Page 1 of 1

2 common laws

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:51 pm
by enegiss
i am just having a read of this taken from a sight that has quite a good assortment, i spoke with the guy abdun nur, and he seems very clued up, i passed him your self freeman stephen, as he seems to know a real lot concerning allodial rights of use, dont know if he did yet, he is in kuwait i think, anyways, dont know much myself

The Two Basic Common Laws

1. Do all you have agreed to do

2. Do not encroach on other living man/woman or their property. (Richard J. Maybury -Whatever Happened to Justice? - Bluestocking Press, CA 95667; 1993)

"Do all you have agreed to do" is the basis for contract law.

"Do not encroach... " is the basis for criminal law and tort law.

A "tort" is harm done to someone.

Black's Law Dictionary defines encroach as: “To enter by gradual steps or stealth into the possessions or rights of another; to trespass or intrude. To gain or intrude unlawfully upon the lands, property, or authority of another.”

Cicero (106BC – 43BC) was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, who understood the concept of common law:

"True law is right reason, consonant with nature, diffused among all men, constant, eternal.....It needs no interpreter or expounder but itself, nor will there be one law in Rome and another in Athens, one in the present and another in time to come, but one law and that eternal and immutable shall embrace all peoples and for all time and there shall be as it were one common master and ruler, the God of all, the author and judge and proposer of this law.” (C.H.McIlwain, The Growth of Political Thought in the west (New York Mac-millian, 1932)pp.111-12, quoting from the De republica)

Now consider the people who masquerade as "government". They create legislation upon the people, removing Natural (common) law and exploiting the population for the benefit of those in positions of power, perceptible and hidden, consider to what extent do they respect other persons or property?

It seems that so-called "government" is simply natural (common) law turned upside-down?

Understanding the Rex and writ model gives a better perspective of the execution of Rex Ethelbert of East Anglia from the Roman Catholic account, where they suggest he minted coins under Offa`s over-lordship with his own image upon them, they sight this as the act instigating his execution as a traitor. He was however made a saint by the Catholics and Hereford Cathedral was dedicated to him.
Historians apply the Christian sovereign model to the use of Rex names upon coinage, which would break natural law, this demands a more logical basis; a named Rex would be as a form of proof of purity, having the rex named standing surety for the coin, so if the coin was found not to be pure the Rex themselves would be liable and outraged at the use of their name, giving a personal determination to hunt down and bring to the Moot for remedy, anyone found accused of such an act of fraud.

It's far more likely Offa, as the head of the Rex Moot (court) system, sent his wife who it would seem worked as a Rex in his family business; she and those with her championing the cause of the weak, executed Ethelbert because he was corrupt and functioned against his mandate, the corruption of a person working as a Rex undermined the entire law system, or using their position to undermine the coinage system, would demanded prompt and severe action. This execution outraged the Roman Catholic pontiff, who are founded historically on betrayal and corruption.

The reason for the myth of King Arthur i have heard someone promote this as a truth?.

The legend of King Arthur was manufactured by Geoffrey of Monmouth who was born sometime around 1100, perhaps in Monmouth in southeast Wales. His father was named Arthur. Geoffrey was appointed archdeacon of Llandsaff in 1140 and was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph in 1152, he died c. 1155. In his 'Historia Regum Britanniae' (completed in 1138) he manufactured a line of English kings, a fiction where he installed Arthur, along with Merlin the wizard and Guinevere the adulterous to establish a fraudulent claim of the monarchy. Geoffrey also wrote a Vita Merlini (Life of Merlin) in verse in about 1150, these literary fictions were used and perceived as true until the 17th century.

Christianity subjugate women to a subservient position, so painting women as betrayers and adulterers, they accuse 'Guinevere' possibly in context of Cynethryth of infidelity within her marriage to 'Arthur' possibly in context to Offa, which caused Queens having all authority withheld from future English Christian kings` wives. She represented the power of the law system established within Albien, even subjugating the Christian sovereigns to a limited degree, this was too powerful for some of the southern Christian thanes, who within the Christian model enjoy a two tier legal system, affording no justice to any against themselves the sovereign, whose dictates were law; additionally Christianity view women as the root of evil and subservient to men. But Arthur is a fiction and may have no basis in historical fact at all.

Unlike kingdoms, the Tribal Hidage system of Albien held women in high esteem, and the Rex's wife in their own right would be able to serve the same function if required, the Christian historians suggest in the issue of charters in their own names, but within the lawful structure no concept of state, nation, sovereign, or corporation, would have been recognised under the Natural law system, so the Charter concept was never applicable, as a charter is a superior giving an inferior man a right, but under natural law all men and women are equal in the sight of the law, and all documents claiming to be charter would be forged after 1066 to support theft and give justifications, the Christian Thanes would have given Charters to stolen property, as they functioned as bandits, attacking without provocation to murder, rape and plunder the innocent.

