Scots Law

Discuss the difference between Common Law and the Statutory Acts made by the Powers that be, (PTB)

Re: Scots Law

Postby somenick » Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:06 pm

Well that's the thing, you mention the "cops", and obviously many of us are concerned about the fact that while we may be acting lawfully, the police will act as if we are not. A Scottish policeman seems, in essence, to have to make an oath to do what he/she is told by their superior. Now, that has no bearing on lawfulness, or EVEN legality!

But yes I take your point buddy, we can't get too wrapped up in the fine details. We know the difference between right and wrong, and we should be willing to lawfully do whatever it takes to be heard by the system. :)

Even soldiers are waking up to the hypocrisy, because they have now been put in a position where they can be charged with crimes if they follow orders, and charged with crimes if they do not!
Magna Carta never applied in Scotland, and the writ of habeas corpus, standardised in England under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, has no meaning in Scotland.
User avatar
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:49 pm

Re: Scots Law

Postby Yuchangi » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:51 pm

Hey there, somenick,

I was wondering if you're any further forward in your investigations of sovereignty and Common Law in Scotland? I'm quite new to the concept of Freeman-on-the-land, but I'm at the stage where I'm trying to work out if challenges to, for example, loans can be carried out the same way up here as Veronica outlines. I found your post helpful, but it's inherently confusing. Maybe one important difference is that between the Law-of-the-Waters and the Law-of-the-Land? If Scottish courts still have a bar and a dock, then surely they represent Admiralty Law (or whichever of its many names you want to use). And if the judge's oath is to Elizabeth, then they're representing a corporation, which contravenes common law. Again, we run into the problem of whether or not common law is 'recognised' in Scotland, but by the sounds of it it's not readily recognised in England either!

It'd be great to hear from you, anyway.
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: Scots Law

Postby Yuchangi » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:22 pm

I'm doing some reading on Scots Law, and it seems that the lack of equity is actually a good thing, because equity gives courts permission to mitigate Common Law judgements, which might mean the interference of Statute (or Civil) Law. More worrying is the lack of any significance attached to consideration in Scots Law, which is what a lot of Veronica's argument hinges on.

However (maybe this is what you meant when you said that sovereignty was the key) it seems that, if we rescind our implied contract with the United Kingdom Corporation, then we are only subject to our affidavit of personal truth, which is the true common law, regardless of how it's codified here or there. What do you think?

Either way, it's becoming apparent that none of this will work if you're just trying to pull a fast one on the Legal system. You have to really know what you're about as a person, and what's right and wrong. And to know as much about the law as possible, from its various standpoints.
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:07 pm


Return to Common Law & Statute "Law"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests