bhawk 64 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 In the attestation DEFRA and police officers take it states they are to uphold fundamental human rights, this oath is then broken by any enforcement of the wildlife and countryside act which contradicts human rights by stating that a suspect is guilty until he proves himself innocent. The most significant clause of the Statute of Tallage is Chapter Four, where the Crown promises never to impose laws that infringe any common law rights or liberties, the wildlife and countryside act also contradicts this law. Furthermore "We will and grant for us and our heirs," states King Edward’s Act, "that all clerks and laymen of our land shall have all their laws, liberties and free customs as largely and wholly as they have used to have the same at any time when they had them best and most fully; and if any statutes have been made by us or our ancestors, or any customs brought in contrary to them, or any manner of article contained in this present charter, we will and grant that each manner of statutes and customs shall be void and frustrate for evermore." That clearly states the wildlife and countryside act is void. It does not apply! To take this further there is the fact that DEFRA and all police (as far as im aware) are COMPANIES, registered to the companies house(registration numbers found for DEFRA are: UC6035210, UC6248538 and UC4631666. North yorkshire police and NYP authority are: UC4633021 and UC6039748. South Devon and Cornwall police are actually privately owned by IBM, it an easy fact to find just by looking at the entries to companies house) which means (due to company law) they can only have authority over any member of public through form of contract. This means that defra enforcement officers who claim right to enter private property do not, unless you give them consent. enforcement of the wildlife and countryside act also needs consent (even for the police), not only for them to have authority over you but also for the statute to have "force of law" (statutes are not law and by definition is: A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed.) This means that the wildlife and countryside act is defunct and has no lawful power! Dont take my word for any of this, go and do the research for yourself. It truly is an unlawful defunct law! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RicW 67 Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 In the attestation DEFRA and police officers take it states they are to upholdfundamental human rights, this oath is then broken by any enforcement of the wildlife and countryside act which contradicts human rights by stating that a suspect is guilty until he proves himself innocent. The most significant clause of the Statute of Tallage is Chapter Four, where the Crown promises never to impose laws that infringe any common law rights or liberties, the wildlife and countryside act also contradicts this law. Furthermore "We will and grant for us and our heirs," states King Edward’s Act, "that all clerks and laymen of our land shall have all their laws, liberties and free customs as largely and wholly as they have used to have the same at any time when they had them best and most fully; and if any statutes have been made by us or our ancestors, or any customs brought in contrary to them, or any manner of article contained in this present charter, we will and grant that each manner of statutes and customs shall be void and frustrate for evermore." That clearly states the wildlife and countryside act is void. It does not apply! To take this further there is the fact that DEFRA and all police (as far as im aware) are COMPANIES, registered to the companies house(registration numbers found for DEFRA are: UC6035210, UC6248538 and UC4631666. North yorkshire police and NYP authority are: UC4633021 and UC6039748. South Devon and Cornwall police are actually privately owned by IBM, it an easy fact to find just by looking at the entries to companies house) which means (due to company law) they can only have authority over any member of public through form of contract. This means that defra enforcement officers who claim right to enter private property do not, unless you give them consent. enforcement of the wildlife and countryside act also needs consent (even for the police), not only for them to have authority over you but also for the statute to have "force of law" (statutes are not law and by definition is: A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed.) This means that the wildlife and countryside act is defunct and has no lawful power! Dont take my word for any of this, go and do the research for yourself. It truly is an unlawful defunct law! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SportingShooter 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 No Parliament is bound by previous Parliaments, if they create laws that contradict past laws then so be it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mushroom 14,329 Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 No Parliament is bound by previous Parliaments, if they create laws that contradict past laws then so be it. why do some archaic laws still stand unable to be changed or reworded by some minister. ie the court in the new forest or somewhere or those nice people that own those forest dwelling ponies and round them up every year??? Just curious why some can be changed and others can't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SportingShooter 0 Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 No Parliament is bound by previous Parliaments, if they create laws that contradict past laws then so be it. why do some archaic laws still stand unable to be changed or reworded by some minister. ie the court in the new forest or somewhere or those nice people that own those forest dwelling ponies and round them up every year??? Just curious why some can be changed and others can't. I believe that would depend on whether there has been more recent legislation to outlaw or change the existing laws. No past law is unchangeable. We are in the European Union by an Act of our Parliament, if that Act were to be repealed, we would not legally be an EU member. Another example is Habeas Corpus Act 1679, which enshrines the right to a fair trial without unlawful detention, the words mean "Present the Body" or "You shall have the Body". Habeas Corpus has been suspended several times by a Statute of Parliament, most recently in the troubles in Northern Ireland. Which reiterates that Parliaments are not bound by previous ones. If they wanted to outlaw or change the one you mention, it could easily be done by a new Act overruling or revoking the old one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bhawk 64 Posted August 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 No Parliament is bound by previous Parliaments, if they create laws that contradict past laws then so be it. this is not parliament, parliament creates legislation, the monarchy create laws. statutes cannot overpower law, statues are meant to reflect common law. please look into the subject before leaving uninformed replies Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bhawk 64 Posted August 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 No Parliament is bound by previous Parliaments, if they create laws that contradict past laws then so be it. why do some archaic laws still stand unable to be changed or reworded by some minister. ie the court in the new forest or somewhere or those nice people that own those forest dwelling ponies and round them up every year??? Just curious why some can be changed and others can't. its down to the fact we have common law, we have many liberties granted to us by the monarchy. the biggest problem people have with understanding all this is that statutes are NOT LAW, merely given "force of law" by "consent of the governed". Our rights include our right to travel, our right to contract our labor without interference from the government, our right to nullify the law if we deem it unjust (used by the jury, not the suspect ) in trials, our right to lawful rebellion (being used by many now) and many other rights we have been made to forget. This was meant to be a free country we could be proud to be a citizen of, now we are simply ducking and diving through life trying not to get penalised for everything we do by the police and various other revenue collectors. Most people will complain about it, the few of us who attempt to make changes often find we have not only the government to fight but also our own public who are ignorant enough to criticise but not brave enough to use their own head and look into things and put some effort into it. Just think about this, EVERY COURT IN THIS LAND IS A COMPANY RUN FOR PROFIT (theyre registered in companies house, easy to check it out) EVERY POLICE FORCE IS ALSO A COMPANY (south devon and cornwall police are actually owned by IBM, again aint hard to find the registration) SO HOW CAN WE HAVE UNBIASED TRIALS WHEN EVERYONES IN IT FOR PROFIT. no such thing as justice any more, people just want that money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bhawk 64 Posted August 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 No Parliament is bound by previous Parliaments, if they create laws that contradict past laws then so be it. why do some archaic laws still stand unable to be changed or reworded by some minister. ie the court in the new forest or somewhere or those nice people that own those forest dwelling ponies and round them up every year??? Just curious why some can be changed and others can't. I believe that would depend on whether there has been more recent legislation to outlaw or change the existing laws. No past law is unchangeable. We are in the European Union by an Act of our Parliament, if that Act were to be repealed, we would not legally be an EU member. Another example is Habeas Corpus Act 1679, which enshrines the right to a fair trial without unlawful detention, the words mean "Present the Body" or "You shall have the Body". Habeas Corpus has been suspended several times by a Statute of Parliament, most recently in the troubles in Northern Ireland. Which reiterates that Parliaments are not bound by previous ones. If they wanted to outlaw or change the one you mention, it could easily be done by a new Act overruling or revoking the old one. OK PEOPLE PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS, THERE IS LAW AND THERE IS LEGISLATION, VASTLY DIFFERENT AND NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET! please look into law, not legislation, thats were we find our freedoms. legislation is were we find our constraints. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SportingShooter 0 Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I'm sorry, but what you speak makes no sense at all. The Oxford English Dictionary states Law is as follows, law • noun 1 a rule or system of rules recognized by a country or community as regulating the actions of its members and enforced by the imposition of penalties. 2 such rules as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession. 3 statute law and the common law. 4 a statement of fact to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present. 5 a rule defining correct procedure or behaviour in a sport. 6 something having binding force or effect: his word was law. legislation • noun laws collectively. If Legislation is a collection of Laws, and Legislation is made by Parliament, how do they differ? You seem to be holding on to the days where Monarchs made and enacted Law and Legislation instead of that power being handed to Parliament via Royal Prerogative. No statute/law or collection of laws can stand with protection from ever being altered, Parliament is Sovereign. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bhawk 64 Posted August 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I'm sorry, but what you speak makes no sense at all. The Oxford English Dictionary states Law is as follows, law • noun 1 a rule or system of rules recognized by a country or community as regulating the actions of its members and enforced by the imposition of penalties. 2 such rules as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession. 3 statute law and the common law. 4 a statement of fact to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present. 5 a rule defining correct procedure or behaviour in a sport. 6 something having binding force or effect: his word was law. legislation • noun laws collectively. If Legislation is a collection of Laws, and Legislation is made by Parliament, how do they differ? You seem to be holding on to the days where Monarchs made and enacted Law and Legislation instead of that power being handed to Parliament via Royal Prerogative. No statute/law or collection of laws can stand with protection from ever being altered, Parliament is Sovereign. please do some research, not look in an english dictionary, Look in blacks Law Dictionary at least. look the for the legal definitions. write to the ministry of justice. i'l even help you out by supplying the link http://www.justice.gov.uk/about.htm or email general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk. Use your bloody head. sometimes im amazed at the short-sightedness of some people Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SportingShooter 0 Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I'm sorry, but what you speak makes no sense at all. The Oxford English Dictionary states Law is as follows, law • noun 1 a rule or system of rules recognized by a country or community as regulating the actions of its members and enforced by the imposition of penalties. 2 such rules as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession. 3 statute law and the common law. 4 a statement of fact to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present. 5 a rule defining correct procedure or behaviour in a sport. 6 something having binding force or effect: his word was law. legislation • noun laws collectively. If Legislation is a collection of Laws, and Legislation is made by Parliament, how do they differ? You seem to be holding on to the days where Monarchs made and enacted Law and Legislation instead of that power being handed to Parliament via Royal Prerogative. No statute/law or collection of laws can stand with protection from ever being altered, Parliament is Sovereign. please do some research, not look in an english dictionary, Look in blacks Law Dictionary at least. look the for the legal definitions. write to the ministry of justice. i'l even help you out by supplying the link http://www.justice.gov.uk/about.htm or email general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk. Use your bloody head. sometimes im amazed at the short-sightedness of some people I have indeed sent them an Email, I have posted your exact words to them to decipher and I await their reply. It shall be posted here whenever it arrives. I'm also amazed, but not by you. SS Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hyperion Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 this could be interesting Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.