FREEMAN INTERVIEWS LABOUR MP DAVID HANSON ON THE 2010 LABOUR ELECTION CAMPAIGN

[lgarvey]

Man, I don't know if I am the only person who thinks this, but: the fact that "statutes have the force of law when accepted by the governed", seems like an oversight on part of the lawmakers. Because they could, in truth,restructure their law to say "the moment a bundle of cells hat we call a human being springs into existence in the UK, it owes a life time of tax;" It all seems so arbitrary. And I disagree to it entirely, but I wonder if law could be changed, 'n we are nothing but a loop hole

[THEINFOCELL]

He does not even know that we are the commons :) and they need our consent ton order to govern us..... silly boy what he is doing in politics ....

[mwhalley23]

what a load of diareea he was talking consent is needed from the person to be governed again maritime jurisdiction does not aply to common law also nobody should govern anybody we are all equal

[edtheball69]

@mwhalley23

Ashe thinks the house of commons is supreme thats what he said but thats not the reality its only their perseption and they run the company IE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION PLC and the voters voted for the new management but dont realise they are just another bunch going in to run the business exactly the same way as labour nothing will ever improve for the slaves MPs are put there to enforce statutes against the slaves to tax them for the masters benefit the royals are laughing at us

[mwhalley23]

what a load of b'''locks he was talking consent is needed from the person to be governed again maritime jurisdiction does not aply to common law also nobody should govern anybody we are all equal

[bondsan]

so if i refuse to be governed they are going to govern me anyway.

is that not slavery ? i am quite sure article 3 and 4 of the ECHR say's they can't do that !

[edtheball69]

@bondsan

But vertue of the bond your birth certificate it states do not use as identity and in red states CROWN COPYRIGHT when you start to identify yourself by that you accept being a government created thing they even give you a title MR also created by them at that point your are in servitude you had no right to use their property intelect and so by doing you accept that they created and now own you so they can tax and attack at will what you think you own owns you.

[bondsan]

@edtheball69 they oqn the bc i know that cos it bears a crown copyright and i don't have permission to use the name.

but what i'm saying is lets say i have a can of beer and i am drinking it on the srtreets (peacefully) and i receive the fine eve though i explain that i am not a company man.

that to me is forced subjugation, subjugate defined in the dictionary is.........ENSLAVE

[edtheball69]

@bondsan

You cant suffer a forfeit or fine before going in front of a jury read magna carta and bill of rights 1689 demand your rights dont pay fines they are void and the judiciary know it they force and coerce you to submit to the lesser courts dont accept it and if they dont drop it appeal to the crown court you have a right to jury for all offences read your rights Im still in magistrates after 8 months of refusing the juristiction and they beg me to give in NOT a chance I know my rights.

[edtheball69]

We did throw him out and then the sheeple were led with blindfolds to believe there would be change they all are run by the banking cartel wake up they fleeced us then they got parliament to fleece us again and are not going to remove benefits and increase taxes fines revenue wake the fuck up.

if you must vote go to british constitution group google them and sign up for real change.

[matthew376]

Tell him that in Barron's Law Dictionary, authority is defined as 'the permission or power DELEGATED TO ANOTHER' - you must DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY YOU ALREADY POSSESS

[kevrs2]

2 faced bastard ,notice his attitude change ,when he realized he wasn't talking to a sheep

[edtheball69]

@kevrs2

And he believes he an the commons are the supreme authority over the peasants however not one statute passed through parliament has had royal prerogative or assent since 1911 so they are just words on paper and can only be forced upon you with the force of a law or with consent they are corrupt bastards and evil to the rotten core.

[matthew376]

@edtheball69 Sorry but Royal Assent IS granted on certain statutes, I am not saying that that means they apply, after all the Queen is head of the UK corp. state

[edtheball69]

@matthew376

Can you direct me to one since 1911 that has her signiture on please it would help my reseach only I cant find any only those the corrupt politicians say have automated assent and dont need the queen of the slave sto sign but its automated because a previous monach sent back a bill unsigned after refusing to sign it and the then prime minist said fuck it its now automatic we dont need the bastard monach to sign we are the rulers hence no royal assent the politicians are not royal.

[sidge428]

@edtheball69 dude, you know your stuff! :)

keep it up!!

do you know what act it was when the monarch refused and the pm went ahead anyway? that'd be awesome if you could refer me to that info....and any related to it and automated assent? :)

also, if royal assent is granted (by the monarch, not automated), what does that mean for its authority?

peace

[edtheball69]

@sidge428

check out my post here.

tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f­=4&t=17751&p=131909&hilit=roya­l+assent+automatic#p131909

[jasonspinmaster]

how can people vote for bodies like that

[edtheball69]

@jasonspinmaster

Assent is given under the regal ‘Prerogative Power,’ it is invalid given to an unconstitutional act. So in a different way, one can conclude that ALL of the bills that have been made law since 1911, which includes 1972 entry into Europe, and all that follows, together with the Civil Contingencies Bill, the constitutional Reform Act, Equality Act and the Immigration Act ARE VOID.

Please research Elizabeth Beckett since 1911 laws passed are illegal just words on paper

[TheNaturalPurpose]

LANDLESS PEASANTS!

[edtheball69]

@TheNaturalPurpose

Under oaths of allegiance, theBill of Rights of 1689 make clear this country CANNOT be ruled by ANY foreign power: “No foreign, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.They also added two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights “Any amendments to the bill after the 23 October 1689 shall be void and not lawful, and this bill is for all time”.

[28318511]

This system that rapes you of labour for worthless scraps of paper. Steals your life, rapes your kids (operation ore, google hollie greig). The what is an ACT of law?

Advance corporation tax (ACT) was the scheme under which companies made an advance payment of tax when they distributed dividend payments to shareholders. The principle is similar to the way that interest earned on bank deposits in the UK normally has basic rate tax deducted by the bank before being paid to the account holder.

[28318511]

House of commons! a supreme authority!!!! don't make me laugh.

Whichever puppet wins can kiss my ass, I'll be doing what everyone else better...

...notice the beggars that we do not consent to be ruled by the incoming party because it is not our sovereign will.

[SirBobHaulk]

if you're not consenting get off the fucking pavement paid for by the tax payers you fucking twat. Oh your legal freeman is bullshit and you're a fucking muppet.

[28318511]

@SirBobHaulk - You know naught but what you are told, if you wish to live in ignorance then fine, as a small minded muppet it is your right to do so.

Some of us prefer to question the standard line, and for the record, twat! your tax goes straight to the bankers, the paths are paid mostly by annuity dividends from securities taken out on you ass as certified by your birth certificate and traded on the stock market.

But a fine upstanding sheep like you needn't concern yourself with that.

[SirBobHaulk]

@28318511 You're a member of a cult and you call me a sheep. The old birth certificate nonsense, really just admit that you're a lazy fucker and don't want to take part in society, don't dress it up in any of this shit. There is not one example of the freeman nonsense working and your leader rob menard is getting his comeuppance. Honestly you'd be funny if you weren't so delusional. Still, when you're a failure in life it's always good to pretend you're apart from everyone with secret knowledge

[28318511]

@SirBobHaulk - You call us a cult? I'm not the guy sitting up on a box dressed up in wig and black robe, with a bevy of sycophant robed priests who 'pray' to him for judgement.

Believe what you wish, that's your right. It's not my place to enforce my way on you even if I could. You mentioned, society:

societas leonina Roman law. An illegal partnership in which a partner shares in only the losses, not the profits; a partnership in which one person takes the lion's share.

[SirBobHaulk]

@28318511 more mumbo jumbo. Just one case of the freeman woo working would convince me. Got one? no, i didn't think so. Even Manard cant show one single case and he founded the cult, well i say that but he just plagiarised the work of Jordan Maxwell a well know freemason. Some say an agent of the government sent to infect the mind of people like you but don't let me put you off, what with your extensive reading of law books and that. i should invoke my fee schedule for you wasting my time

[28318511]

@SirBobHaulk - I've heard persons often mention this 'woo', never quite got their meaning. Derision is a common reaction, but your knowledge of some freeman ideas is heartening, if missplaced in my regard. You seem to have spent at least some time looking at it, at least you did a little research, most of you mindset don't. Or do you work for an interested party? As to mumbo whatsit, copied staight from their own law definitions so it's your mumbo, not mine.

[SirBobHaulk]

@28318511 got any proof? no, thought not. Like a cult no matter what a non cult member says you won't have it. Another familiar tactic is to claim i'm working for someone or i'm the police or some such rubbish. Why would you believe the freeman woo when at every turn in a court of law it doesn't work. It's not derision it's pity, it's a pity you'd buy this rubbish without checking if it's true. Patronizing stuff like my mindset just shows you're in a cult and not willing to listen to others

[28318511]

@SirBobHaulk - Okay-dokay, I'll just away and play in the sand box.

