judge rules freemen are parasites...

[call me fred]

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-par...

[call me fred]

thanks linda. i think the post was worth putting up. just to see what the people would make of this, thank you for your post i am reading it at the moment.  you seem to have picked up on a good point regarding  the fact that the judge is not in favour of the law of the land,   as most of the people are now finding out. when they go into these courts.     keep up the good work. its getting very interesting.    many thanks.. fred.

[Linda Joslin]

The best thing about this article is the comments underneath!  this one in particular has the knowledge - John Pargiter

Thats funny!

- I am reading the 192 page report and might even repsond by taking apart each one of the judges arguments!

Here we go … the first thing the judge says is this!

an OPCA litigant in court is likely operating under instructions obtained from a commercial source, and has been told to conduct and frame his or her court activities in an unnatural, incorrect, and distorted context. The litigant is instructed to follow a script that is, in all probability illogical, and certainly contrary to law.

Yes … but what is he referring to when he says “contrary to law” – is he, like every other judge peddling the misguided mantra of statutes enacted by a 400 year commercial company based in the UK are law, or is he referring to the old laws (of the land, the common law, which overrides all statutes (yes it does)) and the old customs that HM QE2 swore and signed a contract to protect when every man and woman in the nation invested its sovereign powers into her at “investiture”!

“unnatural, incorrect and distorted context!”- well thats merely his opinion based upon the years of mind altering brainwashing that he’s undergone from the institutions and organisations that pay him (handsomely) to peddle this rubbish. None of what Freemen say or do is based in anything other than ancient LAW thast existed long before the parliament and which are set in stone in this land (England).

What makes me laugh most about that statement even more is that he infers that operating on instructions from a commercial source is a bad thing. Then why is he a Judge? Judges are appointed by a commercial source, they charge for their services, the organisations that trained them charge for that, in fact their whole career has been one set of instructions issued from a commercial source, even the law books that they refer to are issued by a commercial source. What utter hyprocrasy!

The uninformed author of this postk, who is clearly biased, doesn’t understand that Magna Carta, is, in the UK at least and immovable object that the Judiciary cannot overcome. As confirmed by Lord Renton in the house of Lords when he said …

Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggested that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course correct in relation to present legislation. However, 17th century Parliaments treated Magna Carta, in its 1229 version, as being an Act of Parliament. I spoke loosely and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2000/jul/20/football-disor...

Note that Earl Russell stated that the Parliament treated the 1229 Charter as being an act of parliament – WHAT??? How could a parliament claim that they enacted something when there was no Parliament until some 400 years after the Magna Carta(s) were written. You see – this is the kind of “smoke and mirrors” that anyone – let alone Freemen on the land face when dealing with this corrupt and treasonous parliament.

See – its not difficult to rebut this “legalese” – which according to various versions of Blacks Law Dictionary that I posess appears to to be a language aimed at “confusing”, such as Latin did for the romans when it was first introduced to them. Which is exactluy why the legal industry has its own language – they dont want you to comprehend what it is they are doing. Therefore they wrap it all up in long words and protracted meanings to confuse you.