Not at all common.

Spiv & Chimps

 

Whilst I really don’t want to piss on anyones parade, the very fact that I have just written those words means that I am inevitably going to do so.

Now, although I am the first to admit that I am no expert in the Freeman minefield, I do know that we are supposedly linked into the system via our birth certificate, which then becomes our Legal Fiction Person… Indeed, it is said that if you do not register your new born, then the child snatchers are powerless to steal your baby.

I also know that Worzel Gummidge is not the same as a straw man and that we are governed by consent.

Moreover, I am very aware of the difference between Lawful & Legal, Common Law and Admiralty Law, the law of the land and the law of the waters – or whichever label that you want to pin on the two.

I also know exactly what Legalese is, I have seen the John Harris videos, albeit many years ago and I have read Veronica Chapman’s; “Freedom is more than a seven letter word” – or should that be veronica: of the chapman family.

Unfortunately I hardly ever get to visit other peoples sites because constraints on my time, but John would seem to be very low profile these days although I do seem to recall a few years ago that he announced that he was jacking in all the public speaking malarkey.

Course, I have heard some negative stuff said about John, just like I have heard negative stuff said about everybody else who is a ‘name’ in the AM, but since I do not know John and indeed have never had any sort of communication with him, I take no notice of the gossip.

After all, according to some very glued up people, I am apparently a “proven” Jewish, racist, homophobic, computer expert, with at least 5 unregistered companies, working for MI5, earning £15 Grand a month in donations, supplemented by my income as an unregistered tattoo artist and my role in Hollyoaks, with a fetish for women’s clothing, whilst having an incestuous relationship with my daughter – who doesn’t really exist – resulting in my son being my grandson… Oh and I have a split personality, with my alter ego being Fuck the State, formally known as Dogman.

Therefore, until I know for certain that someone is a ‘wrong un’, everybody starts with a clean slate as far as I am concerned.

Having said that, I have to say that I did hear that John fell foul of the Trading Standards whilst selling his DVD’s which contain information giving the viewer advice on how to ‘beat the system’.

I am told that this led to John having to play by the corporate rules that he is giving advice on how to beat, in so much that he had to put a disclaimer on his DVD’s stating that they were for: Entertainment purposes only – which obviously immediately casts doubt over the information.

And I also heard that he had to pay tax on his earnings.

I do stress however, that is only what I heard and it is not my intention to have a pop at John, who if nothing else inspired me to question absolutely everything.

Veronica Chapman on the other hand appears to be very up herself which I do know for a fact because I was mentioned to her before I became as well known as I am now and she was rather rude, judgemental and dismissive of me without really looking into what it is I do… But hey, she is entitled to her opinion and I am certainly not going to hold it against her.

Furthermore, I have seen many a Youtube video of people getting stopped in their de-registered, untaxed cars by the plod, none of whom have ever managed to talk their way out of getting nicked or having their car “stolen”.

And despite these people vowing that they are going to fight the plods unlawful actions, I am sorry to say that I have never seen a follow up to these videos to prove that justice had been done.

Now I am not talking about debt issues here, which is a different thing altogether.

So, when I got nicked – which incidentally has also  been ‘proven‘ to be another of my lies apparently – I listened to the multitude of advice that I was being given about defending myself using common law, had a good think about it, and decided against it.

For a start, every time someone contacted me with advice on how to use the common law route, that advice would be in contradiction to the last fail safe piece of advice that I had been given by someone else. Yet there is no evidence from what I have seen to back up the common law ‘Get out of Jail free’ card.

Now don’t get me wrong; I am not saying that these freemen are talking bollocks. On the contrary I believe that there is a lot of substance to their claims, but like I say combating statute law with common law is a very heavily packed minefield – which as far as I can see – no one to date has been able to cross unhurt.

And whilst in my case there can be no doubt that there is an attempted stitch up taking place,  if I am convicted then it will be a blatant, gross miscarriage of justice that wouldn’t have been any different regardless of how I chose to fight the case.

However given my vast loyal readership (people power) along with the sensitive nature of the subject and the indisputable evidence that I am going to use, whilst at the same time exercising my LEGAL right to face my accusers, I am hoping to not have to go to appeal.

And in any event, it appears to me to be the case that anyone trying to quote common law just gets rode roughshod over by judges and coppers whom both openly exercise a blatant disregard for the law – which is the real point of this article.

You see, the Chimp reported today on a case where a judge had ruled that an unregistered, unnamed baby could be put up for forced adoption by social workers:

A baby girl who has never had a name should be put up for adoption by a new family, a judge has ruled.

The eight-month-old’s parents refused to give her a first name and she is known only by the surname in which social workers have registered her.

She has remained without a first name while the family courts considered her fate and in the ruling made public yesterday Her Honour Judge Sarah Lynch called her only ‘the child’.

However, that is only half the story and indeed the Judge stated that her decision was not based on the fact that the 8 month old baby didn’t have a name or wasn’t registered by the parents – yet the outcome was still the same, in so much as the baby was snatched:

The judge said the mother had a ‘warm and loving’ relationship with her baby, whom she sees regularly even though the girl is living with foster parents. The baby would benefit from being brought up by her own family, the judge said, and she rejected social workers’ arguments that the girl should be taken from her parents because they refuse to co-operate with the council or medical staff.

The family should not be broken up for the sake of social engineering, the judge said, adding: ‘I am personally also unconvinced that failing to name the child constitutes significant harm.’

And here is the part which reinforces what I said about the common law just being dismissed as unimportant by Judges:

The parents said that the family court had no authority to make decisions about their daughter.

They said they were asserting ‘divine, inalienable and natural rights, and all rights here asserted and reserved are subject to accepted law through justice as preserved by the Holy Bible, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1988, Bill of Rights, Lex Mercatoria, Treaty of International Law, Apostolic Letters issued by the Pontiff Francis ll.’

Judge Lynch said: ‘I confess I have found it hard to make sense of their view of authority, their philosophical stance.’

However, she said ‘they are clear the local authority has taken their child for the purpose of making a profit by way of unlawful adoption.’

The judge said the parents had ‘ably’ represented themselves in court despite their refusal to co-operate with social or health workers.

So, the fact that a Judge still sided with the SS by ruling that the child should be adopted despite not being registered – by the parents anyway – who were obviously relying on a common law defence, would seem to suggest all that I have stated above is correct.

However, irregardless of the birth certificate question, the fact that the Judge ordered that the baby be adopted despite not being subjected to any harm by her loving parents is absolutely disgusting – going on the information provided of course.

You see, the reason that the Judge ruled in favour of the SS is because the baby’s father has been accused of sexually assaulting his 12 year old step-daughter:

The [Judge] ruled that the girl should be adopted by new parents because of allegations against the father that he sexually assaulted the un-named baby’s 12-year-old stepsister. A family court has found that the father touched the older girl ‘in numerous places, both intimate and non-intimate.’

Now an allegation is very different from fact and as we know, “allegations” just trip off the tongue’s of both the police and social workers alike, often regardless of evidence to the contrary.

And in this case the father hasn’t been convicted of anything.

Never the less, what the fuck constitutes touching someone in a “non-intimate” place?

The father faces criminal sexual assault charges and is set to face trial at Leeds Crown Court.

She said that the father maintained the sexual assault charges were ‘unproven allegations of which he has not been convicted and the matter should be looked at by the Crown Court before any plans are made for adoption.’

Making a ruling that the baby should be placed for adoption, Judge Lynch said: ‘I am satisfied the child would be at risk of sexual harm from the father, in the way that her sister suffered harm, were she to be placed in the care of either of the parents. Source

So, quite plainly you are now guilty until proven innocent in this cuntry. And as a consequence, should the father be proven innocent, the family have still lost their precious little girl.

Now, how the fuck can that be right?

 

I mean of course, if the father is found guilty – backed by solid evidence – and the mother refuses to leave him, then of course by all means the baby should be at the very least taken into foster care.

However, it is not their fault that the father has not been able to defend himself in a court of law.

The fault lies with the country’s slow justice system. I mean, if it is a cut and shut case, what the fuck is the hold up?

And even then, I fail to see why a decision about the baby’s future could not be deferred until after the court case.

Man, this cuntry is proper, proper fucked up and only we can remedy that.