Have a nice life, I know I do (not gonna be going anywhere near a de facto court, got way! more sense than that).

lol

[SirBobHaulk]

@28318511 no proof then? thought not. I did try to help you and i'll not even invoke my fee schedule for the time i spent trying to free your mind.

[28318511]

@SirBobHaulk

Actor qui contra regulam quid adduxit, non est audiendus.

He ought not to be heard who advances a proposition contrary to the rules of law.

[SirBobHaulk]

@28318511 still no proof then? thought not. Resorting to the sand box jibe is just another attempt by a freeman to deviate from the fact you have no proof. It's the same old tactic. Shame really.

This is what it comes down to, you put forward your freeman claim, others look at it, find no evidence, point this out and you retort with one of these, you're a sheep,a child,a government agent and so it goes round in circles.

It takes cult like devotion to believe something with no proof.

[28318511]

@SirBobHaulk ;-)

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.

[edtheball69]

@28318511

The fully stated maxim is, allegedly: Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.

The Parliament Act is actually illegal under the Constitution and the 1848 Treason and Felony Act, which states that neither House, Lords nor the Commons has power above the other. The 1911 Act altered the ‘fiscal power,’ which according to our Constitution cares for all taxpayers, as stated under the Petition of Right. please google it

[SirBobHaulk]

@28318511 though fair play to you, most freemen don't allow dissent. For you to allow comments pointing out this freeman stuff is rubbish shows maybe you're not fully down the rabbit hole and can maybe crawl out. If not agreeing with the way things are there are plenty things you can do,spouting con man manards rubbish isn't one of them. The James Randi Educational Forums should clear up any questions you have on the validity of the freeman claims. I point this out because i don't like con men

[28318511]

@SirBobHaulk

SOCIETY - Black's Law 8th

1. A community of people, as of a state, nation, or locality, with common cultures,

traditions, and interests. civil society.The political body of a state or nation; the body politic.

2. An association or company of persons (usu. unincorporated) united by mutual consent, to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for a common purpose;

UNINCORPORATED PERSONS by CONSENT. The body politic, subjects to the companies rules, just rules nothing more.

[SirBobHaulk]

@28318511 you freemen must have increased the sales of Blacks Law dictionary by about 50 copies , got any proof of any case where a freeman has won in a court, a link maybe? no, thought not. I await the usual garbage about how i'm brainwashed or a sheep or some other tactic to deflect from the point that you cant show one single case of the freeman woo working

[silverfoils]

So, according to him, any statute brought in applies to you by default just because you live here. He's going to get a rude awakening soon as the freeman/sovereign movement builds. Great times are on the horizon and all it takes is one simple word. NO! Good work.

[edtheball69]

@silverfoils

I have a vision that one day, in London, with its vicious corporate elite, with its ministers having their lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in London little boys and girls will be able to join hands as sisters and brothers.

[TheHolySpirit]

Surely there is another Supreme Authority above that of the House Of Commons that he didn't mention? What does he think the Justice system is ultimately based on? ;)

[edtheball69]

@TheHolySpirit

NO according to MPs they are the supreme authority they make the statutes and get private corporations to enforce with threats and violence this is the state of the country this is a dictatorship.

[TheHolySpirit]

@edtheball69 They have self-appointed themselves the authority acting on God's behalf (by their own authority). They make you swear on the Bible in their court under their rules which, I guess, is a form of you giving consent to them. Any Christian worth their salt would know never to swear.

"And before all things, my brethren, do not swear, neither by the heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath, and let your Yes be Yes, and the No, No; that under judgment ye may not fall."

[edtheball69]

@TheHolySpirit I am to be dragged to court 22nd april i will refuse to allow them juristiction over my natural human refuse any other plea other than innocent I refuse to contract or swear on an oath I have to make a stand for mankind.

[ilabstudios]

@edtheball69, that's correct. MPs simply lobby statutes to pass through and enact them without consent of the people. Everything about politics is just a cunning mechanism to distract you from the reality of what is going on behind closed doors.

[edtheball69]

@ilabstudios

Parliament Act is illegal under the Constitution and theTreason and Felony Act, which states that neither House, Lords or Commons has power above the other. 1911 Act altered the ‘fiscal power,’according to our Constitution cares for all as stated under the Petition of Right (part of the Constitution). This puts taxation illegally into the hands of the majority political party in the Commons, and without any amendment allowed from the House of Lords.

statutes from 1911 are illegal