Search This Blog

Thursday, 30 May 2013

"Governed By Consent Means Nothing To Val Cameron Or Sam Mezec"

"Val Cameron Say's"

"That the department wanted to dispel myths about the proposed law (which is really a statute) that were in the public domain, such as the claim that it could breach human rights, which she said was untrue".

Really Val? and Sam Mezec come to that!

Have you actually read, and if so, even understood the following human rights laws?
Not to mention our inalienable rights!



The quote below is the very first sentence from the preamble of the U.D.H.R.

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."

Bearing in mind the above, how can anyone make laws (statutes) to bind or govern anyone else without their consent? All men and women are born equal, but as we know, some think they are born more equal than others....




See links below for previous stories in this regard.
















51 comments:

  1. Coming from somebody who ignores the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey) Law 2001 amongst other laws Ian Leslie Evans you really are a hypocrite. Still I hear you are on the radar with this Blog and your day will come. It will be karma.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's "rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey) ACT" not law, and what ARE you on about Anony-mouse?

      Delete
    2. There is over whelming evidence on this blog that you have re-disclosed cases against several people that are actually classed as 'spent'. Believe it or not you can actually go to prison for it.

      Delete
  2. I don't want to spoil any surprises but this Blog has been copied by lawyers acting for a number of people who want you dealt with. Surely even you have noticed a surge in traffic over the past month?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they want me "dealt with" then they can shoot me, failing that, the battle continues :)

      Delete
  3. So typical of jersey to revert to threats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Threats of fines and violence against "PERSONS" (body corporates) is all they have anon, indeed, you only need look at the manner in which the article is constructed to see this. Does anyone really think for the slightest moment that Holly Robertson wrote this?

      Let us take just three small words (line five of the article) out of a tiny part of one of her 'alleged' sentences and show you the exact meaning of those words in the bullshit language of Legalese (LAW).


      "IMPOSE SANCTIONS on RESIDENTS"


      BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY:

      IMPOSE - To levy or extract as by authority; to lay as a burden, tax, duty or charge.

      SANCTION - That part of a law which is designed to secure enforcement by imposing a penalty for it's violation or offering a reward for it's observance. For failure to comply with discovery order....

      RESIDENT - Any person who occupies a dwelling within the State.

      And from the definitions of these three words (listed above) we could go on and on deconstructing their waffle and crap until we ended up with volumes of this horseshit. Simply take the word "RESIDENT" and split it. "RES-IDENT" now we have all sorts of possibilities opening up to us, and none have anything to do with the original meaning of the word "RESIDENT" and even less to do with what you guys thought it meant in the first place, which was probably "I live there"! The word "RES" just on it's own, is covered in Black's Law Dictionary by two whole pages of legal garbage. The entire setup of statutory law is to do with absolutely nothing other than control and revenue....PROFIT at the barrel of a gun!!!

      So....go get yourselves a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and go to work people :)

      Delete
  4. Wow Ian. You should take a law degree

    ReplyDelete
  5. Of course I believe in being governed by consent. The problem is, we all do consent.

    If you don't consent, you lose your right to access to a court system, and if you do that, you effectively don't have any rights because there is no apparatus to enforce those rights.

    I think Richard Murphy explains it well here - http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/TaxLegitimacy.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What on earth has Richard Murphy got to do with anything?

      Richard opens the post with the following....

      INTRODUCTION
      "It is often claimed by those who seek to justify tax avoidance and even tax evasion that these acts are acceptable because all tax is institutionalised theft. This briefing explains that this logic is wrong and that tax is always legal if charged by a legitimate government."

      And there we have it "Tax is always legal if charged by a legitimate government". Well, show me the legitimate government Sam? The only ones that should be paying tax are the corporations yet the government protect corporations from tax and hammer the poor people in their place. Our crew of shysters are a de facto government, and so are our courts, nothing legitimate about them, and even you must know what de facto means!!!

      Furthermore, losing access to our courts could only be a blessing for everyone as our judges are so corrupt that only the rich, the positioned, and the guilty can win.

      As for your general take on matters, I am sure great minds such as Frederic Bastiat would giggle at your theories :)

      Delete
  6. Would you kindly tell us all how we consent Sam?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Would you kindly tell us all how we consent Sam?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Would you kindly tell us all how we consent Sam?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Would you kindly tell us all how we consent Sam?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I got to go with ian on this one why wont you anser sam

    ReplyDelete
  11. There's a big difference between implied consent and one actually consenting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Consent can be give tacitly or expressly, simple as that. In other words, you freely consent of your own volition or you are tricked into it through the language of Legalise.

      Delete
  12. Well, I guess Sam doesn't have the courage, the honesty, or the inclination to answer a simple question on his favorite subject of statutory law, I WONDER WHY?

    Government got you in their pockets already Sam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or perhaps it's because I've been out having a good time in London this weekend instead of stuck behind a laptop screen ;) really clutching at straws there mate! I do have a life ya know!

      I love the idea of me being in the government's pockets though. In a way it would be nice, maybe then I would actually have some money!

      Richard Murphy has nothing to do with it, other than providing a rather nice explanation. Which is exactly what I said. Wonder why you're so offended by that?

      "Furthermore, losing access to our courts could only be a blessing for everyone as our judges are so corrupt that only the rich, the positioned, and the guilty can win."

      That's a fair opinion to have. But, if we don't have courts, we don't have rights! You maybe have your de jure rights, but not de facto (see, I do know what it means). If there isn't an apparatus to enforce your rights, then you may as well not have them.

      It's all well and good having the right to own property, but if someone nicks your stuff and you can't get redress, then what is the point in having that right? Total waste of time!

      Courts that have the right to enforce judgements on parties are fundamental to having any rights. And you can't use the old chestnut "contract" because all it takes is one person to renege on what they contracted and you're back at square one, unable to do squat about it.

      You can't accept having rights if you can't accept a system to back them up.

      If you don't consent to that system, cool, I'll pop round tomorrow to collect all your valuables that you've renounced your right to own! Thank you very much!

      Delete
    2. The same old Mezecian Sam hey? Still not answering the bloody question!


      Would you kindly tell us all how we consent Sam?

      Delete
    3. DECONSTRUCTION OF THE MEZECIAN SLIP!!!

      Or perhaps it's because I've been out having a good time in London this weekend instead of stuck behind a laptop screen ;) really clutching at straws there mate! I do have a life ya know!
      I AM NOT STUCK ANYWHERE, I AM MORE FREE THAN YOU COULD EVER DREAM OF BECAUSE I AM NOT TIED TO THE LAW SOCIETY, AND MOCKING ME BECAUSE I AM POOR WILL NOT ENHANCE YOUR PROFILE AMONG THOSE WHO ARE ABLE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES.


      I love the idea of me being in the government's pockets though. In a way it would be nice, maybe then I would actually have some money!
      YOU WILL HAVE PLENTY ONCE YOU HAVE SIGNED AWAY YOUR RIGHTS TO THE LAW SOCIETY.


      Richard Murphy has nothing to do with it, other than providing a rather nice explanation. Which is exactly what I said. Wonder why you're so offended by that?
      I'M NOT OFFENDED, EACH TO HIS OWN SAM, BUT HE IS WAFFLING STATUTORY CRAP WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEN OR WOMEN, IT IS MERELY THE LEGAL FICTION HE ADDRESSES IN HIS STATIST RANT.


      "Furthermore, losing access to our courts could only be a blessing for everyone as our judges are so corrupt that only the rich, the positioned, and the guilty can win."
      QUITE RIGHT.


      That's a fair opinion to have. But, if we don't have courts, we don't have rights! You maybe have your de jure rights, but not de facto (see, I do know what it means). If there isn't an apparatus to enforce your rights, then you may as well not have them.
      "IF WE DON'T HAVE COURTS WE DON'T HAVE RIGHTS" WHATEVER HAPPENED TO OUR GOD GIVEN INHERENT INALIENABLE RIGHTS SAM? OR ARE YOU DENYING THOSE EVEN EVER EXISTED? YOU REALLY SHOULD HAVE A READ OF HALSBURY'S ON STATUTES AND THEIR ABHORRENCE IN A CIVILISED SOCIETY.


      It's all well and good having the right to own property, but if someone nicks your stuff and you can't get redress, then what is the point in having that right? Total waste of time!
      WE HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING TO ASK PERMISSION FROM SOME HALFWIT GOVERNMENT TRUSTEE TO DO SO.


      Courts that have the right to enforce judgements on parties are fundamental to having any rights. And you can't use the old chestnut "contract" because all it takes is one person to renege on what they contracted and you're back at square one, unable to do squat about it.
      COVERING OLD GROUND SAM, WE WENT THROUGH THAT EARLIER REMEMBER? DID YOU EVER WONDER WHAT THE WORD "OUTLAW" MEANS?


      You can't accept having rights if you can't accept a system to back them up.
      I CAN HAVE ALL MY GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHTS EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK SAM, WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME I CANNOT? ALL THE BACKUP I NEED IS COMMON LAW, NATURAL LAW, GROUND LAW. YOU EVER HEARD OF THOSE?


      If you don't consent to that system, cool, I'll pop round tomorrow to collect all your valuables that you've renounced your right to own! Thank you very much!
      I AM GOVERNED BY COMMON LAW MR MEZEC, AND THROUGH MY OWN CHOICE AND DUTY TO MY FELLOW MAN. IF YOU FEEL THAT STATUTORY LAW, WHEN NOT CONSENTED TO BY MYSELF, GIVES YOU, AN OPERATIVE OF STATUTORY LAW, THE RIGHT TO ENTER MY HOME AND TAKE MY PROPERTY, THEN PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO. UNDER COMMON LAW I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BLOW YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF!!!

      :)

      Delete
    4. And by the way, you still haven't answered the question.

      Would you kindly tell us all how we consent Sam?

      Delete
    5. I actually told you how we consent in my first comment before you even asked the question ;) the answer is contained in the link.

      If you accept that we have rights, you either accept that there is a non-violence based framework for applying those rights, or there is no framework and everyone fends for themselves and rights are useless. If you are claiming your rights, you have to claim the system along with it. That is consent.

      Or alternatively, you could just be very confused about the whole thing. I suspect that is the explanation in this case.

      Delete
  13. James H. MetaphorJune 02, 2013 12:52 pm

    For the record, Sam Mezac and anyone else who feels similarly, I HAVE NOT consented to be ruled by the current laws, government or political system, and unless you are older then humanly possible, neither did you. Were any of you there when the current legal system was invented and decided upon as the system that would be used? Were any of you there were the majority of laws were passed/writen? Were you EVER given an option or vote on whether you wanted the laws you are bound by to exist.
    I was born into a land (without my choice or consent, no-one picks which country they are born in), where the system of government was already decided upon and put in place; I had and still have no legal way to vote for any other system. The current system is a form of elected dictatorship, where we have some power in deciding who gets to form the dictorship that makes the rules we are supposed to live by. If the states passed a law saying that everyone in Jersey had to have their right leg amputated at birth, can you vote to prevent that law? Can you repeal it, without the states doing it for you? Do you have any power at all, using the current legal system that you defend so vigourously? The only option you would have would be to wait for the next election and vote for someone who claims they will try to repeal the law, assuming any of the candidates offers to do so, and once they get in, you'd have to hope they kept their word, which few politicians do. Or you could stand yourself and hope you get voted in. Even then, thats not enough for a majority, so you'd have to wait until the majority of the states wanted to repeal the law, which might never happen.
    In a true demoocracy, whatever the majority of people want, becomes the law, so if the majority of people want the law changed so that the PM has to gargle horse urine every morning, in order to keep his job, that is what the law should be, regardless of the consequences. That's why true democracy has never been tried on a grand scale - it relies on trusting the people to make the right choices, and those in power don't trust us.

    Since I was born, I have never been asked, by the government or anyone else, to vote on which laws I feel should stay in place as laws, or which should be repealed. I have never been asked to consent or withdraw consent to be governed by these laws. Hell, I have never been asked for my opinion on any laws, including those that my "representatives" in the state want to make in future, supposedly on my behalf.
    I was not given any option at birth or since then, I was simply told that people who didn't represent what I wanted had already passed laws I had no say in, and now I had to obey them, or be punished.

    So Oh Mighty Mezec, please answer the question:
    HOW DO WE CONSENT???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Already have several times. It just wasn't the answer you lot wanted.

      I'm out now. No use arguing with naive wishful thinkers who aren't willing to listen to logical argument.

      All I can ask is that as a matter of courtesy you don't withhold your taxes (that pay for our hospitals, schools and old folks homes) and don't break any laws and get sent to prison (which is funded by tax money which should be going on hospitals, schools and old folks home).

      Delete
    2. Good one Sam, what's "taxes"?

      Delete
    3. Honestly, several comments in what you have said prove that you haven't the foggiest idea what law is.

      "If the states passed a law saying that everyone in Jersey had to have their right leg amputated at birth, can you vote to prevent that law?"

      The States cannot pass a law saying such, because it would contravene the ECHR which is a higher law. So your theoretical example doesn't work.

      If you don't understand how that process works, then you don't understand law.

      "In a true demoocracy, whatever the majority of people want, becomes the law"

      No it is not. Voting by majority is NOT the definition of democracy. Democracy is a system whereby people can collectively decide how their society is run, and in which everyone has an equal voice.

      Majority voting is one way to accomplish things, but it is NOT the definition and there are some majority votes that are totally invalid.

      The EHCR says that we have an inalienable right to life that no state can take away. That means if the majority vote to execute someone, that vote is invalid, because it contravenes that persons inalienable rights.

      So you are just wrong. Majority votes only count for anything if it is a vote on a subject that has no implications for individuals or minorities inalienable rights.

      How I despair for mankind if in the 21st Century we still have to have these arguments that were actually settled by enlightenment philosophers years ago!

      Delete
    4. I think it's safe to say Sam has blown any chance of having a go on the Supa Dupa machine Ian?

      Delete
    5. Garlic clove? YOU WHAT!!!

      Naaah, I would be happy to lend the "Supa Dupa" to Sam, after all, he is a fellow human being and a constant source of amusement, the blogs would be a lot less fun without him :)

      Delete
  14. Good lord, here we go...

    I AM NOT STUCK ANYWHERE, I AM MORE FREE THAN YOU COULD EVER DREAM OF BECAUSE I AM NOT TIED TO THE LAW SOCIETY, AND MOCKING ME BECAUSE I AM POOR WILL NOT ENHANCE YOUR PROFILE AMONG THOSE WHO ARE ABLE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

    At no point did I, or would I, mock anyone for being poor (any idea how much student debt I'm in and how far into my overdraft I am?). The comment about being stuck behind a laptop was about ME and how you appeared to expect that I was stuck behind a laptop. It was nothing to do with what you do or don't do, of which I couldn't care less. Oh and btw, I'm not stuck to any Law Society. I have sworn no oath and even if I had, my integrity would come before it.

    WHATEVER HAPPENED TO OUR GOD GIVEN INHERENT INALIENABLE RIGHTS SAM?

    Ian, if God wishes to appear before a select committee and adumbrate this I'm sure we'd all be desperate to hear it, but until then I'm not really concerned about God, whom I'm not even sure exists.

    Also, if God wishes to give us rights, it would be good of him to provide us with an apparatus to apply those rights. It would be most selfish of him to give us rights, but no method of taking advantage of those rights (though I do hear he works in mysterious ways). But, alas, the organisation that gives us a method of utilising our rights is the state, not some ambiguous monotheistic deity. So I'll take my chances with the state until God intervenes.

    WE HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING TO ASK PERMISSION FROM SOME HALFWIT GOVERNMENT TRUSTEE TO DO SO.

    Well done Ian, but unfortunately, if someone comes to your house and steals all your things, guess who will go and get it back for you? Some halfwit government trustee! Whoops! If someone is breaking into your house, you don't call God, you call the police. Who provides us a police force? The state! If someone robs you of all your money, how do you get it back? You take them to court and the court will order them to pay it back or give compensation. Who provides that court? The state!

    You can own as much property as you like, but if I turn up tomorrow and take it from you, there will be sod all you can do about it unless you go to the state and ask them to get it back for you. Your utopian society seems to be one where no state organisation has authority over anyone, we all just rely on ourselves to sort things out. Unfortunately that means that the person who is King is the person with the most guns. You know, there is one society that things work like that. It's called Somalia. I'm going to stick with Jersey though.

    THEN PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO. UNDER COMMON LAW I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BLOW YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF!!!

    That proves my above point. And what happened to my God given inalienable (that's the key word there) common law right to life? If the right is inalienable, that means there is no circumstance under which I can lose it. So what gives you the right to blow someone's head off under any circumstances? Totally hypocritical.

    I much prefer what we have now, which is one governed by law. And I hate to break it to you, but common law and statute law (and my favourite equity too!) are inextricably linked. If someone murders someone (which is a common law offence) they are tried in a court which has been set up by statute and is funded by taxes. If the latter part didn't happen, then they would get away with murdering people. What a terrible system that would be!

    But here's a question for you now Ian. Can you give me a single example of a time when the common law argument has won a legal argument (and I don't count annoying police officers with it to the point where they just give up and let someone go because they can't be bothered to argue) rather than just being dismissed as "naive wishful thinking"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not a question Sam, that's a trick! but you probably didn't realise that. Common law can never win a legal argument as common law has nothing to do with legal, it has only to do with lawful.

      Delete
    2. James H. MetaphorJune 02, 2013 5:22 pm

      Actually, if someone takes your stuff, you have the right to take it back. No need to call the police. The only time you would need the police is if you are legally/physically unable to exercise your right to get your stuff back, and you want them to exercise that right on your behalf. The same with the court, ordering someone to obey the law (which is stupid, why should you have to get a court to tell someone that they have to obey the law), which is just them enforcing your right, by threatening to punish the other party if they infringe your right (they are supposed to punish them for this anyway, so again, its just pointless).
      For the record, when you refer to the state providing us with a police force, please remember that the state are just the people handling the money (our money), and they aren't paying for the police. We are. Therefore, it's the people who provide us with a police force, not the state.
      I don't know about this god thingy, but we do have rights (some under common law or under statute law)which are accepted as inalienable rights. They may not have been given by this god thingy, but we do have them. As for shooting someone who takes your stuff, that comes under conflict of rights - when two people each have a right to something, and those rights conflict/contradict each other, which wins? Thats a matter of debate, but most people accept that some rights are higher then others.
      I can't help but notice you are still avoiding answering the question, though. Is that because you don't want to admit you are wrong?

      Delete
    3. "For the record, when you refer to the state providing us with a police force, please remember that the state are just the people handling the money (our money), and they aren't paying for the police. We are. Therefore, it's the people who provide us with a police force, not the state."

      What a ridiculous argument. By that definition then the state is ours too. In which case, all it does (like extort tax, pass statutes, imprison people) is all totally legitimate.

      Your argument fails on all counts.

      Delete
  15. Hi Sam,
    Pleased to hear you agree that we are governed by consent, so by simple logical progression you must also agree that we can withhold or revoke such consent, yes? The argument that someone who revokes that consent to be governed then loses access to the courts and law is plainly nonsense. ‘That someone’ will still (rightly) be prosecuted in court if they have committed a real common law crime, like assault or theft etc.
    Access to courts and the law is not reliant on consenting to be governed. Indeed it is the duty of governments to make courts available to the people, not to do so would be unlawful. Governments (of the Commonwealth) are constituted under common law, they are subject to the law (common law) not above it.
    Whether we believe in God or not is moot as the law and the courts work on the presumption that there is a God, if you want proof of this all you need do is to examine all Judges and Magistrates etc. oaths of office i.e. “ I swear before God…”.
    As an interesting aside the law does not define what is meant by God, but it accepts that our inalienable rights are God given (or inherent) and can be deduced by reading chapter 1 of Genesis in the KJV bible.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another ridiculously flawed argument.

      Revoking consent is purely theoretical, it isn't practically possible.

      How are courts established? By statute. How are courts paid for? By tax. If you withhold your consent to be a part of the system then you have no right to access the courts.

      Enjoying the protection of state organisations (of which the courts are) and their services (schools, hospitals etc) is conditional on paying what tax is due (bearing in mind sometimes the tax due is £0).

      If you revoke consent, you don't get to use those courts any more (unless you are being prosecuted for breaking the law, statute or common law).

      And a final point of countering ignorance, I think you'll find that most Commonwealth countries have written constitutions and that their their most supreme law, not common law.

      Delete
    2. My final comment before retiring and going outside to try and regain some faith in humanity is this -

      This ridiculous common law argument has never won and it never will because it is nothing more than naive wishful thinking. Simple logic can disseminate it. The only reason it persists is because of people like yourselves who suffer from confirmation bias, whereby any argument against what you say you will automatically dismiss no matter how right it may be because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived position and it would be embarrassing to have to climb down.

      The only thing I can suggest is that you just get over it and try not to break the law. All your actions do is waste money in this island on pathetic and unnecessary court cases when that money would be better off being used to give our nurses a pay rise, or increasing the state pension or giving more grants to kids off to university.

      You are not doing society any good whatsoever and are actually being incredibly selfish.

      In fact, even just making the argument that you don't have to obey statute law is probably incitement to commit an offence, which is an offence in itself. So more of our tax money unnecessarily spent prosecuting you.

      Be ashamed.

      Adieu.

      Delete
  16. There are on so blind as those who will not see! I come from a far, i have free choice and free will. I have always been free to choose as every cell atom has its choice to be a part of me. No one being or group of being can presume for me. I chose my Mum and Dad and my brothers as I was the youngest.
    The paragraph :
    In fact, even just making the argument that you don't have to obey statute law is probably incitement to commit an offence, which is an offence in itself. So more of our tax money unnecessarily spent prosecuting you.
    says it all, it locates your perception/awareness as to the reality that surrounds you.
    As we all grow in life and become wiser we pass though the traps and illusions we so often call real at the moment, yet with age we hopefully gain that precious gem wisdom you yet have to find Sam. The road you are choosing is very much smoke and mirrors, enjoy your life and don't impose on ours for we are free to choose. You are not as you have chosen that, that is your free will not ours!
    In my world we are all ONE like cells in a body we all have our place, we all work in harmony. Each cell learns and grows as the body does. There are no boarders, laws or systems only a dance to a tune that sweeps the cosmos. Why subscribe to a dot when the library is open and infinate.
    Phil Skinner : )

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sam said, "Revoking consent is purely theoretical, it isn't practically possible." So you are saying that we are governed by compulsion, please make your mind up.
    No Sam, courts were established by and under common law.
    Commonwealth countries constitutions are the embodiment of common law, look it up numpty.
    All commonwealth and ex commonwealth countries are common law jurisdictions, again look it up.
    Why do you find it so hard to accept that the state is ours, but has been hijacked by vested interests and the BAR Guilds, it is gullible fools like you who blithely accept the garbage lawyers feed you that has made this situation possible.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong on all counts and a quick session on wikipedia is enough to prove it. Your naivety would be almost cute if you weren't recommending people break the law.

      The Crown Court was established by the Courts Act 1971, the High Court and Court of Appeal by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, more recently the new Supreme Court was established by statute, etc.

      All of the courts we have were established by statute. Good luck relying on courts that don't exist any more!

      If you think that common law in places like Canada and Australia trumps the constitution, then you don't understand what a constitution is. A constitution is the highest form of a law a country can have. It is above common law. It is capable of repealing common law principles and it constitutes courts to apply statutes above common law when principles in the two types of law contravene each other.

      To understand more on that, I recommend an Australian film called the Castle. It's very funny and makes the point rather well.

      Oh and as a matter of simple fact, not all Commonwealth or ex-Commonwealth countries are common law jurisdictions. Jordan is not, Bangladesh is not, South Africa is not. For goodness sake Cyril, even Scotland isn't and it's part of the UK!

      It is the fact that you just blindly repeat these lies that 30 seconds on google can prove wrong that means you have not an ounce of credibility. Certainly none compared to my fantastic lecturers and tutors!

      Delete
    2. http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/Section.aspx?id=1648&EventTabStrip=0

      Delete
  18. CYRIL!!!

    I thought you were very restrained there :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on printShare on emailShare on twitterShare on facebookDeclaration Of Right
    The Petition of Right at the beginning of the 17th century, and the Declaration of Right and Bill of Rights at the end, embody a century long fight to constrain the power of Government. At that time it was the Monarch who desired a divine right. Today it is our Parlimentarians. The Petition of Right and Declaration of Right are Common Law contracts between the People and the Crown. The Bill of Rights is a statue law enactment of the Declaration of Right.

    The Declaration of Right was imposed upon William and Mary as a condition of their assuming the Crown - in other words, they would only be elected by the People if they accepted its terms.

    The Declaration of Right, and the Bill of Rights, clearly state that -

    no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

    So it can clearly be seen that every EU treaty imposed upon us by Parliament, is unconstitutional. Here is the evidence that our present Monarch has indeed broken her Coronation Oath, by giving Royal Assent to these treaties.

    Other constitutional rights given by these contracts -

    The right to bear arms
    The right to petition the Sovereign
    Free men cannot be imprisoned without cause
    The Government cannot arrest any man because he disagrees with the Government’s policies
    Habeas corpus is not to be denied
    No person will be compelled to make loans to the King, and there will be no tax without the approval of Parliament
    Soldiers and sailors will not be billeted on civilians
    Government will not impose martial law during peacetime
    The right to bear arms gives every person the right to self defence using reasonable force, including deadly force if appropriate. Using tragic events as an excuse to remove that right has historically been the work of governments with good reason to fear their people - governments intent on some kind of future totalitarian control of their populations


    http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/british-constitution/declaration-right

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link anon, and I am sure our Statist trainee lawyer, Mr Sam Mezec, will no doubt declare your contribution nonsensical as it does not comply or compute with his six years of brainwashing at the hands of the law society.

      Delete
  20. Sam

    Is State policy a granted privilege, whereby the State deem and presume our rights in court?

    We are, in a common law constitutional jurisdiction are we not?

    If you withhold your consent to be a part of the system then you have no right to access the courts

    Who, would want access to a court (non clarified) that deems and presumes rights and identity of the man before it? Would this not enable the court to chop and change to suit the presumption it makes?

    Why would it be a crime, or selfish to claim recognised inalienable rights through identifying oneself in common law jurisdiction? Why have human rights if we allow the court to presume, deem and take them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, you can claim any rights you like, but they'll be pretty useless if you have no way of implementing them.

      As said before, if you claim you have an inalienable right to own property based on common law and you don't consent to statute etc, then I come to your house when you're out and steal all of your things, there is nothing you can do about it whatsoever that doesn't a) resort to violence, or b) resort to help of the authorities (police, courts, etc) that are all part of the system that you allegedly don't consent to.

      Having a right is all well and good, but it will do you no good if it is just a de jure right, rather than a de facto right.

      Delete
    2. I think Mr. Evans has proved his case but you don't want to hear it Sam.

      Delete
  21. In the example given.

    I would expect the common law jurisdictions court to operate in the correct manner.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The court needs to implement not the person claiming inherent rights.

    ReplyDelete
  23. To recap your position then Sam,
    We live in a common law country but statutes are supreme.
    We have inalienable rights but government can take them away.
    We are governed by consent but cannot revoke that consent.
    The lecturers and tutors who have given you such clarity of thought are fantastic.
    Have I missed anything?

    cyril

    ReplyDelete