Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689

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

Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689

Postby holy vehm » Sun May 05, 2013 7:00 pm

"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689

Postby Freeman Stephen » Mon May 06, 2013 6:57 am

No doubt the academic argument of a de facto king having competency would fail in court too. Note the judge in hall v hall gave no reason because he was without reason. Its a de facto line of succession: fact! Its a de facto parliament: fact! The average freeman abides more lawfully than any MP, royal or judge: fact!
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689

Postby holy vehm » Mon May 06, 2013 7:17 am

Freeman Stephen wrote:The average freeman abides more lawfully than any MP, royal or judge: fact!


Aint that the truth.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142


Return to Common Law & Statute "Law"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron