Right to travel

Re: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:25 pm

if it was a custom and tradition (common law) for us not to pay a road tax but now over time has become a new custom/tradition to pay road tax which the masses seem to have converted to by hook or by crook, how do you handle that one?

Also how do the English know their customs and traditions as have been cleansed of them via Anglophobic UK Gov and E.U. rule cultural cleansing which the Normans went about originally? so how do the English know their customs and traditions which have been slowly eroded for approx a thousand year of Norman and now UK and E.U. rule?
Ingy
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:05 pm

Ingy wrote:Dreadlock,

So our main argument with statutes and Acts are that they are not of our customs and traditions which are our common law? I.e. the English should be saying our customs and traditions should over-ride (or replace) all these statutes and acts?

Is it your aim for the masses of English and settlers in England who have become part of an English society, to on mass, call for this and that will be the revolution you aim for?

does the movement just want its early English freedoms its enjoyed pre English and then UK Parliament period? If so what are the set customs and traditions (common law) we should be calling for?


Statutes were originally used to codify the common law (law). They were supposed to state the law in writing and be in harmony with the law. A statute which contradicts law is null and void, however Parliament is able to legislate unlawful statute - and does frequently. Over time, Parliament has created statute to subvert law so that the two things are now almost opposites - law v legal, justice v procedure. Read William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Invaluable book.

The trick that has been played is that law applies to "people". Statutes however apply to "persons". I don't think I've ever read a statute which uses the word "people". "People" is what we are. "Persons" are a role we can play.
By consenting to be persons we are moved from common law jurisdiction to statute jurisdiction and then unlawful, but legal, statutes can be used against us.

The law makes unlawful that which causes harm. Statutes make illegal whatever the state wants to control - us. This is why the right to travel is so very important. Restricting our movements is vital to the State's ability to control us.

My view is let those who will be controlled be controlled. Let those who will be free be free. The problem is the State wants to force the latter to be the former and uses trickery, fear and force to achieve that goal.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:07 pm

musashi stated:

"The common law may be said to be that which Alfred the Great set out according to the wishes of his people on how they wish to be governed and what laws shall bind them."

Back then in early English times (pre Norman invasion) a local Witan (leadership, council) would gather under a tree etc and decide what is right and what is not right in judgement of their own community. A community ran by the people for the people at grass roots level.
Is this what you are looking for? is this what common law is? and in the English communities case it is based on our view of common sense unwritten, which would more than likely be the whole of humanities common sense?
Ingy
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby musashi » Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:47 pm

Ingy wrote:if it was a custom and tradition (common law) for us not to pay a road tax but now over time has become a new custom/tradition to pay road tax which the masses seem to have converted to by hook or by crook, how do you handle that one?

Also how do the English know their customs and traditions as have been cleansed of them via Anglophobic UK Gov and E.U. rule cultural cleansing which the Normans went about originally? so how do the English know their customs and traditions which have been slowly eroded for approx a thousand year of Norman and now UK and E.U. rule?


It takes 500 years for a "custom" to become a custom - this is the tradition. I would venture to suggest that a custom is that practice which our ancestors found to be the 'best' way to deal with a given problem, relationship, and so on. Time showed this to be the best way so it goes unreplaced and becomes a custom. It is far from anarchy - NO GOVERNMENT - and it is certainly not a make it up as you go along scenario. If something works so well that it lasts for five hundred years then it must be pretty good. We'll keep that!!!

Road tax is not a custom but an imposed legislation. Customs are not laws and no law becomes a custom.

It was stated previously in this thread that the Normans held on to the Saxon common law and did not displace it.
Perhaps you could delineate for us the precise customs which have been eroded by a thousand years of Norman, and now UK and EU rule.

The Normans (Northmen/Vikings) seldom settled a land but when they did they took on the language and customs of the people they settled among. If they did not then Normandy, Russia, Ireland (Dublin) Isle of Man and several other places would be speaking Old Norse, perhaps, as their mother tongue.This is historical fact. The suggestion this makes is that the Normans settled England and took on English customs wholesale and many of their laws in part.
Ingy wrote: Naturally as conquerors they would impose other, additional laws to which they themselves were accustomed.

musashi wrote:The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed and which sets out the limitations of the crown and its parliament. There is no single document defining this but a series of charters, statutes and law court decisions exist which does. Huntingross's post on the limitations of parliament help here. It is also in the the Billl of Rights, which was determined by a convention of the people and not of parliament.

The common law may be said to be that which Alfred the Great set out according to the wishes of his people on how they wish to be governed and what laws shall bind them. The common law is that which governs the interactive relations of people not in commerce, contract or other jurisdiction. It is the law by which people choose to live.

Can't get it any simpler, though I am a simple man. I can also say that I believe that the first law to exist was contract law. The law of agreement.

Musashi


Sorry to be a pain but this is a quite vague definition of common law (My penny not dropping completey)... is it a form of anarchy but just making unwritten rules up as we go along which actually are our customs and traditions that have been taken away from us via Parlaiments?
Is it to not live by all parliament laws? instead to live by our own customs and traditions?


You did specify "Simlple" did you not? I find it simple - but not vague. It is quite precise and informative.

I am wary at this point. I am reminded of an ex girlfriend who would ask a question on a subject she knew nothing about. She would take a bit of the answer I gave her and use that as the basis for another question. This would carry on until she had asked so many questions based on my answers that there was nothing left to say. At this point she would smile triumphantly and walk away having 'demolished' me.

There are better places than this to discover the truth of the common law, its source, its validity and its application. Take my mention of Alfred the Great, for example. You could go and look at what was actually said and done then avoid unnecessary dispute and question mongering. Here, you will find only what I perceive and try to understand. Better to look to those with jurisprudential capacities beyond my own for simple, yet non vague, definitions. I might recommend John Locke whose erudition and precise wordingsI have quoted here in the past.

