FOI: LAW COMMISSION ADMITS we are all state-owned property!

FOI: LAW COMMISSION ADMITS we are all state-owned property!

Postby strawmansarah » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:48 pm

This is probably the most important FOI there is: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/state_rules_2

25 July 2012
Dear Law Commission,

We are punished for not following state rules that we have
[apparently] never agreed to follow.

Therefore, please provide recorded information which evidences
how/when/where we (anyone in the UK) agreed/consented to follow
state rules.

If there is no recorded information held by yourselves, please
state where that information resides.

Without this information, we are, all of us (you too!), Slaves;
State-owned-property with no autonomy whatsoever. That constitutes
FASCISM: where the state claims to own everyone and everything.

Law would therefore mean nothing more than lawful, than FORCE.

Yours faithfully,


1 August 2012

The position in English law is that citizens of the United Kingdom and persons physically within the legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are bound by the laws of the United Kingdom, whether those laws are statute-based or form part of the common law. Consent to be bound is implicit not explicit. This circumstance is an integral part of the rule of law as it applies in the United Kingdom.

To the best of our knowledge there is no one statute which deals with the situation you describe, nor is there a prescribed means by which an individual or body can withdraw consent. To seek to withdraw consent would breach the rule of law. The existence of the continuing constitutional principle of the rule of law is recognised in statute: see the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c.4), s 1 (available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005...).

The Commission does not hold information directly on the points you raise. However, your researches may be assisted by referring to the following sources -

(1) A W Bradley and K D Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law (13th ed 2003)
(a) The majority of this book is available online following the link below. Chapter 6 refers specifically to the history of the rule of law and its implications today
(b) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HT_GS...
(2) C Turpin and A Tomkins, British Government and the Constitution (11th ed 2011)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PcbsE...
(3) H Barnet and R Jago, Constitutional & Administrative Law (8th ed 2011)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LYc1t...




1 August 2012
Thank you for your clear response.

You have proven to my satisfaction that LAW in the UK is nothing
more than FORCE and that we are, all of us, merely State-Property.

Yours sincerely,
[url]http://www.lulu.com/shop/the-lioness/so-they-say-you’ve-broken-the-law-challenging-legal-authority/paperback/product-18485231.html[/url]How to challenge the authority of anyone who claims you have broken the law.
strawmansarah
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: FOI: LAW COMMISSION ADMITS we are all state-owned property!

Postby Freeman Stephen » Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:35 pm

I dont think they should be applying any more rules until they can show the basis for their claimed authority. it looks like a man with a big stick trying to con children into believing he has a right to abuse them. i think nature implies we are free and that those who infringe upon that freedom without consent are criminals. so now the criminals say that a baby implies consent to its bondage to the state by not sprouting wings and floating through the air to a magical island where its freedom from violently imposed bondage can continue. you cant get ahead in the system unless your quite twisted. governments lawyers!
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: FOI: LAW COMMISSION ADMITS we are all state-owned property!

Postby Dreadlock » Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:43 pm

The person who responded to you was very clever in their choice of words and deceitful in treating statute and common law as equals.

The position in English law is that citizens of the United Kingdom and persons physically within the legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are bound by the laws of the United Kingdom, whether those laws are statute-based or form part of the common law. "


Citizens of the UK must of course obey the rules of the UK, but bear in mind that the UK is a corporation. By "persons" he is clearly referring to legal persons, as only a legal person can be within a legal jurisdiction. All citizens of the UK are of course legal persons by necessity.

Consent to be bound is implicit not explicit. This circumstance is an integral part of the rule of law as it applies in the United Kingdom.


This is true - for legal persons for both statute and common law. But what if we are acting as natural persons?

To seek to withdraw consent would breach the rule of law.


More accurately, it would breach statute law - for legal persons. But for natural persons consent must be given for statute law to be applied to them because a natural person cannot fall under a legal jurisdiction. One method by which a natural person can give consent is by the voluntary adoption of a legal title which falls within statute jurisdiction, such as "Mr, Mrs, Dr, Sir, Lord" etc. It is therefore perfectly lawful for natural persons to withdraw consent to government by statute. This would not breach the rule of law, as the rule of law applies only to the common law as only the common law is the law of the land. Statute law is the law of the Crown corporation.

It is this corporation which owns the legal persons, as it created them upon the birth of the natural person - as evidenced by birth certificates. It is these instruments that are state property, not us. The problem is that the vast majority of people do not know or understand the difference between a legal person and a natural person or understand that they can fall into different jurisdictions simply by changing their title.

Of course it is quite possible, and sometimes desirable, to be a legal person for one thing and a natural person for another. The trick is knowing when to change - and getting government to accept your change :puzz:
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: FOI: LAW COMMISSION ADMITS we are all state-owned property!

Postby strawmansarah » Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:57 am

To seek to withdraw consent would breach the rule of law
I'm studying this claim very closely - I'm not sure I agree with him on that. :police:

For those of you who don't know about the 'statutes being higher than common law' claim, it's called THE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT. Go google :ugeek:
[url]http://www.lulu.com/shop/the-lioness/so-they-say-you’ve-broken-the-law-challenging-legal-authority/paperback/product-18485231.html[/url]How to challenge the authority of anyone who claims you have broken the law.
strawmansarah
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: FOI: LAW COMMISSION ADMITS we are all state-owned property!

Postby Freeman Stephen » Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:50 pm

The rule of law is already breached when the government declare in their own statutes that they or their agencies are exempt from various bits of it. Dont believe its about constitutional monarchs, that's only a key element, the rule of law is where even the government including the king is bound by the exact same law as the people - no exemptions - everyone under the law - no one above it!
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: FOI: LAW COMMISSION ADMITS we are all state-owned property!

Postby treeman » Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:39 pm

To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. (P.-J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, trans. John Beverley Robinson. London: Freedom Press, 1923, p. 294)
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: FOI: LAW COMMISSION ADMITS we are all state-owned property!

Postby Freeman Stephen » Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:25 pm

As a minarchist i only want to abolish governmental systems as they are today. For all the bullshit they have virtually unlimited power over the people and the people have no control over their government or by expansion over themself. At the same time in any controversy between an organised group of people and a group completely without organisation, its easy to see who will win and who will be assimilated or destroyed. I dont think we need to have total micromanaged lives to out organise the more organised, although the extremely organised group will have a little advantage in organisation, it will be at i huge disadvantage in ingenuity and loyalty. I think we should have a government of well defined structure and a set of well defined rules that limits their ability to tyranise and control the people.Like a set of lines drawn in the sand that to cross automatically invalidates its position leading to a fresh reorganisation. Some say minarchy would eventually lead to tyranny but at least you have that time between the now and the eventual to live in freedom, which is more than can be said for the "lets not organise at all" approach where we are running around like headless chickens from a government that needed reigned in many moons ago.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: FOI: LAW COMMISSION ADMITS we are all state-owned property!

Postby frogmanbrabs » Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:16 pm

It needs to be done very soon FS because the longer we allow them to continue without opposition the more they will be prepared for when the inevitable shit hits the fan. :peace:
An Open Mind can take you on a journey to anywhere.
User avatar
frogmanbrabs
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:04 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: FOI: LAW COMMISSION ADMITS we are all state-owned property!

Postby treeman » Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:22 pm

That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: FOI: LAW COMMISSION ADMITS we are all state-owned property!

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:26 am

As I understand it, Parliament does claim supremacy over everything. However ultimately its power comes from the people, so if it looses the support of the people it looses all authority - unless it resorts to force.

According to William Blackstone in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" 1765, statutes are superior to common law. However, statutes are supposed to be based on the common law with the effect of merely modifying it in various ways; statutes can simply state the common law, remedy it to fix shortcomings, expand its definition or restrict its definition in some way.

He also states the following in reference to the ecclesiastical courts, military courts, courts of admiralty and the courts of the two universities (I assume he means Oxbridge and Cambridge):

1. And, first, the courts of common law have the superintendency over these courts; to keep them within their jurisdictions, to determine wherein they exceed them, to restrain and prohibit such excess, and (in case of contumacy) to punish the officer who executes, and in some cases the judge who enforces, the sentence so declared to be illegal.

2. The common law has reserved to itself the exposition of all such acts of parliament, as concern either the extent of these courts or the matters depending before them. And therefore if these courts either refuse to allow these acts of parliament, or will expound them in any other sense than what the common law puts upon them, the king's courts at Westminster will grant prohibitions to restrain and control them.


So common law courts are clearly superior to all other courts and can be used to rectify errors or mischief carried out in those courts. Also acts of parliament must be interpreted by the courts to be in line with the common law. This seems to me to infer a restriction on the statutes that Parliament should pass - they should be in harmony with the common law and in no way contrary to it. If this is so, and I'm sure it is, then the "supremacy" of parliament, is subordinate to the common law.

However Blackstone also states:
But if the parliament will positively enact a thing to be done which is unreasonable, I know of no power that can control it: and the examples usually alleged in support of this sense of the rule do none of them prove, that where the main object of a statute is unreasonable the judges are at liberty to reject it; for that were to set the judicial power above that of the legislature, which would be subversive of all government.


So, although statute should be in harmony with the common law, if it is not, then nothing can be done about it as parliament is "supreme".

In my opinion this can all be summarised very simply. Parliament can do whatever the hell people allow it to do. Hence we are in the dire straights we find ourselves in, because the vast majority of people are ignorant and complacent.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Next

Return to Freedom of Information only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests