Jurisdiction and the confusion of fiction.

[Dreadlock]

People seem to think that England is in the UK. It isn't.

England IS in the UK geographical area, but for statutory matters the UK is a corporation. As such it is totally imaginary and exists only on paper and in the minds of man. You see, geographical areas couldn't care less about
statutes. Corporations take them very seriously.

Clearly a real thing like land, Eng-land, cannot exist within a fiction such as the UK.

England is a well defined geographical region governed by a constitutional monarchy and English parliament under the Law of the Land.

The UK is a state active all over the world and unrestricted by geography. It is governed by the UK parliament, the Crown Corporation and the judiciary. These represent the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government respectively. All three are headed by the same man or woman albeit acting in three different capacities - the Queen (or king)in Parliament, the sole shareholder and the head of the judiciary.*

Here is the kicker:

UK citizens, while obviously in UK jurisdiction, are taught to belive that the UK includes England, Scotland and Wales etc. The English people therefore expect English law and justice to prevail in the UK when in England.

Well you can't be in both the UK and England! Sure, you can be in the geographical region of England and in the corporate UK. But you cannot be in England as governed by a constitutional monarchy AND in the UK under a
corporate sole. NO MAN CAN HAVE TWO MASTERS!! Can you work for Tescos and Asda simultaneously???

Obviously if the UK government told the truth, that English people aren't actually in England, there would be hell to pay. So they lie, pay lip service to English law and the constitution and then ignore it whenever they
can. In doing so they are not breaking English law or violating the constitution because England is an entirely separate jurisdiction to the UK and its laws are not relevant to the UK.

It follows that the English constitution has nothing to do with the UK. The UK did not even exist when much of the English constitution was created!

When you go into a UK court and threaten to sieze it under Magna Carta you are taking the law from one jurisdiction, England, and attempting to apply it to another, the UK. Now the government can hardly tell the truth can they? So they just ignore their unruly citizens and continue in accordance with their own rules - leaving constitutionalists bewildered and angry at having, from their perspecitve, their laws, customs and traditions trampled on. The fact is that this has not happened because they were never in the correct jurisdiction to avail themselves of those laws in the first place.

* Edited for accuracy 28/8/15

[Dreadlock]

For those of you who do not comprehend what I'm writing, answer this question.

Can a man birthed upon a vessel and therefore acting as if at sea, under admiralty jurisdiction, logically call upon the rights and laws which would be afforded to him were he on the land acting under the Law of the Land?

[MikeThomas]

Nice post Dreadlock Is there any more?

[Dreadlock]

Thanks Mike.

The most important things people need to grasp are:

1. Consent
2. Capacity/roleplay
3. Jurisdiction
4. Contract

And their relationships, one with the other. We consent to enter a jurisdiction and play a role which is governed by rules. Contract is closely tied to consent and is perhaps the trickiest concept to come to terms with, particularly implied contracts which can be all but hidden and easily entered into without realisation.

Over the last few years I've noticed more people mentioning the importance of capacity in their meetings and videos on youtube when explaining things to others. But I still see little sign of people getting a grip on consent and jurisdiction. The three concepts are inseperably intertwined and comprehension of all of them is vital to understanding how government works.

The entire system, as far as the common man is concerned, is based on the status of birth which is applied to people with their parents consent (and later their own), enters them into a jursidiction, gives them a role to play and forms a contract. Acceptance of that jurisdiction, status and role, implies acceptance of everything entered into statute. Disobeying statute is breach of contract and is punishable according to statute. Harm caused, or often the lack of harm caused, is entirely irrelevant.

The whole problem we have is due to people consenting. It really is that simple. Here's an analogy for people to think about:

A man beats his wife every day. Every day she screams and shouts at him and tells him to stop and states how she hates what he is doing to her. But at the end of every day she shares his bed.
Is she consenting to being beaten?

Those of you who answer "no" to that question are horribly horribly wrong.

edited for accuracy 13/8/15

[musashi]

Our talk by Rob Austin - aka Rob Bollox - at the Town Hall last night supports every assertion that Dreadlock is making in this post.
The video will be up on our website in a day or so and I urge everyone to watch it. I'll post the link here. If any part of Dreadlock's statements in this post are unclear to you then you really need to watch this footage.
An exceptionally good talk followed by an equally excellent talk on Grand Juries by our very own NIgel of the Colemans.
The Land Council were caught up in some police nonsense and could not make it. We hope to have them up soon.

Lance.

[Dreadlock]

Thank you Musashi.

At least now I know I'm not just whistling in the wind.

[Dreadlock]

Musashi, here is a possible solution to a liability order problem - if all else fails that is.

Liability orders apply to UK citizens who have (amongst other possibilities) broken UK statute and have been found by a UK court to have no good excuse for doing so.
The court assumes that the citizen wishes to remain a citizen and issues the liability order which the citizen must obey or face further penalties.

However, what if the citizen no longer wants to remain a citizen? The option to leave the UK is open to everyone at all times (Referrendum? Don't make me laugh. Poor Scots...). It is an option that the government DOES NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE want people to realise. Why? Because citizenship is the means by which the government (pretty much all of them in fact) executes it's criminal behaviour against the people. Consent and contract legitimises AND makes lawful what otherwise would be criminal.

For this reason courts do not say to people, "We are issuing a liability order against you. Alternatively we can terminate your employment contract (birth) with us. The choice is yours." Given those perfectly valid choices the population of the UK would very soon drop dramatically - without a single man leaving the country!

[musashi]

Did you know it's possible to be right for the wrong reasons?
Lance.

[Dreadlock]

Absolutely. If you are inferring that my reasons are wrong then please enlighten me. I would do the same for you.

[musashi]

Actually, it was merely a question - I don't know enough yet to say categorically one way or the other.

You could try looking at the laws of occupation and what an occupying power must do - the U.K. is not England and Scotland and Wales.
Have a look at the title of Great Britain. The lower case united kingdom of Great Britain - is not the upper case United Kingdom - capitalising adjectives changes them into proper nouns. In this instance the adjectives 'united and kingdom' have become 'United Kingdom' which are proper nouns in themselves.
I realise that this takes us very close to David Wyn Miller's 'Par ce syntax' grammar but in English grammar this is how it works.

I'll post the link to Rob's video talk soon as. I recommend it.
Lance.