crabtree)
NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT AND CLAIM OF RIGHT
© Richard of the family Crabtree January 1st 2007
I, Richard of the family Crabtree, also known as Richard Charles of the family Crabtree, do hereby declare My Statement of Truth that I am a Freeman-on-the-Land of England, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I am a Free Man with a body and soul, and I am also a sovereign man (as defined by Blacks Law Dictionary...Eighth Edition – sovereign - is defined as “ A person, body, or state vested with independent and supreme authority”) , and I am independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature, physics and the Common Law of the aforementioned Lands, and which applies to everyone equally, and which was - established by Alfred the Great and developed by the British men and women since, (and which incorporates the Charter of Liberties (1100AD) – the Council of Westminster (1102AD) – Petition of Rights (1627AD) – Bill of Rights (1689AD)) - and which was developed by the British people so that they could settle their differences peacefully, and the Common Law Principles are: Do not cause injury, harm or loss to another male or female human being, also known as a man and woman, and all human beings are created equally in the eyes of God, and no human being shall hold authority over me, and only God shall hold authority over me, and unless any human being can prove to me that they hold authority of God, and unless any human being can produce a statement signed by God to validate their statement that they hold authority over God, then I will retain my Common Law and Natural Law right to hold exclusive authority over myself with the only exception being God.
And, as a Free Man, and as is stated in Magna Carta Article 39 “ No Freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or deprived of his freehold or outlawed or banished or in any way ruined, nor will we take or order action against him, except by the lawful judgement of his equals and according to the law of the land” and, the statement above mentioned applies to me, Richard of the family Crabtree, and, Whereas it is my understanding that permanent estoppel by acquiescence (Lawful definition, I.E; estoppel by acquiescence “A rule of evidence whereby a person human being is barred from denying the truth of a fact that has already been settled with acceptance without protest”) barring any police officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Freeman-On-The-Land, flesh and blood man and blessed living Soul serving God alone, under any Act that is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time, Whereas affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein, or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) days of service of this notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and received via registered mail at the address herein provided, no later than TEN (10) days from the date of original service as dated by way of Royal Mail recorded delivery service, and, Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgement and permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute, act or regulation against myself, Freeman-on-the-Land Richard of the family Crabtree, for exercising these lawful and properly established rights, freedoms and duties. Place of claim of right: Crook, County Durham, England, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
And, as a Free Man, I comprehend and acknowledge that:
(1)STATUTES DO NOT APPLY TO LIVING SOULS.( only Common Law applies to living souls.) They apply to the fictional entities associated with me by way of contract. E.g. Driving License, Marriage License, Birth Certificates etc.
(2) I CREATE MONEY NOT BANKS. By signing a contract with a bank, my promise to pay is used to create the money. This legal agreement becomes a promissory note. The bank then “lends” me the money I created, at interest. Banks are invalid as they do not provide any consideration (i.e. they do not bring anything to the table of any value)
(3) COURTS NEED JURISDICTION. They must prove jurisdiction before proceeding with any court action.
(4) I QUESTION EVERYTHING. If I don’t comprehend what’s going on, then I have a duty to find out. It is my responsibility, and rightly so.
(5) It’s too easy to become distracted. I will adhere to the basic truth as I see it. Nothing is as complicated as it’s made out to be
And, as a Free Man, I retain my right to invoke and implement the following Articles and Protocol of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998:
Article 2: Right to life
Article 3: Inhuman treatment
Article 4: Slavery
Article 5: Right to Liberty
Article 6: Right to a fair trial
Article 7: Retrospective crimes
Article 8: Right to privacy
Article 9: Freedom of conscience
Article 10: Freedom of expression
Article 11: Freedom of assembly
Article 14: Discrimination
Protocol No 1 Articles 1/2/3
NOTICE: de jure applies in every instance, and as pertaining to the Common Law of the aforementioned lands
NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT AND CLAIM OF RIGHT (continued)
A STATUTE is “an ACT of Parliament given the force of law by the consent of the governed”. Therefore, if I, Richard of the family Crabtree do not consent to a STATUTE, it does not apply to me.
There are only two true laws in the aforementioned lands, and they are Common Law and Natural Law.
The law of STATUTES is the law of CONTRACT. And I, as a human being, have the right to decline to contract, and, I comprehend that the police and courts represent “for profit” companies: they enforce the rules of the corporation, and, rules of corporations are not laws, they are policy, and, the PERSON – a fictitious entity - created by a corporation by the REGISTRATION, and unwittingly by my parents, of my birth and known as my BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and, I comprehend that a STATUTE requires a contract: where a contract is an agreement between two or more PERSONS that creates or modifies an existing relationship, and, I am a human being – I am not a PERSON, and, I decline to CONTRACT with the police and with the courts of this CORPORATION or any like CORPORATION, and, failure to differentiate between STATUTE and a law is GROSS NEGLIGENCE which under common law is equivalent to FRAUD, and, this applies to anyone attempting to ENFORCE a STATUTE upon me, no matter WHO they are
(For any transgressions whatsoever against my STATUS of: Richard of the family Crabtree Freeman-on-the Land)
I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by police officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants as FIVE HUNDRED BRITISH POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated ,and
TWO THOUSAND BRITISH POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated, regulated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and notarised consent
Constructive Notice of Child of God Status (concurrent with Freeman-on-the-Land Status)
Whereas England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland is a nation founded upon the belief in the principles of the supremacy of God and the rule of law, and, Whereas the number two position in the hierarchy is not claimed by anyone, and, whereas the governments of this nation seem to rely on deception to gain the power to govern, and, Whereas I am desirous of living my life as a “Child of God,” and, Whereas the only powers able to claim any authority over a “Child of God” is God, and, Whereas neither the government, nor its agents nor its representatives or employees are God, or above God, and, Whereas by lawfully and or legally claiming the number two position in the above mentioned hierarchy, I occupy a position above all governments and their agents and employees and representatives, Be it known to any and all, that on this date,..............January 1st 2007..............I, Richard of the family Crabtree a Free human being; do hereby lawfully claim the status of a “Child of God”. Any human being who wishes to claim any authority over me must first prove they exist above God: they are God; they Are between me and God; or they have a document upon the face of which can be found the verifiable signature of God. Failure to first do one of the above mentioned things means all claims to authority is abandoned or is unlawful. Attempting to exercise any authority over me without first fulfilling one of the four above mentioned requirements is an Unlawful act of fraud and / or extortion
Abuses by King John caused a revolt by nobles who compelled him to execute this recognition of rights for both noblemen and ordinary Englishmen. It established the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law.
Preamble: John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the illustrious men William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz Gerold, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert De Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and others, our liegemen.
1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.
2. If any of our earls or barons, or others holding of us in chief by military service shall have died, and at the time of his death his heir shall be full of age and owe "relief", he shall have his inheritance by the old relief, to wit, the heir or heirs of an earl, for the whole barony of an earl by £100; the heir or heirs of a baron, £100 for a whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, 100s, at most, and whoever owes less let him give less, according to the ancient custom of fees.
3. If, however, the heir of any one of the aforesaid has been under age and in wardship, let him have his inheritance without relief and without fine when he comes of age.
4. The guardian of the land of an heir who is thus under age, shall take from the land of the heir nothing but reasonable produce, reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without destruction or waste of men or goods; and if we have committed the wardship of the lands of any such minor to the sheriff, or to any other who is responsible to us for its issues, and he has made destruction or waster of what he holds in wardship, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, who shall be responsible for the issues to us or to him to whom we shall assign them; and if we have given or sold the wardship of any such land to anyone and he has therein made destruction or waste, he shall lose that wardship, and it shall be transferred to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall be responsible to us in like manner as aforesaid.
5. The guardian, moreover, so long as he has the wardship of the land, shall keep up the houses, parks, fishponds, stanks, mills, and other things pertaining to the land, out of the issues of the same land; and he shall restore to the heir, when he has come to full age, all his land, stocked with ploughs and wainage, according as the season of husbandry shall require, and the issues of the land can reasonable bear.
6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement, yet so that before the marriage takes place the nearest in blood to that heir shall have notice.
7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and inheritance; nor shall she give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for the inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of the death of that husband; and she may remain in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned to her.
8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she prefers to live without a husband; provided always that she gives security not to marry without our consent, if she holds of us, or without the consent of the lord of whom she holds, if she holds of another.
9. Neither we nor our bailiffs will seize any land or rent for any debt, as long as the chattels of the debtor are sufficient to repay the debt; nor shall the sureties of the debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor is able to satisfy the debt; and if the principal debtor shall fail to pay the debt, having nothing wherewith to pay it, then the sureties shall answer for the debt; and let them have the lands and rents of the debtor, if they desire them, until they are indemnified for the debt which they have paid for him, unless the principal debtor can show proof that he is discharged thereof as against the said sureties.
10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.
11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.
12. No scutage not aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London.
13. And the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.
14. And for obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom anent the assessing of an aid (except in the three cases aforesaid) or of a scutage, we will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons, severally by our letters; and we will moveover cause to be summoned generally, through our sheriffs and bailiffs, and others who hold of us in chief, for a fixed date, namely, after the expiry of at least forty days, and at a fixed place; and in all letters of such summons we will specify the reason of the summons. And when the summons has thus been made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the counsel of such as are present, although not all who were summoned have come.
15. We will not for the future grant to anyone license to take an aid from his own free tenants, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his eldest daughter; and on each of these occasions there shall be levied only a reasonable aid.
16. No one shall be distrained for performance of greater service for a knight's fee, or for any other free tenement, than is due therefrom.
17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be held in some fixed place.
18. Inquests of novel disseisin, of mort d'ancestor, and of darrein presentment shall not be held elsewhere than in their own county courts, and that in manner following; We, or, if we should be out of the realm, our chief justiciar, will send two justiciaries through every county four times a year, who shall alone with four knights of the county chosen by the county, hold the said assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place of meeting of that court.
19. And if any of the said assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, let there remain of the knights and freeholders, who were present at the county court on that day, as many as may be required for the efficient making of judgments, according as the business be more or less.
20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except in accordance with the degree of the offense; and for a grave offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of the offense, yet saving always his "contentment"; and a merchant in the same way, saving his "merchandise"; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his "wainage" if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of honest men of the neighborhood.
21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in accordance with the degree of the offense.
22. A clerk shall not be amerced in respect of his lay holding except after the manner of the others aforesaid; further, he shall not be amerced in accordance with the extent of his ecclesiastical benefice.
23. No village or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river banks, except those who from of old were legally bound to do so.
24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or others of our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our Crown.
25. All counties, hundred, wapentakes, and trithings (except our demesne manors) shall remain at the old rents, and without any additional payment.
26. If anyone holding of us a lay fief shall die, and our sheriff or bailiff shall exhibit our letters patent of summons for a debt which the deceased owed us, it shall be lawful for our sheriff or bailiff to attach and enroll the chattels of the deceased, found upon the lay fief, to the value of that debt, at the sight of law worthy men, provided always that nothing whatever be thence removed until the debt which is evident shall be fully paid to us; and the residue shall be left to the executors to fulfill the will of the deceased; and if there be nothing due from him to us, all the chattels shall go to the deceased, saving to his wife and children their reasonable shares.
27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest kinsfolk and friends, under supervision of the Church, saving to every one the debts which the deceased owed to him.
28. No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take corn or other provisions from anyone without immediately tendering money therefor, unless he can have postponement thereof by permission of the seller.
29. No constable shall compel any knight to give money in lieu of castle-guard, when he is willing to perform it in his own person, or (if he himself cannot do it from any reasonable cause) then by another responsible man. Further, if we have led or sent him upon military service, he shall be relieved from guard in proportion to the time during which he has been on service because of us.
30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, against the will of the said freeman.
31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take, for our castles or for any other work of ours, wood which is not ours, against the will of the owner of that wood.
32. We will not retain beyond one year and one day, the lands those who have been convicted of felony, and the lands shall thereafter be handed over to the lords of the fiefs.
33. All kydells for the future shall be removed altogether from Thames and Medway, and throughout all England, except upon the seashore.
34. The writ which is called praecipe shall not for the future be issued to anyone, regarding any tenement whereby a freeman may lose his court.
35. Let there be one measure of wine throughout our whole realm; and one measure of ale; and one measure of corn, to wit, "the London quarter"; and one width of cloth (whether dyed, or russet, or "halberget"), to wit, two ells within the selvedges; of weights also let it be as of measures.
36. Nothing in future shall be given or taken for a writ of inquisition of life or limbs, but freely it shall be granted, and never denied.
37. If anyone holds of us by fee-farm, either by socage or by burage, or of any other land by knight's service, we will not (by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage), have the wardship of the heir, or of such land of his as if of the fief of that other; nor shall we have wardship of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage, unless such fee-farm owes knight's service. We will not by reason of any small serjeancy which anyone may hold of us by the service of rendering to us knives, arrows, or the like, have wardship of his heir or of the land which he holds of another lord by knight's service.
38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his "law", without credible witnesses brought for this purposes.
39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
41. All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.
42. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom, and natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as if above provided) to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water, except for a short period in time of war, on grounds of public policy- reserving always the allegiance due to us.
43. If anyone holding of some escheat (such as the honor of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other escheats which are in our hands and are baronies) shall die, his heir shall give no other relief, and perform no other service to us than he would have done to the baron if that barony had been in the baron's hand; and we shall hold it in the same manner in which the baron held it.
44. Men who dwell without the forest need not henceforth come before our justiciaries of the forest upon a general summons, unless they are in plea, or sureties of one or more, who are attached for the forest.
45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.
46. All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings of England, or of which they have long continued possession, shall have the wardship of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.
47. All forests that have been made such in our time shall forthwith be disafforsted; and a similar course shall be followed with regard to river banks that have been placed "in defense" by us in our time.
48. All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England.
49. We will immediately restore all hostages and charters delivered to us by Englishmen, as sureties of the peace of faithful service.
50. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks, the relations of Gerard of Athee (so that in future they shall have no bailiwick in England); namely, Engelard of Cigogne, Peter, Guy, and Andrew of Chanceaux, Guy of Cigogne, Geoffrey of Martigny with his brothers, Philip Mark with his brothers and his nephew Geoffrey, and the whole brood of the same.
51. As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign born knights, crossbowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers who have come with horses and arms to the kingdom's hurt.
52. If anyone has been dispossessed or removed by us, without the legal judgment of his peers, from his lands, castles, franchises, or from his right, we will immediately restore them to him; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided by the five and twenty barons of whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the peace. Moreover, for all those possessions, from which anyone has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed, by our father, King Henry, or by our brother, King Richard, and which we retain in our hand (or which as possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised, or an inquest made by our order, before our taking of the cross; but as soon as we return from the expedition, we will immediately grant full justice therein.
53. We shall have, moreover, the same respite and in the same manner in rendering justice concerning the disafforestation or retention of those forests which Henry our father and Richard our broter afforested, and concerning the wardship of lands which are of the fief of another (namely, such wardships as we have hitherto had by reason of a fief which anyone held of us by knight's service), and concerning abbeys founded on other fiefs than our own, in which the lord of the fee claims to have right; and when we have returned, or if we desist from our expedition, we will immediately grant full justice to all who complain of such things.
54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.
55. All fines made with us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements, imposed unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted, or else it shall be done concerning them according to the decision of the five and twenty barons whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the pease, or according to the judgment of the majority of the same, along with the aforesaid Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he may wish to bring with him for this purpose, and if he cannot be present the business shall nevertheless proceed without him, provided always that if any one or more of the aforesaid five and twenty barons are in a similar suit, they shall be removed as far as concerns this particular judgment, others being substituted in their places after having been selected by the rest of the same five and twenty for this purpose only, and after having been sworn.
56. If we have disseised or removed Welshmen from lands or liberties, or other things, without the legal judgment of their peers in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored to them; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided in the marches by the judgment of their peers; for the tenements in England according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales according to the law of Wales, and for tenements in the marches according to the law of the marches. Welshmen shall do the same to us and ours.
57. Further, for all those possessions from which any Welshman has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed by King Henry our father, or King Richard our brother, and which we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, and which we ought to warrant), we will have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised or an inquest made by our order before we took the cross; but as soon as we return (or if perchance we desist from our expedition), we will immediately grant full justice in accordance with the laws of the Welsh and in relation to the foresaid regions.
58. We will immediately give up the son of Llywelyn and all the hostages of Wales, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.
59. We will do towards Alexander, king of Scots, concerning the return of his sisters and his hostages, and concerning his franchises, and his right, in the same manner as we shall do towards our owher barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise according to the charters which we hold from William his father, formerly king of Scots; and this shall be according to the judgment of his peers in our court.
60. Moreover, all these aforesaid customs and liberties, the observances of which we have granted in our kingdom as far as pertains to us towards our men, shall be observed b all of our kingdom, as well clergy as laymen, as far as pertains to them towards their men.
61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted,to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.
62. And all the will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our men, clergy and lay, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely remitted and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said quarrel, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace, we have fully remitted to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as pertains to us. And on this head, we have caused to be made for them letters testimonial patent of the lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops aforesaid, and of Master Pandulf as touching this security and the concessions aforesaid.
63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent.
Given under our hand - the above named and many others being witnesses - in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.
This is but one of three different translations I found of the Magna Carta; it was originally done in Latin, probably by the Archbishop, Stephen Langton. It was in force for only a few months, when it was violated by the king. Just over a year later, with no resolution to the war, the king died, being succeeded by his 9-year old son, Henry III. The Charter (Carta) was reissued again, with some revisions, in 1216, 1217 and 1225. As near as I can tell, the version presented here is the one that preceeded all of the others; nearly all of it's provisions were soon superceded by other laws, and none of it is effective today.
The two other versions I found each professed to be the original, as well. The basic intent of each is the same.
Gerald Murphy (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa300)
This was written from the point of view of the monarch at the time (King John), consequently "we" and "us", etc, refer to the monarch. The 'twenty-five Barons' are a bit of an enigma today, however the intent is pretty clear. Perhaps these days 'Lords' or even (since the advent of Parliament) 'MPs' could be substituted. What Article 61 says to me (at least) is that a modern implementation would take 25 people (possibly elected) who could even be given the courtesy title of 'Baron'. Their task would be to hear grievances and to act upon them in accordance with Article 61. The role (fallacy) of an Ombudsman would become extinct.
Here is Article 61 in its entirety. I've added links to notes that I feel are appropriate. I've also 'paragraphed' it in (what I consider to be) a more readable fashion - but I have not altered one word or any other punctuation. (You can check this by clicking on the title above, which is linked to the Magna Carter website)
All we need is "25 Barons" (who are decent and honest human beings).
Note to debunkers, legal eagles, constitutional lawyers & other superior beings, etc: The Magna Carta was written in Mediaeval Latin and translated into English, and I am English. Consequently I can read, write and comprehend English. It was written in relatively simple terms. It wasn't written to be read and 'interpreted' by lawyers, because they did not exist (in any sufficient numbers) at the time. Put simply, it was written in a way that could be readily translated so as to be understood by those who speak, read, and write the English language. Therefore my understanding is comparable to that of anyone else. It may be that, at the time it was written, few could read it in Feudal England. But that is not the case today.
Furthermore the original (1215) Magna Carta pre-dates any 'parliament'. And it was written with the general approval of the English Nation in an effort to define how a decent, just, and non-tyrannical society could function. Pre-dating Parliament, as it does, means that it falls outside to scope of any later Parliamentary attempts to modify it, or otherwise water it down. To do this is an act of treason against nation as a whole, since it forms the basis, or bedrock, for the British Constitution. Therefore to assert (as some do) that the Magna Carta is simply an icon is fallacious. Article 61, below, clearly states that assertions designed to undermine it are null & void.
But since we have granted all these things aforesaid, for GOD, and for the amendment of our kingdom, and for the better extinguishing the discord which has arisen between us and our Barons, we being desirous that these things should possess entire and unshaken stability for ever, give and grant to them the security underwritten;
namely, that the Barons may elect twenty-five Barons of the kingdom, whom they please, who shall with their whole power, observe, keep, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have granted to them, and have confirmed by this our present charter, in this manner:
that is to say, if we, or our Justiciary, or our bailiffs, or any of our officers, shall have injured any one in any thing, or shall have violated any article of the peace or security, and the injury shall have been shown to four of the aforesaid twenty-five Barons, the said four Barons shall come to us, or to our Justiciary if we be out of the kingdom, and making known to us the excess committed, petition that we cause that excess to be redressed without delay.
And if we shall not have redressed the excess, or, if we have been out of the kingdom, our Justiciary shall not have redressed it within the term of forty days , computing from the time when it shall have been made known to us, or to our Justiciary if we have been out of the kingdom, the aforesaid four Barons, shall lay that cause before the residue of the twenty-five Barons;
and they, the twenty-five Barons, with the community of the whole land, shall distress and harass us by all the ways in which they are able; that is to say, by the taking of our castles, lands, and possessions, and by any other means in their power, until the excess shall have been redressed, according to their verdict; saving harmless our person, and the persons of our Queen and children; and when it hath been redressed, they shall behave to us as they have done before.
And whoever of our land pleaseth, may swear, that he will obey the commands of the aforesaid twenty-five Barons, in accomplishing all the things aforesaid, and that with them he will harass us to the utmost of his power: and we publicly and freely give leave to every one to swear who is willing to swear; and we will never forbid any to swear.
But all those of our land, who, of themselves, and of their own accord, are unwilling to swear to the twenty-five Barons, to distress and harass us together with them, we will compel them by our command, to swear as aforesaid.
And if any one of the twenty-five Barons shall die, or remove out of the land, or in any other way shall be prevented from executing the things above said, they who remain of the twenty-five Barons shall elect another in his place, according to their own pleasure, who shall be sworn in the same manner as the rest.
In all those things which are appointed to be done by these twenty-five Barons, if it happen that all the twenty-five have been present, and have differed in their opinions about any thing, or if some of them who had been summoned, would not, or could not be present, that which the greater part of those who were present shall have provided and decreed, shall be held as firm and as valid, as if all the twenty-five had agreed in it: and the aforesaid twenty-five shall swear, that they will faithfully observe, and, with all their power, cause to be observed, all the things mentioned above.
And we will obtain nothing from any one, by ourselves, nor by another, by which any of these concessions and liberties may be revoked or diminished. And if any such thing shall have been obtained, let it be void and null: and we will never use it, neither by ourselves nor by another.
End of Article 61.
. "entire and unshaken stability for ever". No time limit, therefore applies in 2008, 2009, etc.
. Yes, we are talking about 'security' and not about giving up liberty.
 Who elects the Barons in the first place? See "Notes about democracy", below.
 Security entirely due to peace and liberties?
. "or any of our officers, shall have injured any one in any thing" ... e.g. police? Violating "peace or security" ... could that be unlawful support of bailiffs? Tasering, killing innocent Brazilians, etc?
. "without delay" does not mean ignoring it, or tying it up in yards of red tape. It means "without delay". Only four of the Barons need to be convinced of the grievance (initially).
. There's the "forty days" in order to limit any delays. Forty days in 1215 is no different from forty days in 2008. In fact forty days could be considered excessive in a society dominated by the ready access to computers.
. "with the community of the whole land" ... that's anyone and everyone who sees or feels the 'distress'?
. "shall distress and harass us by all the ways in which they are able" ... that's anything (initially) but this is later qualified (quite reasonably) not to mean violence.
. "by the taking of our castles, lands, and possessions" in other words we could take Buck House, Windsor Castle, etc.
. "and by any other means in their power" ... non-cooperation, lawful rebellion, for example.
. "until the excess shall have been redressed" ... the monarch, or 'authorities' can have it all back once the grievance has been sorted out. That's perfectly reasonable of course.
. "saving harmless our person, and the persons of our Queen and children" ... but we cannot, and must never, resort to violence of course.
. "they shall behave to us as they have done before" ... the situation will return to normal. The Queen will get Buck House back.
. "he will obey the commands of the aforesaid twenty-five Barons" provided they are honest and operate with integrity?
. "with them he will harass us to the utmost of his power" ditto to 14, above. Apart from violence, and non-cooperation ("spanners in works") is actually encouraged?
. "and we publicly and freely give leave to every one to swear who is willing to swear; and we will never forbid any to swear" ... it's everyone's right, and can't be taken away.
. "But all those of our land, who, of themselves, and of their own accord, are unwilling to swear to the twenty-five Barons, to distress and harass us together with them, we will compel them by our command, to swear as aforesaid" In fact you have these rights, whether you like it or not!
. "shall elect another in his place" elect = a hint at democracy. See "Notes about democracy", below.
. The aforesaid all works on a majority basis (another hint at democracy). See "Notes about democracy", below.
. And this is the position in 1215 and any time thereafter. And it cannot be taken away. And if any 'law' is passed which contravenes this situation, that 'law' is only 'colour of law' i.e. it is null & void.
Notes about Democracy.
The word 'elect' appears twice in this Clause, which leads to the interesting idea of "democracy". The method of election is left unstated. Nevertheless, as many appreciate today, the Establishment basically 'elects' itself (as it always did). In 2008, the methodology is simply more subtle, i.e. swords are no longer used, the media being used instead.
There is nothing to stop 25 people changing their names, via Deed Polls, to "Baron ...". A Baron is considered to be someone with an "estate", but any person possesses "an estate" in legal terms. (Try making a Will, without using that word). This would satisfy the wording of Article 61, enabling the essence of it to be put into practice.
It may be that the Royal Family claim the "divine right of kings" to award Baronetcies but this, in itself, could be considered a grievance (to be redressed) under Article 61 ... where the alternative could be to democratically-elect 25 honest & decent persons, to be given the courtesy title of Baron/Baroness (merely in order to satisfy the wording), with the specific task of implementing and maintaining the essence of Article 61. (I suggest).
So ... how about a "Clause or Article 61" Political Party? Dedicated to implementing this portion of the Magna Carta. No other portion of that document conflicts with any other, so it is possible to focus on one aspect. And then widen the scope to encompass Clause 39, and the Bill of Rights (etc) at a later date.
Since the EU is attempting to ban Political Parties from 2009 onwards, this lawful rebellion could rebound back on it. As the party was being banned it is likely that an opportunity would exist to announce, via a soundbite: "We are only trying to explain that Article 61 can be used to solve grievances". Who would not be interested in that? Everyone has grievances. Could this be a way of waking people up?
Veronica Chapman, August, 2008
……………………..Lawful Rebellion……………..VIDEO PRESENTATIONS (Text first then VIDEOs below)………………
V…… Common law explained to a jolly policeman.
V…… Naughty police and freeman pt 1
V…… Common law Right to Travel Freeman encounters Police
V…… Peaceful non compliance
V…… how to question the police pt 1
V…… LEGALLY STOP PAYING TAXES And YOU Can Stop The Genocide Now!
V…… COURTS pt1
V…… Chapter 1 Do I need a license
V…… Freeman Interview 1/4 MUST SEE!!
V…… Reclaim Your Sovereignty 1 of 10
V…… Slavery by Consent Pt.1 (Opener)
V…… The Freeman and Strawman Explained
V…… The Magna Carta- An Interview With Ken Clarke
UK Police Officers oath which is referred to as the "Attestation"
All UK Police Officers swear this "Attestation"
"I, .. .. of .. .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."
The Oath of Allegiance (Judicial or Official Oath) is a promise to be loyal to the British monarch, and her heirs and successors, sworn by certain public servants in the United Kingdom, and also by newly naturalised subjects in citizenship ceremonies. The Victorian promissory oaths of allegiances, are set out in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868  in the following form:
When judges are sworn in they take two oaths/affirmations. The first is the oath of allegiance and the second the judicial oath; these are collectively referred to as the judicial oath.
“I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.”
“I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will."
"I, ____________ , do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second Her Heirs and Successors according to Law."
"I, ____________ , do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ____________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will."
(estoppel by acquiescence )
Definitions of estoppel on the Web:
Definitions of acquiescence on the Web:
Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you. (See Established, Fundamental, Axioms Below)
by Veronica » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:20 am
I get asked about how to word a Notice of Estoppel once the time period for objections has expired.
It's difficult to write a specific one, because it depends on circumstances, and what's been written in prior communications.
However, as a guideline, I suggest that it should be headed: Notice of Lawful Estoppel, and I suggest the letter should be 'wrapped around' the following:
Statutory Instruments Act 1946
1946 CHAPTER 36 9 and 10 Geo 6
An Act to repeal the Rules Publication Act 1893, and to make further provision as to the instruments by which statutory powers to make orders, rules, regulations and other SUBORDINATE legislation are exercised.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... iew=extent
NOTE………Definitions for…SUBORDINATE (See phrasing from the facing cover of “Statutory Instruments Act 1946”)
1…Placed in a lower order, class, or rank; holding a lower or inferior position. [1913 Webster]
2. Inferior in order, nature, dignity, power, importance, or the like. [1913 Webster]
Legal Dictionary - Main Entry: sub•or•di•nate - Pronunciation: s&-'bord-&n-&t - Function: adjective
1: placed in or occupying a lower rank, class, or position
2: submissive to or controlled by authority
…………..As stated in the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane……………. 62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ... 63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"
The British Constitution – Our rights as Freemen or Freewomen
The extract below is taken from the British Constitution Group https://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/constitution/
The Ministry of Justice has this to say about the Constitution – (see after conclusion)
The British Constitution is not, as it is in many countries, a ‘written constitution’. It is not codified in a single document but is made up of a complex web of statutes, conventions, and a corpus of common and other law. It is also informed by an interweaving of history and more modern democratic principles. The legal premise of the United Kingdom constitution – that the UK parliament is sovereign – is a fundamental part of our constitutional arrangements. This means that an Act of Parliament must be obeyed by the courts, that later acts prevail over earlier ones, and that the rules made by external bodies cannot override Acts of Parliament.
The Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta are important elements of our constitution. Magna Carta is Primary legislation and has the same status as any other legislation and is not immune from repeal or amendment. The same applies to the Bill of Rights which was an ordinary Act of Parliament passed in the ordinary way.
This statement is untrue - it is a political interpretation, with a political agenda. It is designed to nullify our Constitution and the protections it provides.
The first line, for example, states that the British Constitution is "unwritten." This is untrue, often repeated and unqualified in the press. It is strange that the Ministry of Justice would make such a statement, since the British Constitution is the basis for many of the world's constitutions, including those of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India.
It is worth quoting U.S. President John Adams here, because he makes a few points to which we should pay close attention. Discussing the British Parliament and Constitution, he wrote:
If the people are not equitably represented in the house of commons, this is a departure in practice from the theory. — If the lords return members of the house of commons, this is an additional disturbance of the balance: whether the crown and the people in such a case will not see the necessity of uniting in a remedy, are questions beyond my pretensions: I only contend that the English constitution is, in theory, the most stupendous fabric of human invention, both for the adjustment of the balance, and the prevention of its vibrations; and that the Americans ought to be applauded instead of censured, for imitating it, as far as they have. Not the formation of languages, not the whole art of navigation and ship building, does more honour to the human understanding than this system of government.
So what is this Constitution that the Ministry of Justice denies, and yet was held in high regard by one of the authors of the American constitution? Why would they wish to brush it under the carpet? Could it be that it has been treasonously and unlawfully undermined?
Common Law was established by Alfred the Great, who reigned from 871-899AD. He compiled the laws and customs of the nation into the "Liber Judicialis," based on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Alfred's son, Edward, declared
To all who are charged with the administration of public affairs I give the express command that they show themselves in all things to be just judges precisely as in the Liber Judicialis it is written; nor shall any of them fear to declare the common law freely and courageously"
In contradiction to the Common Law, the Civil Law of Rome prevailed in continental Europe. When William the Conqueror invaded in 1066, he brought with him jurists and clerics steeped in the principles of Roman civil law. Our ancient laws and customs withstood the shock, and remained without any serious amendment. Common Law includes the Charter of Liberties, which makes the Monarch subject to the law, the 1102 Synod of Westminster, which abolished slavery in England, the 1627 Petition of Right, which granted the right to criticise the government without fear of arrest, as well as Magna Carta and the Declaration of Right. Common Law defends property rights and rights to self defence.
Many of our greatest constitutional documents are Common Law documents. These are not Acts of Parliament. Their principles cannot be repealed by Parliament, and when our Monarch swore to uphold the "laws and customs" of the people of the United Kingdom at her Coronation, those "laws and customs" include Common Law.
The Coronation Oath is the freely taken and mutual covenant between the Monarch and the People of Britain. During the Coronation ceremony, the People effectively elect the Monarch, and in return, the Monarch swears the Coronation Oath. Here is the Oath Elizabeth II swore -
Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen: I will.
Six British Monarchs have been deposed in one form or another, having been deselected for their failure to maintain the rights and liberties of the People. They were Ethelred, Richard II, Henry VI, Charles I (executed), James II and Edward VIII.
We have a tri-partite government in this country. Parliament, the Judiciary and the Monarchy are intended to provide protections and limits upon each other. One of those limiting powers is Royal Assent. Since Queen Anne. no British Monarch has withheld Royal Assent from an Act of Parliament. Nevertheless it remains there as the exclusive authority of the Monarch, to be used when necessary on behalf of the People. As such, several of our Sovereigns since Anne, especially the present Queen, have broken their Coronation Oath by refusing to withhold Royal Assent from unconstitutional statute. While Government is tri-partite, we the People must recognise our role in demanding our good governance. Remember what John Adams said?
... whether the crown and the people in such a case will not see the necessity of uniting in a remedy.
If we are unhappy with the manner in which we are governed, we have no right to a remedy until we are willing to act in our own defence. We must demand that our Monarch lives by the oath she took. If she does not, we must seek redress elsewhere.
Magna Carta - a Common Law document - was originally signed in 1215, a contract between the knights, barons, clergy, townspeople and the King. Magna Carta affirmed the right of the People to such things as trial by jury, and protection from excessive fines.
In 1297 the Model Parliament confirmed Magna Carta in statute law. Much of this statute has since been repealed. It should be noted that while Parliament can repeal or amend any Act of Parliament (statute), Parliament was not a party to the original Common Law contract, and cannot, therefore, amend or repeal it lawfully, and thus its original provisions remain intact.
The word Parliament comes from the French word parlement. Parlement is derived from parler, to speak, and ment, which according to Bullet's Celtic dictionary, published in 1754, is synonymous with quantité. So Parliament means, lots of talk, a discussion. Some suggest a more ironic derivation for the word, that ment is derived from the French verb mentir, to lie. The first known use of the word mentir is the 10th century, well before the first Parliament, so maybe ... The second explanation certainly seems more appropriate in modern Britain.
The first English Parliament took place in 1265, during the reign of Henry III. The Parliament was called by Simon de Montford, who had captured Henry during the Barons Wars. Montford's Parliament was the first council to include elected representatives from the shires and boroughs - one of many reforms Montford's rebellion was about.
Montford died defending his reforms, but in 1275, Robert Burnell incorporated them into the first Statute of Westminster, passed during the reign of Edward I. According to William Stubbs, the British constitutional historian,
This act is almost a code by itself; it contains fifty-one clauses, and covers the whole ground of legislation. Its language now recalls that of Canute or Alfred, now anticipates that of our own day; on the one hand common right is to be done to all, as well poor as rich, without respect of persons; on the other, elections are to be free, and no man is by force, malice or menace, to disturb them. The spirit of the Great Charter is not less discernible: excessive amercements, abuses of wardship, irregular demands for feudal aids, are forbidden in the same words or by amending enactments.
Clause 15, known as the Freedom of Election Act 1275, is still in force today.
The Petition of Right at the beginning of the 17th century, and the Declaration of Right and Bill of Rights at the end, embody a century long fight to constrain the power of Government. At that time it was the Monarch who desired a divine right. Today it is our Parliamentarians. The Petition of Right and Declaration of Right are Common Law contracts between the People and the Crown. The Bill of Rights is a statue law enactment of the Declaration of Right.
The Declaration of Right was imposed upon William and Mary as a condition of their assuming the Crown - in other words, they would only be elected by the People if they accepted its terms.
The Declaration of Right, and the Bill of Rights, clearly state that -
no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.
So it can clearly be seen that every EU treaty imposed upon us by Parliament, is unconstitutional. Here is the evidence that our present Monarch has indeed broken her Coronation Oath, by giving Royal Assent to these treaties.
Other constitutional rights given by these contracts -
The right to bear arms gives every person the right to self defence using reasonable force, including deadly force if appropriate. Using tragic events as an excuse to remove that right has historically been the work of governments with good reason to fear their people - government’s intent on some kind of future totalitarian control of their populations.
There are many unwritten customs which are considered to be ancient traditions that have always belonged to the People. One obvious example is the right to free speech, for which, unlike the U.S. Constitution, there is no written provision within the British Constitution. So while we have shown in the previous pages that our rights and liberties are clearly stated in written contracts, it is also true that many of our rights, whilst not in written form, are equally valid.
Today the British Constitution is in grave danger. Moves are afoot to replace the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. These are to be replaced by a new "Bill of Rights" and a European constitution. Britain's constitutional documents are timeless, and were constructed by the People. The new "constitutional" documents will be written by politicians. Which would you trust?
Parliament has grabbed executive power from the Crown. The House of Lords has become a body which blindly follows the party whip. And today, our Monarch simply complies with the wishes of the Prime Minister, with no thought or consideration to our sovereignty or the Constitution. Nor, it seems, to the solemn oath she took at her Coronation.
[Executive power] will corrupt the legislature as necessarily as rust corrupts iron ... and when the legislature is corrupted, the people are undone. John Adams
Below is an extract taken from UKPoliceOnline http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/41026-freemen-and-lawful-rebellion/
I know this subject has been much discussed on this forum and caused some upset but from what I can see it has been given the wrong impression by some of the visitors from the freemen sites, I feel I should try to explain the basis etc behind Lawful Rebellion and being a freeman.
The way our country is governed reflects our society and its values. Democratic principles run through all areas of our lives, guaranteeing our rights and freedoms and giving every citizen say in decision-making and elections.
We are working to renew our constitution and revitalize our democracy to build a new relationship between citizens and government. Freedom of Information has resulted in government which is more open than ever before. Devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has brought decision-making closer to people and government is becoming more accountable to Parliament and citizens through their elected MPs.
Reforming the House of Lords will lead to a strengthened, more legitimate second chamber with members who directly represent the public and scrutinize the government on their behalf. A new Supreme Court has replaced the judicial function of the House of Lords, formally separating the judges who apply the law from the people who make the law. Its 12 members will decide on important points of law and act as the highest court of appeal.
Democracy flourishes when people value and participate in it. We want to ensure that everyone who has the right to vote is able to exercise it in accessible and secure elections. We are considering reforms to make it easier for people to take part in elections and register to vote, with new security measures to prevent fraud or abuse of the system.
Alongside reforms to the electoral system, we are working to increase the transparency of our politics by regulating the way political parties raise and spend money, to safeguard public confidence in the political process.
We also oversee fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. We are working to ensure that all public authorities understand and consider our human rights and the broader needs of society, when developing policies and delivering services.
We are also responsible for data protection and, working with the Information Commissioner, produces guidance and promotes best practice to raise standards across the private and public sector to ensure people’s personal information is properly protected and treated with respect.
We also work with other European and international countries to encourage cooperation across borders, including protecting people from crime, helping them access effective justice systems and respecting their rights, at home and abroad.
The extract below was taken from the – UK STATUTE LAW DATABASE
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggested that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.
Lord Justice Laws on 18th February 2002: “The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689…Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not….”
Anne Palmer JP
Select Committee on European Union Tenth Report
SUB-COMMITTEE E (LAW AND INSTITUTIONS) Anne Palmer JP
In addition the following gave written evidence which has not been printed, but is available for inspection at the Parliamentary Archives (020 7219 5314).
The Federal Trust
SUB-COMMITTEE F Mrs Anne Palmer
No new written constitution can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689. The Government's own Research Paper (96/82 dated 18th July 1996-available direct from Parliament, page 36) makes that clear.
An extract from: http://eurealist.co.uk/archives/2110
Bill of Rights and new written Constitution.
An open letter from Anne Palmer
Dear Lord Onslow,
Re Proposed new Bill of Rights and possibly a new written Constitution.
I have already expressed my concerns about the proposals for a new written Constitution and a Bill of Rights yet I feel it important to write once more.
We already have a Constitution of our own plus a Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 that has been referred to many times in the recent past. Magna Carta has been the envy of the world, so much so that others have copied it.
No new written constitution can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689. The Government’s own Research Paper (96/82 dated 18th July 1996-available direct from Parliament, page 36) makes that clear. What Parliament does however, Parliament can undo.
The Treaty of Magna Carta is between the people and the Crown and Parliament may not alter it. See also the people’s Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9. To get round this however, it appears that the Government may have realized that either Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II (The Crown) would have to repeal them, which she either obviously has not be asked to do, or has been asked and has refused, or perhaps the alternative is to ask the other ‘parties to the Treaty’, “the people” to repeal them by allowing a referendum on this matter. Get the people to vote enthusiastically ‘FOR’, what will be for the very first time in the history of this Country, a written constitution and a new Bill of Rights that will have been drawn up especially for the people. Regrettably this is also from the same Government that has turned our Nation into the most spied on, probably in the world, with the greatest loss of liberties and freedoms other countries once so envied. Sadly, British people, including women, children and babies died in that last war in order to keep those freedoms and liberties rather than be governed by foreigners. I pray they do not have to do so again.
Not explained fully to the people, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 holds the Oath of Allegiance to which British Governments and the rest of us swear to the Crown. Violation of that Oath is the very essence of treason. I therefore object to any dislodging or repealing of our Common Law Constitution.
Would a new Oath be brought forward in a “yes”? To swear allegiance to “The State” to make it ever more powerful? Or, as Lisbon would have it, make us real citizens of the European Union, so our allegiance will be to the European Union in future?
