The organic myth of the British constitution

Topical debate

The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby Fulub-le-Breton » Fri May 31, 2013 1:30 pm

The Golden Country: the organic myth of the British constitution : http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom ... nstitution

Britain’s raison d’état is as an investment entity, a guarantor of global money.


Should be an interesting read for our constitutionalists amongst others. Some of your comments on the OK blog would be welcome.
Fulub-le-Breton
 
Posts: 5528
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Breizh

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby GrahamHart » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:01 pm

"...the culture of Britain’s unwritten constitution". And then he writes: "Reform it as much as you like, but collectivity is not within the scope of the British constitution". Make your bleddy mind up" :o

I have always been led to believe that we have no constitution. RUBBISH !!! :evil:

Our constitution is the template for the vast majority of countries in the western world. It's called the Magna Carta and has never been repealed. At this time in our history, we would do well to follow Article 61 which states: Well. Read it. It's very straight forward. http://www.old.tpuc.org/node/285
User avatar
GrahamHart
 
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:26 pm

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby factotum » Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:56 pm

Here we go again ...

We do have a constitution in the UK, sort of ... It has never been codified in a single document as in many other countries, probably because we've never had a proper revolution. The official line is that it is spread over various documents and decisions and conventions from different periods. Most of Britain's constitutional evolution is made up of (a) Parliament taking more and more power away from the monarch, and (b) parliament becomin'g more representative (at least in theory) as more and more people got the vote. Parliament is considered sovereign and no parliament can bind it's successors, so anything can be repealed, nothing is sacred, there are no special hurdles for 'constitutional' amendments as e.g. in the USA. The Magna Carta is not what most people think it is/was, that's just one of the many lies peddled by schoolteachers, it has in fact been repealed apart from some very minor subsection. You can check that online in about five minutes, look for "Statutes in Force" IIRC.

Just because everything isn't as we're taught at school doesn't however mean that Graham's "Money-for-Nothing" gang have it right either. In fact they're a dangerous distraction, massive doses of misinformation and wishful thinking. I'm not saying that you can't empower yourself by learning about the law and the 'system', by indeed 'hacking the system', but you do really have to accept it as it is, not as you think it ought to be, at least not this side of a full-blown insurrection, which would be costly and quite likely make things worse not better.

For a full analysis of the garbage spouted by Freemen and their fellow travellers, and the likely legal response, please carefully study this Canadian judgement. It's important for the thoroughness with which each argument is examined and rejected. Also the Canadian system is closer to ours than the US (who really did have a revolution, disposed of the monarch etc.)

http://www.canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/201 ... bqb571.pdf
User avatar
factotum
 
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby GrahamHart » Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 am

I knew it. I just knew it. As soon as I clicked on the link, I was thinking "Meads V Meads". And yes Keith, you are correct. It is a Canadian Judgement. Or to put it another way; ONE MAN'S OPINION. It's not even Case Law. A piece of trash.

I Googled both "Statutes in Force" IIRC and "Statutes in Force" on it's own. Guess what ? I never seen the words "Magna Carta" mentioned once. The reason being that it has NOT been repealed, though some would like us to think otherwise. ;)

If you are accusing me of being a free man, then it does beg the question.................what does that make you ?
User avatar
GrahamHart
 
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:26 pm

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby Fulub-le-Breton » Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:22 pm

Parliament is considered sovereign and no parliament can bind it's successors, so anything can be repealed, nothing is sacred, there are no special hurdles for 'constitutional' amendments as e.g. in the USA.


What is the territory associated with this parliamentary sovereignty? Clearly it does not extend to the USA, North Korea or any other foreign country, and I'd assume it covers the territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but what about Man, The Channel Islands, other crown dependencies/protectorates, City of London, Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall? Could parliament decide to change the status of Man or the Channel Islands for example or dissolve the Duchies?
Fulub-le-Breton
 
Posts: 5528
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Breizh

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby GrahamHart » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:17 pm

Fulub - Keith is blinding you with bullshit. Parliament is not considered sovereign because that's impossible. You are sovereign as a man. Parliament is an entity. A Corporation and a de-facto government and not a true dejure' administration of the people

One of the most fascinating things about law is words and the way they are arranged. Parliament is a cracking "take the piss" word. As you well know Fulub, "Parlia" in French means "Talk". "Ment" in Latin means "Lies". Talk lies. :lol: You have to admire the genius of this scam that has enslaved us for hundreds if not thousands of years, but it's all but over now.

I could tear his post to shreds, but there is just not enough interested here yet to spend time going into detail.
User avatar
GrahamHart
 
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:26 pm

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby Stephen Richardson » Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:43 am

Fulub-le-Breton wrote:What is the territory associated with this parliamentary sovereignty?


Actually Parliamentary sovereignty extends everywhere. Parliament can, in theory, 'ban smoking on the streets of Paris'.

Of course enforcing this would be a problem - never mind the international furore!
When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.
User avatar
Stephen Richardson
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:03 pm

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby Fulub-le-Breton » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:46 pm

Actually Parliamentary sovereignty extends everywhere. Parliament can, in theory, 'ban smoking on the streets of Paris'. Of course enforcing this would be a problem - never mind the international furore!


Stephen, In the same way (as I think Graham is suggesting) I could declare myself sovereign and pass my own laws applying them to the entire universe, but could I enforce any of them? If I accept myself as the highest law in the land then I am sovereign, at least in my own head, but where is my army to impose my will. The UK parliament could pass laws on kimchi quality in North Korea but it would be like deciding on a UDI for my sofa.

International bodies such as the UN, EU and Council of Europe recognise parliaments sovereignty over the UK but what about the protectorates and dependencies. Does parliament have the final word over these bodies (and the others mentioned above) or not?
Fulub-le-Breton
 
Posts: 5528
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Breizh

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby GrahamHart » Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:09 am

Stephen Richardson wrote: Actually Parliamentary sovereignty extends everywhere. Parliament can, in theory, 'ban smoking on the streets of Paris'.
Stephen.I repeat; Parliament cannot be Sovereign because it is an entity. A corporate Sole. Only man can be sovereign.

Law comes in four levels. Namely:

1. Natural Law. The highest law there is.
No man or Wom(b)an can come between You and your Creator, who has granted you upon arrival on this planet, Life, Liberty and Property.

2. Common Law. That you cause no other Harm, Injury or Loss. If you do, expect the consequences of your actions.

3.Contract Law. Probably the most misunderstood of them all. All Commerce is contract law. All of it. Everytime money changes hands, contract law is being used and we don't even realise it. This is especially true and poignant at present as we try to get rid of the De-facto criminals who are in charge, when we deal with offices of the Government, who's different departments are all Corporations trading for profit.
A contract is a document containing two wet signatures or more to create a binding agreement. Period.

4. Statute Law. The lowest form of law. Why ? Because it can only be activated by YOUR CONSENT!!!, though you wouldn't think so would you ?

Fulub-le-Breton wrote:...I could declare myself sovereign and pass my own laws applying them to the entire universe, but could I enforce any of them?
Correct on both counts Fulub. So how can they ? The answer is above in upper caps.

Fulub-le-Breton wrote: If I accept myself as the highest law in the land then I am sovereign, at least in my own head, but where is my army to impose my will.
Why would you want to impose your will Fulub ? And why would any peace loving man want an army ?

Fulub-le-Breton wrote: The UK parliament could pass laws on kimchi quality in North Korea but it would be like deciding on a UDI for my sofa. International bodies such as the UN, EU and Council of Europe recognise parliaments sovereignty over the UK but what about the protectorates and dependencies. Does parliament have the final word over these bodies (and the others mentioned above) or not?
[/quote] All of the above bodies are nothing more than a smokescreen for the true enemies. And that's the Banksters. Messrs Rothschild, Rockefeller, JP Morgan, et' al et' al. Look no further. These madmen have held back mankind for hundreds of years, along with their smokescreen ass-kissing puppets.

Sovereigns around the world are uncovering the biggest scam in the entire history of mankind. Read Mary Croft's Book. HOW I CLOBBERED EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN. It's ultra sensational.
User avatar
GrahamHart
 
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:26 pm

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby Fulub-le-Breton » Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:36 am

1. Natural Law. The highest law there is. No man or Wom(b)an can come between You and your Creator, who has granted you upon arrival on this planet, Life, Liberty and Property.


Who is your creator Graham? I arrived on this plant through a collection of hazardous events known as evolution. As such, living in a universe that has no purpose, and having a contingent existence, I recognise no creator. Does that mean, therefore, for me, their is no such thing as 'natural law'?

Graham,

I and other visitors top this forum are used to your writings but what we really want is concrete proof of the power you have claimed to obtain through your 'knowledge'. So can I suggest that: you stop paying all taxes; stop completing all official documents; stop claiming any benefits; withdraw all your money from the bank; incur fines and penalties of all sorts and then refuse to pay them. Then tell us what happens. When you have successfully demonstrated your theories I'm sure others will follow you.
Fulub-le-Breton
 
Posts: 5528
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Breizh

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby GrahamHart » Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:33 pm

You are entitled to your opinion Fulub and I respect that, but someone or some thing created us and we are forever evolving, so there has to be a creator. Some people say it's God, but I prefer the word 'creator' to avoid religious doctrine. The bible is not a religious book. It is in fact a law book written in myth and code and is "The Last Will and Testament" of God, is just like any other Last Will and Testament we make before death. "Know thyself" is a good place to start. (That's why I urge you to read Mary Crofts book. The first fifteen pages will blow your head off. ) Many sovereign citizens around the world use the bible extensively to support their standing. Though I have never read it in detail, I now see many quotes that we all know in a completely different light.

I and other visitors to this forum are used to your writings but what we really want is concrete proof of the power you have claimed to obtain through your 'knowledge'.


Of course you do and I totally accept that. It's been a year now of extremely hard studying of trial and error with some setbacks along the way, but I am now beginning to have some small successes. You write at a time when I have many irons in the fire and they are big ones as well. As soon as I know their outcomes, I will gladly let people know via this forum but I am growing in confidence by the day and know I am on the right track now.This has come about by knowing who I am and my true relationship with the Government via the Birth Certificate bond.
User avatar
GrahamHart
 
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:26 pm

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby TGG » Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:46 am

STOP THE CORNISH GENOCIDE! -
They declare their Cornishness with pride
Whilst oblivious to our genocide
That England imposes
With smiles and Red Roses
Where the innocents, so gullibly, reside.

User avatar
TGG
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:08 pm

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby factotum » Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:48 am

"What is the territory associated with this parliamentary sovereignty? Clearly it does not extend to the USA, North Korea or any other foreign country, and I'd assume it covers the territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but what about Man, The Channel Islands, other crown dependencies/protectorates, City of London, Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall? Could parliament decide to change the status of Man or the Channel Islands for example or dissolve the Duchies?"
Interesting, I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that in practise and provided no foreign power chose to intervene and no international treaties were involved, then it's a "You and Whose Army" question. And last time I looked the UK still had an army, and a navy and airforce and a few nukes too (likely to come to Cornwall in a few years if the Scots get their freedom). So yes, they could take over the IoM and the Ch. Isles any time they liked. Of course they won't because elite benefit from them as tax havens, and they royals benefit from the Duchy, so nothing is likely to change. (I don't think the D. of Lancaster has any real special status these days). Likewise if UKIP ever gets in it's "da boch chi" to the Welsh Assembly 'Government'.

Basically the flaw in all this Freeman hooey is the idea that you use a law of you own making against the establishment. Thing is the Common Law is what the judges say it is, they make it, that's what 'Common Law' means, the law common to the whole kingdom as agreed by the legal authorities, including their interpretation of statute, the whole body of case law and precedent etc. Now if you're very clever you may find loopholes in the law, ways to do things you hadn't thought possible and so on. How do you think the rich avoid most of their taxes? But it has to be real law as accepted by the courts, not something you personally happen to think is 'just' or 'right'. What about the loony who goes beserk with a shotgun because God told him to kill anyone with red hair? No doubt he sincerely believes that he's serving a higher master.

A state is nothing but a protection racket with a high-class accent. People put up with it by and large because it may perhaps offer some real protection from time to time, and because its easier to deal with one big bully than the dozens of far nastier little Hitlers who would emerge if "Law and Order" were ever to break down. What's now called a failed-state. If that's what you really want then go to Somalia or some similar place. And the state has grown lazy over time so that mostly the laws it enforces are acceptable to most people most of the time, that's what they mean by 'democracy', being an outright dictator is just too much hard work and probably not cost effective. All that's necessary is come down hard on the few who really do pose a threat, but of course it rarely comes to that. Most people just pay their protection money (sorry taxes), grumble a bit and get on with life. But make no mistake that if push comes to shove they will use whatever violence is necessary to crush dissent. That's essentially why the Freeman thing is dangerous, it gets vulnerable people into deep shit, raises false hopes and is ultimately a rip-off, just like any cult really.

Now if you were to actually really study the state system, the law, the financial system etc. and look for weaknesses, points of leverage, ways to make a change, well that would be a different matter ... but you prefer wishful thinking.
User avatar
factotum
 
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby Marhak » Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:10 pm

"Parliament is considered sovereign". By whom?
User avatar
Marhak
 
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Re: The organic myth of the British constitution

Postby factotum » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:07 am

By 99.9% of the population 99% of the time, since they obey the laws, pay their fines, rarely demonstrate etc, and make do with having a bit of a grumble now and again. Also by the all the officials, police and armed forces who've sworn personal loyalty to Mrs Windsor her heirs and successors. Not to you, me or even parliament or the 'nation' come to that.
User avatar
factotum
 
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Next

Return to Cornwall24 Discussion Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests