169 replies to this topic

[Conspiracy-Factualist]

It's legalese a separete language. Blacks Law Dictionary several editions of which are available online.

I agree.

I stated in a previous post that the word "register" in Blacks Law Dic edition 1 says, to relinquish title ownership of. & it is to note that the word 'register" is not listed in edition 2, being that BLD is updated to be in accordance with court rulings, it is easy to see why some words or legal deffinitions would be omitted from later editions

Also the word "apply" is also referrenced too "beg", may not have seen it in edition 1, but I have seen it listed in a BLD edition.

Edited by Conspiracy-Factualist, 24 October 2011 - 01:51 PM.

[Mycot]

My car is now out of registration. I would like to seek another organisation sepperate from the Roads and Traffic Authority to register my vehicle and recieve plates to corrospond. Does anyone know of such an organisation or should I create my own?

Many don't realize that to register is to hand over title ownership. Roads and Traffic Authority are a bit of a monopoly although strictly speaking that is not allowed. Check out the latter part of this U-Tube vid by Mark McMurtrie.
mark mcmurtrie lessons in law pt1
In it he recounts an amusing interaction with police after being pulled up with unusual plates that he had made after creating his own registration company and furthermore getting away with it.

Edited by Mycot, 24 October 2011 - 04:44 PM.

[Conspiracy-Factualist]

My car is now out of registration. I would like to seek another organisation sepperate from the Roads and Traffic Authority to register my vehicle and recieve plates to corrospond. Does anyone know of such an organisation or should I create my own?

I wish you all the luck in finding such an entity, RTA (Authority) as far as they are concerned the roads are theirs, & whilst there would be no reason why you could not do your wishful intent, the police don't comprehend the concept & therefore in their eyes as a corporation you would be in violation of the roads traffic act.

A freeman group in Melbourne protested for lack of better words not so long ago to which I can only presume to get the truth out there in the public, to which one car had plates not issued by the authority & thus a police officer in an attempt to remove the plate injured their fingers & the presumed registered owner of the car was thus inturn charge with numerous offences one of which was injurying a member of the police force the charge/s were later dropped as the officer for public relations said that it was all a misunderstanding.

The only way that I can think of to get around this ever ongoing problem would be to write a letter to the minister for transport supported with a signed affidavit demanding who the true owner of the car is, with all the legal wording ( 7 days to respond with supported affidavit & failure to do so would be accepted as proof positive that you are infact the true owner of the car & thus you are not under any obligation to register your property) all via registered post the whole gambit., to also attempt this you would have to instigate the presumption of god, as government didn't create the world & therefore did not create roads, they have only ever improved the roads/passage ways with various taxes & that inturn makes the roads belong to the people not the government, but have fun trying to get them to concur to that thought

This is not legal counsel & requires more research it is only something I have given consideration & hypothesized about. with other like minded people

I again agree with Mycot, it is also the presumption of many that when they sign their John Doe for a "Drivers Licence" the perception is that they are endorsing the licence with their signiture, what we as vehilce users are not told that by signing the licence you are actually agreeing to the underlyin contract to the Roads & Traffic Act, & thus we somehow manage to incur demerit points & fines, Under contract law this would make it legally null & void due to failure of full disclosure to the contract.

Edited by Conspiracy-Factualist, 25 October 2011 - 01:32 AM.

[occidentalis]

OK, I found a copy of Black's Law Dictionary (at the rather interesting URL http://blacks.worldf.../1/A/a-0045.jpg)

I'm assuming that since it is the copy held at worldfreemansociety.org it is probably most likely to be biased towards the Freeman claims (if it is biased at all). Since I don't have a real copy of the dictionary (and it's quite expensive to buy), I'll just have to trust that that is the real thing.

The page I linked to is the one with Advise on it. The meaning given is exactly as I understand the word to mean in common English.

I'm sorry to be nitpicky about this - I'm just using this as an example.

I genuinely like the idea of the freeman stuff and think a lot of it has real validity philosophically. However much of the material that I have read on the topic, and the people that I have spoken to, has/have been very poorly researched, full of poor logic, strange assumptions, and uncritical thinking. Unfortunately that makes me distrust the whole thing.

Just out of interest, here is the image of the page for 'understand'. You'll note that although vaguely defined, it has its common english meaning too.
http://blacks.worldf.../1/U/u-1199.jpg

So yeah. Totally unconvinced by your playful use of 'ad-vice'.

[occidentalis]

And here's the page for Register
http://blacks.worldf.../1/R/r-1013.jpg
Where it seems to have a very simple common English meaning, to me.

So have any of you actually read Black's Law Dictionary or any other legal dictionaries or do you just believe what's told to you by other people who are into this stuff?
Isn't Freeman philosophy all about questioning everything? Because I'm not seeing much questioning going on.

Or is the World Freeman Society a front organisation for the anti-Freeman Powers That Be, who have published a false BLD in order to fool people like me?

[Conspiracy-Factualist]

OK, I found a copy of Black's Law Dictionary (at the rather interesting URL http://blacks.worldf.../1/A/a-0045.jpg)

I'm assuming that since it is the copy held at worldfreemansociety.org it is probably most likely to be biased towards the Freeman claims (if it is biased at all). Since I don't have a real copy of the dictionary (and it's quite expensive to buy), I'll just have to trust that that is the real thing.

The page I linked to is the one with Advise on it. The meaning given is exactly as I understand the word to mean in common English.

I'm sorry to be nitpicky about this - I'm just using this as an example.

I genuinely like the idea of the freeman stuff and think a lot of it has real validity philosophically. However much of the material that I have read on the topic, and the people that I have spoken to, has/have been very poorly researched, full of poor logic, strange assumptions, and uncritical thinking. Unfortunately that makes me distrust the whole thing.

Just out of interest, here is the image of the page for 'understand'. You'll note that although vaguely defined, it has its common english meaning too.
http://blacks.worldf.../1/U/u-1199.jpg

So yeah. Totally unconvinced by your playful use of 'ad-vice'.

Occi, did you bother to read my responce post to your enquiry relating to the word advise? It showed the meaning of words with the web page you presented http://www/etymonlin...p?search=advise & the meaning of that word, for instance & I agree if you look up the meaning for the word "advise" it will give you the meaning of it, which is " to give counsel to",& the meaning of the word vise on its own means vise c.1300, "device like a screw or winch for bending a crossbow or catapult," from O.Fr. vis, viz "screw," from L. vitis "vine, tendril of a vine," lit. "that which winds," from base of viere "to bind, twist" (see withy). The meaning "clamping tool with two jaws closed by a screw" is first recorded c.1500. So if you take the two words Ad & vise & make one word advise the meaning is to give counsel to & device like a screw or winch, bind, twist

however as I said break the word up or look up the word vice you will get its meaning & the web page also made suggestion or links of words by association I.E. Vice, join the two words & you get advice or ad-vice, vice (1)moral fault, wickedness," c.1300, from O.Fr. vice, from L. vitium "defect, offense, blemish, imperfection," in both physical and moral senses (cf. It. vezzo "usage, entertainment"). the word Ad is simply as it indicates.. to add. You are infact correct in your comprehension of its meaning in common english, but don't think for an instant that the justice system is here to fight for or protect you or play in the same common english comprehension as you, for example of a word & its non common english presentation ( & no visable listing of proof either ) " justice system" ..... Just Us system when you look at it outside of common english comprehension you can see that courts act in that exact manner... Just Us system, or another example.... the itialian word for Police..... Polici or Pol-ici, when you split up the word it sounds like policy = policy enforcer & what are cops? enforcers of corporation law or corporational policy, basically what I am saying is, think outside of the box or the norm, if you think cunningly as they do, you start to see the connection..... heh or not

Nobody said, that words don't have a common english meaning, what I said it that it also has another meaning, I also said take a look at rogdog's recent post that has a webpage link & the info on that page has info relating to registration of cars, local council & other interesting info, & on that web page it provides an example of the word understand & its meaning to the courts & courts alone, how you interpret its meaning will not be the same as the courts

If you fail to see the connection of words or how words can be changed to have a different meaning, then sadly no one will be able to help you comprehend it, One thing that is worth mentioning is nobody & I mean nobody was born with freeman theory. I used your web page search & another user also said that its legalese "another language" & your still not convinced, nobody is here to convince you of anything stated in the posts here, that is for you & you alone to decide on its authenticity, but people post opinions/theories merely to assist others with a comprehension of how legal games are played within the justice system in this country,

Nobody has ever said that their reserach is correct or true or complete or not misleading, most simply research a possibility on the grounds of "what if" & whatever the research turns up, it is then up to the researcher to comprehend how to utilise the info & if it can help their cause in any way or obtain a better comprehension of how to utilise it against facilities, the thing about the freeman theory is that ALL info pertaining to it can only ever be hearsay or opinion or theory as there isn't any actual proof in its existance or its successfulness, some have small wins & others don't win at all, it all comes down to how you conduct yourself accordingly in a facility that is setup in a way to ensure to the best of its ability for you to lose... no matter what the cost. You will only ever be able to utilise what you comprehend to be logical & rational on a legal level & to debate it on their playing field

I have attended two court matters pertaining to people who also had the theory on the freeman & have studied it at great length, with the end result that the magistrate simply did not acknowlege it as the establishment can't afford too, so all of the freeman theory can only ever be used to debate one's sovereign position in a court room event. If you are a freeman you are not under the jurisdiction of the justice system the problem is to show with irrefutable proof that you are a freeman & that is the very problem, as they just don't want to acknowlege that, It is a trueism that if you find it difficult to comprehend all the freeman information then it is strongly suggested that you don't use freeman techniques as you can get yourself in a lot of trouble, magistrates find it difficult when dealing with those who have a solid comprehension of law & how it works & those who quote specific areas in law that are being ignored by a magistrate, I.E. denial of due process of law, the magistrate is not the law & is only ever an adjudicator & nothing more S/he cannot have an opinion as it is not within his jurisdiction as a magistrate to do so.

I was told earlier by another user that I would have my arse handed to me based upon my knowledge isn't almost encyclopaedic, due to my own reasons I choose not to disproove the comment which would be extremely simple to do, as I feel the "other user" is not what they present themselves to be & agents of that nature are an entity to be weary of.

The cops can't comprhend it & don't even try & the magistrate can not allow the cat to get out of the bag. The scam is greater than just are you a freeman or not, it breaks down & destroys their very position of presumed authority & power & it is for that reason that it is extremely hard to win a freeman logical based, theory, opinion or even a well executed legal debate, however I have been shown a very simple way to make it just as hard for them to disproove as much as it is hard to proove one is/can be a freeman, esentially a stalemate. neither them or us wins

In one court case where the victim in this instance was told by the magistrate.... " you don't know who you are & therefor I cannot deal with you". The reality of what the magisrate was actually saying is, as a freeman I can't deal with you & I have no jurisdiction over you, being that the "victim" was already incarcerated the magistrate simply allowed the continuation of deprivation of liberty, as the victim refused to consent to the strawman con fantasy, the Victim was thus returned to Arthur Gorrie correctional center until a later date.

It was not until a friend of the victim lodged a Hapus Corpus ( not sure on spelling) in Brisbane court, which is a court order to present the body, would of created all sorts of legal ramifications for Beenleigh court & the presiding magistrate dealing with the matter, they let the victim go before the Haepus Corpus came into effect which inturn negated the deprivation of liberty against the victim, & the whole matter was dropped, but not before they managed to detain the victim for 14 days.

All in all there is nothing to be apologetic about Occi, if you are unconvinced that is simply for everyone else to accept & for you continue on in your journey in life, nothing in any of the posts is stated to convince anyone of anything, it is simply hypothesis, opinions & theories, it is the end user to believe or not

[Sheather]

as I feel the "other user" is not what they present themselves to be & agents of that nature are an entity to be weary of.

If I present myself to be someone who thinks you're a gullible idiot that's full of shit, then I'm fairly sure that's what I am. Good that you are wary of me though, as I, like occidentalis, appear to have some basic understandings of language and how it works. Your manipulation of advise (or advice, whichever you pick most frequently) is nothing short of ridiculous. You claim it has a common english meaning, of which we are aware, but that the parts when broken up mean something else when reassebled. This is something similar to saying psychotherapist is someone who is psycho (psychotic), and a rapist. Seeing as advise and advice come

from phrase ço m'est à vis "it seems to me,"

I would come to the logical conclusion that it is not, as you seem to think, a composite of add and vice (or vise). The reason half of these cases get passed out without charges is because the judges are busy people. They can't be fucked dealing with some twat who will drag out a minor case for what could be days.

I would have my arse handed to me based upon my knowledge isn't almost encyclopaedic, due to my own reasons I choose not to disprove the commen, which would be extremely simple to do,

I would however love to hear the simple solution, oh, and that wasn't quite what I said. I said IF your knowledge isn't almost encyclopaedic. Prove that you can succeed at this while having flawed understandings of the laws you are trying to manipulate, and/or even the smallest gap in your defense.

It was not until a friend of the victim lodged a Hapus Corpus ( not sure on spelling) in Brisbane court

It literally took me less than ten seconds to find the spelling of "habeas corpus"

it is the end user to believe or not

That's what it comes down to doesn't it? You've already said all you've stated is hearsay and hypothesis, that there is no real proof of the theory, and that it's up to us to believe it. It's down to believe. Like a religion. Have a grouding in solid proof and provable techniques, or believe that there is a better way because you can't bear to face the legal system as it is.

[occidentalis]

All in all there is nothing to be apologetic about Occi, if you are unconvinced that is simply for everyone else to accept & for you continue on in your journey in life, nothing in any of the posts is stated to convince anyone of anything, it is simply hypothesis, opinions & theories, it is the end user to believe or not

You're right. Everything in life is up to the end user to believe or not.
There are a couple of problems with that attitude in practice - firstly, as I said, I like the freeman philosophy. I want to believe it. Unfortunately it is usually so poorly articulated that I just can't. Far too many plot holes, and when you point them out, you just get responses like this. I have a fairly good basic understanding of pretty much every major branch of science and many branches of philosophy and other human thought. I understand the universe to be fairly self consistent, and at most levels, to be based on logic of different types. This means that when I find something that is illogical, I question it. I definitely question the legal system, because it is based on fear and intimidation, is often completely illogical, and in my opinion does not serve the advancement of human society very often. That's why the freeman stuff appeals to me. However, you can't replace an illogical crock of shit with a magical fantasy where you make up the rules as you go along, and when caught out, claim that it's too complex for most people to understand. Without wanting to sound too full of myself, there aren't actually many things that are too complex for me to understand. So when I find something that appears to be, it becomes an intellectual challenge. Either I figure it out, or decide it's not my cup of tea and leave it alone, or decide that it can't be understood, because it is nonsense. That's the stage I've got to with the freeman stuff.

Secondly, I know from previous experience that I am one of the most skeptical and critical out of my friends and the people in this community. That means that there's a whole lot of people who are reading this stuff and thinking how awesome it sounds, without bothering to check the facts. It worries me that someone might get themselves into real trouble by trying some freeman stuff out next time they get pulled over or taken to court. I don't discourage these people from exploring the possibilities. I have no doubt that there are 'back doors' in the legal system, that if one has enough understanding of, may allow true freedom or forms thereof. I hope that someone will discover one of these. However I suspect that the freeman system is not one of them, or is perhaps based on one of them but has missed the point.

I asked you the simple question about 'advise' because I saw it as a potential weak spot. A simple, testable fact, that must be well documented somewhere. I know that it must be well documented, because that is how the legal system works. As I said, in every Act of legislation, when words are used in a special way, those words are always carefully and thoroughly defined at the start of the document. If words such as understand and advise are being used in special ways, those definitions must also exist, on paper somewhere, for magistrates and lawyers to study before they are admitted into the secret cabal.

I did read your response - and understood it perfectly. I know what a vice is, and I knew what you were getting at the very first time you mentioned 'ad-vice'. The thing is, I reckon that use of the word would still need to be defined somewhere, otherwise, as Sheather says, every single word would have alternate meanings based on the sub-words that make it up, like Psycho the Rapist. Even lawyers wouldn't understand each other.

I asked if anyone knew where they were defined, and was told Black's Law Dictionary (I knew that would be the answer, but I was hoping someone would surprise me). It didn't take me very long to prove that wrong. If you would like to provide any further sources where they are defined in unusual ways, I am genuinely interested.

[Shroom-Aura]

i've heard about this freeman stuff for sometime but haven't ever looked into it in detail. until last night something just clicked when a cop pulled me over for not indicating and gave me a $300 infrigement notice. only when I got home did I really start thinking I should not be forced to pay this and remembering the freeman stuff I started reading up. So now I've decided to take the difficult path and try to reclaim my rights using this opportunity as a catalyst. I understand it will be a difficult journey and sacrifices will have to be made in order to see it through. I also understand that is a personal quest to reclaim ones rights which no-one can do or take responsibility for except for me. Having said that I'd like to explain my situation so that incase any kind souls have any advice that may make my journey easier by not repeating mistakes of others.

Firstly I am going to make and submit an Notice of Understand and Intent and Claim of Right by modifying one for New South Whales found here http://www.911oz.com...ead.php?p=12551 . I am actually an employee of the SA government but from what I've read nothing indicates that this should effect my sovereign status. Then I will send a letter of rebuttal using the template found on page 2 of this thread explaining that I do not understand or comply with the statutory charge asking for clarification. With this I will send the carbon copy of the expiation notice I was given by the officer. Any further letters they send me I will respond with simple written letters (like rogdog's examples) explaining they are enforcing these statutory charges on my entity and not my human-being self and therefore have no relevance to me.

I am expecting to probably fail at my first attempt in this and possibly end up with more charges then I started with. But I don't think there is any other cause as worthwhile fighting for then my personal freedoms. I wish all other freemen-on-the-land here courage and success in all your endeavors

Edited by Shroom-Aura, 28 October 2011 - 02:36 PM.

[7baz]

i have spent years trying to understand comon law rights , my rights as a strawman , how the courts work yada yada yada.

i tell you whats certain , the more you fight the system the more it trys to fuck you over.

the whole damn system is designed so you cant win.

its very very very hard.

slybacon : to have your own motor register and put your vehicle under it.. dont you have to open a corporation ?

[Zaka]

i've heard about this freeman stuff for sometime but haven't ever looked into it in detail. until last night something just clicked when a cop pulled me over for not indicating and gave me a $300 infrigement notice. only when I got home did I really start thinking I should not be forced to pay this and remembering the freeman stuff I started reading up. So now I've decided to take the difficult path and try to reclaim my rights using this opportunity as a catalyst. I understand it will be a difficult journey and sacrifices will have to be made in order to see it through. I also understand that is a personal quest to reclaim ones rights which no-one can do or take responsibility for except for me. Having said that I'd like to explain my situation so that incase any kind souls have any advice that may make my journey easier by not repeating mistakes of others.

Firstly I am going to make and submit an Notice of Understand and Intent and Claim of Right by modifying one for New South Whales found here http://www.911oz.com...ead.php?p=12551 . I am actually an employee of the SA government but from what I've read nothing indicates that this should effect my sovereign status. Then I will send a letter of rebuttal using the template found on page 2 of this thread explaining that I do not understand or comply with the statutory charge asking for clarification. With this I will send the carbon copy of the expiation notice I was given by the officer. Any further letters they send me I will respond with simple written letters (like rogdog's examples) explaining they are enforcing these statutory charges on my entity and not my human-being self and therefore have no relevance to me.

I am expecting to probably fail at my first attempt in this and possibly end up with more charges then I started with. But I don't think there is any other cause as worthwhile fighting for then my personal freedoms. I wish all other freemen-on-the-land here courage and success in all your endeavors

Irie Aura,
Yeah man go for it....
I'm gonna have to tackle my daughters b/cert some time soon, but plan on going by making stipulation in the contract???
But an excellent link!
Good luck!
I was thinking about traffic tickets, surely when they ask you to sign you should have asked what happens if you don't? He'd probably say he'll have to run you downtown,
you could then say no problem & sign "under protest & duress" plus add some thing like "I don't not consent to this Act/Statue"....
It would be interesting to see what would happen...
Respect,
Z

[Conspiracy-Factualist]

Irie Aura,
Yeah man go for it....
I'm gonna have to tackle my daughters b/cert some time soon, but plan on going by making stipulation in the contract???
But an excellent link!
Good luck!
I was thinking about traffic tickets, surely when they ask you to sign you should have asked what happens if you don't? He'd probably say he'll have to run you downtown,
you could then say no problem & sign "under protest & duress" plus add some thing like "I don't not consent to this Act/Statue"....
It would be interesting to see what would happen...
Respect,
Z

Under contract law, a contract is legally null & void if a signiture is acquired by force ( one of the 6/7 key requirements to contract law, signiture has to be voluntary ) that aside, you could always ask the cop who was harmed as it is illegal to solicit money for commercial compensation if no one was harmed, its called attempting to process a fraudulent security, which carries the penalty of a gaol sentence, a cop wont buy into the debate & just enforce his will anyway & will leave it for the magistrate, however it then presents the magistrate with the problem. What is in your favour in respect to that is you have the legal right to confront your accuser. If you were to ask the magistrate who is your accuser & the magistrate was silly enough to say himself & prosecutions then clearly there would a biast adjudication in the court. If the magistrate says the cop then you get to question the cop as to where,how & to what extent precisely was the cop harmed. Being the law is not a living entity & only legislation clearly it can not be harmed, however it could be argued that it was violated ( just an presumption of tatics from magistrate ).

Most don't realise that when they sign their John Doe signiture on a doc they are endorsing & agreeing to the terms & conditions of the doc, wether the T&C are listed or not.

Your daughter doesn't have a B/C, the B/C pertains to the government securitised corporated entity, its issued by a government agency B/D & M. All the B/C's I have viewed all have a 7-14 day difference to the actual live birth mine inclusive, which could be the time it took government to corporate the name of the sentient being, most would possiblly say the difference is the paperwork turn around time, but each to their own on that.

Edited by Conspiracy-Factualist, 30 October 2011 - 01:43 AM.

[Roopey]

I don't know who has already seen this, but this guy is an Aussie that has been doing this for a while.

http://video.google....777574574871930

Some of you might enjoy this as well:
http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress/
and their forums:
http://theunhivedmin...s/?page_id=1076

Edited by Roopey, 30 October 2011 - 07:05 AM.

[Slybacon]

[Zaka]

Irie,
I'm aware of most of these clips.
I've even represented myself at High Court....That was before I woke up to the system!
The one that made me think is the dude being told that he can not collect the rainwater as it's not owned by him.
This begs the question; if it's not owned by him, surely the damaged caused by it would be the responsibility of the entity that claims to own it!
So if I have no roof on my house the entity should therefore be responsible for any damage! Let alone flooding!
Ludicrous!!
Wouldn't you just love to use that expression, "Officer; I'm activating my fee schedule!"
Respect,
Z

Edited by Zaka, 15 November 2011 - 10:44 AM.

[Slybacon]

Very Interesting....

IF the police ask to have a quiet word with you, it's OK to do a runner, a Supreme Court judge confirmed yesterday.

Justice Stephen Kaye said that a man who bolted when police wanted to speak to him about an unpaid restaurant bill was entitled to make himself scarce, leaving the officers trailing in his wake.

After the judge ruled, the man at the centre of the test case was in no doubt of its importance.

"This decision does for Australian civil liberties what Mabo did for native title,'' Andrew Hamilton declared.

The 25-year-old Sydneysider said he was so drunk he couldn't remember why he ran. But when he sobered up, he knew his rights.

"At no point did they say I was under arrest,'' he said. "I hadn't committed a crime . . . I ran because I was just a drunken boor.''

Justice Kaye said it was an ancient principle of the common law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police, or answer their questions. And there is no statute that removes that right.

"(Mr Hamilton) before being placed under arrest did not have any obligation to stop when requested to do so, or to answer questions asked of him,'' the judge said.

"The conferring of such a power on a police officer would be a substantial detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed to the citizen by the common law for centuries.''

The judge dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions appeal against a magistrate's dismissal of a charge of resisting police.

Mr Hamilton said he was amazed that after the chase began, police in a car and on foot took 600m to catch him.

"I play rugby. I'm a winger, but I'm not a particularly good runner,'' he said. "I never thought I'd make it that far when I'm being chased by a car.

"I don't know why I ran. At the time I was pretty heavily intoxicated . . . it was just lucky I didn't get run over or shot.''

Mr Hamilton said he spent $9000 fighting the case; but Justice Kaye made a costs order in his favour.

It was established after the incident Mr Hamilton was not responsible for the restaurant bill.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Ken Lay last night said it was too early to act on the decision.

