Common law vs Statutes

[Etype]

I know they just make it up as they go along Gary. That's why they call them the ruling Elite.

[SbutC]

Just because you 'opt' out of their system, their presumptions work on the fact that because you are in their place of business then you are guilty of whatever they want you to be guilty of !

Or, as happened to Roger Hayes, they come and collect you when you don't show up at court for your hearing, and imprison you that way.

You don't avoid the charge merely by not showing up at their "place of business". Neither do you need to submit to their jurisdiction to be subject to it.

[chessnut]

Chessnut wrote

Etype wrote:Just because you 'opt' out of their system, their presumptions work on the fact that because you are in their place of business then you are guilty of whatever they want you to be guilty of !

It does not matter how you show up, willingly or forced there, their presumptions apply to you being there.

Comprehend how their presumptions work and what you have to do to opt out.

If we can show to the masses that there is no law here any anywhere in the world then the faster the system can change by bloodless revolution !

[Etype]

SbutC wrote

And they applied to Roger. So logically, he must be a citizen.

A citizen is not a good thing to be then by all accounts! You have no rights except the rights the state gives to you!

You are ruled by 65 thousand draconian statutes and have to understand everyone of them, as ignorance of them is no defence!

You are not allowed to own property! You are listed as a 'Tenant' on your house deeds! 'keeper' of you car? Not the owner! That's why they can take your car and crush it if its not taxed. It was never yours!

You can be dragged from your bed at any time, taken to a star chamber court and thrown into prison for not complying with what is little more then a protection racket!

A citizen is defined as a member of a body politic owing a duty of elegance in return for a duty of protection.

Does anyone feel protected? Does anyone feel they owe a duty of elegance to the state? Does anyone really want to be a citizen?

Its obvious to me that the word's 'Citizen' and 'Slave' are interchangeable.

And as for your silly question Mr SbutC

Did our prehistoric ancestors have *these* rights, and if not, where did they come from?

What came first the chicken or the egg?

A man stood on the edge of a cliff jumps off. Where was he when he jumped?

Answer mine and I will have a go at answering yours.

kind regards

FS

[Etype]

Oh all right then yes they did!!!! Because there was no 'STATE' at that time to oppose them!!!! they might just not have not known that they did.

FS

[Etype]

chessnut wrote

It does not matter how you show up, willingly or forced there, their presumptions apply to you being there.

Comprehend how their presumptions work and what you have to do to opt out.

I hear you brother. You rebut their presumptions before it gets to court! You rebut them well enough, it never goes to court.

Kind regards

FS

[vanilla]

I could say that about you! It would be no more or less accurate then your opinion. because that's all it is! An opinion, with nothing to back it up. Or would you like to show some empirical proof? Something tangible that any of us are under any obligations whatsoever?

Last time I showed you proof in black and white that someone was lying to you and I wasn't, you still took their word over mine. You don't value evidence in the slightest.

As for implying he has been to prison for his beliefs, as a way of rubbishing him. Nelson Mandela also went to prison for his beliefs, are you you going to rubbish him?

I wasn't saying it to rubbish him, I was pointing out that even though he does not consent to statutes being enforced, they will be anyway. They do not require your consent.

It is necessary to challenge the accepted view and the so called authority of statutes. To bring corruption to light and make people think! Instead of just believing all the bullshit the government shovel on us on a daily basis!

You're not "challenging the accepted view", you're just reading someone's blog and assuming the accepted view is wrong. Roger just makes a load of statements about laws and statutes and you assume he's correct, which is exactly what you want to criticise other people for doing with "the accepted view".

Reality and logic are just buzzwords you threw in to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. In truth your quote at the top of the page is just meaningless drivel and is only your own opinion. An opinion I do not share.

Buzzwords...
Jesus if that's what you really believe then this discussion is even more pointless than I thought.

I have rejected my citizenship of the United Kingdom and withdrawn my consent to be governed by these greedy pigs with their noses in the trough.

Then you might want to look up the common law principle of perpetual allegiance to the Crown.

Fortunately, or unfortunately for you, this was overturned by two statutes - Naturalization Act 1870 and British Nationality Act 1948.

[chessnut]

Any 'act' that is made by the parliament of the 'United Kingdom and Ireland' can not, by their own rules, abrogate any 'act' made by a previous parliament !

Also, 'common law' is a statute. (see earlier posting by me).

Gary

[SbutC]

Answer mine and I will have a go at answering yours.

Why I won't be answering your question:

It's an irrelevant, facaetious distraction from the actual point of discussion. Your favourite way to put on your blinkers and run away from cognitive dissonance.

Why you won't be answering my question:

Answering a relevent question that challenges your beliefs exposes the fact that they have zero truth or foundation.

[vanilla]

i dont know where you dragged this statement from vanilla,

but it's just one more page of empty waffle.

doesnt look like empty waffle to me, and is more than comparable to your own meanderings on what you believe i and the majority on this site should adhere to (statutes)

It doesn't look like waffle to you because you want it to be true. It isn't a matter of what I believe you should adhere to, you can do whatever the fuck you like for all I care. It's a matter of whether or not your agreement with statutes will make the slightest bit of difference to you being convicted according to the rules described in them.

do you yourself believe everything statutes tell you to do or not to do ?

That question doesn't even make any sense. If you mean "do I agree with the rules set out in every statute" then the answer is no. That doesn't mean that they do not, or will not, apply to me.

As for ones I disagree with, parts of the Terrorism Act were just daft, and many of the laws about intellectual property and ownership (such as certain aspects of copyright) could be better thought out.

As for me not thinking for myself, that's comedy gold coming from a bunch of guys who basically just parrot the self-proclaimed "experts" on law.

or do you believe that one should just Obey another because he has a higher ranking position than your own position and there is no equality for you worth having ?.

You can get a very brief idea of what I believe from one of my previous posts (and the next post of mine after it).
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43592&hilit=anarchy&start=10#p282514

just compliance irrespective of your own right and freedom to live seems a little strange to me.

We obviously have very different opinions about what "rights" actually are.