Thanks Charlie, first time I have seen anyone other than myself question this is an article. I largely agree on what you are saying, I would differ a bit on natural law, since my take on the 'law of nature' is that actually there is no consistent law of nature but that is more of a biological argument - so on the common law thing I concur with you. Common Law of course is the basis of the UK/US system and in theory of course magna carta etc, few people would disagree with, so the problem with the so called 'common law gurus' is that they are NOT working with the actual common law but as you say in many cases, meaningless nonsense which is rendering their followers useless as opposition to the criminal state and putting them at risk financially or even risking them being locked up for contempt of court when they attend court arguing meaningless crap. I got attacked in the exact way you describe during lockdown. I joined the local resistance stand in park and the minute I challenged the usurping common law guru group within it (controlled through the telegram group), I was viciously attacked by the whole group who were cleverly steered by the infiltrator to see me as the problem. I gave up going to the group. I did try once again and found them all subdued and dumbed down listening to their chosen guru (who himself I believe is genuine, but misled by the cult). Again I got nasty comments etc. So yes, they successfully got me out of the movement . I am a genuine anarchist and have had my life ruined by the British state but find I cannot be part of the 'opposition' to it either. I see no real opposition, just people who were once brainwashed by the system guru, now woken up and then sent back to sleep again by their replacement guru. My other belief is that you cannot beat the system by participating in its institutions which includes its courts. The system can only be brought down by actual revolution or mass majority non compliance, not polite groups who sell the myth that violence is never the answer and that we can beat the system by niceties. The state is violent. When it is pointing its weapons in your face telling it you are full of love and compassion will not prevent it taking you hostage of blasting you out of existence. And given that the state is currently committing democide, the time for niceties has long gone. Here is an article I wrote a while back on strawman theory. I originally wrote this because the Lightpaper asked me to write it. They then claimed that they could not publish it because it would turn their supporters away (many of whom are already common law cult brainwashed). https://callystarforth.substack.com/p/is-a-man-a-person?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fstrawman&utm_medium=reader2
This infiltration seems to surprisingly common, even in what I would have thought were groups that were too small and insignificant to be worth bothering with (from the State's point of view). As they print the money I suppose they have an almost limitless budget however. As you say the State is violent at its core and every philosophy which tries to get around this is, ultimately, trying to disorient and weaken us in my opinion.
Although I don't know if I would describe myself as an anarchist I do think that (real) anarchists are the most clear-eyed when it comes to what the State is all about, with the 'common law' lot being at the other end of the spectrum!
Thanks for sharing your experience, I think a lot of people have experienced similar if they refuse to go along with the 'alternative' orthodoxy!
I was initially attracted to the common law sirens.
I researched it & found to my dismay that there were no real life examples of success, of people who had won their case.
I had to conclude it was just an intellectual exercise. Words on a piece of paper are never going to triumph over a powerful ruling mafia. They laugh at us .
Charlie I read your piece in Issue 34 of The Light on Page 9. Here is my response.
Might is right. This is an observable law of nature, from the lion who eats the gazelle to the star that goes supernova and devours everything in its gravitational field. If there is no God, then man is just a sophisticated ape and subject to the same laws of nature as the animals.
Politicians who don't believe in God don't fear God and will therefore do whatever they wish and can get away with since they think their actions are without consequences. A King who believes in God fears God. A King who does not believe in God only fears those men or natural powers that can kill him (disease, bullets, bombs etc).
Dieu et mon droit is written on the British Royal Seal and is on the wall of every English court. God and my Right means the Divine Right a King had/has to rule. If the King's power derives from God, then God is the ultimate King and ultimate power.
"Might is right" even applies to God. God is mighty and will send all bad Kings, politicians and evil men to Hell for all eternity. God is the ultimate judge.
Modern man who mostly does not believe in God at all or in a concrete way, cannot appeal to natural justice or the justice laid out in religious texts as these are laughed at by the people who would need to respect them for that man to have meaningful rights. But of course they have no rights either other than what they can have due to their power. If they are Hitler or Ghedaffi or Saddam Hussain or John F. Kennedy they may also die violent deaths.
Even the Russian oligarchs who have enough money to ruin any normal person's life, if they wished to, and could do it completely legally, by simply buying the house on either side of them and moving in anti-social people such as drug addicts or paedophiles as tenants; even they can have their yachts seized by the EU for what exactly? What crime did they commit? Simply knowing Putin? Since when is knowing someone a crime under any kind of civilised law?
Ultimately, therefore, you either answer to the just and merciful and good God and fear and obey Him and derive your rights from Him, or you answer to the tyrant who rules your country until they die and are replaced by another tyrant.
True rights derive from your nature as a person made in the image and likeness of God. All other 'rights', granted by men, are mere licences that can be removed whenever they so wish.
Thanks for this, I completely agree that 'Natural Law' really only makes sense if it is taken to mean the Moral Law established by some higher power as you are completely correct to say that 'Nature' itself provides plenty of examples of 'Might makes Right".
I am glad to see that more and more people are beginning to understand that our entire problem stems from our rejection of a higher religious/metaphysical order which makes it impossible to make any concrete moral statements/erect any barriers whatsoever (at least logically).
Unfortunately a lot of the opposition still consists of disenchanted Liberals who are basically shouting 'this far but no further' in response to the agenda moving beyond a point at which it personally benefited them (for instance the recent movement of some LGB/Feminists against T).
I think History shows exactly what you have said that true rights MUST derive from some higher order or else they do become licenses which can be easily removed during some 'emergency' to benefit the 'common good'.
There is a huge amount of confusion regarding common law. Most arguments, either for or against, are emotional and not based on reality. The thrust of this series of articles seems to miss the point of common law and even undermines and mocks those that advocate. No one can use a legal fiction identity to seek justice in a common law court. Even the current prime minister Rishi Sunak talks of the modern day slave-system. Sunak used the word slave, so even though the word isn’t encouraged in modern language, Sunak acknowledges a citizen is a modern day slave. Common law identities offer a way out of the so-called modern day slave-system.
The judiciary law of most counties can with certainty only work with a legal fiction identity document, like a government issued passport for example. We may benefit from these identity documents, but we never own them. A British Passport clearly states that the identity isn’t our property and can be rescinded by the owner. That is why any issued identity from a government is a legal fiction identity. The British passport also states that the identity is a citizen. Thus proving that a citizen is a legal entity. Anyone who claims the identity as their property is giving jurisdiction of their wellbeing to the publisher of the passport.
Conversely, a common law identity document is our personal property and no one can steal the identity or use the identity against us indirectly.
Firstly I would imagine that Sunak was talking about 'modern slavery' - which as far as I understand is essentially people trafficking - is there any reason to think that his statement wasn't referring to this but was actually 'acknowledging a citizen is a modern day slave?'
You haven't actually addressed any of my points - I agree that seeking any real 'justice' in the current system is futile, but you haven't explained how a 'common law identity' document gets around this in any way.
Can you show me any verifiable example of someone regaining their natural rights/reasserting them (or whichever term you prefer) by using these documents?
If not can you explain why anyone should think they will be in any way effective against a state that does not respect our basic rights and liberties?
My wake up call came on leaving school now fifty years. Someone handed me a card with a national insurance number and told to my face in very harsh terms, that the number was me. My thoughts at the time were, how ridiculous!
I do not consider myself to be a dissident or anti crown and its government with their statuary laws per se. For I believe there is a place but not their corruption and in fact it works in favour of those of us whom know we are alive. My interpretation of statutory law is a contract between two or more legal entities, one of which is the crown and its government. And the other part is the legal fiction identity that the crown created, that I benefit. The crown, though, wants to hold me liable for their legal fiction identity property. Then 'they' can extort valuables. ‘The lost at sea Act of 1666’ I agree with you for the time it would make prefect reason. But they have already stated the name to be their property in the British passport document.
I believe we must create our own witnessed identity that we are alive. That is how a common law court can help us navigate this legal, fictional criminal world. I agree common law can fail, and is extremely dangerous, particularly to those who are newbies. I agree with you that deliberate saboteurs have always been around to undermine genuine law and justice. For the crown would lose power and control over their victims if not for the disinformation professionals. Newbies make the mistake of thinking they are free when, in fact, they have signed a contract and do so every year with the crown and its government. So realistically they are in breach of contract, for they also claim to be citizens. These fools also claim to be ‘sovereign citizens’ and ‘freemen of the land’ and demand their rights under statutory law. How can anyone take these fools seriously? Plus, they undermine common law genuine content and turn it into a stupid cult. These so-called advocates of common law are looking for a free ride and they aren’t prepared to respect the community.
The key to change is to first understand the MO of the Crown and its government. Every year, this legal entity must seek our consent on paper or digital. So do you know how they do it? If you want to vote, one must register an agreement. The registration is just a deceptive front to gain your consent. They cannot offer justice, for their equity courts are corrupt. The onus is on the crown to prove their claim… there is no evidence to support their claim.
Conclusion: You have made excellent points. Your style made the reading enjoyable with excellent considerations. Perhaps not new, but good. The subject issue is so old and confused we need to drop the expectation of change through these channels. A criminal system isn’t going to just roll over, so we have to find a way of securing our lives against the likes of WHO - UN - WEF. These are the criminals who intend to destroy the likes of us.
Thanks for the reply Stuart - I think the whole issue is such a complex one given the various different systems/traditions involved but ultimately I would have to agree with your last point 'A criminal system isn’t going to just roll over, so we have to find a way of securing our lives against the likes of WHO - UN - WEF. These are the criminals who intend to destroy the likes of us. ' As you say there are a lot of saboteurs/conmen out there who (to my mind) are pushing a theory where the criminal system will just 'roll over' if we follow a particular script, which I personally have seen no evidence of (and have seen some evidence to the contrary where people have tried to implement 'common law' advice they were given and gotten themselves into serious trouble as a result). Thanks again for the comment, has given me a lot to think about!
The modern Savery act in 2015 is not just about people trafficking. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/contents/enacted. The definition of slavery can be applied to simply one group / organisation coercing another group. Or a single man or woman or a child. Rishi Sunak may have made is talk about the current so-called illegal immigrants issue, but the act applies to all. All Statutory Courts and the CPS in the UK are also liable for prosecution, for they are places of business / registered companies run for profit. Nothing to do with justice. These places of so-called justice can only function if their victim/customer claims their identity to be a legal fiction identity. Found in a UK passport or a driving licence document. They cannot prosecute a living man or woman. If they ignore evidence of the contra, a document of identity of a living man or woman created via a common law court. They are in breach of the modern Savery act in 2015.
To realise a way of justice in a common law court is not a simple act of engaging their services. It’s not a case of regaining our natural rights or reasserting them. For no one can take them away, even the crown is impotent. Though we must realise the difference between the two systems is essential in the first stage of progress. The UK government acknowledges common law courts grudgingly as a means of justice, for they cannot stop it as per their modern slavery act 2015. Because the crown and its government are also registered companies / legal entities.
I would like to address your points in further comments, but for now I hope the above goes some way to showing a positive way forward for all to benefit.
Thanks Charlie, first time I have seen anyone other than myself question this is an article. I largely agree on what you are saying, I would differ a bit on natural law, since my take on the 'law of nature' is that actually there is no consistent law of nature but that is more of a biological argument - so on the common law thing I concur with you. Common Law of course is the basis of the UK/US system and in theory of course magna carta etc, few people would disagree with, so the problem with the so called 'common law gurus' is that they are NOT working with the actual common law but as you say in many cases, meaningless nonsense which is rendering their followers useless as opposition to the criminal state and putting them at risk financially or even risking them being locked up for contempt of court when they attend court arguing meaningless crap. I got attacked in the exact way you describe during lockdown. I joined the local resistance stand in park and the minute I challenged the usurping common law guru group within it (controlled through the telegram group), I was viciously attacked by the whole group who were cleverly steered by the infiltrator to see me as the problem. I gave up going to the group. I did try once again and found them all subdued and dumbed down listening to their chosen guru (who himself I believe is genuine, but misled by the cult). Again I got nasty comments etc. So yes, they successfully got me out of the movement . I am a genuine anarchist and have had my life ruined by the British state but find I cannot be part of the 'opposition' to it either. I see no real opposition, just people who were once brainwashed by the system guru, now woken up and then sent back to sleep again by their replacement guru. My other belief is that you cannot beat the system by participating in its institutions which includes its courts. The system can only be brought down by actual revolution or mass majority non compliance, not polite groups who sell the myth that violence is never the answer and that we can beat the system by niceties. The state is violent. When it is pointing its weapons in your face telling it you are full of love and compassion will not prevent it taking you hostage of blasting you out of existence. And given that the state is currently committing democide, the time for niceties has long gone. Here is an article I wrote a while back on strawman theory. I originally wrote this because the Lightpaper asked me to write it. They then claimed that they could not publish it because it would turn their supporters away (many of whom are already common law cult brainwashed). https://callystarforth.substack.com/p/is-a-man-a-person?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fstrawman&utm_medium=reader2
This infiltration seems to surprisingly common, even in what I would have thought were groups that were too small and insignificant to be worth bothering with (from the State's point of view). As they print the money I suppose they have an almost limitless budget however. As you say the State is violent at its core and every philosophy which tries to get around this is, ultimately, trying to disorient and weaken us in my opinion.
Although I don't know if I would describe myself as an anarchist I do think that (real) anarchists are the most clear-eyed when it comes to what the State is all about, with the 'common law' lot being at the other end of the spectrum!
Thanks for sharing your experience, I think a lot of people have experienced similar if they refuse to go along with the 'alternative' orthodoxy!
I was initially attracted to the common law sirens.
I researched it & found to my dismay that there were no real life examples of success, of people who had won their case.
I had to conclude it was just an intellectual exercise. Words on a piece of paper are never going to triumph over a powerful ruling mafia. They laugh at us .
"Words on a piece of paper are never going to triumph over a powerful ruling mafia." - couldn't agree more, thanks for commenting!
Charlie I read your piece in Issue 34 of The Light on Page 9. Here is my response.
Might is right. This is an observable law of nature, from the lion who eats the gazelle to the star that goes supernova and devours everything in its gravitational field. If there is no God, then man is just a sophisticated ape and subject to the same laws of nature as the animals.
Politicians who don't believe in God don't fear God and will therefore do whatever they wish and can get away with since they think their actions are without consequences. A King who believes in God fears God. A King who does not believe in God only fears those men or natural powers that can kill him (disease, bullets, bombs etc).
Dieu et mon droit is written on the British Royal Seal and is on the wall of every English court. God and my Right means the Divine Right a King had/has to rule. If the King's power derives from God, then God is the ultimate King and ultimate power.
"Might is right" even applies to God. God is mighty and will send all bad Kings, politicians and evil men to Hell for all eternity. God is the ultimate judge.
Modern man who mostly does not believe in God at all or in a concrete way, cannot appeal to natural justice or the justice laid out in religious texts as these are laughed at by the people who would need to respect them for that man to have meaningful rights. But of course they have no rights either other than what they can have due to their power. If they are Hitler or Ghedaffi or Saddam Hussain or John F. Kennedy they may also die violent deaths.
Even the Russian oligarchs who have enough money to ruin any normal person's life, if they wished to, and could do it completely legally, by simply buying the house on either side of them and moving in anti-social people such as drug addicts or paedophiles as tenants; even they can have their yachts seized by the EU for what exactly? What crime did they commit? Simply knowing Putin? Since when is knowing someone a crime under any kind of civilised law?
Ultimately, therefore, you either answer to the just and merciful and good God and fear and obey Him and derive your rights from Him, or you answer to the tyrant who rules your country until they die and are replaced by another tyrant.
True rights derive from your nature as a person made in the image and likeness of God. All other 'rights', granted by men, are mere licences that can be removed whenever they so wish.
Thanks for this, I completely agree that 'Natural Law' really only makes sense if it is taken to mean the Moral Law established by some higher power as you are completely correct to say that 'Nature' itself provides plenty of examples of 'Might makes Right".
I am glad to see that more and more people are beginning to understand that our entire problem stems from our rejection of a higher religious/metaphysical order which makes it impossible to make any concrete moral statements/erect any barriers whatsoever (at least logically).
Unfortunately a lot of the opposition still consists of disenchanted Liberals who are basically shouting 'this far but no further' in response to the agenda moving beyond a point at which it personally benefited them (for instance the recent movement of some LGB/Feminists against T).
I think History shows exactly what you have said that true rights MUST derive from some higher order or else they do become licenses which can be easily removed during some 'emergency' to benefit the 'common good'.
There is a huge amount of confusion regarding common law. Most arguments, either for or against, are emotional and not based on reality. The thrust of this series of articles seems to miss the point of common law and even undermines and mocks those that advocate. No one can use a legal fiction identity to seek justice in a common law court. Even the current prime minister Rishi Sunak talks of the modern day slave-system. Sunak used the word slave, so even though the word isn’t encouraged in modern language, Sunak acknowledges a citizen is a modern day slave. Common law identities offer a way out of the so-called modern day slave-system.
The judiciary law of most counties can with certainty only work with a legal fiction identity document, like a government issued passport for example. We may benefit from these identity documents, but we never own them. A British Passport clearly states that the identity isn’t our property and can be rescinded by the owner. That is why any issued identity from a government is a legal fiction identity. The British passport also states that the identity is a citizen. Thus proving that a citizen is a legal entity. Anyone who claims the identity as their property is giving jurisdiction of their wellbeing to the publisher of the passport.
Conversely, a common law identity document is our personal property and no one can steal the identity or use the identity against us indirectly.
Hi Stuart,
Thanks for the comment!
Firstly I would imagine that Sunak was talking about 'modern slavery' - which as far as I understand is essentially people trafficking - is there any reason to think that his statement wasn't referring to this but was actually 'acknowledging a citizen is a modern day slave?'
You haven't actually addressed any of my points - I agree that seeking any real 'justice' in the current system is futile, but you haven't explained how a 'common law identity' document gets around this in any way.
Can you show me any verifiable example of someone regaining their natural rights/reasserting them (or whichever term you prefer) by using these documents?
If not can you explain why anyone should think they will be in any way effective against a state that does not respect our basic rights and liberties?
Thanks!
Hi Chris,
To address your points
My wake up call came on leaving school now fifty years. Someone handed me a card with a national insurance number and told to my face in very harsh terms, that the number was me. My thoughts at the time were, how ridiculous!
I do not consider myself to be a dissident or anti crown and its government with their statuary laws per se. For I believe there is a place but not their corruption and in fact it works in favour of those of us whom know we are alive. My interpretation of statutory law is a contract between two or more legal entities, one of which is the crown and its government. And the other part is the legal fiction identity that the crown created, that I benefit. The crown, though, wants to hold me liable for their legal fiction identity property. Then 'they' can extort valuables. ‘The lost at sea Act of 1666’ I agree with you for the time it would make prefect reason. But they have already stated the name to be their property in the British passport document.
I believe we must create our own witnessed identity that we are alive. That is how a common law court can help us navigate this legal, fictional criminal world. I agree common law can fail, and is extremely dangerous, particularly to those who are newbies. I agree with you that deliberate saboteurs have always been around to undermine genuine law and justice. For the crown would lose power and control over their victims if not for the disinformation professionals. Newbies make the mistake of thinking they are free when, in fact, they have signed a contract and do so every year with the crown and its government. So realistically they are in breach of contract, for they also claim to be citizens. These fools also claim to be ‘sovereign citizens’ and ‘freemen of the land’ and demand their rights under statutory law. How can anyone take these fools seriously? Plus, they undermine common law genuine content and turn it into a stupid cult. These so-called advocates of common law are looking for a free ride and they aren’t prepared to respect the community.
The key to change is to first understand the MO of the Crown and its government. Every year, this legal entity must seek our consent on paper or digital. So do you know how they do it? If you want to vote, one must register an agreement. The registration is just a deceptive front to gain your consent. They cannot offer justice, for their equity courts are corrupt. The onus is on the crown to prove their claim… there is no evidence to support their claim.
Conclusion: You have made excellent points. Your style made the reading enjoyable with excellent considerations. Perhaps not new, but good. The subject issue is so old and confused we need to drop the expectation of change through these channels. A criminal system isn’t going to just roll over, so we have to find a way of securing our lives against the likes of WHO - UN - WEF. These are the criminals who intend to destroy the likes of us.
Thanks for the reply Stuart - I think the whole issue is such a complex one given the various different systems/traditions involved but ultimately I would have to agree with your last point 'A criminal system isn’t going to just roll over, so we have to find a way of securing our lives against the likes of WHO - UN - WEF. These are the criminals who intend to destroy the likes of us. ' As you say there are a lot of saboteurs/conmen out there who (to my mind) are pushing a theory where the criminal system will just 'roll over' if we follow a particular script, which I personally have seen no evidence of (and have seen some evidence to the contrary where people have tried to implement 'common law' advice they were given and gotten themselves into serious trouble as a result). Thanks again for the comment, has given me a lot to think about!
Hello Chris, thank you for your reply.
Re - Rishi Sunak.
The modern Savery act in 2015 is not just about people trafficking. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/contents/enacted. The definition of slavery can be applied to simply one group / organisation coercing another group. Or a single man or woman or a child. Rishi Sunak may have made is talk about the current so-called illegal immigrants issue, but the act applies to all. All Statutory Courts and the CPS in the UK are also liable for prosecution, for they are places of business / registered companies run for profit. Nothing to do with justice. These places of so-called justice can only function if their victim/customer claims their identity to be a legal fiction identity. Found in a UK passport or a driving licence document. They cannot prosecute a living man or woman. If they ignore evidence of the contra, a document of identity of a living man or woman created via a common law court. They are in breach of the modern Savery act in 2015.
To realise a way of justice in a common law court is not a simple act of engaging their services. It’s not a case of regaining our natural rights or reasserting them. For no one can take them away, even the crown is impotent. Though we must realise the difference between the two systems is essential in the first stage of progress. The UK government acknowledges common law courts grudgingly as a means of justice, for they cannot stop it as per their modern slavery act 2015. Because the crown and its government are also registered companies / legal entities.
I would like to address your points in further comments, but for now I hope the above goes some way to showing a positive way forward for all to benefit.