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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.