"We'll go through the judgment vary carefully, then we'll decide what we need to do,'' he said.

rossn@heraldsun.com.au

[Slybacon]

Devonport Magistrates Court Friday the 9th of December 2011 at 10:00 am
On Friday the 9th of December 2011 at 10:00 am one of our members fronts the Devonport Magistrates Court on a trumped up charge. Dr. John Wilson will be in attendance from N.S.W. to act as a McKenzie’s friend and represent Mark at the trial. We of course will demand trial by jury, which is our constitutional right.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 80
Trial by jury
The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes. The magistrate will then deny us our right to trial by jury and we will then challenge the jurisdiction of the court. If the magistrate still fails to grant us the peremptory stay until the jurisdiction is determined by a SPECIAL JURY, i.e.: a Jury will decide if you have the Right to Trial by Jury. “No one can judge in their own cause”- i.e.: no Judge/s can determine the Jurisdiction of the Court. If the magistrate continues to not recognise the Common Law then we may invoke a citizen’s arrest under Article 61 of the Magna Carta Legal Rebellion for the treasonous actions of the Magistrate. We are demanding this trial be by jury in a Common Law Court jurisdiction.
Failing to do this, the magistrate leaves himself wide open for a possible citizens arrest. The sentence for treason or sedition is life imprisonment. Under the Commonwealth Criminal Code treason has two aspects. Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 treason (s. 24), treachery (s. 24 AA) and sabotage (s. 24 AB). Please note that if you do attend the court that under no circumstances do you rise from your seat when asked to do so by the clerk of the court when the magistrate enters the court. By doing so you automatically give the magistrate jurisdiction in the illegal Admiralty/Kangaroo Court system. If you are ordered to leave the court and you have done nothing wrong then just remain calmly in your seat. It is your Common Law right to do so. If anyone touches you then they can be charged with assault. This may be a fiery case. All in all it will be a very interesting time.
We hope the magistrate follows the real law. We will give him every opportunity to do so.
We hope that “Bravehearts” will back us on the day?
“Save Our Families”
Kindest Regards,
Ray Escobar President
Juries Against Illegal Laws Inc.
6/12 / 2011
Juries Against Illegal Laws Inc. 166 Henry Street Launceston Tasmania 7250
Phone: +613 64731423 Email: classaction@jailtasmania.com
Twitter: @JAILTasmania

[Slybacon]

Magna Carta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the English charter originally issued on 15 June 1215, and later modified. For other uses, see Magna Carta (disambiguation).
"Great Charter" redirects here. For the Irish law, see Great Charter of Ireland. Magna Carta

One of only 4 surviving exemplifications of the 1215 text, Cotton MS. Augustus II. 106, property of the British Library

Created 1215 Location Various copies Author(s) Barons of King John of England Part of the Politics series on Monarchism

Varieties [show]

History [show]

Politics portal

• v
• d
• e

Magna Carta is an English charter, originally issued in the year 1215 and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions, which included the most direct challenges to the monarch's authority to date. The charter first passed into law in 1225. The 1297 version, with the long title (originally in Latin) The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest, still remains on the statute books of England and Wales.
The 1215 Charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties, and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.
Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form. Three clauses remain part of the law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution. Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".^[1] In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status",^[2] the others being the Habeas Corpus Act, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement.
The charter was an important part of the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law in the English speaking world, and it was this particular granting of liberties which survived to become a "sacred text".^[3] In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period did not in general limit the power of kings, but by the time of the English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law. It influenced the early settlers in New England^[4] and inspired later constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.^[5]

[rogdog]

Bumping for Great & Justice. Thread is 2 years old and my views havn't changed, if anything, I feel stronger in my determination to remain free from tyranny and general bullshit.

I just re-read the first page, and it's cool to see the original supporters are still here fanning the flames of freedom.

Also a funny pic to make the bump worthwhile

[rogdog]

post #167

The catch is that Magistrates courts have hearings, not trials, so no jury. Many people have tried to argue that in Magistrate courts and got nowhere, so better to do it in writing,and never enter the fake court in the first place. As has been explained earlier in the thread, by entering the court, you accept their jurisdiction, and have to make a special appearance to claim common law jurisdiction

Edited by rogdog, 14 January 2012 - 09:10 PM.