"The only genuine documents to survive from before 1066 with seals attached are writs of the Thane Edward the Confessor (1042–65), and Gervase of Canterbury says that he was ‘the first of the kings of (a single county of) England who appended pressed wax on his charters as a testimony of the truth.” (Gesta regum Anglorum, ed. Stubbs, RS 83 (1880), ii, 59).

The execution in the royal residence of Tamworth in 794 of the now Saint Ethelbert, upset the Roman Catholic Church and Offa`s Queen Cynethryth is painted by them as the evil-doer, for that it was agreed within the church that no more Albien Rex's wives used the authority of a Rex, of course they were powerless to enforce this until after 1066.

The authority of the Christian Kings as sovereign within their Kingdoms of the southern part of Albien was in some part submissive to the Natural (common) law of Albien and so answerable to the Rex legal structure, they worked to remove this constraint that had been so indisputably enforced by Offa's wife.

The fabrication of history created after 1066, is presented as they had no choice at that time but to concede upon themselves the Angles, 'Rex Anglorum' to Rex Offa who represented the head of the Rex structure. This document 'Rex Anglorum' never existed then and was never a concept that could have existed, it exists today as a proved cynically manufactured forgery created after the Norman conquest as justification for a unified subjugating monarch concept.

This document was used to establish a Christian sovereign system upon the meagre remnants of the peoples of Albien, it would have been nonsense at the time of Offa and would have given no license to William the Bastard, but even today propaganda is widely implemented to establish weak justifications for unjustifiable actions; just as present day Politicians like Blair fabricate weapons of mass destruction to invade and subjugate, steal and exploit others, for their hidden masters.

The Roman Catholics within the A-S Chronicles claim Offa's son became Christian, it seems unlikely given Offa's treatment of Roman Catholics in surviving documents outside of the Roman Catholic revisionists, but within a few months of working as a Rex his son was poisoned, after this Christian Rex's attempted to usurp authority within Albien, so it is asserted, but failed to subjugate the population who refused to recognise or utilise these corrupt and dishonourable men.

The Christian sovereign King model was regurgitated by William in 1066, using the fabricated document, created as justification after the event, for actions free of justice; 'Rex Anglorum' attributed to Offa to sanction William the bastard as sovereign, through the corruption and perversion of all that was honest and true.

Re: 2 common laws

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:48 am
by Freeman Stephen

Re: 2 common laws

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:07 am
by Prajna
Everyone is still looking to the past to try to find some superior authority for their freedom and sovereignty. But that is stupid. If we are all born equal, are equal in the eyes of the law, are sovereign etc. then we are all that in this very second without reference to any other authority: it is the obvious, intrinsic and inevitable situation, imanent in the whole concept of natural law. Fuck off all the history, folklaw and historical fantasy and get to grips with the obvious: the only sane way to relate to each other is as equals and no authority is required in order to establish that. Focus on the rights and wrongs that happen in this now; you know what is right and wrong (except that despite your rebellion against your programming there are still traces of it that prevent you seeing what is obvious and 'self evident'.


Re: 2 common laws

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:23 am
by enegiss
:grin: yeah

Re: 2 common laws

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:00 am
by enegiss
we are what we are until we are not :grin:

Re: 2 common laws

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:33 am
by enegiss
didnt liam gallagher say something like, "scratching around in the same old hole" i know what you mean prajna, but it is hard for some to let go and grab hold :grin:

Re: 2 common laws

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:57 pm
by Prajna

Re: 2 common laws

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:08 pm
by Freeman Stephen
It really irks me that we have to refer to pejority to convince many people of clearly reasonable things. Why should it take ben franklins security and liberty quote to express to someone the dangers of governments assuming more and more power. They should just get it from their own analysis but they get the exact opposite because of the synthetic knowledge they have from the media of the day or the select parts of history they learned parrot fashion to pass an exam. Why did it take a member of the house of lords to coin the phrase "sleepwalking into a surveillance society" before you could speak your views about the public cctv system without being seen by most as a complete nutter. Its not that the analytical reasoning for anti surveillance has changed just that the anti surveillance argument has at least reached the fringes of pejorative acceptance. Its not just liberty and cctv this idiocy relates to but almost anything so much so that chemtrails dont exist and torture is a necessary evil. If they pushed for gas chambers as a final solution to deal with all the free thinkers it would be unthinkable that they were anything but essential.