A POINT OF VIEW FROM AUSTRALIA

KANGAROO HAS ASKED ME TO PUBLISH THIS ARTICLE. HE WILL RESPOND TO ANY COMMENTS MADE

LAW stands for Land Air Water, the Trinity of laws which use three different systems.


1. Law of Water aka Law of the Seas, Maritime Law or Admiralty Law. It has its basis in trade and is commercial in nature, it uses “Service Corporations” as its legal entity with which to transact and normally requires a Contract or consent. It uses terms such as Legal and Illegal. It has Rules of Civil Procedure which have to be followed in its Court, which hears “Complaints”.


2. Law of Air aka God’s Law or Canon Law. I don’t propose to deal with that here, just know that it exists.


3. Law of the Land aka Common Law. The law of the living Man or Woman. It uses terms such as Lawful and Unlawful. In its Court a Man or Woman makes a Claim that a Trespass has been committed against his (her) Property by another Man or Woman.


The only part of the Trinity which applies to a living being is the Common Law. In the kingdom of England it was first written in the Magna Carta of 1215. In the kingdom of Scotland it was espoused in the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320 written to Pope John XXII and subsequently agreed.


You will recall that the Court of Session and UK Supreme Court held that the prorogation of Parliament was Unlawful rather than Illegal. The reason being that this was adjudged under the Jurisdiction of Common Law and precedent had been set by the Scots Parliament refusing to be prorogued by King Charles in 1600s a prelude to the “Bishops Wars”. This is a strong indication that Scots Law was acting under Scots Common Law and indeed that the 1689 Claim of Right was also under Scots Common Law. The use of the word Claim is a dead giveaway.


DOCUMENT STYLES

What is meant by this is best done by illustration. When newspaper editors checked an article they would write comments on the page for corrections to be made. These comments such as stet or sic or adding commas, underlining etc were not intended to be part of the text. Similarly with “legal” documents, style is important, for example, only one typeface is permitted per document, no font changes, no text size changes, no bolding, italics underlining etc are considered part of the “legal” text. This knowledge opens up a whole new world of understanding when looking at legal documents including Acts of Parliament and Government Gazette entries.


THE UNLAWFUL CONVERSION

A Trespass of Unlawful Conversion was committed at the time each Man or Woman was born. The mother and father was required to submit forms to the Births, Deaths and Marriages shortly after you were born. When you were in your mothers womb you were in the water and you came out through the BERTH CANAL and were met by a DOCKtor. Note the preponderence of shipping terms. You were then issued with a  BERTH Certificate and were Registered as either Crew, Cargo on the appropriate ship, such as ENGLAND or SCOTLAND, all ships use Capital letters. When you reach majority you get a new identity and title such as Mister, sometimes your name will be in capitals other times it will be out of sequence. These are all indicators that you are seeing a paper “legal person” an entity disguised as and pretending to be you, an Unlawful Conversion. Your correct Common Law identity is Tristan of the Pricewilliams family as that is the name your parents gave you combined with the Family name. Note the express use of either all lower case letters and/or uppercase first letters, all other formats are a paper “legal person” masquerading as you, the Man.


So having trespassed against you and everyone else they then proceed to dupe you when you go to the Public Court House by a) getting you to use their Forms and thus consent to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, b) getting you to agree to a format of your name that is NOT you, the Man, c) asking if you UNDERSTAND, which they reinterpret as STAND UNDER their legal system, or c) use a lawyer who does not represent you, the Man, but instead Re-Presents you as this fictional “legal person”. If it is a criminal case then you are put in the DOCK, again another indicator that you are being tried under Maritime Law. You may have noticed that most courts furnishings look like ships.
The original birth certificate is sent to Venice, considered a ship at sea. You only get an Extract.


So they deceive us “the People” by the duplicitous use of language.


THE TREATY OF UNION

(This part is supposition based on circumstantial evidence only)

England being by far and away the dominant naval nation on the high seas from the 15th Century onwards would naturally have made extensive use of Maritime Law in their day to day business. I suspect that they incorporated a “legal person” entity as the KINGDOM OF ENGLAND and referred to this rather than the Monarchs personal “kingdom of England”. The Prime Minister being the CEO of this Corporation with a committee called the Parliament and the MPs being members of the committee and making Acts of this Corporation.So when the Treaty of Union came about between the kingdom of England and the kingdom of Scotland they duplicitously renamed the KINGDOM OF ENGLAND corporation as the UNITED KINGDOM and the committee became the Parliament of GREAT BRITAIN. This chimes directly with David Mundell’s comments during the 2014 Independence Referendum. I am sure he gleaned his position from a legal paper prepared for David Cameron at the time.


THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

I digress because I know the following facts and it illustrates how far this duplicity extends. In 1871 after the US Civil War and the reconstruction America was broke and needed money so they agreed to the “Bankers Terms”. The District of Columbia was created as a separate Sovereign Jurisdiction, just like the City of London and Vatican. The UNITED STATES CORPORATION Company was created and Bonds were issued to the Bankers in exchange for money. Lincoln objected and was assassinated. When the Bonds became due there was no money to pay so the Bankers wanted to create a Central Bank and knew that there were a lot of very wealthy Americans who would object, so they hatched a plot. They built three ships in Belfast, one supposedly unsinkable, amidst much propaganda they induced wealthy Americans to make the crossing in the fastest most modern ship of all. After the sea trials they switched the nameplates and the supposedly unsinkable TITANIC was deliberately sunk killing all the objectors.The Bankers then met at Jekyll Island and the Federal Reserve Bank was created. It was neither Federal nor had Reserves and was owned by the Private Banks. Kennedy tried to stop them and was assasinated and Reagan was warned off too with a few gunshots. All wars are Bankers wars and they usually finance both sides. The original constitution was supplanted and has not been used correctly since 1871.


BATTLE JOINED

Then along came Donald John Trump and the battle recommenced, all their efforts to remove him failed. You might not realise this but US Military won the war, DJT is still the legitimate 19th President of the United States of America under the original constitution. Amongst a lot of other achievements during his term, he folded the Federal Reserve into the US Treasury and bankrupted and liquidated the UNITED STATES CORPORATION, I have seen the documents on video which verify this. Joe Biden is not president of anything. The White House remains boarded up, Google the Oval Office and look up the business hours; they have been set to “closed” for months now. Buckingham Palace and the Vatican are also shuttered, the unholy trinity have been defeated and we are clearing up an horrific situation.  I won’t go into any more details here, but you get the drift.


SECTION 30 ORDER

Whilst I have not seen documentation, on video or otherwise, of the liquidation of the UNITED KINGDOM, I have watched a video where someone whose Parents worked for British Intelligence and has strong contacts therein has stated that the UNITED KINGDOM has been liquidated. Boris Johnson cannot issue a S30 for a non existent Corporation.


MARTIN JAMES KEATING v Scot Gov

This Court case was enjoined under Maritime Law as is evidenced by the use of Capitals for his name. Simply put Martin chose the wrong jurisdiction for his case and had to fail.


GAINING INDEPENDENCE

A general rule is that Fraud vitiates everything. The Treaty of Union was betrayed immediatley the document was signed, it is thus null and void.
A REFERENDUMAs a referendum would be conducted under Common Law it would be Lawful and could not be prevented on legality as that only applies to Maritime Law.


SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS

As the current Scottish Parliament is a creation of and subordinate to the UNITED KINGDOM which is now defunct then in my opinion all subordinate legislatures are also defunct. The election is meaningless as it is being held under false pretenses.


THE WAY AHEAD

Many questions arise from the above.

We need to decide how to elect our Parliamentarians d’Hondt, FPTP, MMP or something else.

Unicameral or Bicameral.

Written Constitution or otherwise.

For the reasons stated above Alex Salmond is correct, negotiations in relation to the split of Assets and Liabilities of the nations of the British lsles should commence forthwith with the more obvious things being separated immediately, Armed Forces, Banks, Civil Service come to mind.

20 thoughts on “A POINT OF VIEW FROM AUSTRALIA”

  1. Freemen on the land insanity. Hard to believe that’s still a thing. Last seen failing to prevent people from being prosecuted for not having a TV licence.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Mostly used to try and get off driving offences or possession of drugs.
      My personal experience of it being invoked was a young English traveller girl, a pavement artist on Princes St. All fine and dandy until someone complains about the amount of spammed minions spattered along the street, like an explosion at a Pixar studio.
      The problem was she was using oil and chalk crayons which resisted water. Several shop managers complained to the council. and as it was graffiti a colleague and I were despatched to deal with it, hence “I don’t recognise your authority”. We managed to persuade her just to use chalk…

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Your ” I don’t recognise your authority” comment reminded me of this encounter between Ken Livingstone and polis in a London shopping mall…

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Ken is of course correct. A civil matter as he called it, absolutely nothing to do with the police. Perhaps Westfield needs to put signage up saying that No photography is allowed.

          Like

  2. Oh boy, this pseudolegal nonsense again.

    There is no merit whatsoever in these crank beliefs. If you endorse and uncritically publicise these views, then you risk encouraging your readers to engage in these ‘tactics’ with all the potential consequences that entails(including imprisonment).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land#England_and_Wales
    You can read the actual cases listed in the above article to see the actual outcome of these ‘tactics.’ All simultaneously comic and tragic. It concerns me that a naive reader could find their own case added to that list.

    The state is often a violent and unjust actor. The idea that that its injustices can be thwarted by using the correct form of words, refusing to recognise its authority or appealing to some invented technicality is absurd and dangerous.
    The attempt to sell this as some sort of loophole to independence does nothing to further the cause, and potentially does much to hinder it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for your comment, DC.

      Our readers are a pretty bright bunch.

      I’m sure they can read something controversial and deal with the information in an intelligent way.

      I do not endorse these views.

      As the author is a long-standing reader of the blog, however, I felt it reasonable to do him the courtesy of printing his article.

      Everyone is entitled to an opinion here.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Nah. That was Munguin. And he was only being picky because it was in a document written by her maj’s government of posh boys.

      But you are correct to point out my error, even if as a result of it, Munguin docked a day’s pay! 😦

      Liked by 1 person

  3. The idea of conspiracies being enacted is something I generally don’t find too difficult to believe. Good grief, we’ve had enough around here lately involving our own Independence Party and Scottish government, not to be at least a little suspicious. That’s of course if we possess some semblance of perceived reality which many Yessers seem to have abandoned. Hopefully not permanently.

    Conspiracies on the scale your postulating however, given the amount of people involved, and the impossibility of secrecy this brings, makes it, in my experience, extremely unlikely to be true. People just aren’t that clever or that good at keeping secrets. Yes, it’s tempting , even comforting to believe there’s a group of folk out there with the foresight and intellect to look ahead, consider all possibilities and manipulate situations/society over decades but I just don’t think this works in practice. I believe that self interest and reacting to and/or exploiting the situation as it arises is mostly what actually happens. You may of course be of the school of thought that exists, certain in the knowledge that thickos like me just don’t get it and that’s up to you.

    My problem is personal in this however, because my youngest grandson hasn’t been MMR vaccinated due to his parents belief in all this stuff. I make no apology for lumping it all together btw. The family, ie. the mum and dad have also decided that none of them, that’s them plus the 3 kids, won’t be having any Covid prevention/vaccine/avoidance measures, and to top it all off there’s a general friction because granny and grandad don’t believe all the stuff mummy and daddy have been watching and reading so they’ve been duly designated as part of the problem. It’s a joy as you can imagine.

    I’ve got a pretty good memory Kangaroo and I remember the stuff you used to post and not just on this site btw. It was pretty reasonable and sensible and I always read what you had to say. That’s before you descended quite noticeably into whatever this is. I actually thought for a while it was tongue in cheek.

    Ive never professed to know everything, it’s only a fool who does, so I sincerely hope your wrong, because if nothing else, Trump as some sort of a good guy would be just too much for me to bear.

    Sorry man, I just don’t get it.

    Like

    1. I understand fully that this yet another matter that I have brought this blog which is quite difficult to believe and most if not all people who have tried to persuade me I am wrong on all these matters say the same things. That is up to them and there are more than a few who resort to slings and arrows. I am merely trying to point out that there is another narrative that is not embraced by the Main Stream Media. Sometimes – a lot of the time – joining all the dots is difficult because there is usually a lag between events and these events don’t necessarily take place in the same neighbourhood or even country.
      So I get that “you just don’t get it” I would say that would be at least 65% of the planet, if not a lot more. It doesn’t deter me from trying to provide a different viewpoint.

      I came across this book just yesterday by Thomas Anderson which I started reading, it will join a lot of the dots, you’ll love the title NOT “World Conspiracy: who are the true rulers of planet earth”, I dont like the title either I dont think it helps. USD7.90 on Amazon Kindle. Fits in with what my parents suggested way back when, seems like a lifetime ago when I was living in Glasgow.

      As you’ve stated I have been posting things on various blogs since way before the indyref, not all of it controversial. However over at least 50years I have noticed anomalies that just don’t fit the usual narrative and having an enquiring mind and a lot of curiosity I dig and dig for answers, some never come and remain anomolous, others fit the puzzle and unless I get more information which displaces them then they stay a a solution.
      The above post is a “solution” and remains so until it’s proved wrong.

      Like

  4. There are legal successes using this method and in multiple jurisdictions.
    For reference try http://www.awarriorcalls.com in Ontario, Canada.
    Youtube channel Robert Ess is from Paisley and whilst he is not an eloquent speaker he does appear to be having considerable success.

    Like

  5. Couple of technical points:

    Claim of Right Act 1689 has the status of statute law rather than common law. It remains on the UK statue book, although its legal force is debatable. The Catholic Emancipation Act will have voided the majority of its provisions and that’s a very good thing. Provisions like right to fair trial and freedoms from torture have been superceded by more robust legislation eg Human Rights Act. The remaining provision that could be legally forceful is the right for parliament to meet and resolve grievances. Having said that, this was invoked during the Cherry prorogation litigation and rejected by the court as immaterial to the core argument of the limits of executive power.

    I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the relationship between common and statute law. This is the fundamental flaw of the freemen of the land-type argyments. Statute law sets out an intention in broad terms but does not attempt to account for every combination of circumstance. Common law fills in the gaps through court rulings. These rulings set precedents to be followed in subsequent cases that are judged to follow the same set of circumstances. Common law can at any time be voided by statute law if that is the will of parliament. Statute law has supremacy over common law, not the other way around. An argument built on the supremacy of common law is dooomed to fail.

    The Declaration of Arbroath isn’t any kind of law. It wasn’t in the 14th century and it isn’t now. It is a letter written by an abbot, signed by some noblemen and delivered to the pope. It’s historically important but it never had legal force.

    You’ve misunderstood the distinction between illegal and unlawful. Lawfulness refers to the substance of law, while legality refers to the processes and institutions of law. An illegal act is one that fails to follow the correct procedure, while an unlawful act is one that contravenes a specific law . There’s nothing sinister in these terms or the way they are used.

    Boris Johnson cannot issue a S30. This part is correct. Primary legislation is not a power given to the PM so saying he cannot issue a S30 is just daft and pointless. Legislative power lies with Parliament itself rather than any individual. A S30 is no different from any other primary legislation with the caveat that the actual transfer of power described in the S30 requires both Holyrood and Westminster to agree. If the government could not introduce add a bill to the order paper and parliament could not amend, reject and accept it, there would be no legislative changes happening at all. As this is definitely not the case, it is self-evident that S30 remains within the power of the UK’s legislatures.

    Apart from the beginning, the middle and the end, I’m in full agreement with everything you wrote.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Firstly thankyou Terry for actually responding to the points raised – refreshing to get a reasoned reply.
      If I’ve read you correctly then your position is that the Declaration of Arbroath is a pretty letter but has no substance and the Claim of Right has been gutted so no longer has force. So Scotland is trapped in a Union by a Treaty that was obtained by bribery, corruption and at the point of a gun, but thats OK. We are left at the whim of the UK Parliament as it has the power to deny a S30 request.
      Are you sure Niko hasn’t managed to hack your avatar?

      Continuing with your position then, why would the UK Parliament ever agree to a S30? They wouldn’t unless they had no choice. How would that come about? Insurrection?

      Naturally I don’t agree, and I don’t consider that we should ask for a S30 as I really don’t care if the UK parliament says no. In my opinion it is Scotlands choice and no-one else should have any input.

      My position is quite clear Common Law is above Statute Law as Government is a creation of the people not the other way around. Ipso facto a S30 is NOT necessary and we can hold a referendum on any subject at any time.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The Delcaration of Arbroath is not just “a pretty letter”. It is a historically significant letter. Some historians argue that it declares that Scotland operates a contractual monarchy. Others find that we cannot guess at the intentions or understandings of the signatories and that we cannot extrapolate what noblemen thought in the 14th century to any of the democratic principles that we enjoy today.

        I’m afraid that your argument falls apart at your misunderstanding of common law. Common law is not above statute law. It is absolutely the other way around. Courts take instructions from parliament and proceed with rulings and sentencing on that basis. Parliament can overrule any ruling issued by a court with subsequent legislation. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is a perfect example. Another example would be any challenge to Holyrood’s competence to legislate for a referendum on the constitution. UK gov can challenge this at Supreme Court. Even if they lose the case, they can go to parliament and request it agrees to a very simple piece of legislation that says the following: “see that case at the supreme court? well, from now on, consider it voided by this Act”.

        Common law is a consequence of court rulings. The public have no democratic influence over court rulings. Statue law, on the other hand, is a consequence of political process. The public have significant influence over this by voting in elections. Common law is not a “a creation of the people”. It is the creation of judges; they are indeed people but they are not the demos. Statute law is much closer to being a creation of the people because our legislatures are democratically elected. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is well established in the UK.

        It is not possible to hold a referendum on anything at any time. UK law dictates that referendums must be governed by primary legislation. Prior to Royal Assent, any legislative act can be challenged on competence and process. No returning officer will perform their duties without legislation to give legal effect to those duties eg they cannot maintain a database of registered voters without authority to do so. It’s a simple fact that a returning officer holding an illicit database of voters will be dismissed from their post.

        S30 is a political process, as with any other primary legislation. The UK’s constitution is designed to resolve political tensions through political process rather than just through the legal processes of a codified constitution. Whatever happens next, will be a consequence of the political processes that play out in the next year or so.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. We will need to agree to disagree as we are taking unresolvable opposing positions on the legal issues.
          Your understanding of the LEGAL position places Scotlands future in the same situation as Catalonia where we can’t leave even if we want to because the S30 order is at the whim of Westminster.

          Your resolution of this dilemma is to suggest that S30 is political not legal. Well everything is political and optics are important. So do we call an illegal referendum, the international community doesn’t recognise, the Nikos don’t turn up and then it has no legal vailidity or we have jackboots on the streets. If you think there won’t be violence perpetrated by the UK recall that the history of these isles is replete with Government violence.

          At this point NS has drafted legislation and is considering putting it through, so what happens when WM simply puts through legislation that prohibits it? Gove stated they wouldn’t go to Court, that doesn’t mean they won’t counter it.

          Unless you have other ideas your solution appears to me to be fatally flawed.

          Like

    2. Suggesting judges make Common Law is incorrect, Judges do not make law, they only interpret it. The power to make Statute rests with Parliament. Parliament cannot overrule Common Law, the Human Rights Act may have increased and improved on the Common Law but it did not extinguish it.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Talking-up Scotland

NOT conflating the aberrant with the norm like BBC

The Dunglishman

The bilingual blog about all things British

STAGE LEFT

Love, theatre and ideas

Wildonline.blog

British Wildlife & Photography

scotlandisdifferent

Why Scotland should be an independent country

BrawBlether

Thoughts about Scotland & the world, from a new Scot

Divided We Fall

Bipartisan dialogue for the politically engaged

Insightful Geopolitics

Impartial Informative Always

Black Isle Media

We Provide The Facts, You Make The Decisions

The Broad Spectrum Life

Exploring Rhymes, Reasons, and Nuances of Our World

Musical Matters...

Mark Doran's Music Blog

George Blamey-Steeden

Guitarist / Songwriter

Best in Australia

This site supports Scottish Independence

thehistorytwins

A comic about history and stuff by FT

My Life as Graham

The embittered mumblings of a serial malcontent.

Pride's Purge

an irreverent look at UK politics

ScienceSwitch

Your Source For The Coolest Science Stories

dondeeflugs

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

Mark Explores

Nature + Health

netbij.com

http://netbij.com

%d bloggers like this: