Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» …Gis 20 billion and you can stay minister to Mrs may… sounds like bribery and corruption don’t it?
by ceylon Today at 10:03 am

» Duped into guarantor, severe mental health issues
by waylander62 Today at 9:13 am

» Prisoner, Documentary + Bonus
by Lopsum Yesterday at 9:03 pm

» ...The KaK & M@© Show Do PAEDOPHILES want to make cannabis legal or not?
by ceylon Yesterday at 3:51 pm

» Do banks destroy credit agreements ?
by daveiron Yesterday at 2:51 pm

» ...Are the paedophiles getting treated too good?
by ceylon Yesterday at 12:33 pm

» Potential legal action letter from mortimer clark solicitor
by Jai786 Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:29 pm

» ...The KaK & M@© Show. Has the WAR on CANNABIS been lost?
by ceylon Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:22 pm

» Court claim
by Jai786 Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:59 pm

» UK Column
by ceylon Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:33 pm

» Single Justice Procedure Notice
by pieintheskywhenIdie Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:15 pm

» ...Is Zionist tube censoring AGAIN? Are the commons censoring as well? wJFP7IH25Po
by ceylon Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:12 pm

» ARE WE BEING BETRAYED?
by ceylon Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:39 am

» 24 Storey Tower on Fire in Kensington - dies
by Awoken2 Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:49 am

» New 3 Letters. Any Success?
by discodave4093 Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:42 am

» ...Is it time to end the monarchy?
by El E Mentary Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:00 am

» Lowell
by assassin Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:01 am

» DW Fitness, Parking eye and Debt recovery plus
by assassin Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:48 am

» Clean up.
by midnight Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:56 pm

» Strange new symbol at speakers corner
by daveiron Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:09 pm

» Advice for partner - LOWELL
by DRAGONBORN11 Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:16 pm

» Parking Eye now DRP on my back
by daveiron Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:00 pm

» ...The KaK & M@© Show. £10 a car How much are they scamming out of the public?
by ceylon Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:32 pm

» INFO - NEW Civil Procedure Rules Pre-Action Protocols introduced OCTOBER 2017
by barnwebb Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:42 pm

» Lowell threatening me Again !!
by waylander62 Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:41 pm

» Directions questionaire from lowells solicitors
by jack Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:33 pm

» AMIGOS LOANS ON MY BACK
by waylander62 Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:31 pm

» HELP Demand? I think I have a CCJ!
by Andee Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:13 pm

» Single Justice Procedure Notice
by Winston Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:32 pm

» MORTGAGE FRAUD
by handle Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:46 pm

» ...Did the government protect serial killer doctor?
by ceylon Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:58 am

» ...The KaK & M@© Show. What is value added theft?
by ceylon Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:10 pm

» Are you the only one awake in your family ?
by Tom Bombadil Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:56 pm

» Helping a friend
by waylander62 Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:05 pm

» What are the three foundation documents?
by jack Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:14 pm

» Essex & Suffolk Water
by Sharpysparky Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:58 pm

» Natorial Protest
by Sharpysparky Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:56 pm

Moon phases


V.Important

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

V.Important

Post by Waffle on Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:38 pm

I'd like to apologise I feel I have been neglecting the posts in the other forums, but this is to important to put on the backseat.

What I have discovered, as some will already know, is it is one thing hearing seeing on the variety of online resources to actually proving in law.

There is no real easy way to explain or advocate this, Im gonna go ahead and give it a shot.

Terminology:

Natural Guardian (parent) = Legal Guardian

Mother = Someone who has been granted parental responsibility by the state

Father =Someone who has been granted parental responsibility by the state

Parental responsibility = the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property

What does this mean?

It means in legislation the state grants a natural parent, the real biological mother and father parental responsibility of their own child. No parent, no mother, no father has natural guardianship of their biological child, the parentage they think they have is parental responsibility, which is a basic responsibility to nurture the basic needs of that child and tend to its financial necessities.

In the eyes of the law NO natural parent of a child is deemed to have a biological and natural attachment to their own child, those parental duties we are all fulfilling are all fictional responsibilities that are granted to us over our own children, you are not a true parent of your own child in the eyes of the law! In fact, they have legislated this so much, that since 1989 NO male or female is, in law, considered, a natural guardian of their own child. This is shocking, its very shocking your child in law is considered an orphan and that orphan is a ward of the state and the state grant you parental responsibility over your very own child, your very own child who in law is a freaking orphan!

Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 786
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Guest on Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:15 am

Hi Waffle

Yes, it is indeed shocking.

It also conveys the essence of the difference between lawful and legal.

Cheers!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by assassin on Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:33 am

Wrong Waffle, you are a natural parent up the point you register them for the BC, this is why is so important for them to get this piece of paper so quickly
avatar
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1413
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Guest on Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:46 am

Hi guys

Might i offer a different opinion?

'You', as in the 'man', are never a natural parent. The man doesn't have a child.

'Natural parent' and 'child' are legal terms rather than lawful. There is no law involved in these Acts.

It is only your 'person' that is 'natural parent' to a child.

This only happens because the 'author' of the 'creation' doesn't assert his authority and claim the product of his labour as his own.

Cheers!


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Tom Bombadil on Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:40 am

Iamani! I dont like that you distance the Man from the offspring!

To pair is to join up. Par in French is 'match'.

The 'parent' is saying something is 'paired'. "The parent to the child".

Parent is a mother + offspring and/or a father + offspring.


Tom Bombadil
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 168
Join date : 2017-07-26
Location : London and Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Guest on Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:54 am

Hi Tom Bombadil

Actually, i didn't distance the man from the offspring. i pointed out that in using those legal terms he is separating himself from his offspring.

I understand your distaste, but it's the legislators wot did it, guv! Ask Waffle, he'll back me up.....

Cheers!


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Waffle on Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:56 pm

This is exactly what I'm trying to say Tom, they have taken away legislation that establishes us as biological parents, the father is separate from the child except for purposes to relieve financial burdens on the state. The ONLY reason they let the children stay with us is because generally the natural (natural law) parents can give affection like no other.

Here is the legislation that separates father and child legally.


(4)The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.

the battle should be between us and them, it's v. Important we know thy enemy.

It's a difficult thread to advocate without causing offence because of the sensative nature of the relationship between parent and child.

I'd strongly recommend reading these links on whatdotheyknow.

Why does British law not reflect natural law when it comes to parents:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/why_does_british_law_not_reflect?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow


Why was the law abolished https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/why_was_the_law_abolished


Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 786
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: V.Important

Post by Guest on Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:23 pm

Hi Candor

Nice to see you back buddy. Thought we'd lost you.

Cheers!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Waffle on Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:43 pm

This is from an ex family law lawyer, dosche bag, typical prat grovelling at the grace and glory of the system and hasn't a clue of the big picture, but he has some interesting information in this blog....

In fact, the primary piece of legislation dealing with arrangements for children prior to the Children Act 1989 was called the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971. However, our history lesson begins long before 1971.

Guardianship actually had its origins in the feudal system, with early guardians being largely concerned with the property of a child heir. However, as described in a 1985 Law Commission Working Paper, the purpose of guardianship was to change:

The institution of guardianship was originally of concern only to those who had property. It began as a lucrative incident of feudal tenure and developed as a means of safe-guarding a family’s property and securing its transmission from one generation to another. Subsequently it became the instrument for maintaining the authority of the father over the upbringing of his children.”

As most people will be aware, until modern times our family law favoured husbands and fathers (for more on this, see this post), and guardianship was part of that thankfully bygone system. Hence the law recognised the father as the children’s “natural” guardian (the word “natural” seems to have been used simply because it was the term used for an earlier form of guardianship relating to the heir apparent). The effect of natural guardianship was that the father alone had control over the person, education, religion and marriage of his children, until they reached the ‘age of discretion’ and in some respects up to the age of twenty one. While the father was alive the mother had no claims as natural guardian, and was originally in no better position than a stranger.

http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2017/03/27/complain-family-justice-facts/



Moving on from this ignorant cockroach......

Further background research shows that guardianship relates specifically to the property of a ward. Infant some documentation I am unable to share from the Lords in the 19th century when the court of Chancery was reforming and refining its approach to guardianship. They state, that they can only acquire guardianship if a ward has property, it doesn't matter how much property the ward has just something, anything is enough for the child to become a ward of the court.

Is this why they abolished a fathers inherent right to natural guardianship of his offspring?

it would be, that upon general principles the king as parens patriae has an original prerogative to take care of the persons and property of infants, of idiots, and of lunatics, in all cases where no other guardianship exists.

Above and below is also The Wards of Chancery document, I have no link, but this is from the Lords in the 19th century.

The jurisdiction generally belongs to the Court of Chancery, as delegate of the crown, except where it is specially or personally delegated or restricted by statute.”

Back to the childrens act 1989, thanks for kindly applying the link Candor

(11)Subject to any provision made by rules of court, no court shall exercise the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the estate of any child.(12)

Do we still need to wonder which specific high court it is where the estates are held in escrow?



Back to The Wards of Chancery: Lord Manners, I do not understand, in looking at the office of guardian, how to distinguish between the testamentary guardian and the parent. The testamentary guardian, deriving his title from the right of the parent under the act of parliament, it is a continuation of the same trust............. This is from the horses mouth.

These old documents do tell a good tale :•)

The next point for attention is, that the infant must have property in order to be a ward of court. He must see that this court has not the means of acting except where it has property to ac-t upon.We are not aware that any minimum of property has ever been suggested as an infant’s qualification to be a ward.


Certainly no receiver will be appointed over‘ his estates. The passage of Lord Eldon’s judgment, quoted above, continues in the following words, “ A very serious question would arise whether, if the person so appointed should embezzle, I should have jurisdiction to commit him to the Fleet.”

The custody of the inf'ant’s person and property is in this way brought completely under the direction of the court;

The guardian in chivalry‘ was the lord of whom the lands of the ward were holden. The guardian in socageg was the next friend, or, as Littleton explains the word, “ next in blood to whom the inheritance could not descend.” And it seems that, according to the common law, n03 other person than the father could be guardian during the father’s life. Where the son‘ was heir to his mother, the father was termed guardian by nature. A custom as to guardianship prevails in the City of London, where the mayor" and aldermen are guardians of every orphan within the city, that is, where any one free of the city has died, leaving an orphan within age and unmarried.






And Finally

Mr. Hargrave has added, that although the care of infants as Well as of idiots and -lunatics should be admitted to belong to the crown, yet that something further is necessary to prove that the Chancellor is the person constitutionally delegated to act for the King.” He has added, that although the care of infants as Well as of idiots and -lunatics should be admitted to belong to the crown, yet that something further is necessary to prove that the Chancellor is the person constitutionally delegated to act for the King.”

There appear to be three subjects involved in the question, first, the title to the guardianship of the person; secondly, the title to the guardianship of the property ; and thirdly, the general protection of the infant both as between him and his guardian, and also as between him and all the rest of the world

Those who are accounted competent to manage their own affairs themselves claim from their sovereign in his courts of justice the enforcement of their rights.

Crimes again are matters in which the sovereign bears a twofold part. The proceedings against the prisoner are taken in his name; the pleas are pleas of the crown ; “ the king, in whom centres the majesty of the whole community, is supposed by the law to be the person injured by every in fraction of the public rights belonging to that community, ' and is therefore in all cases the public prosecutor for every 77] public offence. The sovereign takes also another part in the proceedings, for the judge is merely his deputy; it is through the exercise of judicial functions, which in reality emanate from him, that the trial takes place.

To return to the case of infants, we may quote a passage in the report of Morgan v. Dillon} which recognizes the twofold character of the sovereign’s relation to his ward. “ At common law, before the statute 32 Hen. 8, c. 24~, by which the court of wards and liveries was erected, the lord chancellor was the sole judge of wardships: but with this difference, that where they are lucrative to the crown, there the lord treasurer acted, who had a concurrent jurisdiction with the chancellor; but where wardships were not lucrative to the crown, but only for the benefit of the ward there the chancellor alone had the disposition and management of the ward.”





Lucrative livery wards.





Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 786
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: V.Important

Post by Waffle on Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:09 pm

Wards of Chancery: So as far as it relates to guardianship it is not a matter of jurisdiction but rather ADMINISTRATION.

The distinction between administration and jurisdiction is marked by the different modes in which the chancellor’s authority is conferred in the two cases. In the one he acts as judge in the Court of Chancery, exercising the common judicial authority delegated to that court by the sovereign. He acts as the representative of the sovereign in a matter in which the sovereign has no interest. In the other he is a commissioner of the crown, acting under a sign manual, the usual form in which the sovereign commits to a subject the management of a matter in which the sovereign has an interest}

To return to the case of infants, we may quote a passage in the report of Morgan v. Dillon} which recognizes the twofold character of the sovereign’s relation to his ward. “ At common law, before the statute 32 Hen. 8, c. 24~, by which the court of wards and liveries was erected, the lord chancellor was the sole judge of wardships: but with this difference, that where they are lucrative to the crown, there the lord treasurer acted, who had a concurrent jurisdiction with the chancellor; but where wardships were not lucrative to the crown, but only for the benefit of the ward there the chancellor alone had the disposition and management of the ward

Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 786
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Guest on Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:19 pm

Hi guys

Candor - isn't 'rule of law' referring to code rather than natural/common/god's law?

Cheers!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Waffle on Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:19 pm

By the way I think what is happening in the registration is that the estate is being assigned to the local authority, county council or whatever the hell they call themselves today.

I do have a document somewhere, ill be buggered if I can find it, that states the government were sending the annuities to the county councils and no one, not a single PERSON was claiming them. Ill have a root round and see if I can find this document to try and shed a little more light.

Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 786
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Guest on Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:23 pm

Hi guys

That document sounds very relevant.

i'm almost convinced that this (BC) is about money-laundering on an epic scale.

Cheers!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: V.Important

Post by Waffle on Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:41 pm

Very good Iamani, that rule of law hasn't just been abolished here, its been abolished international, common wealth countries for sure, the states and even India, thats what the research is suggesting.

Where it used to be the father who was the sole natural guardian, the apparent heir, instead of abolishing that rule of law and granting it to the mother, which they should rightly have done, they have just abolished the rule of law that the father is the natural guardian, ergo NO HEIR.

We no there are no more heirs from the admin of estates act unless you have an absolute interest (trusts), now there can only be one heir if you don't know what you are doing, and thats for lucrative purposes for the Crown.... I know the Wards of Chancery documents not up to date but that says the Lord Treasurer, who is acting on behalf of the sovereign.

They are stripping away all legal rights to any type of inheritance and ownership of property and land. Common law is common law and statutory law, common law has well and truly killed us off, that leaves really one resource to acquire any type of locus stand in this physical real and thats equity. Equity should keep the remedy, but as stated in the Wards of Chancery document we need to be competent for any type of standing, if we are competent, then they give us our rights, it won't be a simple as just being competent, they would have a very tightly knitted shirt that we would have to wear, if they even make them in our size!

Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 786
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Guest on Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:52 pm

Hi guys

Candor - you're not wrong re: parallel world, i think Waffle has mentioned that too.

Have you seen our recent posts on BC?

Waffle - you're forgetting christian remedy, i suspect the KJV can tell us everything we need to know. As regards equity i've only just started looking at it so can't really comment on that - but it is still very much part of T.H.E.I.R. system, so not really on our side.

Perhaps i'll think differently once i've studied it.

Cheers!


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Waffle on Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:52 pm

Candor, yes need to move into today's world of warcraft, its not just game... or is it!

Where are we all with data that the hospitals are under military jurisdiction? Ive heard ushers but not been able to locate anything.......

Knights of the hospitallers, what ever happened to them? Arnt they now the sovereign military order of malta operating straight out of Rome.....

Ha, if its not already complex enough!

Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 786
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Waffle on Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:00 pm

There is only one way you can reach the capacity you need to be in, that I've seen anyways and thats in equity, theres no way you'll get locus standi in common law. But maybe you could go into the venue quoting KJV, I am who I am! Thats natural law and we would need to be able to prove we profess the faith, penal laws still exist, but they certify you for conforming, its on the record.....

Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 786
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Guest on Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:06 pm

Hi Waffle

At the end of the day it's a Christian country with the monarch (crown) as Defender of the Faith. The western judicial system and our Laws are based on the bible. Probably why they have one in court to swear on.

The KJV was coded to give remedy to the 'knowledgeable.

i've spotted a couple of bits that may prove useful in future.

Besides, there are 'laws' governing discrimination on grounds of faith.....

But at this time i couldn't say i know enough to use it.

Cheers!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Waffle on Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:09 pm

I agree the whole thing is run on biblical scripture, however, I'm finding a path in equity easier to comprehend at this stage, they don't tell us how to use the bible in court. Not that I wouldn't give it a shot..

Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 786
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: V.Important

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:41 am

Hi guys

Candor - Wow! Pretty intense..... you've been at this a long time, i take it? Your frustration is 'righteous'.

Anyway, who said anything about church?

Your obvious frustration says you know how important it is - don't give up! There are angles yet to be revealed, and we've already benefited from the research.

i guarantee the next time i post on 'census/warehouse' thread you'll see something you've not considered yet.....

Cheers!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by assassin on Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:05 am

And everyone is quoting legal.
avatar
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1413
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Re: V.Important

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum