The United Kingdom Is Under Common Law Jurisdiction
Police Constables acting as Police Officers are not acting under “Oath Of Office” and have no authority over any other human being without the consent of that individual. No consent no contract and no authority. They are upholding Commercial Law in the interests of a corporation in commerce for profit or commercial gain.
Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: “Before we have any inquiry we have a knee jerk reaction from the prime minister. We have real concerns about direct entry to the police service as we believe that in order to understand and appreciate the importance of policing by consent and the style of operational policing in this country, everyone should start at the rank of constable. We also have an entirely different legal system in this country to that used overseas and it is imperative that senior officers and leaders in policing have a real working knowledge of it.”
Consent is required, as stated by Teresa May MP, Home Secretary & Minister for women and equalities, on the Mainstream BBC news when she stated, “the way we police in the UK is by consent”.
She also said “The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.
The information contained herein can be read in two different ways. It can be read as anarchy (it isn’t), or it can be read as essential knowledge and truths (it is). Any police officers reading this are advised to look at it in the latter way, because it applies to them, their families, and all their descendants. It is provided in order to protect all peoples – not just the author.
The second fundamental type, which is not law but instead is policy, is called Statute law. This is “the law of the sea”, it is not the law of the land.
The Police Force are engaged in enforcing both kinds as if they were one and the same when – in point of fact – they are almost totally different, as will be shown conclusively herein.
This is law, and everyone is subject to it (whether they like it or not). It treats everyone as an equal and defines standards which uphold the human condition. It is based upon certain original codifications (e.g. the Magna Carta 1215) and decisions made by judges down the ages. Common law is applicable to each and every human being as a sovereign individual. What is meant by that is each and every one of us is entirely responsible for our own actions.
And that means police are fully responsible for every action they take, and everything they do to any other person. If they take any unlawful action having been given an order to do so, then whoever gave that order was an accomplice.
Consequently it is incumbent upon each individual to ensure that any order carried out is lawful. The onus is on the individual to check this first, because it is their action.
Common law says so. (And so did the Nuremberg Trials after WWII – “I was only obeying orders” was not a defence)
Some useful excepts from Common law are inserted below for guidance. It it recommended that they are studied carefully. Some notes have been added. The relevance of the notes should only be considered after having further read the section on Statute law.
One is told that the Magna Carta is an historic, iconic thing that has long been superceded. It hasn’t, for two reasons. Firstly it covered itself by declaring that it could not be superceded in any way whatsoever, and bore the Royal Seal. Secondly, no Statute could possibly supercede it, as can be seen by further reading the section on Statute law. Consequently it stands. It is the law. And all Common law is based on it. It is, therefore, well worth knowing what it says.
Magna Carta prelude
We have also granted to all free men of our kingdom, for ourselves and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written below, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever:
Magna Carta Art. 13
And the city of London shall have all its ancient liberties and free customs as well by land as by water. Furthermore, we will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.
Magna Carta Art 20
A free man shall not be amerced for a trivial offence except in accordance with the degree of the offence, and for a grave offence he shall be amerced in accordance with its gravity, yet saving his way of living; and a merchant in the same way, saving his stock-in-trade; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his means of livelihood–if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of good men of the neighbourhood.
Not wearing seat belts? Wheely bins out on the wrong day? Parking on a yellow line? Pretty trivial offences. These all need the “oath of good men of the neighbourhood” to determine the amount of any fine. Consequently, if any “good men of the neighbourhood” grunt, and say the police should be “catching criminals instead of wasting time on such trivialities” – then they have every right to do so under Common law. “Good men of the neighbourhood” have every right to film police, in order to ensure that they abide by Common law. “On the spot fines” are totally unlawful.
Magna Carta Art 38
In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own un-supported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
Can’t incriminate oneself. Confessions don’t count. What, therefore, is the point of beating a confession out of someone?
Magna Carta Art 39
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
The ‘law of the land’ is Common law. Statues (see below) are the “law of the sea”. Most of the time we are on land. “On the spot fines” are totally unlawful.
Magna Carta Art 45
We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well
That means the police need to know all this, and act accordingly.
Magna Carta Art 52
If anyone has been disseised of or kept out of his lands, castles, franchises or his right by us without the legal judgment of his peers, we will immediately restore them to him:
Magna Carta Art 55
All fines made with us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements imposed unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted, or else let them be settled by the judgment of the twenty-five barons who are mentioned below in the clause for securing the peace [i.e. Art 61]
The fact that we no longer have the 25 Barons on our side is irrelevant, since the first part of the sentence says “shall be entirely remitted”. All fines imposed unlawfully (are we talking billion of £s?) must be returned forthwith. Carrying on fining people unlawfully is only compounding the ultimate problem of reparations.
Magna Carta Art 61
Defines what happens to a grievance, and how it is resolved. In essence the Monarch is petitioned. If the grievance is not resolved within 40 days, then the Monarch’s lands and possessions are forfeit – until the grievance is resolved. Until this occurs all, and everyone in the land, are considered to be in Lawful Rebellion. Allegiance to the Monarch is temporarily withdrawn during this period. Today, since Parliament is the property of the Monarch (who has the power to open and, where necessary, dissolve it), Lawful Rebellion must include not only ignoring, but throwing the largest spanners possible, into the affairs of Parliament. Article 61 spells this out clearly, as everyone’s DUTY, in words of more-or-less one syllable.
The Queen has the power to dissolve Parliament and tell us to elect another one in order to resolve the original grievance. That’s our system. And that’s how it works. (Or should work under our Constitutional Monarchy). That’s what makes Britain British.
Personally speaking I consider being tracked and traced wherever I go, and whatever I do, to be a serious grievance. I also consider that signing treaties which hand over law-making to some foreign power not only a serious grievance, but high treason under the British Constitution.
As mentioned above, is “law of the sea”. Consequently, on land, it is not, necessarily, the law. Statutes are made by Parliament, as everyone knows, and is called an “Act” once signed by the Monarch.
“… by the consent of the governed”. Of course this is correct, because it is the governed who elect the Government – to create the Statute.
Statute law is Admiralty law, Maritime law, Civil law, Commerce law, Fleet law … you can call it whatever you wish. It treats an individual as a CORPORATION, or a ‘unit’ such as a SHIP – not the sovereign human being of Common law. (Statute law is where we get ownerSHIP, citizenSHIP. etc from. It’s also where “The Dock” comes from, in a court)
A Statute requires my consent before it carries any force of law upon me. If I do not consent, then I remain solely under Common law jurisdiction.
I need to be a SHIP, in the DOCK, before any force of law can be applied.
The means of achieving placing me as a SHIP, in the DOCK is by subterfuge. It is achieved by creating a legal fiction bearing a similar name to my own, and issuing documents bearing that fictitious name. The fiction is created by using ALL CAPITAL letters such that, when read, the name pronounces the same.
A name written in all uppercase is the name of a PERSON, defined (legally) to be a one-individual CORPORATION, which can (for legal purposes) be considered to be a SHIP.
If I respond to a document bearing the fictitious name, then – by tacit consent – I become that SHIP, to be placed in the DOCK, and so consent to the force of law defined by the Statute.
If I am cautioned that “Anything I say may be taken down and used in evidence”. I will then be asked “Do you understand?”. If I nod, or say “Yes” then I am agreeing to “stand under … the Statute”, because (legally) “understand” can mean “stand under”.
(Consequently my own, personal, reply would be “No, I don’t stand under”. I would welcome that evidence to be used in any court, because the evidence presented would be that I gave no consent to the court’s Statute jurisdiction, and only accepted Common law jurisdiction).
This information is becoming more and more public, and is being used more often to secure rebuttals to many charges under Statutes. Most people do not fall foul of Common law if they are sane, rational, decent, individuals.
The police – whose primary job is to keep the peace – are being used in two, distinct, modes: Firstly as Peace Officers (where breaches of the peace occur), but mostly as Policy (i.e. Statute) Enforcement Officers … the latter not actually being their job. The reason is pretty simple. When taking the oath of duty, they swear to “uphold the laws of the land” (Common law) … they do not swear to “uphold the laws of the sea” (Policy/Statute law).
Thus the Police Service, who remain as deceived as everyone else about what is going on, are being used and abused to “policy enforce”, which does not engender respect because people inherently know “it isn’t right”. This is because Common law has always been derived from a sense of fair play and equality for all..
If the Police Service were to return to their actual sworn duty, keeping the peace and upholding Common law, respect would return at the same time.None found.