The proposed new Bill of Rights spells out clearly the people’s “duties”. The Government and the EU appear to think the people have a need to know their “Duties”. The people do not have “Duties” as such because the people vote and contribute towards their MP’s pay and expenses and through them, also to the EU. Our MP’s are supposed to “speak for us” (Their duty) which they appear to have forgotten long, long ago. It is the Governments duty to instigate our Laws and to obey our own Constitution. All the people have to do is remember their solemn Oath of Allegiance is to the Crown, to protect and be true to the wearer of that Crown. The people do their Duty when and if the time comes when they are conscripted to go into battle to save the Crown, this Country and all in it from being taken over by foreign rule.
It really does not matter what is in the proposed new written Constitution or new Bill of Rights for when the next Government comes in, both can be repealed although perhaps foolish if the people actually voted FOR them. However, it must be remembered that even if the people voted for both, if Lisbon is activated those new RIGHTS and Constitution will be over-ridden straight away by the EU.
Has our Prime Minister in ratifying the Lisbon Treaty (See EU Citizenship) committed himself to eventually transferring the “loyalty” of 60 million people from the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain to “loyalty” to the European Union? (See also EU Commissioners Oath) Does he and the EU expect all the people of Britain to turn their backs on their Queen (Crown), for our Prime Minister to ‘force’ 60 Million people to violate their Oaths they themselves have taken or by birth or through living here in the UK, without the people’s agreement? We read in the papers that Her Majesty was “dismayed” when SOCA through new legislation, did not swear allegiance to the Crown. I write, “force” deliberately, because the people have been denied a say on the very constitutional Treaty of Lisbon.
What is in our Bill of Rights and Magna Carta that makes me, along with so many more people, so want to keep them? I have in mind that Judges have to look to EU Treaties that Government has ratified, al-be-it remembering that our Constitution is like the foundations of a building, add to it and it still stands, alter the foundations or remove (or ignore) them as is happening now and the whole building will tumble.
I found it difficult to understand the extremely harsh treatment metered out to the three Fishermen as described in Christopher Booker’s column Sunday 3rd August 2008. Apparently it was reported that, “When they were caught by a year-long agency “entrapment” operation, Judge Neil McKittrick not only imposed crippling fines totaling £42,500, with costs of £27,646, but also agreed to confiscations of their assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act, to a total of £213,461. Unless this is paid within months they (allegedly) face two years in prison”.
Yet nowhere could I find the EU pressing for such extortionate fines and loss of livelihood and or homes for these men. When it comes to punishment therefore our Constitution should have been to the fore. Our Bill of Rights 1688/9 makes clear, “That excessive bail ought not to be required; nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. Clause 29 Magna Carta makes clear that “for a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a Royal Court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighborhood”. These are from our Constitution, the law above the law, the foundations upon which all other laws are or should, be built. Perhaps the Fishermen’s cases should be challenged, but the present costs to do so are often too high. That too should be looked into for is it really “Justice” not to be able to afford to “challenge”. I have only written this one case to confirm a point but the cases I could record are many, especially these type below.
Where I wonder is, ‘innocent until proven Guilty’ in this land of ours? The introduction of “Instant Fines” removes the one thing that separated us from the continental system. Was that why it was done? Especially for anyone choosing to go to Court then has to pay far more if found guilty. So much easier to pay the fine and “have done with it”. Soon, perhaps everyone will have a conviction and have a ‘criminal record’. The danger then becomes, “they have nothing to lose any more”.
I just hope and pray that these fishermen are not victims of the financial state our Country is in at present, for are the people to pay, one way or another, even to becoming “criminals” if they leave a waste bin lid slightly open? By filling it too full? Putting rubbish in the wrong container? Dropping accidentally a sweet wrapper? So many things responsible people are AFRAID of accidentally doing and a fear of even saying the wrong thing. Afraid even to go and help some-one, to even touch some-one. Too afraid to help and comfort a weeping distressed child. Afraid even of FEAR itself. All because our own Constitution has been set aside by a Government we once trusted. There is now however, a deep and repressed anger within the people that was not there before.
Is anyone going to tell the 60 million people of this Country that they have no Constitution? That it has been, unbeknown to them, destroyed/over-ridden? If that is the case, tell the people NOW. Most certainly tell Her Majesty and then tell the rest of her Majesty’s Commonwealth? Tell the Judiciary who sit in front of the Royal Coat of Arms? When was it repealed exactly? Was it as long ago as 1972? Was it when the Queen too was made a citizen of Europe? Did it end in the ratification of “Lisbon”? Did a temporary British Government destroy our Constitution, our whole way of life for deeper integration into a European Union the vast majority of people do not want? Is our Government going to continue with the charade of a new Bill of Rights and a written Constitution that will be overridden by the Treaty of Lisbon? Has this Government told the people even the Crown’s Sovereign Government can be over-ruled by the European Court of Justice?
I suggest that the very constitutional Treaty of Lisbon should be withdrawn before all 27 Countries ratify it and a referendum be put before the people, rather that now than what may follow, or hope and pray that the people of Ireland reject it once more.
Anne Palmer JP.
Short - Free Man Dictionary
Habeas corpus……Habeas corpus (Latin meaning "you are to have the body") is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations. It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
The "prerogative" writs are a subset of the class of writs, those that are to be heard ahead of any other cases on a court's docket except other such writs. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are habeas corpus, quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari.
The due process for petitions for such writs is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority, so that the official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something, failing which the court has no discretion but to decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. In this they differ from a motion in a civil process in which the burden of proof is on the movant, and in which there can be a question of standing.
de jure…… adj. Latin for lawful, as distinguished from de facto (actual).
Magna Carta…………No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled. nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the judgement of his equals lawful or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
de jure corporation…… n. a corporation in good standing under the law, as compared to a de facto corporation which is acting while not fulfilling legal requirements.
Trial by jury (court de jure)………….. English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right that allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by judges or a jury. The use of jury trials evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems. Jury trials are of far less importance (or of no importance) in countries that do not have a common law system.
The Freeman on the Land Movement: Grass Roots Libertarianism in Action
Professor John Kersey
Legal Notes No. 50
ISSN: 0267-7083 (print) ISSN: 2042-258X (online)
An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6HL.
© 2010: Libertarian Alliance; John Kersey
Professor John Kersey is President and Director of Academic Affairs at European-American University, a private university operating in Africa and Asia. He previously held teaching, administrative and management positions in the private higher and further education sectors, and holds degrees from universities in the UK, Africa and Central America. His book, The University Outside State Control, was published by European-American University Press in 2008. A musician and music historian by training, he has recorded over 50 CDs as a concert pianist..
The views expressed in this publication are those of its author, and not necessarily those of the Libertarian Alliance, its Committee,
Advisory Council or subscribers.
FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY
Those of us who hold that libertarianism is a process that rests upon a series of logical and connected principles would hold that these principles are capable of discovery by any who choose to look for them. The developments in English law during the post-1997 era have placed an increasing regulatory burden upon the citizen which has been perceived by a number of people as unjust, petty and politically motivated. In that situation, it is unsurprising that some people have sought to exercise a degree of independence from the state, and that in the course of establishing the means by which such independence may be brought about, they have re-examined the relationship between the state and the individual in law. Their resulting movement is of profound interest to all concerned with the future development of libertarian ideas in England.
The Freeman on the Land Movement
Although we refer to the Freeman on the Land movement, in as much as this is a single movement, it is by nature amorphous and decentralized. As an outsider looks upon this movement, its co-ordination is primarily online through websites, forums and online radio, although there have also been public meetings, talks and the formation of local groups. One of the principal websites that acts as a rallying-point is The Peoples United Community1 which features the work of John Harris, a pioneer in the movement. The website Lawful Rebellion2 takes as its motto 'Stand for What is Right'.
Other activity has taken place on the website forums of David Icke,3 where it has attracted those who are less interested in Icke's esoteric teachings and more concerned with his strong anti-government and anti-authoritarian position. Activist and commentator Raymond St Clair4 is also a vocal and prominent proponent of the Freeman philosophy whilst Ben Lowrey5 used his website to document his own 'sovereignty and freedom education adventure'.
Some trace the origins of this movement to the American Freedom School6 website and the work of Robert Arthur Menard, which provides evidence that these ideas have some degree of international applicability at least so far as common law jurisdictions such as the United States and Canada are concerned. A World Freeman Society8 exists and invites its members to 'claim their rights as a Freeman on the Land'. There are many other examples of groups and individuals involved in the movement who maintain a presence on the internet.
If it is possible to generalize about such a group so far as our own country is concerned, we might say that it appears to consist primarily of working-class people who feel themselves disenfranchised from the political establishment as a whole. A summary would be 'ordinary people who have had enough.' Specifically, they have had enough of what they perceive as the abuse of authority; common complaints concern council tax contributions, the faceless and legally aggressive behaviour of large corporations, the perceived use of civil penalties such as parking fines to raise revenue for councils and private operators, and other issues ranging from civil debt recovery to television licensing. It follows that many have found themselves at the sharp end of such matters, and that just as there are individuals who believe themselves to be genuinely wronged, there are also those who are seeking to subvert the legal system for a variety of other, sometimes morally dubious, purposes.
Discussion is practical in nature, resting principally on problems, solutions and strategy, without moving into the metapolitical or philosophical arenas. The word 'libertarian' does not feature in these discussions, nor is there any present connexion with libertarian organizations.
The online nature of the movement makes it difficult to give an estimate of its size. However, it would appear on a rough estimate to consist of many hundreds if not a few thousand people who have at some point or other expressed an active interest in its activities. There is a strong impression that the movement is growing in numbers and strength as more people become aware of it.
Principles of the Freeman on the Land movement
There is some debate within the movement on exactly how its principles are established and operate, and to a certain extent they are constantly evolving both on the basis of research into the law and in the light of the practical application of these maxims. However, there seems to be general agreement on the following:The common law of England and Wales is universally applicable to those people (natural persons) within that jurisdiction. A natural person is endowed with a number of inalienable, God-given rights. That natural person is referred to as a Freeman on the Land.
By contrast, civil or statute law, the majority of which is considerably more recent in origin, is not universally applicable but instead, because of its commercial basis (in the law of the sea), rests upon a contract between two parties, the first party being the state, and the second party being the legal fiction representing a given individual.
The instrument that is held to represent a given individual entering into such a contract with the state is a birth certificate.
The validity of such a contract is questionable because the contract as represented by a birth certificate is entered into between a minor (who cannot validly contract) and the state, and because consent is therefore assumed rather than established.
It follows that if the contract is deemed void, it may be possible to separate the natural person (common law) from the legal fiction (civil law). As a result, whereas the birth certificate (as a piece of paper) is evidence of the legal fiction contracting with the state, that birth certificate is not the same as the natural person represented by the living individual.
Freemen make a distinction between the name of their legal fiction (John Smith) and their natural name (which may take many forms, but is usually expressed as 'John: as commonly called of the family Smith', 'John: Smith' or similar.) They refer to the legal fiction as a 'straw man'9 and maintain that it is possible for the natural person to control the straw man as a legal fiction for the purposes of contracting with third parties, without at any point entering into liability on behalf of the natural person.
In addition, it is proposed by some that it is possible to obtain documentary evidence of this separation between natural person and legal fiction by completing and serving a series of sworn affidavits upon the Queen . The first of these provides, inter alia, that the Queen10 has been unlawfully and falsely induced to give unlawful effect to legislation that has violated and continues to violate the Common Law, with the implication that the security and safety of the individual under the laws that are his or her inalienable birthright (under Common Law) are now threatened without prospect of redress, and that unless the Queen should dismiss the House of Commons and provide redress, then he or she will withhold all allegiance and obedience to the Crown and its representatives. A forty day period is provided for the Queen to act in the manner proposed. On the assumption that she does not, a second affidavit to be delivered after the forty days confirms the statements of the first and declares the person concerned to be subject solely to the Common Law.
An alternative proposal on similar lines involves serving a sworn affidavit to the Prime Minister11 that establishes the position of the individual as a Freeman and invites the Prime Minister to respond in rebuttal of the points made. On this not being done, a notarized Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure is sent, followed in the event of further non-response by a notarized Notice of Default. This last default statement is held to be a 'bona fide lawfully binding agreement/contract' between the individual and the government that can then be produced to other public authorities in evidence of the same.
A number of legal sources are cited by Freemen in support of their position, including such documents as the Charter of Liberties of 1100, Magna Carta (1215, 1297), the Treason Act 1351, the Declaration of Rights and Bill of Rights 1689, the Parliament Act 1911, the National Insurance Act 1922 and the Gold Standard Act 1925.
Further, some claim that their position is strengthened by the decision of a number of divisions of government and the public services to incorporate as companies (for example, most police forces are thus incorporated). This makes the contractual relationship involved considerably clearer.
There is even some evidence to suggest that the government itself has in the past been incorporated and has functioned as a corporation.12
Applications of principle
The principles outlined above have provided the basis for a variety of activities. They have provided the basis for at least some successful challenges to civil proceedings, and in some cases the Freemen involved have responded in an undeniably assertive manner by serving commercial liens13 on those concerned.
There is some fascinating video footage of what has happened when Freemen have tested these principles in the magistrates' courts and before police officers. A selection of these videos includes Raymond StClair being interviewed by a police officer14 and Freemen in the magistrates' court for non-payment of council tax.15
In the videos, the police officer is confronted with a frank refusal on St Clair's part to identify his natural person with his legal fiction.
The videoed court proceedings in each case fail at the point where the magistrates are asked to produce evidence of their authority in the form of their oath of office. Being unable to do so, the proceedings cannot continue. Attempts to remove the lay adviser who is requesting this evidence from the court likewise fail when the lay adviser explains to police officers the basis of his request and its lawfulness. The conclusion is that the magistrates leave the court and the lay adviser declares the court to have been abandoned by them.
There are several possibilities in analysing these responses. One is that the reason for success on these occasions is because the principles behind the actions concerned are deemed to be valid. The other is that these actions create such a level of confusion and disruption among the authorities that, regardless of the validity of their underlying principles, they effectively prevent the court process from taking place, or place it under an intolerable strain in respect of time and resources. Both possibilities achieve the desired end of those concerned in these actions, which is to nullify or substantially constrain the action against them, and indeed to make the cost of recovering any monies concerned prohibitive when compared to the expense involved.
The nature of reaction to the propounding of these principles has been interesting. There has been a number of flat denials that these principles have any applicability, and that the Freeman on the Land concept is mere wishful thinking based on archaic legal precedents that have been in some way superseded, and indeed there are detailed matters concerning the primacy of statute law over common law that merit a deeper consideration than this essay can offer. However, in a move guaranteed to inflame the conspiracy theorists among the movement, these denials tend to take the form of a sweeping statement rather than a detailed exegesis.
It is clear that a number of those opposed to the Freeman philosophy have attempted to put it into action and have met with no success in doing so. They have become prominent detractors of the movement. Other detractors appear to have infiltrated Freeman forums with the intent to disrupt them on the grounds that these ideas are perceived as a threat to the state, whose interests they in
some manner seek to protect. The attentions of this latter group are taken as evidence that the authorities are starting to take this matter seriously and recognize that it has the potential to cause them widespread difficulty.
Those promoting the Freeman philosophy are not so far as can be ascertained legally trained or qualified, and at the present time there is an interesting absence of commentary from solicitors or barristers for whom this subject should be of interest at least on a purely academic level. There are further reports that notaries public are becoming reluctant to co-operate in the affidavit processes referred to above. This may suggest that the raising of these issues has implications for the relationship between the state and the legal profession, which has become explicitly closer in recent years.16
One aspect which is central to all of this is that seeking to use the courts, which are instruments of the state, to act against the interests of the state in any challenge to statute law is in essence to misunderstand the nature of state power. The law is not a neutral entity, but the means of maintaining the balance of the relationship between the state and the people in favour of the state. As such, it is more than likely that the state will act swiftly to close any perceived legal loophole that is being exploited against its interests, and that future attempts to establish common law jurisdiction in a magistrates' court will simply be refused outright and judgement given in default, as if the defendant had not been present.
The real impact of the Freeman movement is likely to come not from any arcane legal discovery but from a systematic peaceful protest by the public against what is perceived as the unjust abuse of the civil law. Were the disruption to the courts already engendered by this movement to be repeated on a larger and more widespread scale, it would likely cause the breakdown of civil law on the basis that the consent underlying that jurisdiction had in effect been withdrawn by a significant proportion of those involved, and that obtaining a judgement against a defendant could no longer be regarded as generally enforceable or affordable. Without a single unlawful act being committed, those people concerned would have had a potentially far-reaching effect on our nation's legal development whose consequences cannot at present be foreseen.
Although the issue of whether these principles have a firm basis in law is of considerable interest, it is, as we have said, not the sole or even the most important aspect of the Freeman movement. The key to the importance of that movement lies in the assertion of the sovereignty of the individual, the opposition to the bureaucratic state, and the willingness through lawful and peaceful means to disrupt the operations of that state where they are perceived to transgress upon the inalienable rights of the individual. That disruption to the system of civil law has the potential to effect fundamental change in the basis of the relationship between the state and the individual.
All of these aspects are likely to be welcomed by many declared libertarians, just as they have been by the many people interested in the Freeman movement who have discovered the principles of liberty for themselves.
Nothing in this paper is intended as legal advice for any person or situation, nor is it intended as an endorsement of any of the individuals featured therein.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The following has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for charges being dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.
The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license.
This brief or the right it demonstrates is no substitute for either being safe on the road or for learning the subject of rights versus regulations thoroughly before attempting to use or act upon this information.
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.
"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties," the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.
When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:
"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.
Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.
"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.
It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or "privilege." We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a "Right to use the road" and what is a "privilege to use the road". Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?
"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention.
Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."
This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.
"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781.
There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)
"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.
As we can see, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using the road as a place of business" and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. courts held on this point?
"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.
So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between...
1. Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and...
2. Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
"[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business." Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
"When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways." Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.
"[The state's] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith." Ibid.
"We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate...the use of the highways for gain." Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.
There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business." However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state's power to convert the individual's right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."
Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."
"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'" City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31: "Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
"The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.
"Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.
"Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.
Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.
Notice that in all these definitions the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.
"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator' and `driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.
To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.
This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain.
This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:
1. Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
2. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
"...Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.
Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain."
In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.
"Traffic -- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.
Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is travelling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e.., vehicles for hire.
Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:
"...in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them."
The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:
"The word `traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities." Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18.
Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.
"The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort." People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4.
"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent." Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.
In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.
This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.)
This definition would fall more in line with the "privilege" of carrying on business on the streets.
Most people tend to think that "licensing" is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the "licensor" which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the "licensor."
"A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation." State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487.
The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.
Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our "enforcement agencies" been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they "check" our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?
How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her "blender" or "mixer?" They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.
2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right?
3. Is this regulation reasonable?" People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under "Police Power."
When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge.
First, "is there a threatened danger" in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business?
The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy.
It is the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)
"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.
To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See "Due Process," infra.)
The third question is the most important in this case. "Is this regulation reasonable?"
The answer is No! It will be shown later in "Regulation," infra., that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.
Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power, in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.
Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.)
"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.
"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613; Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60.
"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions." Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.
"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language." Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882.
As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:
No person shall be...deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.
As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel.
In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.
Yet, not one individual has been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, let alone before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel, by automobile, on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of Liberty.
"There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty..." Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.
The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action would lie (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected.
But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.
One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant "a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial." (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020; Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)
Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that "no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court," by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is fairly administered. (12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect.573, p.269.)
Note: This sounds like the process used to deprive one of the "privilege" of operating a motor vehicle "for hire." It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have "in common."
The futility of the state's position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General's opinion on a similar issue:
"The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized..."
This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of Right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government to the limits placed upon governments by and through the several constitutions.
This legal theory may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, even this weak defense of the state's actions must fall.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this "privilege" has been defined as applying only to those who are "conducting business in the streets" or "operating for-hire vehicles."
The legislature has attempted, by legislative fiat, to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of "due process of law." This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.
One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.
First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:
The answer is No!
The attempted explanation for this regulation "to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified."
However, one can keep his license without retesting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal.
Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees.
This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the situation in the aviation sector.)
But isn't this what we have now?
The answer is No! The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has to give the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property.
These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen of their Constitutional Rights and guarantees such a the Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent and a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment. These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and has given his/her "implied consent" to legislative enactments designed to control interstate commerce, a regulatable enterprise under the police power of the state.
We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of "Right" in order to exercise his state "privilege" to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.
"...the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use..." [emphasis added] Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right?
"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.
Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions.
The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied." McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316.
The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.
"...It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax...a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars." Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46.
Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail.
Recall the Miller vs. U.S. and Snerer vs. Cullen quotes from p.5, and,
"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people." Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516.
Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the constitution was to protect the rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government.
So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face.
Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet, this Freeman stands before this court today to answer charges for the "crime" of exercising his Right to Liberty.
As we have already shown, the term "drive" can only apply to those who are employed in the business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citnzen's Right to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation by the police powers of the state.
"The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty -- indeed they are under a solemn duty -- to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect...the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution." Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661.
The courts are "duty bound" to recognize and stop the "stealthy encroachments" which have been made upon the Citizen's Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the "ordinary course of life and business." (Hadfield, supra.)
Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the "due process of law" guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.)
The history of this "invasion" of the Citizen's Right to use the public highways shows clearly that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, got greedy, and attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those free and natural individuals who have a Right to travel upon the highways. This was not attempted in an outright action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizen's Right to travel.
This position must be accepted unless the prosecutor can show his authority for the position that the "use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business" is a privilege.
To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon fundamental and basic concepts of Constitutional law. This position, that a Right cannot be regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the state.
"Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public." Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.
Therefore, the Court's decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the state being taken into consideration, as that issue is irrelevant. The state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the "Sovereign People."
Finally, we come to the issue of "public policy." It could be argued that the "licensing scheme" of all persons is a matter of "public policy." However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:
"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution." 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70.
So even "public policy" cannot abrogate this Citizen's Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.
Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen or any Citizen. The Accused therefore moves this court to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice.
Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.
The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.
Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities.
Few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.
No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations.
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke, 1784.
Honourable actions in Common Law 1/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrNtmsMzk4E&feature=related
Now read the posts at this link Pleasuredome Vs Leicestershire Constabulary http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=2328
Our Constitutional Rights Cannot Be Given Away Ever! 7-08 Albert Burgess http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3084951471498315770#
How To Make a Judge Run Out Of The Court Room http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHk9KUFlk2M&feature=related
Common Law myths exposed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQrjH4-9-rg&feature=related
The differences between common law and civil law systems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BztCU6Qtptw&feature=related
Common LAW Rules - use it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_xCjrSg-C8&feature=related
MEET & GREET the Judges, but don't ask Questions directly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Xtjii0_Gs&feature=related
Common Law Right To Disobey (My Hero NORMAN SCARTH) Vs UK Roman Fascist Nazi Laws (EU) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvP4DVr8Dos&feature=related
Admiralty law, Common Law And Our Sovereign Birthright.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-kWOZ5y8AU&feature=related
John Quade 1 "The Common Law" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9xayBdBn_Q&feature=related
Are you a Sovereign Yet Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYYiv0w9Vk0&feature=related
Magistrate fails to prove Juristiction - Freeman Dismisses case.pt.1/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7yaqBFCh0&feature=related
Jordan Maxwell 3 -Maritime Law Rules the World Commerce and Courts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxDfBpcjKgs&feature=fvw
Birth Certificates Traded On NYSE Stock Exchange http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDuhb5LBZNs&feature=related
Reclaim Consent.... The Brave New World..(part1) Understanding http://www.blip.tv/file/2921363
Red-faced prosecutors forced to admit error - No Oath!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15CzybH_mzc
How to Stand as a Sovereign in Court http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhwb_cUPkx0&feature=related
How To invoke your rights with The Police http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0En_sdsyh1M&feature=related
Magistrate fails to prove Juristiction - Freeman Dismisses case.pt.1/2 With text http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7yaqBFCh0
POLICE INTERVIEW A FREEMAN Prt 1/3 www.freedomrebels.co.uk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwWEK3eAgO0&feature=related
Beating Civil Traffic Tickets - Part 1 Standing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL70LQPHiQA&feature=related
Many free videos (and much more) www.bbc5.tv Click to view many VERY interesting videos
http://www.thinkfree.ca (click on free movies)
www.bbc5.tv (click on "most popular" then click on "John Harris" then, click on "Albert Burgess"...Total of 2 videos)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3203253804055041031 (The Corporation)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1697805906900297328 (The Occult World Of Commerce)
A "must see" http://www.tpuc.org/content/john-harris-its-illusion-2-bcg-conference See how you have been deceived
For the BEST Freeman-on-the-Land "Notice" template, see the top link below
(Save it to your PC and edit in your own name and address. This is the one I have used to edit)
Free-man-on-the-Land TEMPLATE http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44688
I have edited this version, and have placed a link to my version in "Attachments" on the "Welcome" Page
(I suggest that you copy it word for word as instructed by the the youtube video(s) as below)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm (Human rights that apply to YOU)
Type in Title Search www.statutelaw.gov.uk Bill of rights
Some Notary Public Information
Court – what and what not to say
1…… When you are standing in the dock in front of a judge or magistrate DO NOT LOOK THEM IN THE EYE OR FACE (thought in action "meeting of the minds") the clerks will be wittering and you must not look at them or reply at all otherwise you "recognise" their "authority" over you.
2…… When the judge or magistrate speaks to you, do not look at them until they are quiet! Then you LOOK THEM IN THE EYE and say "I OBJECT" DO NOT SAY OBJECTION, SAY "I OBJECT" and then look away.
3……. He will either go into a full rant or will say what is it you object to (you’re not looking at him until you speak to him) IGNORE ANYTHING THE CLERK SAYS! THEY ARE NOT THE AUTHORITY IN THE ROOM.
4……Wait for the judge to speak then look at him and say "IS IT CIVIL OR CRIMINAL" the clerk will probably jump up again and try interfering but he is illegal to interfere ;) YOU are trying to discern what it is you are here to deal with. If it’s a "civil" case he will say "CIVIL" AND YOU HAVE TO SAY "CAN YOU DOCUMENT AND VERIFY THE OBLIGATION" and of course he cannot do that. THEN YOU LOOK AWAY but keep him in your peripheral vision. He will be silent and will probably look down because he cannot accept jurisdiction then after a few seconds (3/4 secs) his silence is "thought in action" case dismissed. You say NOTHING you turn around and walk away
5…… IF HOWEVER he says "CRIMINAL" you look back him and say "DO "YOU" HAVE A COMPLAINT AGAINST "ME" you put the onus of responsibility on HIM, does "HE" have a complaint against "YOU" of course he won’t have, he will then go silent (thought in action) 3/4 seconds of silence is his answer, you walk away.
If you have hurt someone (a case with a physically damaged victim) then you’re beaten. Otherwise THEY the courts are beaten.
If you say I am "Richard of the family C" then you have given yourself a fictional title and they have you, game over. Go to courts and watch it in action, watch the judges, the magistrates and particularly the more clever barristers and solicitors. It happens all the time.
Now you have walked away and are preparing to leave the court as soon as you have turned your back on the judge it’s over. If a "policy man in blue" decides to arrest you (illegally) because he won’t want you to leave he wants YOU beaten, you say "AM I UNDER ARREST" say NOTHING ELSE just say "AM I UNDER ARREST" and if he says YES then you say "I WANT TO SPEAK TO A JUDGE" Do not say I want to speak to "THE" judge, but "A" judge.
Sir Frederick Pollock is one person known for expounding the idea of a contract based on a meeting of minds, at which time it gained much support in the courts.
Meeting of the minds (also referred to as mutual agreement, mutual assent or consensus ad idem) is a phrase in contract law used to describe the intentions of the parties forming the contract. In particular it refers to the situation where there is a common understanding in the formation of the contract. This condition or element is often considered a necessary requirement to the formation of a contract. The English contracts scholar Richard Austen-Baker has suggested that the perpetuation of the concept into current times is based on a confusion of it with the concept of a consensus ad idem ("agreement to the [same] thing") which is an undoubted requirement of Synallagmatic (a contract in which each party to the contract is bound to provide something to the other party.) contracting, and that this confusion may be the result of recent ignorance of Latin. Under the formalist theory of contract, every contract must have six elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, meeting of the minds, capacity and legality. Many other contracts, but not all types of contracts, also must be in writing and be signed by the responsible party, in an element called form.
In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company  1 QB 256, Bowen LJ said,
"One cannot doubt that, as an ordinary rule of law, an acceptance of an offer made ought to be notified to the person who makes the offer, in order that the two minds may come together. Unless this is done the two minds may be apart, and there is not that consensus which is necessary according to the English law - I say nothing about the laws of other countries - to make a contract."
How to respond to Contempt of Court, Judicial Attack !!!
If you know the right words, they back right down-now they may still have you arrested, but if you have said the right words on the record to discredit him in his contemptuous acts against you, you will use this record in any future hearings as you go. The main thing is to DISCREDIT HIM and IMPEACH HIM IN HIS OWN COURTROOM if you say the right things.
This can be used in any court in any setting, at any level, all the same basic process. I think in any country, with slight variations. Sui Juris process is simple and common law, as “any reasonable people would understand” and bridges all forms of courts or dealing with public authorities.
One of the main TOOLS they use to arrest you in a courtroom is “CONTEMPT OF COURT”. Contempt is an instant 6 months to a year in jail; potentially that is what you face. They use this for any and no reason, mainly for INTIMIDATION, and this is what they will and have already used on a (defendant) man/woman who “irritates” the court asking for rights.
When they do this to you it happens so fast it makes your head spin, if you have this written down and keep your wits about you enough to remember to say it.
You should practice it ! It is that important ! Here is what you say :
IS THAT CIVIL CONTEMPT OR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT ?
You wait for a response on the record- do not talk until he answers and if they pause, this long pause is on the record that he cannot answer you - the silence of a witness answering a question is an admission of truth in a court record and the longer the pause the better.
All you want on the record is to make them COMMIT and then you go on, and now you have them caught in the permanent record.
If he says “ CRIMINAL CONTEMPT” you say “ WHO MAKES THE CLAIM, WHAT IS THE CRIME AND WHO IS THE INJURED PARTY ?” and wait again as long as it takes for him to say something.
If he says “CIVIL CONTEMPT” - you say “WHERE IS THE CONTRACT BETWEEN ME AND YOU? I DON’T AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT”.
Now you have him acting CRIMINALLY OUTSIDE OF ANY LAWFUL JURISDICTION AND OUT OF IMUNITY in his own courtroom on the record and here is why. In civil court, EVERYTHING is a CONTRACT and nothing can be done that is not a form of contract. Only humans can lawfully contract. Every citation, money exchange, order anything at all is an exchange - a contract- between two humans. The constitution is a contract with the children of a creator with Inherent Rights and the Constitutionally Sovereign people in the state, bonded by the JUDICIAL OATH - their contract.
Anyway- when you say to him “I don’t agree to the terms of the contract” he knows he does not have a contract with you and if you have committed no crime he has no authority to arrest you or even be conducting the hearing- he is out of his lawful jurisdiction and out of his immunity.
Another important phrase to use is rush to judgment. After being going around with them to a certain point and being blocked at all points, - you say “are you trying to rush me to judgment?” Wow - it works- boy they sit back so fast and shut up you would not believe- supposedly saying that four times in a hearing gets a reversal, but with us they don’t give us anything, so I am not sure, but it is an important tool….
You say this and it means they are preventing you from putting on your evidence as a lawful court and judicial due process requires,
and for you to say this as they are doing it !!!
I hope people will write these things down in front of them when they are terrified in court everyone is terrified in court, even the attorneys, especially when you are bringing truth of this magnitude in there- we say where the truth meets the lie there is fallout- like a neutron bomb, you definitely stir up the hornets’ nest when you speak the truth in their courtrooms.
The rest of the process for the people to access the courts is in the book we wrote. We learned these tools more recently and they are an “addition” to the information in the sui juris book.
This is what really happens when you are in there, not what we think will happen or hope what will happen.
Learning these tools means you are prepared to meet this evil face to face.
Tier 1 - The Rule Of Law
The law is the supreme authority. It applies to all flesh and blood men and women equally – without exception. We are all equal under the law. The ‘law’ means our common law, also referred to as natural law or God’s law.
‘Law’ does not mean ‘man-made rules’ or ‘Acts of Parliament’ (this is legislation), nor does it mean regulations, or statutes. You know in your heart what is the law... that which is right, that which is virtuous, that which through the reasonableness of the common people should be deemed to be the law, that which is seen to be just.
It is often claimed that judges make common law – they do not. Judges interpret the common law, and record it. We are duty bound to select from amongst us our wisest and most considered to be our judges, so that they can interpret common law so that it can be widely understood by those less capable of interpreting the nuances of justice for themselves. Judges are obliged to give the common law its greater purpose – to protect our lives, property and freedom – from all tyranny and oppression and not to use it to impose unbridled authority and control.
It is the responsibility of the people to keep an eye on errant judges; those who can easily be seduced by money and other temptations, or blackmailed as a consequence of their frailty and/or sexual perversions. These judges can be too easily ‘persuaded’ to make judgements in favour of their paymaster – and not for the greater good of justice. The interpretation of the law must always be directed toward protection of our lives, property and freedom and not in aid of those who would manipulate and control us. No man-made legislation can ever have supremacy over our common law rights no matter how inflated judges’ opinions might become of themselves. Judges are not omnipotent and must never be allowed to pass judgment without the checks and balance of trial by jury. If the highest judges in the land should ever rule that man-made regulations should be allowed to be imposed over the natural justice of our common law, then let the people march these judges to a scaffold – to be hanged - as an example of what should happen to those who would oppress us for their personal gain or the gain of a controlling elite. This should help to remind others just who they are employed to serve.
Star chambers are a constant threat to our freedoms. They come about when the people concede, albeit unwittingly, to creeping tyranny; encouraged almost certainly by our own apathy and ignorance and by the frailty and greed of weak men and women entrusted with responsibility, but tempted by self-interest.
Every flesh and blood living human exists as a sovereign being – neither inferior nor superior to any other. Nobody can tell any other living soul what to do without their consent. Those who think they must do the bidding of others without having given their consent suffer from having a ‘slave mentality’, a disease of subservience that inflicts itself on an ever-increasing number of weak and insipid people. As our backbones weaken, so the shackles of servitude will tighten. ‘We are all equal’ – means just that, it does not mean that some are more equal than others.
Oppressors who assume authority over others combine dangerously with weak individuals who assume their own subservience to feed tyranny. Too many people suffer at the hands of assumption.
It is entirely the choice of free men and women as to whether they wish to be part of a particular society (nation). We are invariably born into the society of which we are a member. We may mistakenly assume that there is a compulsion in remaining part of this society, but membership is voluntary and quite obviously must be conditional upon this being beneficial to us. If not, then we have a duty to ourselves and to the principle of upholding our freedom, to leave, and to join or create a new society where our interest are better served and our freedoms protected. If enough people leave the oppressive society to create a better one, the former will collapse.
The ultimate objective of a good society is to protect the individual from the state. Placing the interest of the state above the interest of the individual is the continental way of doing things; a tyranny and contrary to the constitutional principles of protecting individual freedoms, as provided for by the British constitution.
Every individual has their own supreme authority to govern themselves, but they can voluntarily adopt an inferior role as a citizen or subject (known as a legal fiction). The name citizen or subject is made up to denote the inferior position to be played in society. It is important to understand that this is a role being played and one which can be rejected at any time should being a member ever become oppressive or contrary to the best interest of that individual. An individual becomes and remains an inferior ‘citizen’ or ‘subject’ as a matter of choice – not compulsion. If membership and inferiority was a compulsion then this would be tyranny in action.
An individual’s rights end where another individual’s rights begin.
Every individual in society is charged equally with the duty to uphold the common law. We might select amongst us those most able to do this on our behalf. These we call constables (not to be confused with the role of police officer – see tier 6) whose job it is quite simply to assist in keeping the peace. Every individual has equal in status to a constable, whom we are obliged to assist in the performance of their duty. The trust of our constables is the foundation of a free and worthwhile society. It is vital that we give our trust and that this trust be respected. If the trust in our constables is diminished then our society will crumble under the weight of fear and suspicion. Constables serve the people, NOT the state. Constables are servants of our courts, but only where these serve the interest of justice, not the whims of tyrants.
We must also select a judiciary who will engage in the delivery of justice to those aggrieved and to provide them with remedy and penalties for transgressors. The highest judiciary is ‘trial by jury’ and the highest judge in the land must be directed by the jury in all aspects of justice: guilt or innocence, the evidence allowed and the sentence given. No aspect of justice is beyond the authority of the jury of our peers. Each jury man and woman is compelled to consider that through the authority of the jury they themselves may one-day be judged. (There but for the grace of god go I). No authority has supremacy over the people’s jury. We lose this provision at our peril.
The Head of State is the leading authority over a society and its members. The Head of State does not have authority over any individual. Only the law reigns supreme over individuals. Every individual who becomes a member of a society suspends their personal sovereignty and takes on the inferior position as a ‘citizen’ or a ‘subject’ (also known as a legal fiction) – this is a voluntary act. There is no compulsion on a sovereign being to be a citizen or a subject. Taking up these roles is based on the logic that there must be benefits in so doing.
The Head of State is a position occupied by an individual. The ‘Head of State’ be it a Monarch or President is a legal fiction. One legal fiction (Monarch) may have authority over another legal fiction (subject) because these are ‘positions’ held voluntarily. Each sovereign being adopts the inferior (or superior) legal fiction role. It is essential that individuals understand their position in society and how their hierarchy changes from ‘equal’ under the law... to superior or inferior as a legal fiction entity. Understanding the legal fiction is vital in understanding the hierarchy of authority.
For England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and other nations of the Commonwealth – our Head of State is a Monarch. The Head of State of some countries is a President. Ultimately the responsibility of these roles must be to protect the interest of citizens/subjects but this can NEVER be at the expense of the rights of the individual. Too often the rights of the individual become diminished and hidden whilst the role of citizen is exaggerated by those seeking to secure greater control and authority for themselves. When we lose our sovereign rights, we lose everything. It is the natural tendency of some men and women to seek supremacy by distorting, deceiving and oppressing our sovereign rights. The price of freedom is constant vigilance against these oppressors. Our ignorance and apathy are the greatest weapons used to control and oppress us.
Any individual can be a Monarch, chosen by other members of the same society. The position, responsibility (and burden) of Monarch is usually an accident of birth, but does not have to be. Citizens endow the Monarch with the authority to look after their best interests. This is reflected in the Royal Prerogative which is the exclusive authority of the Monarch, on behalf of the people. Royal assent (final passage of legislation) is the exclusive authority of the Monarch as the people’s representative and in accordance with the doctrine of ‘the separation of powers’. Royal assent must only be exercised by the people’s representative in Parliament. Its exercise by the executive is UNLAWFUL. The responsibility of the Monarch is to protect our constitution and the rule-of-law to ensure that no man-made legislation is passed which imposes itself over our common law rights, as this would be unlawful and contrary to the best interest of the people as a whole. The suppression of our common law rights is a devious tactic too often employed by unscrupulous politicians in their endeavours to try and enhance their power at our expense. Their efforts must be resisted at all costs. The Monarch swears an oath to the people to uphold God’s law (common law) - NOT to enforce man-made legislation.
When the liabilities imposed upon the citizen override the rights of the individual, these impositions are UNLAWFUL. There are no exceptions. The individual can at any time exercise their right to re-impose their sovereign and supreme authority over that of their inferior citizen or subject role and through this are able to control any attempts to impose unlawful tyranny. It should never be forgotten that it is the people who are sovereign... not the state, not parliament, not the executive.
These are the three branches of governance. They are all equal and must be separate in order to protect their functions. They must operate under the doctrine of ‘the separation of powers’. Failing to do so would see one element enforce its supremacy and controls over the others and from which the rights of the citizen can be abused. Every position held in any of these institutions is a legal fiction, taken up by an individual. As an individual, they are equal to all other individuals. It is as a legal fiction entity that they secure authority over inferior legal fiction entities and subservience to superior legal fiction entities.
Thus Judges can make judgment on a citizen where the consent of that citizen has been given, including where consent is assumed through acquiescence. When we play the role of citizen/subject in any society, we voluntarily submit ourselves to the supremacy of the higher legal fiction i.e. we are consenting.
Because we, in the role of legal fiction citizen/subject, have agreed to the supremacy and the hierarchy of our society, we are subject to the rules that govern that society as well as its means of enforcement. The enforcers of rules (not to be confused with laws – as is so often the case) are police officers. An individual who takes on the role of police officer has the daunting task of distinguishing between rule-breakers and law-breakers. Confusion is the hallmark of a poorly trained constable. Regrettably this represents a massive majority. Almost no constables are fully aware of the distinction between their roles as keepers of our peace and an enforcer of rules of society. Crucially they do not understand that common law is superior to mere Acts of Parliament and they will often arrest people who are acting lawfully and yet in breach of a regulation. If a common law right conflicts with a statute – the former will override the latter every time.
The bulk of every society is made up of its ‘persons’ (subjects or citizens.) An individual is not a person; they ‘have’ a person. Each of these inferior roles is taken up by an individual having agreed voluntarily to adopt the subservient role in the society on the implicit understanding that there are benefits available to the legal fiction citizen/subject that are not available as an individual – such as, national defence, order, shared community resources, the NHS, bridges, roads, schools etc. A well run and lawful society has many benefits – the same cannot be said of our present system however which has fallen victim to an oppressive regime, fuelled by corruption and greed that favours a minority.
Those who breach regulations are not law breakers, they a rule breakers. Those who break common law and do not respect the provisions of common law are outlaws – outside of the law and importantly outside of the protection of the law. Never be a law breaker – your safety, prosperity and freedom depend upon you being able to rely on the rule-of-law to defend you and protect your interests.