food for thought

Jobaboba's Jokes Factory. (Only for those who are feeling silly)

Re: food for thought

Postby LionsShare » Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:26 pm

LionsShare
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 5:39 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby pitano1 » Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:51 pm

Hi...l.s
No problem.

While I`m here, I would like to thank lamani for his thoughts+his help/advice...cheers bro.
kind regards
to all
pitano

ps...https://www.fmotl.com/info/EverythingFullyExplained.mp4
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1166
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Sat Dec 25, 2021 2:51 pm

Hi pitano1

Seasonal greetings to all!

Thanks for the kind words buddy! Rest assured that all exchange of thoughts between us has been mutually beneficial, as have the exchanges between LionsShare and myself - and i must say it's good to see you posting here and there again. Your offered insight into the 'health' legislation is very revealing!

Oh, and thanks for posting that video link here - for some reason the one on goodf.forumotion wouldn't work for me.

Take care - and best of luck to all in the 'interesting times' ahead...

Christmas cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby LionsShare » Sun Dec 26, 2021 3:10 pm

I also would like to thank iamani for all info given, certainly been very helpful.

Merry Xmas & happy new year to all

LS
LionsShare
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 5:39 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:12 pm

Hi LionsShare

Thank you - much appreciated!

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:09 pm

Greetings

i saw this extract on another site...

"Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if— "

...and although i have seen it before, this time a phrase leapt to my attention:

"...the powers and privileges of a constable..."

We know what his "powers" are  -  they are the same as ours ie the power to arrest/detain any one he sees or reasonably suspects of breaching the common-law  -  but wtf is he doing with "privileges"?

Privilege  =  private agreement  =  private contract  =  private law 

...and:

Maxim: Private agreement supercedes the law...

i've also heard it said that the enforcement of acts/statutes/statutory-instruments Is a 'private agreement' between the judicial and executive branches of government...

...and whereas every privilege has benefits attached i think the question  -  'What exactly are the privileges attached to the office of 'constable' ?'  -  may produce interesting/admissible answers via FOIA...

...after all, how can we discern 'improper exercise' of a constable's 'privileges' if we don't know what those privileges are...?

...and should T.H.E.Y. refuse to divulge such information upon request is that not lawful excuse under contract law to not deal with 'police constables' ?

We're not done yet though  -  read it again:

"(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if— "

Firstly, why does it not say:

"...a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a police constable..."  ?

...and if we focus on this:

"...a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable..."

...do you see the subtle distinction being made here between 'a police constable' and 'a constable' ? The inference being that a 'police constable' and a 'constable' are not one and the same thing... they are not 'identical'. The same distinction is repeated here:

"...(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—..."

...and here:

"...(5)For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7)..."

...and here:

"...(6)The first case is where—

(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—..."

...and here:

"...(7)The second case is where—

(a)the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable, ..."

Does this not provably evidence the difference between 'police officer' and 'constable' that has long been stated on this site (and others)?

Given we know that in issuing tickets/penalties each police officer is acting in commerce, it appears to be telling us that each holder of the office 'constable' privately (ie not publically declared) agrees to use the powers attached to said office in the service of commercial interests as a matter of privilege... for instance as in using the common-law dispensation to allow that motorists should slow down and or move over (ie give way) to let an emergency 'vehicle' pass if its coloured-lights are flashing and or sirens blaring. Under the common-law we are under no obligation to cede right-of-way to any one or body  -  but it is a courtesy allowed for 'the common good'... nowhere in legislation or the highway code does it provide/state that authority is granted for use of said lights-and-sirens in order to inflict misery... pardon me... to 'conduct commerce' ie enforce statutes  -  and that is just one example serving to clarify the bait-and-switch the police pull every time they engage with us.

How does this work?

Well, as far as i can tell, and using the same example, it's because one of a constable's powers is licence to 'attract the attention' of someone (not some 'body' - an important distinction!) they reasonably suspect of causing harm damage or loss (or are witness to same) to another someone, offering man-acting-as-constable a level of immunity/protection from any claims that may arise for doing so.

The (common-law) office of Constable has authority over (felonious) man. The (administrative) office of Police Constable does not, but (as a servant/agent of the Crown) he does have right-of-administration (authority) over those who claim ownership of Crown-copyright property (ie the ALLCAPS legal-fiction-name ie the 'member' of the public  -  the artificial, 'public' self)  -  which is why the first thing they want/need you to do is identify with 'your' (but really 'T.H.E.I.R.') public-self via three data-points  -  the NAME, the ADDRESS, and the D.O.B. - providing 'join-dur' ie legal-agreement/consent. If one does so then one immediately cedes one's right to natural/common-law jurisdiction in favour of the private legal/administrative, un-natural/un-common jurisdiction from which the same actor operates as a matter of 'privilege'  -  which legally negates the actor's liability for his abuse/"improper-exercise" of "the powers and privileges of a constable"... and all by one's own consent to believe/accept the illusion!

"It's a kind of magic..."
(F. Mercury, R.I.P.)

If one does not identify, and knows how to hold the 'officer' to account, said 'officer' is extremely vulnerable to claims of fraud, tort and trespass... for in holding both office of Constable and Police Constable simultaneously, a man can choose (for personal gain) to abuse the entrusted power of one (common-law) office in order to give the illusion that the other (administrative) office holds the same authority, when in fact and at/in law it does not - and the key word here is: 'choose'. Every time he does so he risks a charge of common-law fraud - and one's knowledge of this fact in itself could provide remedy...

...but remember - both scripture and common-sense tell us that man cannot serve two masters without ensuing conflict of interest, but only common-sense offers censure/sanction to an 'office' serving two masters...

Given all of the above, imo the following is shown to be b.s. rather than the means to hold certain public servants to account that it is presented as -

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if—

(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—

(i)a benefit for himself or herself, or

(ii)a benefit or a detriment for another person, and

(b)a reasonable person would not expect the power or privilege to be exercised for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7).

(6)The first case is where—

(a)the police constable fails to exercise a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the purpose of the failure is to achieve a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to fail to exercise the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(7)The second case is where—

(a)the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the threat is made for the purpose of achieving a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to threaten to exercise, or not to exercise, the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.


Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Previous

Return to The Lighter Side

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron