whats the law in uk??

v12xjs

Well-Known Member
Hey Tip Top, there are 2 distinct kinds of law in UK, common law and criminal law. I think you are getting them mixed up. Wiki the difference between them for a better explanation than I can give you. Suffice to say that cannabis cultivation is a criminal offence and no amount of common law cuteness will get you out of it.
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
Hey Tip Top, there are 2 distinct kinds of law in UK, common law and criminal law. I think you are getting them mixed up. Wiki the difference between them for a better explanation than I can give you. Suffice to say that cannabis cultivation is a criminal offence and no amount of common law cuteness will get you out of it.
cannabis is not illegal under law of the land. It is not causing harm, loss, or injury to anyone not of their own free will. Even if the statute is assented by the queen and becomes her law, it is irrelevent if you are not a "serf". The only Law that states that you can not grow cannabis is an act of parliament, a statute, there is not a common law stating you may not, there is a parliament passed statute, a contract, only applicable to members of the United Kingdom Corporation. If you have a birth certificate, you will by now have your NI number, that is your company number, you are an employee who follows the rules.

By law, the reason that you are a member, a worker even, is that a contract was created at birth, in the form of your birth certificate. This certificate is a fraudulently created contract however, and if contested, cannot stand legal scrutiny, no acceptance was made between both parties, and only one of the aprties actually gave a wet sign, you, the being held in a contract, never agreed, nor signed. It is void. Only we are conditioned not to know this, and as such, not question it, but if you question it, and do as is needed, by law they will end up having to cut you from the community, to become a freeman.

As i say, i've a heck of a lot more research to do, but it works, in the UK, and also all over the world. The reason being that the whole world, pretty much, follows the law of the UCC (i think that's the one) and as such, they all follow the same fraudulant proceedure and can be done over in the same way.

Here's a good video, just the fact that they were lawfully allowed a camera in court confused my father enough (it is ilegal to record in court, not unlawful though)

[youtube]uU7G6XIMt2Q[/youtube]

in this kind of thing though, i'm not taking anything i read or watch as given, i'm sat around just googling definitions half the time.
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
Couldn't be bothered to right it so nabbed someone elses paragraph

"
Anything that requires a 'License' and subsequently can be granted a 'license' to make something 'LEGAL' as opposed to 'illegal' without said license IS essentially Lawful under common Law, the Law of the Land.
For example, thru the issuance of a license from the home office to GW-Pharmacuticals a UK Cannabis Cultivation farm which enables them to legally grow over 5,000 cannabis plants 4 times per year"

I've briefly read into that area, and it is absolutely correct.
 

Bigby

Well-Known Member
It is basically all revolving around common law. I cannot explain easily, i've been reading for days and days now, sooo much data.

Basically an ACT is a STATUTE which is not a LAW. A statute/act is a contract, that must be signed and agreed on by both parties and there is a criteria that must be met Basically when you are born, ownership of the child is signed away to the government in place of a certifgicate of entitlement (basically saying that you do not own it but may use it) and as you get older, you'#re given a NI number. This NI number Means that you are an employee of the united kingdom, and the statues and acts that the government of the united kingdom (the governemnt is literally the executive officers of a corportation, the United Kingdom Corporation).

By law you may revoke your NI number, and become a freeman of the land. This means that syou promise to comply with common law which states that you must not harm, cause loss, or injuree someone, and this encompasses anything bad. If you break this, then you're nicked, but if you cause no harm, noone can do anything,

A policemans job is to uphold the (common) law, as is any servant of the people (governemnt rule and control the fictional entities the birth certificate creates, not the human-being, and because the government is in itself a fictional entity, they UST work withinside the framwork of common law, and cannot control human beings.

Basically EVERYTHING comes down to your choice of words and where they are placed.

It is bloody fascinating, been reading since i woke about 7 hours ago.

example of the power you hold that you don't know exists



(source: /www.fmotl.com)
That is hands down the most epic thing ive read so far this week. Great link too. +rep and +karma to you my man :blsmoke:
 

v12xjs

Well-Known Member
I watched the video but I guess you didn't read the difference between criminal law and common law so you obviously believe that common law is the law of the land in UK. This is not the case.
The vid you posted relates to non payment of council tax which isn't even a criminal offence so I fail to see any relevance.
Check this thread and particularly the 3rd post for clarification that council tax evasion is not a criminal offence:
http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=116989

The video does seem to show some embarassed magistrates but nobody was cleared of anything or had any charges dropped against them and I noticed a quick flash of blue that stated something had actually been paid anyway, which kind of makes the whole charade somewhat pointless. The fact that it doesn't even relate to a criminal offence also makes it irrelevant to the present discussion.

You are telling people here that they can grow weed in the UK without any problems which is a bold statement. Do you actually have any evidence at all that anybody has ever got away with a cultivation charge through the methods you suggest?
Perhaps you should check out the case of Edwin Stratton as he mistakenly believes what you do. I fear for Edwin because the sentence he eventually recieves will reflect the amount of aggro he has caused the system.

The thing about a licence is utter bollocks. It doesn't make anything legal, it merely excludes the licence holder from the penalties normally associated with the activity.
Please google the definition of criminal law and then the definition of common or civil law. Common law is not the law of the land, it is defined by precedent of judges and as your vid points out, we don't even need to trust a judge. Read the definition for yourself.
Criminal law is dictated by acts of parliament and is therefore the law of the land.
The person who originally posted your quote clearly stated in block capitals that he wasn't sure of what he was posting, it was just his UNDERSTANDING. Perhaps you should have mentioned that fact. Either way, I'm telling you for sure he's miles off.
 

asap

Active Member
V12xjs Im assuming you have a very conditioned mind, The common law was set out in our constituional rights and yes we do have them in England, The Magna Carter etc and the constitutional rights in the US are based on ours hence why the prisoners of guantanamo bay were released under part of the magna carter.... Basically by serving a notice to the queen of your intent to be a freeman on the land because you believe the whole system to be fraudulent is a more than valid thing to do, the system is definately fraudulent and is proveable in many ways for a starters there is The United Kingdom Corporation which is in chapter 11 bankrupcy (Chapter 11 still allows the company to trade)
This opens up the easiest way to prove that the whole system is fraudulent....I challenge you to take your twenty pound note into the bank of england and ask them to pay the bearer which is you what is rightfully yours. Under law they should provide you with gold totalling a value of £20 at a rate set by the international monetary fund. Which they cannot do because the country is bankrupt.

There are only three laws you must adhere to if you seperate yourself from the fraudulent contract and they are do not harm another human being, do not take from another human being something that is lawfully (not legally 2 different things) theirs and finally not to disturb the peace, hence why police officers under common law are actually called "peace officers".

Oh and The Local Government Finance ACT 1992 is there to enforce the payment of council tax. Being an act it falls under statute law which is also refered to as the law of the sea and requires a contract to be enforced, so should you not want to contract you dont have to which i believe comes under section 61 of the magna carter.

So the evidence is there for all to see and a judge is a flesh and blood human being so considered equal to all others and only once under oath does he carry the power to sentance you.
 

v12xjs

Well-Known Member
Hey asap.
FWIW I'll repeat the fact that Edwin Stratton is the most recent case I know who is trying to challenge cannabis cultivation laws using common law as his defence. In May he was found guilty and given a suspended sentence with a £500 fine despite having the support of the Drug Equality Alliance and some fine legal minds working on his behalf. Here's a link to the full text of the case.
http://www.drugequality.org/cases.htm#edwin
This is entirely relevant to the OP question and does kind of fly in the face of what you and TTT are saying does it not?


Would it be too much to ask that either yourself or TTT just post a link to someone who has successfully defended such a charge instead of all these irrelevant points?
It would help support the claim and I'd be happy to eat my words if there is such a case, although I'm sure it would have been posted by now if there was one.

As it happens I am trained both to prosecute and defend legal actions brought under the common law duty of care, so I have some understanding of the subject. Here's a link to a very concise explanation of the key differences between criminal law, common law and contract law written in layman terms, it begins on page 5. Hope it helps:
http://www.healthandsafetybusiness.com/Summer08/Articles/942A.2.6u07.pdf
 

rs444

Member
This is all absolutely fascinating, and although I wish that this Freeman law was possible, as I know that all the systems put in place throughout this country are corrupt, I agree with V12xjs, because basically, this cannot be done.

For example, it was stated that the prisoners of guantanamo bay were released using the magna carter which are basically our constitutional rights, but the thing is, where were these rights when they were imprisoned in the first place without trial? Many held for years still without trial or prosecution.

At the end of the day, no matter what law or ruse you try to use, the system is built in such a way that we the normal people cannot win. They will always find some sort or way to beat us, or if not, they will make an example of us and set a precedent for future cases.

The only true way to be a Freeman? Unfortunately, be a Outlaw and truly do not follow their rules...

I wish it was possible, but if it was, then someone would have fully done this by now, surely they would have shared the knowledge of how to do it, and everyone would be doing it!
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
On his refusal to accept a caution and thus acknowledge culpability, Edwin was charged with production of a controlled drug of Class C, by another, in contravention of section 4 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
That is my whole point, i have no care in the world to goto court with regard to cannabis and trey and win it legally. I can grow cannabis Lawfully. If i am not a member of the United kingdom corporation, then that act, the miuse of drugs act, well it is nothing, it does not aply to me in any way whatsoever, it is completely unlawful and illegal for them to charge me under an Act, if i am a freeman (or at least this is still what everything states that i'm reading)

And by law, the government must allow you to become a freeman and revoke your birth cirtificate. If this is done, your person does not exist, they cannot charge you because they have no person to charge, just a human being who has jurisdiction over them. There are a whole heap o reasons you wouldn't want to be a gfreeman, healthcare, pension, the dole, but hey, if you can grow all the dope you like, sod BUPA expenses, that's pocket change.

I will state again that i am still reading into all this and have taken no mans reply as word, i'm reading into it all and having to translate lots. And so far all evience points to everything we know being utter bullshit, with a hefty side order of bullshit to convince you not to question the main course of shit.
 

v12xjs

Well-Known Member
Greets from manchester rs.
Thanks for that quote TTT. I hadn't noticed Edwin was busted while it was still a class c drug.
I wondered why he wasn't doing time.

That is my whole point, i have no care in the world to goto court with regard to cannabis and trey and win it legally. I can grow cannabis Lawfully. If i am not a member of the United kingdom corporation, then that act, the miuse of drugs act, well it is nothing, it does not aply to me in any way whatsoever, it is completely unlawful and illegal for them to charge me under an Act, if i am a freeman (or at least this is still what everything states that i'm reading)


Just bear in mind that once you have been busted it is too late to use the freeman thing as a defence. You would have to declare your freeman status before you started the grow in order for it to have any bearing on the outcome of a trial, otherwise the grow was undertaken by a citizen with a contract to honour the law who now wishes to not honour the law just so he can get off with the charge. That's if I understand your point correctly of course.
That's kind of why Edwin will not win his appeal. He needed to assert his right to legally grow before he was caught growing illegally.

I'm still doubtful about the validity of the freeman thing though. At the end of the day even ancient laws such as those quoted were laid down by the monarch and ruler of the land. All today's laws are similarly voted through the elected house of parliament, the house of lords and finally signed by the current monarch, so I don't see why there's a cutoff point where only 3 laws apply and the rest are somehow unenforceable. Please clarify.
Even if it were so I would stand to lose my passport and my state pension and on that basis alone it would be a non starter for me. National insurance exemption also rules out the use of the health service. Would you really give that up to do a grow that you may not even get busted for?

I also notice that in refusing to acknowledge anything but the 3 freeman laws you use fraud as a reason. Wouldn't that require fraud to be recognised as an offence an therefore mean that there were 4 laws? Please clarify.

I've been considering legal arguments for cannabis use since I was first busted in the 80's and funny enough I now suspect health and safety law is be the way forward. Under both common law and criminal law we all carry a responsibility not to harm others. It is also enshrined in international law, so in giving GW Pharm a licence to produce pure cannabis products for sale to Canada, Spain and now even within the UK the government has acknowledged that the drugs are safe. If they weren't then they couldn't have allowed the licence knowing they could cause harm.
I think it will be far easier to challenge cannabis law in the knowledge that the government cannot possibly now argue that it is unsafe without criminalising themselves at national and international level.

As for me, I don't decry people wanting to grow their own. I wouldn't post here if I did. I'm not sure I want change though. I've toked pretty well every day since the mid 70's, been busted twice in the 80's and got a £30 fine both times. I grow because I don't like the people I have to deal with if I don't and legalizing draw would be empowering those same people. That scares me much more than the prospect of being busted for my pathetic little grow.
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
I don't doubt that. kIf i got busted tomorrow, i'd just go through court like anyone else.

with regard to the fraud, this is fraud udner their law (their statutes i should say). They are required by statute, to follow their statutes just as everyone else is, and one of these, contains the 4 requirements for a contract becoming valid, so by their own system, they have commited fraud in havine someone else other than the actual party in mention, sign off on a contract. By their own acts, this is illegal.

Like you say, i'm in no means set in stone, it's all too wow to take straight at face value, but it's interesting enough that i can continue to read into this :) With regard to what you are sarificing, such as health care, well 1. i avoid the doctors and such like the plague, havn't been in maybe 5 years now, even for broken bones, i just ignore em and carry on as is. 2. if hypothetically i couuld grow as much cannabis as i like and sell as much as i like, then i cna easily afford better, private health care, without a humongous waiting list and all that. It can be argued and looked at from many directions, depending on what your intended use of your freedom is. For average joe, losing healthcare and such, all for what? there is no benficial reason for them, for me, the ability to have a big tent and not have to care a worry in the world, that would be bliss (and yes, i'd rather do it in england as a freeman than find myself living in the states or spain etc.

can't talk longer, work beckons
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
For those of you facing court sometime soon you had best take note of this:

This is going to be part empowerment and part technical, but it is more empowerment than anything else!

KNOW WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE:
You are one down from God. Understand that there is God, then there is you. Does commerce, corporations or statutes come between you and god? No. So, there are no rules that can govern you in your “Man” capacity.

Believe me they know this, and it scares them silly! Why do you think it is that they go through all of the pompous acting, black robes (costumes) and have their benches so much higher than you? Its so they can create the illusion of being superior!! I'll tell you now, they are nothing of the sort and they know it, that is why we have had judges leave court in terrible fits of temper!!

YOU ARE THE COURT! Why? Because in your “man” capacity you reign supreme below only God himself, understand? How is it possible for a corporation to have jurisdiction over something that is 2nd only to God?

So you see belief in your rightful place is the beginning and in fact, if you know how to behave, the end of their jurisdiction!

Ok, a little role play here:
You go into the courthouse to assist the court in dealing with a liability that has been attached to your “strawman fiction”.
You have hurdles to get over, bluffs from the court to get past and then a few points to make!! Bamm!

You enter the courthouse, and are met by an usher/register bearer, he/she asks for your name, how do you answer?
“A name is a legal title”. You give them this & you’re cooked before you begin! Try “hello I am called Guy I am an interested 3rd party and I am here about that matter”

Now she may say I need your name, you can’t go in without giving me your name! Bluff! You must alter your voice and attitude become fervent in your assertion, “I am called Guy and I am an interested 3rd party and I am here about that matter now tell the judge I am here!!” (bold for emphasis) try not to be too angry looking, trust me they probably don’t know, and are just doing their jobs. Ignorance is the corporations best weapon, so many people I have met have given up because the fight through the stupidity is so hard, it’s like treading water that’s really treacle!

Once they have disappeared to tell the judge an angry fellow has come in and he won’t give me his name, you can expect more theatrics; perhaps a barrister will come and pay you a visit and try the same old tricks to try to get you to contract.

Answer no straight questions, especially DO NOT give your “persons” name, separate the two, you’re a “man” remember that!

Once you have got passed that you may be asked to attend the judge’s chambers, if so you can go, don’t answer to the name of your person, you are the man, if they call a name, respond with “I’m sorry did you call Guy Euden? If you did I am an interested 3rd party and I am here about that matter!”

As you go through and the judge swings his doors open and says “come in come in” invitingly! You must not cross the threshold/doorframe, you must before stepping through, state, “I will enter sir if I may do so with all of my unalienable rights reserved?” well he can’t say no can he? If he chooses not to acknowledge what you have just said and tries to brush past the statement, you must repeat and get his agreement, no agreement, no entry!!

Once that is passed you might be offered a seat, I would say actually “sir I will stand and will do so with all of my unalienable rights reserved!”

Ok so far so good, no jurisdiction given away here YET!

Ask him if your attendance in his chambers is going to be recorded “so that a no show isn’t pulled on you”

Ok once this is all done and you have established you’re not going to be prey to his jurisdiction you can hammer out your desire to assist and help the court settle and close this account etc etc.... don’t answer questions with answers, answer them with questions and get what you want done across.

THE COURT ROOM
The courtroom is no different from chambers, when you enter you do not answer to the called name, you state clearly that “you are here about that matter”

Enter the courtroom reserving all of your unalienable rights.

When you hear the “ALL RISE” .......... STAY SEATED, remember your status GOD>YOU>CORPORATION would that Judge rise for you? I doubt it! You do not get up for him at all! You get up when you want to get up.

If the clerk rushes over and says you must stand or you must leave ask on whose authority are you asking me to leave?
After all this is YOUR COURT ROOM NOW!! You are the highest authority in that court, A living MAN 2nd only to God!

Now the old “please state your name and address for the court” twoddle!!! you do NOT do this, you can ask “if I gave you this information would I be entering into contract with you?” if he states no he’d be lying, if he states yes you are giving him nothing, so answer “then sir I decline your offer to contract, and you may call me Guy. I am here to assist this court in settlement and closure of this account” oooooohhh he won’t like that!!

If you don’t answer that way you could try, “I have no name sir, names are for corporations, you may address me as Guy”
Ohh just look into his seething eyes!! This alone is worth going for!

Remember your mantra! “YOU ARE AN INTERESTED 3rd PARTY HERE TO ASSIST THE COURT IN SETTLEMENT AND CLOSURE OF THIS ACCOUNT”
I’ll break this down a little for you, I am the only contributing beneficiary to the “GUY EUDEN” trust “NI number” so I am the only interested party capable of dealing with matters pertaining to the said trust!

THE OATH yes the judge has an oath of office, you see there are two types of judges:
Levitical and Melchesidec
The levitical goes back to a time when a levitical priest went about his business and settled disputes, he used his “judgement” he then took a payment for solving the dispute. There are no rules here, he does whatever he feels he wants to, hence why you need that levitical judge to hold his tongue
You do this by asking him: “for and on the record sir, do you have an oath of office?”, he might answer “well I think I may have wrote something on a piece of paper... somewhere?” the usual garbage you would expect from a corporate judge or trustee of the Corporate Court, who just wants to get paid!
So you then ask him: is your oath in this courtroom today? He can answer many ways, but 99% of the time it isn’t, so you reiterate: “but you do have an oath of office?” whatever he comes back with, hold your hand high in the air and state loudly and clearly “FOR AND ON THE RECORD, THE COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE OF JUDGE *******’s OATH OF OFFICE!”
Then turn to the judge and make sure that has been recorded, if he declines to do it then you must ask him to leave the court, fire him!, as he is nothing more than a corporate lackie!! And is not worthy to be sitting there in any kind of a judgment position! If it has been put on the record as so ordered by yourself, then, the judge is now recognised as a melchesidec judge and cannot practice law from the bench. He is now just an umpire, and must remain silent most of the time, now you only have to deal with the plaintiff.

Oh if he tries to preach law from the bench, shout out “Sir, you are on your oath!!!” flagrant breaches of this rule and you can issue a bond, or a lien against him.
Ok now things may take a bit of a dive, they will be wanting to contract and have been known not to want to play if they can’t get you into contract, even screaming, blowing gaskets etc... ha ha, I tell you can have some dam fun with this!! “sir are you ok?, would you like me to call for help? Are you suffering an attack?, would you like a 10 minute recess to compose yourself? I am happy to grant one! HAHAHA oh God please it’s just too much fun!! Just remember its all acting!!

You may be screamed at: blah blah blah!!! “or you will be held in contempt of court” ok... “ what contempt would that be sir? If it’s criminal, please bring forth the injured party as I wish to make recompense!! Or is it civil? If so please show me the contract of performance I have agreed to?” or just “please bring forth the contract”

During however long you are in there the judge will try to catch you in the jurisdiction trap, calling you: sir, mr, miss, mrs blah blah, we used to have to keep fighting that with something like “sir you keep referring to me as a corporation, do I look like a corporation to you?” look genuinely distressed at this, your honour is at stake here!

This would usually get really boring and make the court appearance a real bore, now it’s easier, use this:
“Sir you keep referring to me as a corporation, I am however just a man, if it assists you though I will grant you that courtesy” this nullifies his whole name calling shooting match, watch for fireworks, some friends of mine had a high court of chancery judge leave the court due to this, he was in a frightful rage ha ha ha well done “S” and “L” YOU DO NOT GET IN THE DOCK (DOCKS ARE FOR SHIPS) ADMIRALTY.... GET IT?
YOU DO NOT DO ANYTHING ASKED OF YOU
YOU DO NOT HAVE A NAME
YOU WANT WATER LIKE THE REST OF THEM!
YOUR SEAT BETTER BE AS GOOD ASWELL!
YOU DO NOT STAND WHEN ALL RISE IS SHOUTED
YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE PRESENCE IN THAT COURT, YOU ARE THE ONLY NON FICTICIOUS CREATION THERE
AND YOU ARE SECOND ONLY TO GOD HIMSELF!
Source: http://www.tpuc.org/content/courtroom-more-just-game-i-think-not

I find that that article relly nicely dumbs the concept down and makes it a bit more understandable in one sitting.
 

asap

Active Member
Just a quick point Edwin Stratton is fighting the human rights act etc so he has entered into a contract with the corporation by understanding his so called charges.......I go pulled over by the police last night after 10 mins on his radio he decided not to proceed any further with the 75 in a 60 speeding charge lol.................practice will make perfect!!
 

v12xjs

Well-Known Member
Good points both.
Pleae don't misunderstand mine, it was meant to be accurate not offensive.
We seem to have jacked the thread but I'm good to debate some more.
 

asap

Active Member
I believe every person is conditioned from a very young age not to challenge the corporation which is understandable but power corrupts and when you really take note you can see it more clearly, the whole why is weed considered illegal when tobacco and alcohol are considered safe enough for consumption, could it be the fact that it is in the corporations best interests commercially to allow the consumption of alcohol and tobacco?
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
I'm a bit tired to go into lots of detail tonight, but i've spent the past weekdn reading reading reading, and it really doesn't look like the government can do ANYTHING to you lawfully unless you have committed a genuine crime. One word from the accused can alter dismissal or a guilty verdict.
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
Will do. It's one of those subjects where i coul read for years and years without stopping. I need to make some difinitive choice and take it to the next step, even if this is simply trying to busk in a "restricted area" and getting some first hand experience at talking the talk.

I'm still trying to get my head around who has what rights. I know about what a freeman is allowed to do and such, but from research it also looks like even if you are just average joe, and get nicked (council tax is the biggest one out there) then you can still walk straight out of court, freeman or not, purely by choosing your words wisely, this i still need to read into and clarify.

Research research research research :D got the whole workplace hooked on the concept as well :)
 

getafix

Member
The law in the UK does not like it when you grow weed. You can have the seeds but they are for souvenir purposes. Your sentence will depend on how many plants you grow and if the police can prove that you were selling. If you have less than 6-8 plants and is for personal use you will be doing community service and loose all your kit. Too many plants and that is enough for the police to say that you are dealing and that could lead to a vacation on the Queen's expense.
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
The law in the UK does not like it when you grow weed. You can have the seeds but they are for souvenir purposes. Your sentence will depend on how many plants you grow and if the police can prove that you were selling. If you have less than 6-8 plants and is for personal use you will be doing community service and loose all your kit. Too many plants and that is enough for the police to say that you are dealing and that could lead to a vacation on the Queen's expense.
This is the point of my posts in this thread, the law does not say anything of the sort. There is no law anywhere which states that you may not grow and consume whatever the hell you like. There are acts, such as the misuse of drugs act, but this is an act, given the force of law. It is a statute law. And as such, this statute can ONLY be applicable to consenting citizens. Which by default, you are not. Your birth cirtificate, the legal contract which created your legal person, is not a legal contract by their own laws. You never consented, you never signed in wet ink, the contract is void, but only so long as you make this clear. The governemnt are more than happy to continue to lie to you and tell you that you are a member of the United Kingdom, but only so long as you do not dispute it. The governemnt knows full and well what you are rightfully allowed to do, grow, drive, shoot etc etc, and this terrifies them, so they will do anything to convince you that you are wrong, and as such, convince you to consent. Hence lines such as "contempt of court" You need to then ask the judge if this is civil or criminal contempt. If civil, then the judge must provide the consented contract, there was none, you can't be in contempt, if criminal contempt, the judge nmust now bring forward the claimant, there is none, you cannot be in contempt.

It is just a big game, with a team of very very bad losers.
 
Top