Right to travel

Re: Right to travel

Postby huntingross » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:47 pm

Ingy, I have shown one example of it being written in common law - It is you that presumes it must be in a Charter to be common law.

I await your proof of that claim.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Right to travel

Postby musashi » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:56 pm

I do not want to argue their case for them, but I believe that the issue is not one of the right to travel but one in which the means of that travel is the issue.

There is no law I know of that says we cannot travel per se, but there are statutes in place about what means we may use to do so. The issue, then, is about THEIR right to impose a payment/ tax/ fine etc on a particular means of travel without their consent and payment thereof, and not on the travel itself. Which brings us back to the matter of LICENCES, I think.

The matter of the privatisation of our roads is one of great concern. In the same way that the The Carriers Act forces us to apply for passports - they will not carry us unless we have a means of identification and they have determined that that means is a passport. There is no law that says we must have a passport, but the corporate rules of the carriers means that we are controlled by the state through the carriers. Get a passport if you want us to carry you to France etc. becasue if we carry you without suitable means of identification then the state will ruin us.

Similarly, when the roads are all privatised we will be subject to the private, corporate terms of business which will require us to have a licence, tax and insurance in order to use "Their" roads. They may require just about anything before they let us use "Their" roads.

This brings us, hyperbolically, to the issue of anti social behaviour orders whereby one may be prevented from going to a particular place. Clearly these are unlawful and anyone subject to them is being unlawfully letted and hindered.

Musashi
ISLAM DELENDA EST
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:06 pm

squark wrote:I got an £1100 bill on this issue so be careful before trying out a theory.

Interesting little point I picked up in court.
I asked "Does the Police Office really believe that my rights are give to me by statute?" (he misquoted my statement from the traffic stop)
The Judge responded "That's for me to decide."
Which I think has meaning and is worth a good head scratch.


It is for the judge to decide which capacity you were acting in at the time and therefore whether or not statute applies.

You may have a common law right to travel but if you have waived it or contracted it away or sold it or signed it over, you have no longer got that right. You can exchange rights for privileges by being a member of "society". You can demonstrate that membership by for example receiving a benefit, like JSA or Legal Aid or even having and using Bank of England bank notes.


A person may be a member of a society, but are you acting within its jurisdiction 24/7? One would choose to be within UK jurisdiction when claiming JSA but this in no way prevents you from leaving UK jurisdiction in order to deal with some other matter - such as traveling to a friend's house under common law jurisdiction.

Using bank notes does not identify you as a member of society. We are free to contract, as people, as we see fit and accept anything as payment - even worthless paper. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, foreigners use UK bank notes when they come here, does that make them UK citizens?

I wrote an Affidavit saying "I don't consent". Of course you can't testify in your own case because everyone would swear they didn't do it and unrebutted the walk away scott-free. So, sorry folks it doesn't work that way. Your consent is expressed by accepting benefits (of the contract). You can't take the benefits without taking the liabilities too.


Of course you can testify in your own case! Do you honestly believe that if someone brings a claim against you that you have no right to defend yourself? I don't mean to have a go at you but think about what you are saying! The onus is on the claimant to prove their claim and yes it is true that the Crown cannot successfully rebut a properly written affidavit as their cases are usually based on nothing but assumption and totally lacking in evidence or proof. They rely on the ignorance of the defendant in order to win.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Right to travel

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:14 pm

Ingy wrote:Musashi,

Am I right in presuming the right to travel without let or hindrance is not written in Common law? as you or anyone else has not provided me with it written in common law which I though was our early Charters?

If it is, please can you tell me where it is written? Which Charter?



Requiring permission to travel is like requiring permission to do a shit. Why on earth should it be written down anywhere? It IS written down, but what if it wasn't? WHO GIVES A DAMN! Are we adults or children? Children ask permission to do things - adults just do things.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:27 pm

Yes huntingcross, I thought, due to what I have learned from the Freeman on the Land movement, that common law was what is written in our early Charters which were written in stone and that would be what we refer to as our solid easy to understand challenge to statutes/Acts.

I now presume I am incorect?

If I used the quote you put forward, how do I describe it and its origin?

Very sorry to put what may seem strange questions but I have had a penny drop with this movement in understanding what the Grand deception seems to be but am having trouble proving it with solid 'written in stone' quotes and their origins and meanings and what law they are so as to prove the grand deception with easy to use tools so to speak.

You and others can help me with this no doubt.
Ingy
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:36 pm

Dreadlock,

Whilst I understasnd your logical point, I thought the Freeman movement was trying to provide via laws (namely common law) that statutes and Acts are a deception and we have a common law written in stone that we can refer to so as to chalenge Statutes and Acts?

You are professing a sort of revolution with nothing written in stone to rely on as tools, with a notion that we will not be told what to do which is absolutely fine and I support, but I thought the notion of the FMOTL movement was to present factual written in stone laws to chalenge the deception of statutes and acts? am I wrong on that one? If so what is the point of all the work gone into copying all those early charters onto this site for everyone to read and use?
Ingy
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:41 pm

The common law is an amalgamation of Anglo-Saxon and Norman laws, customs and traditions. It is largely unwritten, though as a Christian country our laws are based heavily on bible teachings which are considered to be the highest law as they represent the word of God. Statutes on the other hand are the lowest of the laws of the land - even though they are written down.

Any judge will accept the bible as law if the court's jurisdiction allows for it - this is why one swears on the bible in criminal cases. It is the lowest courts which will not see the common law.

The only laws I know of written in stone are the Ten Commandments. The freeman movement is more about mindset than anything else. How can you be free if you rely on things to be written down, by other people, for you to be able to claim some kind of authority?

I don't give a hot damn what is or isn't written down. If other people require laws "written in stone" I pity them for they are not free in mind let alone body. Free you mind first, then overcome the fear of being free and the inevitable challenge you will face from "authority" - the rest will follow.

The purpose of the early charters is to show that people have been through in the past what we are going through again today - tyranny. The Magna Carter, for example, shows that certain principles have been established for nigh on 1000 years (actually a hell of a lot longer) and this serves to encourage people today and show precedent.

The early writings are nothing more than a foundation from which to start. My point is that if there was no foundation would we just give up? or build our own foundation?
Last edited by Dreadlock on Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:42 pm

I really need to speak to some educated FMOTL folk locally face to face to help me get the full notion as I am halfway there it seems but just need that final realisation it seems via education from this movement which I welcome.
Ingy
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby musashi » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:14 pm

Common law and the constitution could not be taken away from us so we were taken away from it.

We were put into merchant law by the removal of gold money and the introduction of merchant paper - promissory notes. The 1928 Currency and Banknotes Act says that "the working man will accept paper money whether he wants to or not". Says so right there in the act! Three years later they took away the gold supporting the paper money (Bill227) and we were all in merchant law because we were negotiating merchant paper. Easy.

The 1925 Gold Standard Act gives the Bank of England the legal right to commit fraud. It gives the bank the right to issue Promissory Notes under the tenor of the Bills of Exchange Act and then refuse to honour them by paying out the gold they supposedly represent. Says so right there in the Act. Legalised theft by fraud.

The law says that for the purpose of negotiating a Bill/Promissory Note we are to be regarded as merchants. See "Dispatch of Merchants" by Bill Avery.

The local high street bank, operating in retail, was taken over by Act of legislation by the big commercial banks dealing in commerce. Now, if you have a bank account you are acting in commerce and are taxable on all income whereas before, a bank account with the local high street bank did not take you into commerce, you did not have an income and were not taxable.

A similar Act of legislation has been passed requiring private pumping stations to sell their property to the water companies in the south west of England. Warch out for future changes hurting the people. The water companies say it is to save the owners the trouble of owning them! Honestly. They also ask the people to inform on anyone they know who has a private pumping station. Prizes are offered to encourage informers!!!

You now have an income because an account with a commercial bank means you are acting in commerce.

Al government departments will become corporate ventures operating in the private. The rules and laws and regulations the state wants to impose on us will be imposed through the offices of these private companies and their terms of business will be the laws and rules and regulations that the state cannot impose to enslave us completely. The constitution and the common law so far prevent this. You can see this in The Carriers Act.

Fascism is a euphemism for corporatism - according to its inventor, Benito Mussolini.

Musashi
ISLAM DELENDA EST
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:20 pm

Dreadlock,

Just a little side issue point. England was not a Christian country initially as the early English were Heathens who by hook or by crook were converted to Christianity by Missionaries sent by the papal in early English times, with heathenism demonised, hounded out and pushed underground: burning witches at the steak and drowning witches etc is evidence of this and the full job was completed with the Norman invasion of 1066 which was also supported by the papal.
Ingy
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Travel only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron