I'm new and I have a question.

Examples of how to get yourself banned on FMOTL. We consider these Topics go absolutely nowhere, and do not contribute to the overall research we are trying to create. This Forum may contain sensible Topics have been deliberately de-railed by others. We do not take prisoners aka confrontational Users.

Don't bother coming "the big I am" on FMOTL. You won't get anywhere.

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby robinr22 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:57 pm

enegiss wrote:if i am in disagreement, what remedy is there other than nothing,? (edit)
I completely agree that there is no real basis for our legal system. It's a load of nonsense.
and there sir is where we are :grin:


But this website, and all the information contained on it, states that this can actually work during actual court proceedings. If you are making a theoretical point then I'll be on my way but you aren't, are you?

If I am right, you claim that this can be used during actual court proceedings to avoid being dealt with by statute law, right? Do you think this will actually work?
robinr22
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby treeman » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:08 am

Jurisdiction is the Authority, claimed Rights and Powers of one or more Officials to review, administer and issue certain Decrees, Prescripts, Statutes or Ordinances for a given Juridic Person or Society. Jurisdiction most frequently applies to the Authority of a Court to hear and adjudicate a matter, particularly in the valid publication of Ordinances.
Canon 3111
The word Jurisdiction comes from combing two ancient Latin words iuro meaning “to swear, make an oath” and dicio meaning “power, influence, authority of word; to speak, to argue”. Therefore, Jurisdiction by definition is dependent upon the making of a sacred oath associated with speech or argument first before “some authority or power capable of determining the validity of such speech or argument”.
Canon 3112
By definition, any Official who refuses to produce their oath and be bound by it, has no Jurisdiction.
Canon 3113
Jurisdiction always rests on Authority first, Power second and any claimed Rights last.
Canon 3114
A Juridic Person having lesser Authority than another has no Jurisdiction over the other, regardless of any Power or claimed Rights.
Canon 3115
Under Roman Law, also known as Roman Cult Law, Common Law, Private International Law and Civil Law, there exists three (3) essential forms of Jurisdiction founded each on specific claims of Rights being Personal, Territorial and Subject Matter:
(i) Personal Jurisdiction is claimed authority through jus in rem by claimed customary (Roman) law through lex situs (law of the place in which the property is situated) over a person, often regardless of their location; and
(ii) Territorial Jurisdiction is claimed authority through jus gentium by claimed customary (Roman) law through lex loci (law of the place) confined to a bounded space, including all those (persons) residing therein and any events which occur there; and
(iii) Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (subjectum) is claimed authority jus in personam through claimed customary (Roman) law through lex specialis (law governing a specific subject matter) over the subject of the legal questions involved in the suit.
Canon 3116
Under the Roman system, the claims of Personal Jurisdiction, Territorial Jurisdiction, Subject-Matter Jurisdiction is the attempt to "perfect Jurisdiction" based on occult ecclesiastical belief that each represents an element of a "Divine indenture" being the soul, body and mind respectively and when present, make any decision of the court "lawful" under Divine Law.
Canon 3117
Under the Roman system, the claims of jus in rem, jus gentium, jus in personam is the attempt to "perfect Jurisdiction" based on claimed Jurisdiction over one's soul, body and mind respectively:
(i) jus in rem as Personal Jurisdiction is claimed "ownership" of the soul and name by ownership of the record of birth and existence of the birth certificate proving the ritual of "baptism" of salvaging the soul took place in a hospital. Furthermore, the existence of the Cestui Que Vie Trusts is proof of the "property" of the name and therefore "soul" owned by the Roman Cult and its partners; and
(ii) jus gentium as Territorial Jurisdiction is claimed "ownership" of the flesh via the Live Birth Record of the baby being conveyed as "property" into one of the three Cestui Que Vie Trusts and a bond then issued against it and "sold" to the respective privately owned central bank of the state secretly making each and every citizen a privately owned "slave"; and
(iii) jus in personam as Subject-Matter Jurisdiction is claimed "ownership" of the mind by consent via the acceptance of benefits and the existence of social security, health benefits, drivers license and other documentary proof of consent to be "under" the jurisdiction of the Roman court.
Canon 3118
Under the occult ecclesiastical beliefs of the Roman Cult that underpin the principles of "perfected Jurisdiction" of Roman Courts, failure to gain consent of the mind means failure to control all three forms of property (soul, body and mind). However, in recent years Roman courts largely ignore this necessity and proceed on the false presumption that consent was given even if it was openly denied.
Canon 3119
In accordance with Ucadian Law, these canons and the Covenant of One Heaven, also known as Pactum De Singularis Caelum, there exists three (3) essential forms of Jurisdiction founded on specific Authority, claimed Rights and Powers being in order Divine, Society and Consent:
(i) Divine Jurisdiction is claimed authority through jus divinum by Pactum De Singularis Caelum and Canonum De Lex Divina concerning a member of One Heaven, often regardless of their location; and
(ii) Society Jurisdiction is claimed authority through jus civitatis by Canonum De Ius Positivum confined to a bounded space, including all those (persons) residing therein and any events which occur there; and
(iii) Consent Jurisdiction is claimed authority jus consensum by Canonum De Ius Cogitatum through consent of the parties over the subject of the legal questions involved in the case.
Canon 3120
The Society of One Heaven, also known as the First See, also known as the Holly See and True Holy See, also known as Heaven, is judged by no one.
Canon 3121
Jurisdiction presumed by claimed "rights" such as jus in rem, jus in personam and jus gentium have nor force nor effect when challenged by superior claims of rights and title.
Canon 3122
It is solely the right of the Supreme Court of One Heaven to adjudicate all matters, cases, statutes and Form in accordance with these canons and the sacred covenant Pactum De Singularis Caelum.

dictum. :thinks:
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby enegiss » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:27 am

what i do claim is, me, we all have to fight for what we consider to be freedom, they dont seem to give it out for free these days, we will see in time whether our system works for sure, or your punches to our faces and heads will eventually reach breaking point and heads will roll, yours, mine somebody elses, but heads will roll :grin: gawd help us all init. as for the info on site, people come back for more, so if it feels right, do it,as they say. give it a try and write your experience, thats what the brave ones do, in this dangerous world of greed and deciet
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
enegiss
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby knightron » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:35 am

But this website, and all the information contained on it, states that this can actually work during actual court proceedings. If you are making a theoretical point then I'll be on my way but you aren't, are you?
If I am right, you claim that this can be used during actual court proceedings to avoid being dealt with by statute law, right? Do you think this will actually work?
robinr22

Read what is written ..In ACTUAL COURTS.......... Indeed in a common Law court or Law of the Land court our Arguments DO STAND as Law, that's why the existing Statute run courts Dare not step into that Jurisdiction, because they are on a hiding to nothing, they can make no money from gaining actual remedy for Real actual Crimes.. Summery Judgements for Profit to give to the Banks is what its all about today..
In any of the Summery convictions try to find Corpus delicti ("body of crime")or Mens rea..(guilty mind) or Intent.. There is none, because there is No Crime, only a rule that has been ignored. Remember that saying.."Rules are made to be broken"..So the Government make that many rules, that they don't abide by themselves, that it is nigh on impossible to get through a day with out unwittingly breaking one...I believe the count stands at around 66 thousand new rules implemented since 1993
:shake:
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby robinr22 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:36 am

@treeman

Er, what is that exactly? You've just cut and pasted a load of text from this website:

http://one-heaven.org/canons_positive_law/article_2830.htm

It doesn't mean anything or have any weight at all. It's just rambling bunch of phrases. Is this the basis for what you believe? What some religious website says? Seriously? You haven't answered a single question I've asked or tried to address a single point I've made. Do you even understand what you are saying?

@energiss

You've still not really answered my question, but reading between the lines there seems to be a tacit acceptance that this wouldn't actually work in real life. If so, then that's fine but you should have a big banner headline across the site saying "WARNING - THIS DOESN'T WORK IN REAL LIFE"...
robinr22
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby robinr22 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:46 am

knightron wrote: Indeed in a common Law court or Law of the Land court our Arguments DO STAND as Law, that's why the existing Statute run courts Dare not step into that Jurisdiction, because they are on a hiding to nothing, they can make no money from gaining actual remedy for Real actual Crimes.. Summery Judgements for Profit to give to the Banks is what its all about today..
In any of the Summery convictions try to find Corpus delicti ("body of crime")or Mens rea..(guilty mind) or Intent.. There is none, because there is No Crime, only a rule that has been ignored. Remember that saying.."Rules are made to be broken"..So the Government make that many rules, that they don't abide by themselves, that it is nigh on impossible to get through a day with out unwittingly breaking one...I believe the count stands at around 66 thousand new rules implemented since 1993
:shake:


I'm sorry knightron but this is meaningless. Your arguments don't stand up in court. If you go to court and argue this you lose. How do I know this? Because it's been tried. For example:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/B15.html

This woman tried and got nine months in prison for contempt.

Further, mens rea and actus reus are the two components required to secure a conviction for most criminal offences so I don't really see how that anything to do with this.

Also there is no difference between a "statute court" and a "common law" court. For example, if I sue someone for breach of contract then common law dictates a large part of the case. But statute law also applies eg the Unfair Contract Terms Act and this modifies the common law. They are indivisible.

Can I ask you - do you really understand this topic? Lots of the words and phrases that you use have utterly different meanings to the ones you imply they do, which makes me think that you might not.

I take your point about there being too much legislation though. A sad symptom of the fact that governments have to appear to be "doing something" so they keep passing new laws.
robinr22
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby treeman » Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:03 am

robinr22 wrote:@treeman

Er, what is that exactly? You've just cut and pasted a load of text from this website:

http://one-heaven.org/canons_positive_law/article_2830.htm

It doesn't mean anything or have any weight at all. It's just rambling bunch of phrases. Is this the basis for what you believe? What some religious website says? Seriously? You haven't answered a single question I've asked or tried to address a single point I've made. Do you even understand what you are saying?


A rambling bunch of phrases robin.
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby robinr22 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:11 am

treeman wrote:
robinr22 wrote:@treeman

Er, what is that exactly? You've just cut and pasted a load of text from this website:

http://one-heaven.org/canons_positive_law/article_2830.htm

It doesn't mean anything or have any weight at all. It's just rambling bunch of phrases. Is this the basis for what you believe? What some religious website says? Seriously? You haven't answered a single question I've asked or tried to address a single point I've made. Do you even understand what you are saying?


A rambling bunch of phrases robin.


You accept that what you said is a ramblig bunch of phrases? Then why did you say it?
robinr22
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby knightron » Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:55 am

mens rea and actus reus are the two components required to secure a conviction for most criminal offences

Most criminal offences?..so some are more criminal than others?...
Lots of the words and phrases that you use have utterly different meanings to the ones you imply they do

What do you mean Like Legalese?...

I tell ya I am beginning to see that you are a troll.Is a shame really, I actually thought for one moment we had a solicitor with common sense.. :yawn:
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Re: I'm new and I have a question.

Postby robinr22 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:54 pm

knightron wrote:
mens rea and actus reus are the two components required to secure a conviction for most criminal offences

Most criminal offences?..so some are more criminal than others?...
Lots of the words and phrases that you use have utterly different meanings to the ones you imply they do

What do you mean Like Legalese?...

I tell ya I am beginning to see that you are a troll.Is a shame really, I actually thought for one moment we had a solicitor with common sense.. :yawn:


Sigh. A few crimnal offences do not require the mens rea part (ie the mental element) for an offence to have been comitted. For example, having sex with someone under the age of 13 is statutory rape which is a strict liability offence. The fact that you did it is enough to convict you, regardless of whether you knew she was under 13 or even if she told you she was 18. The actus reus of the offence is sufficient to convinct. They are no more or less "criminal", it's just the test for conviction is different. If you knew anything about the law, you'd know this. On a side point, bizarrely the only defence to this offence is that you have a genuine belief that the girl was your wife, which would make for an awkward morning after...

You are right about legalese. Words used in a legal context have a very specific meaning which can be much narrower than their general common useage meaning. For example, the word "may" has 14 different meaning; so if you are making a court order that contains the word "may" it is very important to know which of these meanings is the right one. This is why "may" in a legal context actually means "must" or "shall". These are, of course, two of the accepted meanings in common useage. It's not done to trick anyone though - it's just the meaning has been narrowed for the sake of precision.

I am not trolling you. What part of this is trolling? And, as I said in an earlier post, I'm not a solicitor.
robinr22
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Chamber of Horrors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests