Stan Tenen: Geometry of Language (excerpt)

[Dreamer screamer]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No, the laws are there. Clear and simple You just dont want to accept this  I cant show you  what  your  own laws are unless you tell me your country 

2. uncountable noun [usually adjective NOUN]

Law is used to refer to a particular branch of the law, such as criminal law or company law.

 

If the police are registered corporations, ie, Company and registered under company's house, what makes you think I work for them?    The only way I can be arrested is if I committed harm to another human being which is then Criminal law and enters criminal jurisdiction.   Big difference between the two.

 

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You also seem to question the legitimacy of an elected government to MAKE laws to govern and regulate all aspects of life  You have made up your own and completely wrong detritions  for laws authority etc You are simply wrong,  possibly because you were never educated in these things or possibly because you dont LIKE the actual reality  Like it or not, you have to live by it. or suffer the consequences.  If whinging makes you feel better, fair enough but it does make you look ignorant 

I said the system doesn't separate rich and poor ie it is not what makes some rich and keeps others poor The individuals themselves do this to themselves.

Anyone can become rich in a county like America or Australia, even beginning in the poorest of families.  

 

An elected government makes the laws, TRUE!!!  But the government in Britain today is not in control under the queen who is the sole trustee of Britain.  She never signs legislation, she simply gives her royal assent by nodding.  The queen can't make any laws because of magna carta 1215.   The reason why England at the time created a new church under SATAN and PERSON.

https://creationism.org/BibleUKJV/59Jam02.htm

2:9 But if all of you have respect to persons, all of you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

No man can ever go against the bible. No judge, no solicitor, no police constable can ever go against the word of GOD!!  

Quote

possibly because you were never educated in these things or possibly because you dont LIKE the actual reality  Like it or not, you have to live by it. or suffer the consequences.  If whinging makes you feel better, fair enough but it does make you look ignorant 

I educated myself how the system works and I believe in the BIBLE for guidance, NOT a government where they are selected into office to rule with NO liability, but the liability to lie, cheat and steal.

Stewart Wheeler, a politician.    "We're politicians, we lie, why did you bloody believe us?" 

That is most peoples problems, they pay £1000's for their education and when someone uneducated points out their education is all wrong and they work for the wrong GOD! they go all crazy about it and say things, like, "you are poorly educated."       You either work for JESUS, or LUCIFER!!!    I work for Jesus, NOT LUCIFER!!

I was summoned to court once many years ago and didn't attend and case dropped because I didn't let the system get to my ESTATE!!   

I would go and uneducate yourself and find the real truth by reading the bible.

[Dreamer screamer]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

ps Authority is the power we give to, or invest in, ourselves and others. 

Yes true, when I legally give over my power of attourney.   so If I never give over my POA, who can trespass on my legal self? 

When you get a mortgage, or a loan, you give over your POA so they can trespass on your estate, that is your choice and you provide yourself your own money and pay back interest on the money you lent yourself.   YOUR CHOICE!!!   You gave yourself that Authority for the system to give you what is legally yours.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

People have authority over us, because we give it to them. 

Absolutely true.  What happens when they cross the line with that authority?

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

We give it to them because this is the logical rational and most productive course to take

More like stupidity.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Without organised authority, the strongest rule the weakest, and take what they want by force or threat. 

No! you as the stupidest let those who are in authority take what they want because you let them by not knowing how the game is played.  What you've done is stated that muscle and youth take from the old and the weak and why you need authority to protect the old, weakless and vulnerable.   This system takes everything you own when you die as they can salvage you as the PERSON.   Authority was never there to protect the weak and the vulnerable as there is no JUSTICE!!!   You've been programmed to believe in something that simply is not true.   You don't know how the game is played and were given false information.

 

In 1983, Dick joined the Metropolitan Police as a constable. From 1993, she was a tutor on the accelerated promotion course at Bramshill Police College, and in 1995, transferred to Thames Valley Police as a superintendent. She was operations superintendent at Oxford, and later, area commander in Oxford for three years. In 1996/7 she passed the Matrix course at Common Purpose Oxfordshire.

http://namastepublishing.co.uk/unmasking-common-purpose/

https://www.bruceonpolitics.com/2017/08/11/common-purpose-resources/

Being a secret society, like the mafia and the freemasons, it is difficult to get to the truth about Common Purpose. So when they are brainwashing 13 year old children on their Your Turn courses they don’t say that their ulterior motive is Cultural Marxist Social Engineering and a Post Democratic society. But it is. Their use of Chatham House Rules is an obvious smokescreen and the reluctance of all British institutions to respond to Freedom of Information requests about Common Purpose show firstly how embedded it is and secondly that they know they have something to hide.

The police can talk like the police care, but there main purpose it to protect the system too death.

A police whistleblower. 

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The authority of an elected govt comes from  the people who elected it, and the y can remove that authority by electing others, and giving them authority.     

Illusion.  Democracy = mob rule.  Why do you think Americans are given voting machines, so the vote can be changed to get who the system wants to get into power.   However, the system is controlled by the same force.  They wanted to give the vote to biden because Trump was doing harm to them and the system.   Even the supreme court (LUCIFER) never even sorted the problem of a rigged vote.  

Becareful who you give your authority too.

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

2. uncountable noun [usually adjective NOUN]

Law is used to refer to a particular branch of the law, such as criminal law or company law.

 

If the police are registered corporations, ie, Company and registered under company's house, what makes you think I work for them?    The only way I can be arrested is if I committed harm to another human being which is then Criminal law and enters criminal jurisdiction.   Big difference between the two.

 

 

An elected government makes the laws, TRUE!!!  But the government in Britain today is not in control under the queen who is the sole trustee of Britain.  She never signs legislation, she simply gives her royal assent by nodding.  The queen can't make any laws because of magna carta 1215.   The reason why England at the time created a new church under SATAN and PERSON.

https://creationism.org/BibleUKJV/59Jam02.htm

2:9 But if all of you have respect to persons, all of you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

No man can ever go against the bible. No judge, no solicitor, no police constable can ever go against the word of GOD!!  

I educated myself how the system works and I believe in the BIBLE for guidance, NOT a government where they are selected into office to rule with NO liability, but the liability to lie, cheat and steal.

Stewart Wheeler, a politician.    "We're politicians, we lie, why did you bloody believe us?" 

That is most peoples problems, they pay £1000's for their education and when someone uneducated points out their education is all wrong and they work for the wrong GOD! they go all crazy about it and say things, like, "you are poorly educated."       You either work for JESUS, or LUCIFER!!!    I work for Jesus, NOT LUCIFER!!

I was summoned to court once many years ago and didn't attend and case dropped because I didn't let the system get to my ESTATE!!   

I would go and uneducate yourself and find the real truth by reading the bible.

Go and research politics and the nature and construction of laws 

The y are made by parliament  in a very rigorous and formalised procedure,  interpreted by the courts and enforced by the police 

Ina democracy the y have total authenticity and    legitimacy 

You can protest them or disobey them but if you  break them you are breaking laws created by legitimate power and authority  and supported by the people    A law is a law. Iit can be criminal or civil There are consequences for both You appear to be from the uk where civil laws are treated more leniently than criminal ones 

In themselves they dont attract gaol terms.

However i am not sure what would happen if you refused to pay the fine etc attached to breaking a civil law  Ok a quick google shows you may be gaoled  if you simply refuse to pay a fine .

quote 

3. Won’t pay

Again, the process of sending out a Further Steps Notice will be followed. Should you not notify the court of your intention to appeal the sentence and instead you continue to breach the order, a Distress Warrant will be issued.

A Distress Warrant is a judge’s means to enforce the payment of a fine. It is basically an unpaid court fines warrant, and it results in one or more of the following:

An enforcement order to take money directly from your wages or benefits

The issue of a Warrant of Control to an out-sourced bailiff company

The registration of the fine (adding the fine to your credit history for five years)

An order to clamp your vehicle with a view to the court selling it

If you still refuse to pay the fine and have not begun to arrange a dispute, the court will use its powers to punish you further for the non-payment.

In the most serious cases of blatant non-payment and after every avenue is exhausted, the judge can send you to prison. However, this will come after at least one further hearing when you will be given an opportunity to more fully explain your reasons.

If the court deems your reluctance to pay as what’s called a ‘wilful refusal’ or ‘culpable neglect’ you may be sentenced to anywhere up to three months in jail.

https://www.cantpaymyfine.co.uk/can-you-go-to-jail-for-not-paying-a-fine/

Religious beliefs may be taken into account but dont excuse a person in law from  disobeying a law, even if they form an ethical basis for refusal 

and remember the advice to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars" and the specific biblical advice to pay your taxes   

Ps ive read the bible right through several times and studied it for a decade in my younger years  I suspect i know and understand it better then you do .

However you sound like one of those Islamic zealots who says that god's law overrules all other laws  and that our laws should be those of the bible/koran 

Ok to believe that 

Real problem if you try to live by it .

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Yes true, when I legally give over my power of attourney.   so If I never give over my POA, who can trespass on my legal self? 

When you get a mortgage, or a loan, you give over your POA so they can trespass on your estate, that is your choice and you provide yourself your own money and pay back interest on the money you lent yourself.   YOUR CHOICE!!!   You gave yourself that Authority for the system to give you what is legally yours.

Absolutely true.  What happens when they cross the line with that authority?

More like stupidity.

No! you as the stupidest let those who are in authority take what they want because you let them by not knowing how the game is played.  What you've done is stated that muscle and youth take from the old and the weak and why you need authority to protect the old, weakless and vulnerable.   This system takes everything you own when you die as they can salvage you as the PERSON.   Authority was never there to protect the weak and the vulnerable as there is no JUSTICE!!!   You've been programmed to believe in something that simply is not true.   You don't know how the game is played and were given false information.

 

In 1983, Dick joined the Metropolitan Police as a constable. From 1993, she was a tutor on the accelerated promotion course at Bramshill Police College, and in 1995, transferred to Thames Valley Police as a superintendent. She was operations superintendent at Oxford, and later, area commander in Oxford for three years. In 1996/7 she passed the Matrix course at Common Purpose Oxfordshire.

http://namastepublishing.co.uk/unmasking-common-purpose/

https://www.bruceonpolitics.com/2017/08/11/common-purpose-resources/

Being a secret society, like the mafia and the freemasons, it is difficult to get to the truth about Common Purpose. So when they are brainwashing 13 year old children on their Your Turn courses they don’t say that their ulterior motive is Cultural Marxist Social Engineering and a Post Democratic society. But it is. Their use of Chatham House Rules is an obvious smokescreen and the reluctance of all British institutions to respond to Freedom of Information requests about Common Purpose show firstly how embedded it is and secondly that they know they have something to hide.

The police can talk like the police care, but there main purpose it to protect the system too death.

A police whistleblower. 

Illusion.  Democracy = mob rule.  Why do you think Americans are given voting machines, so the vote can be changed to get who the system wants to get into power.   However, the system is controlled by the same force.  They wanted to give the vote to biden because Trump was doing harm to them and the system.   Even the supreme court (LUCIFER) never even sorted the problem of a rigged vote.  

Becareful who you give your authority too.

Sorry but most of this is paranoia and conspiracy theory.

It is nothing like reality.  

You must have had a terrible life not to appreciate living in a state like the UK or Australia 

At no time in Human history have ordinary  people been so free, and lived so well 

Just an aside You never got much of a formal education did you, and most of what you think you know comes from  the internet .

Edited January 10, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Dreamer screamer]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Sorry but most of this is paranoia and conspiracy theory.

It is nothing like reality.  

You must have had a terrible life not to appreciate living in a state like the UK or Australia 

At no time in Human history have ordinary  people been so free, and lived so well 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9129667/PETER-HITCHENS-time-afraid-future-freedom-country.html

PETER HITCHENS: I am, for the first time, afraid for the future of freedom in my country

What if the days did not, after all, start to grow longer after Christmas? Well, yes, of course they will (won't they?) but I feel a dark, oppressive foreboding which makes spring seem very far away. Why is this?

I sense that I and some others have now become the targets of a worrying wave of spite, censorship and intolerance, very like the McCarthyite frenzy in 1950s America which swept up all kinds of innocent people in what claimed to be an attack on Communism.

The modern Left love to claim they are against that sort of thing. But only when they are not doing it themselves. There are three important groups here. 

 

Anyone claiming they are free are the most enslaved.

[Dreamer screamer]

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Go and research politics and the nature and construction of laws 

I have properly researched politics and laws.

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The y are made by parliament  in a very rigorous and formalised procedure,  interpreted by the courts and enforced by the police 

Parliament in Britain is not sovereign, neither do they hold any power. 

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Ina democracy the y have total authenticity and    legitimacy 

Democracy = mobe rule   The greater the people who vote wins, so that isn't fair, I agree, but under the common law, there still remains martime law and the law of contracts.

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You can protest them or disobey them but if you  break them you are breaking laws created by legitimate power and authority  and supported by the people    A law is a law. Iit can be criminal or civil There are consequences for both You appear to be from the uk where civil laws are treated more leniently than criminal ones 

The jury decides upon what is law, NOT anyone else.  Juries can nulify any principle  it wants too if it deems ridiculous to have.

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

In themselves they dont attract gaol terms.

However i am not sure what would happen if you refused to pay the fine etc attached to breaking a civil law  Ok a quick google shows you may be gaoled  if you simply refuse to pay a fine .

In Britain you have to be convicted by a jury to make any fine legal.

 

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

quote 

3. Won’t pay

Again, the process of sending out a Further Steps Notice will be followed. Should you not notify the court of your intention to appeal the sentence and instead you continue to breach the order, a Distress Warrant will be issued.

A Distress Warrant is a judge’s means to enforce the payment of a fine. It is basically an unpaid court fines warrant, and it results in one or more of the following:

An enforcement order to take money directly from your wages or benefits

The issue of a Warrant of Control to an out-sourced bailiff company

Nope... by contract a judge can't sign any warrants as this breaks their OATH to the queen acting as a judge.

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The registration of the fine (adding the fine to your credit history for five years)

An order to clamp your vehicle with a view to the court selling it

If you still refuse to pay the fine and have not begun to arrange a dispute, the court will use its powers to punish you further for the non-payment.

In the most serious cases of blatant non-payment and after every avenue is exhausted, the judge can send you to prison. However, this will come after at least one further hearing when you will be given an opportunity to more fully explain your reasons.

If the court deems your reluctance to pay as what’s called a ‘wilful refusal’ or ‘culpable neglect’ you may be sentenced to anywhere up to three months in jail.

https://www.cantpaymyfine.co.uk/can-you-go-to-jail-for-not-paying-a-fine/

In Britain we have rules and principles about this kind of thing.   No principal and no agent can come after you unless you consent to the liability.   NO consent, no contract!  common law!

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Religious beliefs may be taken into account but dont excuse a person in law from  disobeying a law, even if they form an ethical basis for refusal 

and remember the advice to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars" and the specific biblical advice to pay your taxes   

NO lawful law to pay taxes, unless you can proves this.  Good luck!!

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Ps ive read the bible right through several times and studied it for a decade in my younger years  I suspect i know and understand it better then you do .

You probably do like most who read it and didn't understand it.    Like most, they didn't study words.

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

However you sound like one of those Islamic zealots who says that god's law overrules all other laws  and that our laws should be those of the bible/koran 

Ok to believe that 

Real problem if you try to live by it .

What GOD are we talking about? 

I am actually not religious in any way, but I do have understanding how the legal system works. 

I am not islamic either.   As guns and roses axel rose would say, "just a poor white boy, trying to make ends meet."

Question: what power does a judge have over a sovereign?  A judge is nothing more than a trustee to the crown to operate legally as a judge, so they have rules too.

[Mr Walker]

11 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9129667/PETER-HITCHENS-time-afraid-future-freedom-country.html

PETER HITCHENS: I am, for the first time, afraid for the future of freedom in my country

What if the days did not, after all, start to grow longer after Christmas? Well, yes, of course they will (won't they?) but I feel a dark, oppressive foreboding which makes spring seem very far away. Why is this?

I sense that I and some others have now become the targets of a worrying wave of spite, censorship and intolerance, very like the McCarthyite frenzy in 1950s America which swept up all kinds of innocent people in what claimed to be an attack on Communism.

The modern Left love to claim they are against that sort of thing. But only when they are not doing it themselves. There are three important groups here. 

 

Anyone claiming they are free are the most enslaved.

Or the y are free, and not enslaved by beliefs ideologies or fears. 

your last statement  is actually ridiculous A form of catch 22 

Ie anyone who thinks the y are free is enslaved and only those who realise they are enslaved are free. 

The only constraints upon my personal freedoms are those I accept, and agree to, as part of being a responsible citizen 

 

[Mr Walker]

13 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

I have properly researched politics and laws.

Parliament in Britain is not sovereign, neither do they hold any power. 

Democracy = mobe rule   The greater the people who vote wins, so that isn't fair, I agree, but under the common law, there still remains martime law and the law of contracts.

The jury decides upon what is law, NOT anyone else.  Juries can nulify any principle  it wants too if it deems ridiculous to have.

In Britain you have to be convicted by a jury to make any fine legal.

 

Nope... by contract a judge can't sign any warrants as this breaks their OATH to the queen acting as a judge.

In Britain we have rules and principles about this kind of thing.   No principal and no agent can come after you unless you consent to the liability.   NO consent, no contract!  common law!

NO lawful law to pay taxes, unless you can proves this.  Good luck!!

You probably do like most who read it and didn't understand it.    Like most, they didn't study words.

What GOD are we talking about? 

I am actually not religious in any way, but I do have understanding how the legal system works. 

I am not islamic either.   As guns and roses axel rose would say, "just a poor white boy, trying to make ends meet."

Question: what power does a judge have over a sovereign?  A judge is nothing more than a trustee to the crown to operate legally as a judge, so they have rules too.

No you haven't or you would understand them better.

quote

Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom is a concept central to the functioning of the constitution of the United Kingdom but which is also not fully defined and has long been debated. Since the subordination of the monarchy under parliament, and the increasingly democratic methods of parliamentary government, there have been the questions of whether parliament holds a supreme ability to legislate and whether or not it should.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a description of to what extent the Parliament of the United Kingdom does have absolute and unlimited power. It is framed in terms of the extent of authority that parliament holds, and whether there are any sorts of law that it cannot pass.[1] In other countries, a written constitution often binds the parliament to act in a certain way, but there is no codified constitution in the United Kingdom.[1] In the United Kingdom, parliament is central to the institutions of state.[2]

The traditional view put forward by A. V. Dicey is that parliament had the power to make any law except any law that bound its successors. Formally speaking however, the present state that is the UK is descended from the international Treaty of Union between England and Scotland in 1706/7 which led to the creation of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain”. It is clear that the terms of that Treaty stated that certain of its provisions could not be altered, for example the separate existence of the Scottish legal system,[3] and formally, these restrictions are a continuing limitation on the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. This has also been reconsidered by constitutional theorists including Sir William Wade and Trevor Allan in light of the European Communities Act 1972 and other provisions relating to membership of the European Union, and the position of the Human Rights Act 1998 and any attempts to make this or other legislation entrenched.[citation needed] These issues remain contested, although the United Kingdom has since ceased membership of the EU.

The terms "parliamentary sovereignty" and "parliamentary supremacy" are often used interchangeably. The term "sovereignty" implies a similarity to the question of national sovereignty.[4] While writer John Austin and others have looked to combine parliamentary and national sovereignty, this view is not universally held. Whichever term is used, it relates to the existence or non-existence of limits on parliament's power in its legislative role.[4] Although the House of Commons' dominance within the Houses of Parliament is well attested, "parliamentary sovereignty" refers to their joint power. Almost all legislation is passed with the support of the House of Lords.[5]

end quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=Parliamentary sovereignty is a description,law that it cannot pass.

 

  Parliament holds power in England because  the voters authorise them to hold power and its written into historical laws.

  So "Democracy is mob rule and isn't fair "

Spoken as one of a minority  who feels oppressed and enslaved  

Describe your alternative. 

Again i think you confuse how you  think the law should work, with how it actually does

and actually "they"   can and do come after you even harder if you refuse to admit liability.

Admit to liability and usually a sensible compromise can be worked out. 

lol nup  i understand it and i am a professional   "wordsmith"  

but it was you who introduced the idea of only god's law needing to be obeyed, and the only law based on legitimate authority

   I suspect that is because you dont actually have to live under gods law, and that you  would feel even more oppressed if you did have to. 

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Dreamer screamer]

30 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Or the y are free, and not enslaved by beliefs ideologies or fears. 

your last statement  is actually ridiculous A form of catch 22 

Ie anyone who thinks the y are free is enslaved and only those who realise they are enslaved are free. 

The only constraints upon my personal freedoms are those I accept, and agree to, as part of being a responsible citizen 

 

1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.

person

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)

So which one are you?   A human being? or a corporation? 

Quote

The only constraints upon my personal freedoms are those I accept

Are those given to you??  This is catch 22...  

[Dreamer screamer]

28 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No you haven't or you would understand them better.

quote

Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom is a concept central to the functioning of the constitution of the United Kingdom but which is also not fully defined and has long been debated. Since the subordination of the monarchy under parliament, and the increasingly democratic methods of parliamentary government, there have been the questions of whether parliament holds a supreme ability to legislate and whether or not it should.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a description of to what extent the Parliament of the United Kingdom does have absolute and unlimited power. It is framed in terms of the extent of authority that parliament holds, and whether there are any sorts of law that it cannot pass.[1] In other countries, a written constitution often binds the parliament to act in a certain way, but there is no codified constitution in the United Kingdom.[1] In the United Kingdom, parliament is central to the institutions of state.[2]

The traditional view put forward by A. V. Dicey is that parliament had the power to make any law except any law that bound its successors. Formally speaking however, the present state that is the UK is descended from the international Treaty of Union between England and Scotland in 1706/7 which led to the creation of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain”. It is clear that the terms of that Treaty stated that certain of its provisions could not be altered, for example the separate existence of the Scottish legal system,[3] and formally, these restrictions are a continuing limitation on the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. This has also been reconsidered by constitutional theorists including Sir William Wade and Trevor Allan in light of the European Communities Act 1972 and other provisions relating to membership of the European Union, and the position of the Human Rights Act 1998 and any attempts to make this or other legislation entrenched.[citation needed] These issues remain contested, although the United Kingdom has since ceased membership of the EU.

The terms "parliamentary sovereignty" and "parliamentary supremacy" are often used interchangeably. The term "sovereignty" implies a similarity to the question of national sovereignty.[4] While writer John Austin and others have looked to combine parliamentary and national sovereignty, this view is not universally held. Whichever term is used, it relates to the existence or non-existence of limits on parliament's power in its legislative role.[4] Although the House of Commons' dominance within the Houses of Parliament is well attested, "parliamentary sovereignty" refers to their joint power. Almost all legislation is passed with the support of the House of Lords.[5]

end quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=Parliamentary sovereignty is a description,law that it cannot pass.

 

  Parliament holds power in England because  the voters authorise them to hold power and its written into historical laws.

  So "Democracy is mob rule and isn't fair "

Spoken as one of a minority  who feels oppressed and enslaved  

Describe your alternative. 

Again i think you confuse how you  think the law should work, with how it actually does

and actually "they"   can and do come after you even harder if you refuse to admit liability.

Admit to liability and usually a sensible compromise can be worked out. 

lol nup  i understand it and i am a professional   "wordsmith"  

but it was you who introduced the idea of only god's law needing to be obeyed, and the only law based on legitimate authority

   I suspect that is because you dont actually have to live under gods law, and that you  would feel even more oppressed if you did have to. 

 

There is no such thing!  There only exists parliament or sovereignty.    CAN'T have both as they have tried this and it doesn't wash on the British who know the score. 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.

person

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)

So which one are you?   A human being? or a corporation? 

Are those given to you??  This is catch 22...  

That s not a good definition of a citizen. Legally the y only have to be born into or naturalised into a country  Those born into it never have  to swear  loyalty  to their nation

The idea that  a  corporation can be a person is so that they can be held accountable, like a person,  and can also gain some of the rights of a person

However in this sense, a person is not the same as human being  and "human rights"  such as those in the UN declaration of human rights  don't apply to corporations   

In some jurisdictions they can be held liable  for punitive damages eg in cases of negligence 

quote

In recent years, punitive damages' have been assessed against corporations with increasing frequency and in increased amounts.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2656&context=flr

I am a human being and also  a person.

A corporation may be legally considered a person but not a human being 

My rights are not simply given tome There exists, between govt and citizen, a mutual obligation. eg the govt protects the citizen and provides essential services while the citizen obeys the laws   and contributes to the state  through things like  taxes or military service.

My rights exist as part of that mutual obligation They aren't given and the y can't be taken  away   without due democratic process

(some people believe they have more rights than they do and are horrified to find out  that all our rights have limits on them, and come with duties and obligations   

Your rights only exist in partnership with, and as a balance to, your duties and responsibilities 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

There is no such thing!  There only exists parliament or sovereignty.    CAN'T have both as they have tried this and it doesn't wash on the British who know the score. 

lol It is what it is

No matter what you or others like, that is how things are 

I guess you are one of those Karens who says that  the police have no rights over her because she is a free and sovereign citizen under the magna carta 

I guess she never learned that  King John  raised  a new army, defeated the barons, and repealed the magna carta   it was also annulled by the pope of the period 

While later kings did reintroduce bits of it, almost  the whole thing was repealed in the 1800s, and today has no standing in law 

Repeal of articles and constitutional influence

The repeal of clause 26 in 1829, by the Offences against the Person Act 1828 (9 Geo. ... Over the next 140 years, nearly the whole of Magna Carta (1297) as statute was repealed, leaving just clauses 1, 9, and 29 still in force (in England and Wales) after 1969.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

I guess such ignorance is not  surprising  given that  every young British school kid probably learns about the magna carta but hardly ever would ever learn that it had been repealed.  

Edited January 10, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Dreamer screamer]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

That s not a good definition of a citizen. Legally the y only have to be born into or naturalised into a country  Those born into it never have  to swear  loyalty  to their nation

Why is that? Why do human beings have to become citizens and sworn in?   What is the connection here?

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The idea that  a  corporation can be a person is so that they can be held accountable, like a person,  and can also gain some of the rights of a person

Why are they legally a corporation as well as a person?

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

However in this sense, a person is not the same as human being  and "human rights"  such as those in the UN declaration of human rights  don't apply to corporations   

In some jurisdictions they can be held liable  for punitive damages eg in cases of negligence 

A person is a human being and corporation.  So saying "a person is not the same as human being" is not good English.  Then you have to find out that human being and corporation are TWO different jurisdictions in principle (law).   Why??? Go back to the magna carta 1215-1217 and why it was created in the first place.

https://magnacartaresearch.org/read/magna_carta_1215/Clause_39

No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

This is legal and on the person and his/her rights.  So where does the human being come into it?

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

quote

In recent years, punitive damages' have been assessed against corporations with increasing frequency and in increased amounts.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2656&context=flr

I am a human being and also  a person.

A corporation may be legally considered a person but not a human being 

My rights are not simply given tome There exists, between govt and citizen, a mutual obligation. eg the govt protects the citizen and provides essential services while the citizen obeys the laws   and contributes to the state  through things like  taxes or military service.

My rights exist as part of that mutual obligation They aren't given and the y can't be taken  away   without due democratic process

(some people believe they have more rights than they do and are horrified to find out  that all our rights have limits on them, and come with duties and obligations   

Your rights only exist in partnership with, and as a balance to, your duties and responsibilities 

Legally how do you define a human being?   The definition in Black's law 2nd dictionary states a human being is a monster.   So they can give a definition to a PERSON legally as a corporation and PERSON can be called anything it wants setting us a business, but a human being is not a corporation, a human being is flesh and blood and exists.

So legally what are you called?   You have a name: surname and forrename.    So when an illegal alien say goes to America, it too has a name as a corporation with a passport.   That human being can't just live in a country without having rights with the legal name.   For instance when the human being breaks the law, that legal entity has to have rights? how does that human being get their rights? is it under legal authority? DId that human being hand over their PERSONS rights to America and liberty for all?  Guarenteed that Alien will have a passport and hold title.   So if that human being finds themself in trouble with the system, the first thing the system always asks for is a name.   A legal name which connects to the legal world as this legal name as a corporation has legal rights and when in the system needs a lawyer because no one knows the law when in a foreign country; well hardly.   When sworn in at the court house what has happened?  Is there a difference between a human being and corporation? 

Quote

My rights are not simply given tome There exists, between govt and citizen, a mutual obligation. eg the govt protects the citizen and provides essential services while the citizen obeys the laws   and contributes to the state  through things like  taxes or military service.

Your rights were given to you at birth, very true as a citizen.  where does the human being fit in???   You are under an obligation - what does obligation mean?  

Quote

the govt protects the citizen and provides essential services while the citizen obeys the laws   and contributes to the state  through things like  taxes or military service.

WRONG and right.

The government DOES NOT protect the citizen, that was never the intention to protect the CItizen.   On the outside it may look like America is the land of liberty which means freedom, but what definition are you using for liberty?  Why do people say freedom and liberty???   Under GOD we TRUST?  What GOD????

America is a corporation with 2 constitutions, why???   Why is there a American flag and an America flag with the gold fringe????

You see what you thought of as law is nothing more than corporate policy.  Policy is NOT Law.  If I was to break a corporate law, I didn't harm anyone, or cause anyone loss or injury, this is the common law. 

If I as a human being held a gun and fired it at someone, I have broken common law and I will be arrested by the police for breach of someone elses rights as a human being, NOT a corporation.   However, that human being will be dealt with by a court, but what court???  What jurisdiction??

1. uncountable noun  Jurisdcition

Jurisdiction is the power that a court of law or an official has to carry out legal judgments or to enforce laws.

 

There are rules which a judge can hear and can't hear in a court room.   Why are there courts defacto and dejure?  Why two?   Does it relate to the PERSON??  human being and corporation???

 

[Dreamer screamer]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol It is what it is

NO WAY!!

The queen is sovereign and a trustee, this goes back to 1215 magna carta and the bill of rights 1689.   The queen is under trust law to operate as queen to protect Subject and island.  There was an act the government tried to bring out making parliament sovereign which is absolutely impossible of breach of law and trust.   This is absolute FRAUD!!!   This is like saying which ever prime minister is holding office is GOD!!!     Can't happen as this is fraud!

Even the NKJV romans 13 added this passage into it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 13&version=NKJV

Submit to Government

13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will ^[a]bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. ⁴ For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. ⁵ Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

Who ever added this knew changes knew something big was coming for Britain.    When Brexit happened it b*****ed the whole thing up for the royals and government. Their plans went tits up, so we could see the FRAUD and DECEPTION.    What the system tried to pull off is nothing more than a disgrace to everyone who ever lived and the struggles for freedom.

Quote

No matter what you or others like, that is how things are 

Accept FRAUD and DECEPTION?

Quote

I guess you are one of those Karens who says that  the police have no rights over her because she is a free and sovereign citizen under the magna carta 

Karens DO NOT state anything of the sort.  Karens have no idea about history and freedoms.   You got that upside down, totally clueless.  karens are Communists and work for the corporations as lefties.

Quote

I guess she never learned that  King John  raised  a new army, defeated the barons, and repealed the magna carta   it was also annulled by the pope of the period 

While later kings did reintroduce bits of it, almost  the whole thing was repealed in the 1800s, and today has no standing in law 

1217 magna carta confirmed what legal rights people had in England.

http://www.bsswebsite.me.uk/History/MagnaCarta/magnacarta-1217.html

This is englands constitution and can never be repealed because the government has no rights to do it.  This is written in stone and the pope knows it too.

Quote

Repeal of articles and constitutional influence

The repeal of clause 26 in 1829, by the Offences against the Person Act 1828 (9 Geo. ... Over the next 140 years, nearly the whole of Magna Carta (1297) as statute was repealed, leaving just clauses 1, 9, and 29 still in force (in England and Wales) after 1969.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

I guess such ignorance is not  surprising  given that  every young British school kid probably learns about the magna carta but hardly ever would ever learn that it had been repealed.  

Yes they brought in the parliamentary magna carta 1297 as statutes because the king could not write any laws because of the magna carta 1215.   That document was signed, sealed legally and lawfully. So the magna carta is a very important document and why the system was trying to sell it off recently to the highest bidder in the belief it was nothing but worthless.  To the unsuspecting people on England it is worthless, but that piece of paper holds the key to everyone legal freedom to a jury of 12 under the 39 clause.    The system is very scared of our legal rights with habeus corpus.   You see the system wanted to bring in the EU to control Britain which was created 1707 ACT of union, this meant that when the EU was going to be created they could grab up Britain as a corporate take over of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.  You see they planned all this well ahead to get the world into a new world order which was announced in 1991?? by President George Bush.   Brexit has put a spanner in the works thanks to te people of England working out how they swindled an entire country out of its power. 52% of Britains popualtion voted out of the EU which Nigel Farage gave to the people.   However the system is very cunning and doesn't care about BREXIT when it wants to bring in digital currency for the world under this problem we have called a virus.  

The whole point to 1297 act was to repeal the magna carta and some of the clauses, apart from the important one, section 39.   Which because the pope said it was signed under duress, the 1217 was created and the clause:

(32) No free-man shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed, of his free tenement, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the land.

This can never be repealed by any government.   THis is the second written constituion which everyone has to use as legal for every person to use if they ever get arrested by the evil establishment for what ever reason.  And even those that trespass on our rights and customs, the ones that tried to get us into the evil EU can be tried under this clause with 12 jury and tried against their crimes against humanity.

Just as an add on, all this information goes back to the original 1st post with the two languages, English and ALL CAPS which are NOT the same.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Dreamer screamer

[Dreamer screamer]

https://thelawdictionary.org/monster/

What is MONSTER?

A prodigious birth; a human birth or offspring not having the shape of mankind, which cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage. Bract fol. 5; Co. Litt. 7, 8; 2 Bl. Comm. 246.

A human birth? 

heir:

heir

noun

 

uk

 

a person who will legally receive money, property, or a title from another person, especially an older member of the same family, when that other person dies:

So when a baby is born as a monster, it can not be legally allowed to have any land or property.   Why?  Because the baby hasn't signed anything and is incapable of signing anything, so the parents inform to the system new stock has been brought to dock and needs to be identified and labelled with a birth/berth certificate.  It is given a name which the parents create out of thin air and so like we all did we learnt our name and identity.  However, the birth certificate has rules on it, like, NOT TO BE USED AS IDENTITY!!   But we do though, we use it as identity and commit fraud.

 

monster noun [C] (EVIL PERSON)

a person who does very cruel and evil acts:

To the whole world, he was a monster.

 

Does Evil acts?

This means that the person is under these acts and breaks the law by not following these acts in corporate law called principles.  

For instance.  If I was a locksmith and I was paid by a bailiff to break into your house for a debt the bailiff was collecting on you and I was told to break into your house or I wouldn't get paid, What would I do?  I break into house on instructions of the bailiff so I will get paid, "just doing my job right?"   WRONG!!   As a locksmith, I have broken the law by breaking into someones house regardless whether the bailiff told me to do it.  I have committed the crime.   My excuse will clearly be I was told to do it by the bailiff, but what authority did the bailiff have to order someone to break into a house?   NONE!!    So the locksmith goes to court and is charged for breaking into a house while the bailiff says " i didn't say that and has the locksmith got proof I said it?  The locksmith gets found guilty of a crime, and pays thousands or prison time.   The locksmith is a locksmith and can not just do what someone else says.    Now this goes the same way with the police whom are under the same rules acting in their role as Constable and are contracted to do perform those roles as via the 9 principles (noun) of policing.

So when anyone acts out of their contract and remit:

remit

noun uk: the area that a person or group of people in authority has responsibility for or control over

 

Now the police are human beings, and arguably they already committed fraud by signing into a contract with their legal name.   Now they got the added crimes of being tyrants and acting as a policy officer for the government and protecting the government by hitting the people.  

 

https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/peel-policing-principles/

 

To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

 

The police constable has turned into officer thus breaking the rules laid out in these principles.

 

The idea of the police was to get the soliders off the streets whom were loyal to the queen and to protect the queens peace.   The police were created to also do that job to protect the queens peace, but slowly with common purpose and communism sneaked into the police as officers.  Officers:

 

a holder of a public, civil, or ecclesiastical office.

 

Public, yes.  civil?  NO!!  Ecclesiasstical office?

 

uncountable noun

Canon law is the law of the Christian Church. It has authority only for that church and its members.

So officer has some connection with the church?  Can't think why, but If I explained why, you would understand or agree to the findings which are just word defintions.    You just assume people work, pay taxes and the world goes round and round.    This is not the truth at all.   Every word connects to every other word.  I tried to renew my insurance without one word and it failed.   This made it very clear what legal documents mean and why one comma out of place can cost millions.    The judge can only read law as corporate law and doesn't do facts, if and buts. When a mistake happens the judge will not take sides. 

[Dreamer screamer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

I guess such ignorance is not  surprising  given that  every young British school kid probably learns about the magna carta but hardly ever would ever learn that it had been repealed.  

 

You are joking. The magna carta is still active today. The communist schools didn't teach about history and their rights, for if they did the system would be in so much trouble.  Today thanks to technology and the amount of information on it regarding legal rights as a corporation and being human being not getting into any contracts the young today are more free to explore their freedoms and take on the system which isn't as all powerful as we all were led to believe in school.  We now know that police and even sargeants can be put on notice for failure to do their duties properly.

As a kid we were all taught to be scared of the police, I know because I personally went through that system.  it was only until I started to study real history and constituions; which are just (mob rule) like magna charta was in 1215 with the barons where the barons forced king John to sign the written constition, where the pope said the contract was done under duress because the king was under such treat to sign the magna carta.   Studying history, this was no accident, it was well and truly planned.

No government can ever repeal the magna carta section 39.    It's still alive today and why to destroy Britain and the sovereign we have to go back to after the war and the windrush generation.   Then we have to see why so many immigrants too entered Britain.  They knew to destroy Britain and the laws that govern Britain they had to destory Britain and break its culture through Communism and islam which represents ? satan and lucifer.   Britain is a christian country under Jesus, same as America.  This is how they destroy what they started, by destroying sovereignty, history and peoples rights.   

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/magna-carta-sell-faversham-council-town-hall-kent-a9213491.html

They even tried to sell the magna carta in the bLIEf that is was worthless.   Our forefathers are turning in their graves for what they fought for for 800 years of giving freedom to the next generation.   It's disgusting to treat a document just as a piece of history worthless to just be sold to some private collector.   This is the equivalent of just saying who cares about world war 2 and all those that fought in a war.   These people went through hell just for us to shrug our shoulders today and say, "freedom, who cares."     What we don't learn from history, we repeat history. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Are you saying that immigration is meant to destroy Britain? 
That Satan and Lucifer are using Communism and Islam and refugees as a mechanism to destroy Christian countries?

[Kismit]

11 minutes ago, President Wearer of Hats said:

Are you saying that immigration is meant to destroy Britain? 
That Satan and Lucifer are using Communism and Islam and refugees as a mechanism to destroy Christian countries?

The Crusades are upon us again?

I am not sure we need a thread that promotes the dominance of any one religion.

The world is multi cultural and diverse, blessed are those who learn to love themselves and others through fault and imperfection. 

Book of Kismit 1 chapter 1