EU referendum

[blueonblue]

Your rights as a free man can not be over ridden by statute created by parliament, full stop.

Both the Magna carter and the Bill of rights (1689) stand above parliament, Criminal cases have the right to trial by jury, civil cases have the right to the Queens bench.
You have an absolute right to silence, and that includes writing or signing anything, your point on tax is interesting because it highlights one of the most contentious issues, try looking up "Lawful rebellion" and try finding any case that has been taken before a court by the taxman.


Rights can never be taken away, but you can give them up, dont do it in ignorance.

 

[D-Raheem-ing of big ears]

Your rights as a free man can not be over ridden by statute created by parliament, full stop.

Both the Magna carter and the Bill of rights (1689) stand above parliament, Criminal cases have the right to trial by jury, civil cases have the right to the Queens bench.
You have an absolute right to silence, and that includes writing or signing anything, your point on tax is interesting because it highlights one of the most contentious issues, try looking up "Lawful rebellion" and try finding any case that has been taken before a court by the taxman.


Rights can never be taken away, but you can give them up, dont do it in ignorance.

Would such a "free man" be equivilent to a "freeman of the land" ?

You sound like you have been watching too many of youtube videos made by the charlatans trying to sell you their products. Freeman of the land rubbish bears little resemblance to real law because it has been made up by the aforementioned salespeople trying to sell you american style self-help books or elaborated on by well-meaning, but confused people who have never studied law at approved academic or professional standards.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

As for the rest, Magna carta no longer has any standing on English law, it was annulled a few months after it was passed. Most of you what hear about magna carta being the cornerstone of modern democracy in the MSM by politicians and their like, is hyperbole and mythology. It is good timing actually, because the concept piqued my interest yesterday so it take me too long to pull out this article again.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/12/guardian-view-on-magna-carta-magic-of-myth

Most of the other stuff you are regurgitating has already been covered by denislawsbackheel so I won't answer that.

But I will make it clear that the stuff you say about parliament not having the right to override rights by statute is absolute bollocks. They have an almost unlimited power to do that, the cornerstone of our constitution is supremacy [also referred to as sovereignty] of parliament, which means that new laws naturally take precedence over old laws, whether they are statute, common law or equitable. There are checks and balances of course, however the most influential of these is the ECHR, but as we don't have a constitutional court, the Supreme court can only ever declare laws incompatible with the convention and put the onus on ministers and parliament to correct this, they don't have the power to overrule like in the US, for instance.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Your rights as a free man can not be over ridden by statute created by parliament, full stop.

Both the Magna carter and the Bill of rights (1689) stand above parliament, Criminal cases have the right to trial by jury, civil cases have the right to the Queens bench.
You have an absolute right to silence, and that includes writing or signing anything, your point on tax is interesting because it highlights one of the most contentious issues, try looking up "Lawful rebellion" and try finding any case that has been taken before a court by the taxman.


Rights can never be taken away, but you can give them up, dont do it in ignorance.

Is that the one written by Michael Caine?

I would not have responded to you originally if I had realised you were one of those freemen of the land nut jobs.

 

[blueonblue]

I suggest you read up any statute, you will see "Is given the force of law by the consent of the governed", so not only does that confirm it is NOT a law, but that there is a higher authority to which it is subject, common law, which still stands as the highest ranked law.

• Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights 1688 set out (restate) our unalienable RIGHTS derived from the common law. They are beyond the reach of parliament and they can NEVER revoke (repeal) them.
• Article 61 Magna Carta 1215 is the constitutional Security Clause to protect the people from a corrupt or despotic government providing us lawful excuse to refuse to cooperate with any Crown agency or law.
• Article 61 was most recently correctly invoked by the Committee of the Barons in March 2001 and continues to remain in effect until redress of grievance.
• Halesbury’s Vol.44 clearly describes Magna Carta 1215 as a “constitutional statute”. Constitutional statutes are immune from implied repeal.

 

[D-Raheem-ing of big ears]

I suggest you read up any statute, you will see "Is given the force of law by the consent of the governed", so not only does that confirm it is NOT a law, but that there is a higher authority to which it is subject, common law, which still stands as the highest ranked law.

• Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights 1688 set out (restate) our unalienable RIGHTS derived from the common law. They are beyond the reach of parliament and they can NEVER revoke (repeal) them.
• Article 61 Magna Carta 1215 is the constitutional Security Clause to protect the people from a corrupt or despotic government providing us lawful excuse to refuse to cooperate with any Crown agency or law.
• Article 61 was most recently correctly invoked by the Committee of the Barons in March 2001 and continues to remain in effect until redress of grievance.
• Halesbury’s Vol.44 clearly describes Magna Carta 1215 as a “constitutional statute”. Constitutional statutes are immune from implied repeal.

Lol. You sound like a robot on auto response. There is no such thing as a true constitutional statute in English law, because we don't have a codified written constitution, and there is no such thing as higher law. I have already told you the basis of our constitution above. You don't have to take my word for it, I highly doubt you will. I suggest you go and read about the subject using recognised and authoritative scholarship; Walter Bagehot's "The English Constitution" is just one example. If you do actually care about the subject enough, you might want to invest time and money educating yourself on it. Not spending a few hours reading on the internet and declaring yourself an expert.

You are my no means obliged to do that, but if you do recite freeman of the land legalese, you will be laughed at and rightly held as equivalent to a member of the flat earth society.

The basic tenet of freeman-ism is that it's members believe they have a book of cheat codes, which they can use to escape legal responsibility. That is simplistic reductionist tosh.

 

[blueonblue]

Yeah, you keep believing that bud ;0)

 

[D-Raheem-ing of big ears]

Yeah, you keep believing that bud ;0)

Do you also believe in reptilian shape-shifters and dispute the existence of the Earth's moon?

 

[I Hart Man City]

The basic tenet of freeman-ism is that it's members believe they have a book of cheat codes, which they can use to escape legal responsibility. That is simplistic reductionist tosh.

I don't have anything to add and wouldn't be able to do so to the standard of the excellent responses given by you and denislawsbackheel but I wanted to quote these two sentences for their sheer brilliance.

 

[D-Raheem-ing of big ears]

I can't take credit for that unfortunately. The first sentence was paraphrasing an extract from the article I linked from rational wiki, all I did was sex it up a it.

 

[blueonblue]

An sheep stick together ;0)