"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[Siegfried Shrink]

One (of several things) that puzzles me about all these groups and sects is 'What is so bad about corporations?'
Why is corporate such a bad word, why do they seem to think a corporation is seamlessly evil?

For a start, the term has many meanings. The Mayor and Corporation of the City of Birmingham are a bunch or more or less elected officials in local government, and a gentleman's 'corporation' is an old fashioned term for a generously proprtioned belly.
A corporation is one way of setting out the articles of association of a business, are PLCs equally evil, or limited partnerships, or sole traders?
Does it just mean any large organisation, and especially, any large organisation that does something we do not like, or fails to do something we think they should.

Why is a goverment or government agency that is not to your liking so much more evil if you label it a corporate body? One thing about commercial corporations is that they are usually incorporated with share capital, usually publically traded, and you can, if you wish and have enough money, simply buy them and run them as you would like them to be run.

I just wish they'd change the record ocassionally. And something other than Satanic or pedophiliac, please. At least 'capitalist' would give a clie where they are coming from.

Totally irrelevant, but at the bottom of the page it says Users online now and apart from the occasional bot or rare guest, my username is the only one that I have ever seen. I know there are not all that many members, but still. Just curious.

[Footloose52]

According to the members list there are 687 registered users. Active users are likely to be a lot, lot less as users come and go so the chance of being the only one on the forum must be fairly good given that the forum is primarily US based.

[TheNewSaint]

There's a clear implication that the White Dragons are racists/islamophobes and connected with Tommy EDL Robinson, and that this is a Bad Thing. Interesting for two reasons, one that PLD, despite their obsession with an imagined 'Merrie England' past, don't appear to be nativists; and secondly that Robinson appears to think the FMOTL pool is worth fishing in.

Thanks for clarifying. I did see the note about the writer regretting his prior involvement with nativism, but i didn't sense this was the reason for the split.

[Angolvagyok]

One (of several things) that puzzles me about all these groups and sects is 'What is so bad about corporations?'

Totally irrelevant, but at the bottom of the page it says Users online now and apart from the occasional bot or rare guest, my username is the only one that I have ever seen. I know there are not all that many members, but still. Just curious.

When you log in you can tick the ''hide my online status this session'' box and you won't be shown as here.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Does everyone do that? I can't see the point.

[longdog]

Attempts to bring enlightenment to the huddled masses seem to to be going so well...

Daniel Daykin

Posted this on local page and was promtly told by member of community that "this shit has nothing to do with Beeston" people are so disconnected from our common law its crazy...


Darren Hastie

what do you mean?


Daniel Daykin

local fb page for beeston town. Ive posted this as im trying to concentrate my efforts to getting locals on board or just wake them up a little, but it seems to touch a nerve and brings out lots of abuse from party members who are also on the page. All good fun.


Connor Jason Wilkinson

What did you say back?



Daniel Daykin

Sedition bro! (I think) reminded him that the 'shit' he was referring to were laws that had protected him and his for a long time. People dont even give it time to read before they spit on there own constitution. In my home town some are more concerned with shouting me down before listening.

With all due respect to the sane majority if they can't sell their revolution to the good denizens of Nottingham I fear they'll never reach a critical mass and reintroduce the rule of law.

[notorial dissent]

So many words, so little sense or content.

[TheNewSaint]

And again, they couldn't just snap a photo and place some black boxes over the text that they wish to edit? I just don't get why they can't take it to the next logical step and edit the digital image prior to posting.

i've seen cases where people tried to redact information from PDFs by adding black boxes, but the hidden text was still searchable, and the length of the black box provided clues. So the low-tech approach isn't necessarily a bad one. However, if they're going to hide their address, they should hide it everywhere it appears

[notorial dissent]

But that requires actual thought and thinking and stuffs, things that crowd is real short on.

[Arthur Rubin]

i've seen cases where people tried to redact information from PDFs by adding black boxes, but the hidden text was still searchable, and the length of the black box provided clues.

I've seen redactions from Microsoft and from the IRS done by changing the background color to the text color. However, the redacted text could be highlighted, as well as searched.

[grixit]

Totally irrelevant, but at the bottom of the page it says Users online now and apart from the occasional bot or rare guest, my username is the only one that I have ever seen. I know there are not all that many members, but still. Just curious.

A lot of forums allow the option of logging on in "invisible mode".

[Burnaby49]

Totally irrelevant, but at the bottom of the page it says Users online now and apart from the occasional bot or rare guest, my username is the only one that I have ever seen. I know there are not all that many members, but still. Just curious.

A lot of forums allow the option of logging on in "invisible mode".

As can we from this option in User Control Panel;

Hide my online status:
Changing this setting won’t become effective until your next visit to the board.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I had seen that, just wondered why anyone would bother.

[SteveUK]

More abject failure of the notices.

My latest notice to a 'justices clerk' after her further harassment after my notice to stop.
Your comments please:
(Notice begins with usual notice introductory paragraph)

In your letter dated 2nd August you state “The propositions you set out in your letter are legally nonsense”. You further state “I do not think it would serve any useful purpose for me to go through and rebut them in detail”.
Let me remind you that these ‘nonsense propositions’ represent the constitutional rule of law which underpinned the emergence of Britain as the template for modern democracy across the English speaking world: The English bill of rights of 1689 was made possible by the invocation of article 61 of the Magna Carta - 473 years after it was first signed.
Clearly, Your dismissal of the original Barons’ authority on the basis of their being ‘Long dead’ is disingenuous with respect to the events of 1689, and is made more so by the fact. that article 61 of the Magna Carta was invoked again by due process on 23rd March 2001 by a committee of Barons who are still very much alive. In my Notice of misprision of treason served on your colleague N Kaczmarska 10th July 2017, I enclosed evidence clearly documenting this fact.
Since this date, all citizens are required by law to ‘distress and distrain’ the crown and its agents, and maintain a stance of peaceful dissent against those agencies who are systematically violating the inalienable rights of citizens and denying them the right to due process.
I have repeatedly stated in my previous lawful notices that my oath of allegiance with the committee of barons makes it illegal for me to aid and abet those agencies unless they can prove they have the authority to conduct court cases since the invocation of article 61 of the Magna Carta on March 23rd 2001 – a pertinent request with which you have failed to comply despite having repeatedly being given the opportunity to do so. I have also previously enclosed a copy of my own oath of allegiance to the barons.
As a professional occupying a position of responsibility in Britain’s legal system, you have a legally binding duty to observe and uphold the inalienable common law rights of very citizen in these lands.
The rule of law was instituted to guarantee for all citizens:-
- The right to reasonable, fair and equitable treatment by – and towards - others
- The right to see evidence of injury caused to persons or property under common law
- Court de jure: the right to a trial by jury of one’s peers
- The right to be heard by a judge whose impartiality is not compromised by any perceivable incentives to aid and abet the prosecution according to the principle ‘Nemo judex in sua causa’ – no one shall be a judge in their own cause.
With respect to the Magna Carta, Alistair MacDonald QC, Chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales further qualified its validity in an issue of 'The Barrister' (page 3, pa, 25):
"I am convinced that the principles enshrined in Magna Carta are as important today as they were in 1215. It is a terrible irony that, as we celebrate Magna Carta, it is being undermined by an executive which pays lip service to its principles. If the legacy of Magna Carta is to last another 800 years it requires everyone with a sense of history and an understanding of the critical importance of the rule of law to our society to stand up and fight for it. The liberties conferred by this great document were hard won. We owe it to posterity to ensure that they are not lost in our time”
In your dismissive comments towards these foundational principles you illustrate your institution’s hubristic contempt for the rule of law and for citizens who seek to hold the court system accountable to the inalienable rights enshrined within it. This is further evidenced by your reference to the case of the boxer who attempted to seek lawful remedy to protect his rights from unlawful treatment. Clearly you view the injustice he incurred as a triumph for your system rather than the failure of the rule of law it actually represents.
You further develop your strawman argument by twice attempting to frame my position as a ‘freeman on the land’ defense. In the enclosures I have previously sent you by recorded post, it is made abundantly clear that this is NOT my stance.
For the purpose of clarification The freeman on the land movement attempts to use the magistrates court’s own rules against them to block injustices, whereas lawful rebellion stands under article 61 of the Magna Carta which provides us with a legal remedy against the types of systemic failings and abuses of governance that you and your colleagues have clearly demonstrated.
You will of course be aware that many of your victims are not criminal types at all. They are ordinary citizens who have inadvertently (and most likely safely with due care and attention) driven for a few seconds above speed limits, driven into bus lanes whilst distracted by real-world road safety concerns, failed to return to their cars in time to avoid parking fines or fallen foul of cruel and inflexible council tax policy.
They are vulnerable people with peaceful intentions, and naturally conditioned to be terrified when finding themselves labelled as offenders.
But their instinct for moral justice refuses to allow them to be coerced by the cynically labelled ‘conditional offer’ phase of the ‘summary justice’ blackmail process. So they rightly refuse to accept the ‘limited’ financial punishment offered them to avoid your mounting vengeance for ‘disobedience’. consequently they will have to endure long periods of toxic stress as they face their daily life with the long shadow of oppression hanging over them - knowing they are being hunted by a predator devoid of empathy or reason.
They will often try to appeal for reason, fairness and decency – which as the assumed gatekeepers of the justice system you are under a binding common law duty to give them. But instead their appeals are met with callous disregard and extortionate costs levied by a ‘court’ in which the powers of judge, jury and prosecution are combined under one financially incentivised interest.
A corrupt and oppressive institution does not stop being corrupt and oppressive just because a legitimate body of lawful authority has not yet formally emerged and organised to shut them down, Sian Jones.
“when an act of parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such act to be void”
- Chief Justice sir Edward Coke
I have maintained a lawful position of honour under the rule of law since the beginning of this case. You and your colleagues have been providing me with a growing case file of material that clearly proves that you have neither the will or the capacity to do so. Your emperor wears no clothes, and your asymmetrical knowledge advantage is lost. I look forward to passing this material to a legitimate court operating under the rule of law in due course.
Without Malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will, and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

Signed:

David Lucas

[longdog]

The rule of law was instituted to guarantee for all citizens...

In the days of Magnum Charter there was no such thing as citizenship and there wasn't really a Britain in the modern sense to be a citizen of. Certainly the plebs in the 13th century had nothing even close to the rights that citizenship implies or any real rights at all come to that.

Arguably the concept of a British citizen, as opposed to a mere subject of the crown, is a very modern idea which dates back to the immediate post war era and it was not until the British Nationality Act 1981 that the term 'subject' was replaced with 'citizen' for the vast majority of people.

[notorial dissent]

But mostly, MC 1215 has no legal force nor effect and hasn't ever really, it was almost immediately repudiated then revoked and later supplanted at various times, and has been all but totally repealed by Parliament, and in any event, it doesn't say what this particular idjit says it says.

[longdog]

But mostly, MC 1215 has no legal force nor effect and hasn't ever really, it was almost immediately repudiated then revoked and later supplanted at various times, and has been all but totally repealed by Parliament, and in any event, it doesn't say what this particular idjit says it says.

Yeah but apart from those minor details he's spot on


The latest comedy from our friends in another universe... Crabby confuses 'Correspondence closed' with 'Cased closed' and PAYG Dave confuses 'Oh do fuck off!' with 'I agree with you in every regard'...

Alan Rayner

Latest from hrmc



David Robinson

I would take that as an admission of the facts you will have provided. Not to respond to the points you made is tacit agreement of them.

Alan Rayner

That's what I thought


Robert White

Case closed Alan good job

[AndyPandy]

God, they're thick, they read a simple sentence through OPCA glasses and get it to read what they want it to instead of what it actually says !

[notorial dissent]

God, they're thick, they read a simple sentence through OPCA glasses and get it to read what they want it to instead of what it actually says !

I think you're being much too generous here, when the simpler answer is that they are quite obviously nearly or truly functionally illiterate on top of being bone stupid. I don't think any tow of them could parse the same simple sentence and come up with the same conclusion.

[Chaos]

I had seen that, just wondered why anyone would bother.

because i post in the nude.