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 » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:12 am

Thanks Musashi,

It's kinda odd to start being your ex girlfriend :blush: :giggle:

Again sorry for too many questions but I am actually trying to get some simple answers/tools for the movement to present to everyday folk so as to bring the masses on far more easy because it all seems too complicated for the uneducated masses who we need onboard (including myself who is half way there to fully understanding it all) to get them onboard with easy to understand notions.

I get the trick of Statutes and us consenting to them or not as the case may be. I get the person - human trick. I get the birth certificate trick. I have had the penny drop for some time on them so am half way there and am already confident enough to take on the TV License issue and am doing OK with that for a few years now .....
But when it comes to a simple definition of what we want as opposed to statutes, which the Freeman movement professes to be our 'Common Law', it is then hard getting anyone to define in simple terms what exactly the common law is.

There must be a more simple way with different wording and notions used so as to make easy for the masses to understand and then come on board all the more which is what the movement needs.

Note: uneducated masses seem to be a majority (intentional no doubt) as council estates would more than likely far out-number private estates and Mansions where the better educated reside.

Note 2: I understand the Norman issue you point out but I see it also as an English resistance against them that stopped them going full on with the takeover so to speak. They did tamper with our language a great deal and did try to culturally cleans us. In fact if you read the deathbed confession of William the Bastard you will see the ethnic clearing exposed. (Other countries would have had a similar resistance so maybe it was a case of the Normans tactics being wrong I.e. invade and win but then maybe only being capable of replacing aristocracy as didn't have enough folk left to stay and occupy and outbreed etc due to the losses in the invasion, which was not enough to take the country fully.)

Could we say that common law, like the laws of gravity, is not necessarily a written law of Government although it has been written about over the years by many and may be included in UK Parliament Statutes?

You ask what are the customs and traditions that have been lost are and I am only finding this out piece by piece over the years as reclaiming my English identity back from Norman, so that is something else we lost for a starter which is bigger than Customs and trads our identity! we are given a slave name 'British' these days by UK and EU rule and our identity is taken back via finding our true culture, traditions, customs, history etc so I can't list it all but can see a simple notion of there not being very little evidence of the English being oppressed pre Norman 1066 invasion and can see an oppression from 1066 onwards to this present day.
Our whole identity could be defined to a great extent by being a proud, free people of fair play which emerges now and again via uprisings Tollpuddle Martyes, Peterloo Masacre, Peasants revolt, Robin Hood, Hereward the wake, Diggers and levellers, Suffrigetes etc etc most campaigns were based on the freeborn English and fair play notion.

I would say our freedom has gone as we seemed far more free ore Norman times, so I would say we need to go back to the notion of what some deem Common Law which seemed to be what the English lived by pre Norman times: definition via this movement has been: to cause no harm, no loss, no breach of the peace and no mishief in agreement. But I don't see this movement selling that simple notion to the public and I will put my life on it that some in the movment will dispute this definition of common law again bringing in the confusion of what the movement actually wants and is calling for?
Ingy
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby holy vehm » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:48 am

"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: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:30 am

Thanks holy vehm,

Just reading the first one and have to dispute the Islamic point made, and that is that Islam had nothing to do with the English and England in pre-Norman Post Roman times (Early English and England times), other than the odd trade as the English had a great Navy and may have travelled to trade or Islamic traders may have come to trade with England even. The coins may have been from Viking settlers or invaders who certainly did raid numerous lands.
There is only the odd very rare Islamic coin found in England from 449 to 1066 (The beginnings of the English and England) the rest would be coins of English Kings of the early Kingdoms of England and after those dates, would then then be of the Kings of a unified England from King Athelstan onwards.

It will be an interesting and helpful read but no doubt all too much for everyday folk to understand as easy.

holy vehm wrote:http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/90/122/

http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/91/123/

Both links are worthy of consideration.
Ingy
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby Ingy » Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:53 am

Ive started reading the second one holy vehm,

and am sadly insulted instantly as it takes the Anglophobic states line of ommitting early English history from existance. Shocking.

The English came to Albion in Anglo-Saxon tribal root form in aprox 449AD settled and created England.
The article has early English imagary in the Suttun Hoo Helmet but leaves out any mention of the English?

Try this website for a non-Brit/UK state influenced history of the English... http://www.wearetheenglish.com/whoareyer.html

Try this book for a great non-state influenced truth of English history too... http://www.asbooks.co.uk/t%20EnglishNat.htm

English identity is something I specialise in and can no doubt learn you as much about it as you can learn me about being a Freeman.


holy vehm wrote:http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/90/122/

http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/91/123/

Both links are worthy of consideration.
Ingy
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Right to travel

Postby Dreadlock » Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:18 pm

Yeah very interesting. It is certainly true that the "common law" changed substantially with the introduction of Norman feudalism and not for the better.

I don't think that going this far back in time helps us much today. As interesting as it certainly is, do we really need to go about saying "I'm Anglo-Saxon" or "I'm Norman" or the Normans did this to us and the Romans did that. In today's
context such claims are meaningless. "Us" includes all of the former people we might me complaining about. We are Gaelic and Roman and Anglo-Saxon and Viking and Norman and God knows what else. They are all our ancestors to a greater or lesser degree.

Whatever the true history of our country it doesn't change the circumstances we find ourselves in presently.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Right to travel

Postby musashi » Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:46 pm

Gettting back to common law, perhaps you will find something of it codified in The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and Offences Against Property. Should have said this earlier. Sorry.

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

PreviousNext

Return to Travel only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron