It says she never paid any of the fines (and probabley never will!) what do you think will happen if she dose not pay?
I can't say for sure. If she is pursued, it could result in something like a contempt of court charge but I'm not an expert in the area.
The theory behind the free man of the land thing is that all statutes and act of parliament are contracts because her majesty government is a limited company and they only work as a contract to contract you the other company to agree (not you the living person). Your company/ corporation is your birth certificate because that is your recite to your sister K trust
I'm quite familiar with the content of this argument, but there is a huge amount of deeply flawed reasoning here. In any event, the Government is not a company. Over and above that, Acts of Parliament are just that: Acts of Parliament. Even if the government were a company, the government, on a legal level, is neither here nor there in the context of the legislature. To suggest that a birth certificate incorporates a natural person as a legal person is also wrong and deeply flawed logic. The law of the land is that an entity can only incorporate within the constraints of the Companies Acts, private Act or Royal Charter.
I think what you mean here is that a birth certificate is some sort of receipt to a
cestie que (pronounced
'sesty kay') trust, so I will proceed on that understanding.
Cestie que is simply the ancient latin term for a beneficiary, it bears no particular relevancy here but, I think, is simply a latin gadget thrown in by the proponents of these pseudolegal arguments in an attempt to add credibility to them. Based on that vague link to beneficiaries, the only relevant provision of law I can think of here is the law of
bona vacantia in intestacy upon death. This provision is in place to ensure that an intestate's estate does not simply lie to rot as a result of being unowned as this would be manifestly contrary to public interest. I am still at a complete loss as to how this bears any remote relevancy because it is the law, not a contract.
The central tenet of contract law is that mutual consent and understanding is required to form one. To suggest that any form of law is a contract is, unfortunately, plain wrong and flies in the face of every legal principle known to man.
They call this birth certificate a legal fiction because it was an agrement with your mother and the state. You did not agree to it, you where not in a position to agree to it at the time, therefore no contact exists unless you concent to it…..if all that makes seance
Again, see my above comments. Enforced laws do not contracts form.
Regarding murder no! That is a crime set out in magna carta and is common law of the land. But it may be a criminal offence to murder someone set out in statues and acts of parliament but they are all admiral law of the sea.
Further more magna carta was singed by the kings earls making it an act of the crown and not the government (as government was formed 70 years after magna carta)
I think you fail to see my argument here. The logic you've provided makes a presupposition that the common law somehow out-ranks legislative law, which is not the case. The two are parallel pathways which run in tandem, each supporting the other.
The offence of murder has nothing to do with any clause of the Magna Carta still in force. The only clauses still valid are Clauses 1 (in part), 13, 39 and 40. None of these provisions concern the offence of murder. Bearing in mind that your presupposition of the superiority of the common law is flawed, and the crime of murder is not set out in the MC, it
should be reasonable to extend your logic to the offence of murder: after all, based on that very same logic, we cannot be bound by any contracts to which we do not consent, and every law of the land bar those from the Magna Carta constitutes a mere contract. To that end, one should simply be allowed to refuse consent to being constrained by the law on the crime of murder, no?
Apparently your birth certificate number is filled out somewhere on the court papers if and when you are taken to court. I would be interested to know how people that do not have a birth certificate (like Gypsy Travellers) are prosecuted for offences
Birth certificates as a means of identifying those who are involved in a trial of any form is only relevant in determining the parental rights and responsibilities of the unmarried father post-01/07/2006 insofar as I am aware. Identification for court appearances is made through other means for the same reason: the necessity of the presence of a birth certificate necessarily presupposes that the subject of the enquiry lives by the societal norms and values of our country and, as such, would marginalise other groups who do not always live by those norms. It would also not be in the interests of justice.
Well I have read somewhere before that you need to write a letter to the queen stating that you want to have your sister k trust and birth certificate removed to become a real free man of the land
I think my above comments make clear that this idea is incorrect.
I do not know much about this. but people seam to bang on about artical 61 on every march/ protest I attend
I mean this with all due respect, but anyone could be correct about the contents of an ancient clause of the magna carts when it is available online for the world to see. That doesn't change the fact, however, that
clause 61 has long since been redacted and abolished and so can form no basis for arguments of law.
