News:

this is a news item (test)

Main Menu

'SPECTACULAR' event - URGENT

Started by mescalito, February 28, 2011, 08:16:11 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mescalito

This is a special message from Roger Hayes of the British Constitution Group.

Please attend if you can.

A single 'Spectacular' event - to wake the nation up.

We will be engaging in a 'spectacular' event on Monday the 7th March... that is guaranteed to get national media/TV coverage - the event meeting time is at 1pm - Hamilton Square - Birkenhead. Wirral. It will start at 2pm. Details of what we are doing will be released minutes before it will happen.

We will have our own camera crews on the ground... but expect that national TV news crews will soon turn up to cover the event... they would be embarrassed not to cover it (and that includes the BBC) if we have the numbers there to demonstrate the national anger at what's going on. It will be broadcast live on the internet... it should go viral. Australians have already said that they intend staying up to watch as events unfold.

We are asking that people turn up with black umbrellas (nothing to do with the weather) and please be early... if you are not there well before 2pm - our initiative could fail.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT NUMBERS - NUMBERS - NUMBERS. It is essential that we have a good turnout.

Everybody has been saying for some time that we must DO SOMETHING - that will make a significent impact... and that is exactly what this event will do... provided we get the support.

A few of us will be putting our necks on the line... the POWERS THAT BE will be unable to isolate us if we have the support on the ground as things unfold... but the PTB will almost certainly retaliate if we do not have the support.

This event will be both lawful and peaceful. We have deliberately left the publication of this event until the last week to minimise the chance of the PTB getting wind of what is happening.

Please spread the word... if there is one event that can make a difference and for which we need the numbers - this is it. We know it is a Monday... but that is for a very good reason... and for maximum impact.

This event will take place under the banner of 'Lawful Rebellion' - we are all indebted to John Harris and TPUC for getting this initiative off the ground in the first place... so let's now give this a major push.

Thanking you all in anticipation of your support... please spread the message near and far.

Roger Hayes
The British Constitution Group

M O'D

Having spoken with an attendee yesterday, I would be up for this. The question is, can we sort out transport from Snottingham? A full car would lighten the costs. . .

Who's up for it then?

namaste
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

mescalito

im trying to sort out transport from kent if there's anybody else heading up from here.

Justin

Definately up for it, but wont know until Friday afternoon if I can make it.
Registered keeper of estate vehicle- whos estate, not sure.... but i've got the keys- in Nottm.
Hoping I can  ::)

Justin

Anyone wanting a lift from Nottm area, let me know

M O'D

More information on what's happening with the court system...

http://www.youtube.com/user/benlowreyhimself#p/u/23/fuiSn21Uei4

n a m a s t e  ;)
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted


M O'D

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

FOTLCKA Michael

I humbly urge all those who have involved themselves in this event to ask the following questions:

1. Was due process of law served upon the accused?

2. Were the charges clear, precise and properly served, giving the judge reasonable time to respond privately, before public action ensued?

3. Is a judge lawfully bound to answer questions about his Oaths of Office, and if so, in which cases was this established?

4. Is it really possible in law or equity to take time off from an oath?

5. Was the fundamental human right to a fair trial breached in the arrest of the judge at Birkenhead?

6. Upon whose authority was this action brought and by whom was it sanctioned as lawful?

7. Is a judge committing fraud if he refuses to admit he has Oaths of Office or is it regarded as a self-evident truth of the position?

8. Can a man ever be free and defer control (governance) over the extent of his freedom to the head of an Anglo-Saxon bloodline that stole these islands and their ancient history from the indigenous peoples of Albion?

9. Is reclaiming the right of self-determination the same as Lawful Rebellion?

10. Did the 'spectacular' event bring the focus of attention to the most important issues?

My time has been so limited of late that I have been unable to compose a missive of answers to the foregoing questions, which I feel compelled to raise on this thread nonetheless, lest we are unable to properly synthesize exactly what happened in Birkenhead on Monday, as well as what didn't.

As always, I look forward to reading your thoughts.

Namaste

Bush

Hey M, your questions are as pertinent as ever, I personally found the events of monday very uplifting and positive and succeeded in sending a message to the judiciary that the people are not happy about the inherent corruption and incompentency that is being experienced.  I will try to answer your questions, perhaps with my own questions as I really do not have all the answers:

1> I am not sure, to the best of your knowledge in this situation what would due process consist of?

2> The charge was clear, not sure about the criteria for 'properly served'.  If one of us was to be arrested we would not be given time to respond privately first.

3> I am not sure but it is it not a negligent misrepresentation to not comment on it, in his position ?

4> Perhaps ?  But it begs the question, are they ever on their oath ?

5> A trial had not happened, does arrest not come beforehand and a trial afterwards?

6> Does the authority come first from the deputy sheriff that was elected after the failure of the Sheriff to attend the meeting?  Or does it come directly from the grand jury which is selected by the people ? Can a grand jury be established in the manner that it was ?  There was no trial so to what effect was the formation of a grand jury?  Was one needed to arrest the judge ?

7>I personally do not see it as self evident, else anybody could be up there.  I believe to have seen reference to case law on this but I do not have it, perhaps somebody else can help out here?

8>Well, perhaps and a BIG perhaps only if said office is acting in a way in which does not infringe on any fundamental rights of the individual ?  The office could still exist theoretically without the current bloodline. 

9> No, and although i really support the actions on monday I do not like the idea of pledging my allegiance to the office of the sovereign should things the wrongs be remedied.  My self determination stands apart from any allegiance to the office of sovereign.

10> People attended for a plethora of reasons, so the question of the main issue may have to reflect the many reasons.  This was more than just council tax and oath, it included the application of elements of the magna carta and the lawful ability to do so.  Whether such action was done correctly is not yet within my knowledge.

Just my thoughts, i know not how correct they may be.

Paul

mescalito

to be honest as much as i admire your excellence Michael i feel that the questions are unnecessary.
it was an amazing day, we shock the foundations and the momentum is now gathering speed, it is a step in the right direction, the beginning of something big, i am proud of all those who turned up.

TPTB now know we will not sit down and do nothing, it has sent a message that this will happen every time until we have remedy.

if you want answers go over to thebcgroup or the ukcolumn as they made this great day happen.

warm regards....Seth

FOTLCKA Michael

Hey Bush,

Many thanks for your response to the questions raised. I will now do my best to reciprocate.

1. Due process of law: A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.

Was the judge given due notice of the proceedings or an opportunity to be heard on the matter in a separate hearing on the issues raised, before the arrest was made? If not, could that be deemed unreasonable?

2. In law, one can only be arrested without a warrant if an officer of the law has reason to believe that a breach of the peace has or will soon take place. Were those who made the arrest officers of the law? If so, by whose appointment?

3. Nobody can or should be punished for exercising their right to silence, which can only be construed as acquiescence if the terms of an explicit agreement have arisen between the parties, whereby some sort of obligation to respond, whether contractual, lawful or equitable, clearly exists.

4. The judge is bound by oath to uphold the laws of these lands at all times and without exceptions, and therefore cannot be found to be acting outside of its constraints. He can, however, be lawfully charged with being in breach of that oath...

5. Without unequivocal proof that the judge was guilty of the charges being brought against him, there is no lawful recourse to arrest him without due process of law.

6. Without a watertight claim that is suported by a well established lawful framework, whether constitutional, common or statutory, even though the ancient right to convene a grand jury is the unalienable right of the people, the action will be held as void in law, with those responsible being held liable for costs incurred and potential criminal charges.

7. It does not matter if we do not view the oath as self-evident; in law, it is a prerequisite of accepting judicial office, and therefore legally accepted without question.

8/9. I humbly suggest that the difference between a Freeman-on-the-Land and a Lawful Rebel is that the latter demands better governance, whilst the former revokes their consent to be governed. A man cannot be free when he is dependant upon the permission of another to act as he sees fit.

10. I wholeheartedly concur with the sentiments you have expressed. I would only add that in my own estimation, Roger had not yet exhausted all available remdies, nor has it been compellingly demonstrated that just cause had arisen for arrest of the judge.

Namaste

FOTLCKA Michael

Quote from: mescalito on March 10, 2011, 10:33:58 AM
to be honest as much as i admire your excellence Michael i feel that the questions are unnecessary.

With respect my friend, I couldn't disagree more. Without asking these questions a true synthesis of what actually transpired will not emerge.

However, from the information that has been made available, there is evidence emerging that suggests the action, notwithstanding the understandable feelings of empowerment experienced by many of those present, was not conducted in accordance with due process of law, which is contrary to the claims being made by RSC.

If there are to be more events such as this, it is my contention that they should ONLY be brought following the exhaustion of all other remedies available within the law of these lands and following service of due process, without which, such actions can never be realistically considered lawful.

However, hypothetically speaking, in the event that a Representative Action is brought by the ancestors of the indigenous peoples of Albion, whose lands, the allodial title to which was held in perpetual trust for the benefit of those peoples until around AD 563, were stolen by the ancestors of the current monarch, whose claims to the land are dependent upon the legitimacy of her ancestors' claims, and none of Her Majesty's Courts will grant the claimants a fair hearing, then there would arise the necessary cause of action to convene a lawful Grand Jury to declare the English law null and void, since it is derived from the legitimacy of the monarch, whose vested interests conflict with a fair and just legal system.

Namaste

mescalito

Rubbish :) there is no remedy within law any more, all avenues have been exhausted, its time for action, to take back the country, whether its lawful or not the job needs to be done before its too late and its not like they act according to law.

TPTB have pushed us into a corner, our actions may not be as you say 'lawful' but they were peaceful, there was a bit of chaos and shouting but no violence or vandalism.

please correct me if im wrong but i do believe there's not much time or many options.

please share a better plan if you have one my friend, but i think i speak for many when i say that we are sick of how we are treated and we have tried to get remedy by serving notices and writing to MP's ect ect but to no avail...

as they say, its time to rise like lions, if you do not agree with said actions that's fine you can always sit events like that out but always remember what ever any of us do we are all fighting in the same corner for the same thing :)

please don't take any of this the wrong way as there is no body language to these words and emotions cant be conveyed properly, i admire you very much and appreciate any comments, after all that's the point of a forum aye ;)