×

Notice

The forum is in read only mode.
×
July 2017 ~ Archival of WFS Public Forums (18 Jul 2017)

Archival & restoration complete!
After two weeks of intense attention these forums are restored and my job is done, only two days late.
New moderators and admin will be introduced after this years General Assembly.

Members are encouraged to attend WFS General Meeting 2017.
Contact and Linking information available on wfs.me

Key Concepts

  • acezapper
  • acezapper's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Newbie Freeman
  • Newbie Freeman
More
7 years 4 months ago #65216 by acezapper
acezapper created the topic: Key Concepts
Vow and Oath
At the heart of Anglo-Saxon law from the 4th Century is the concept that “a mans’ oath is his bond” – in other words once a promise is given, it is expected to be kept. This of course is most often presented in terms of contracts. However, the foundation of law since these times and up to the present day is still based on oral testimony taking precedence over written documents (in memoriam).
What is an oath then? In accordance with Canon 1480 of Positive Law: “an oath is is a solemn appeal to the Divine Creator by invocation and the presence of at least two witnesses that a pronouncement is true or a promise binding”.
What is the difference between an oath and a vow? In accordance with Canon 1488 of Positive Law: “A Vow is a solemn engagement or undertaking made to the Divine Creator to perform some action, to make some gift or sacrifice in return for special favour”.
Now the difference then between Anglo-Saxon law and Roman (Western) Law formed by the elite anti-semitic parasites also known as the Venetian/Florentine Khazar Bankers/Slave traders is the dependence on vows and oaths being true, in order that they can be monetized and bonded. In other words, the law of the Roman Cult and the Bar Associations/Society depends on the foundation of Anglo-Saxon law as demonstrated through Positive Law to function.
It is a symbiotic relationship between the “host”, the living man or woman, functioning under ancient moral values and the parasitic court and banks then seizing that good will and energy to monetize it for their own benefit. This is also why consent is so vital. Without consent, this energy cannot be stolen and monetized.

Necessity and being "under duress"
The antithesis of a vow or oath given under consent is any vow, oath, sign or seal given by necessity under duress. It is the most feared of realizations of the courts and banks as it renders their monetized promissory notes null and void and therefore their court acts worthless and clear fraud.
What is necessity? In accordance with Canon 1403 of Positive Law: “Necessity is the unavoidable requirement of a Party to consent, act or perform in a manner that they would not otherwise do if not for the presence of some clear need, threat, coercion, danger or risk. Hence, any oath, vow, sign or seal given under Necessity has no legal validity or value”.
To trick people into believing that the law of necessity does not exist and that the principle of “under duress” no longer is honored, many courts, prosecutors, judges and attorneys try to convince people that any compliance is consent. This causes one of two actions – either people agree and do not appeal, nor evoke that such actions was clearly done under coercion and “necessity” or secondly some people refuse to comply and their dishonor is then used to condemn them.
In fact, many courts now actively seek those who have woken up to the fraud of the Bar to openly not-comply and demonstrate contempt, thus using such behaviour as a means of obviating the fraud of the court and action itself. Even worse, many people promoting advice and information continue to confuse people by telling them not to comply- thus guaranteeing the court is able to avoid rendering their actions null and void through the laws of necessity and thus easily using the delinquency of the defendant against them.
The great sadness of the promotion of dishonor and non-compliance is that supported exactly the strategy and desire of the Bar and the Courts for men and women not to evoke their right and profess that through necessity they have complied only “under duress”.

Consent
As outlined earlier, the courts of the global corporate/financial/legal system needs your consent (by tacit agreement or by declaring you incompetent) in order to underwrite their bonds and making money. But what do we exactly mean by Consent? And where is the consent of the judges, clerks and prosecutors in relation to any kind of Ecclesiastical Deed we issue?
In accordance with Canon 1408 of Positive Law: “Consent is the agreement of one Party to a claim presented by another. In the absence of consent of all parties, Justice does not exist”. Canon 1409 goes onto state “No Injury can be complained by a consenting Party” and Canon 1414 states “The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract”.
So Consent to the Bar and the Crown (Bank) is vital, not only to underwriting the value of any bonds created through their courts, but it is integral to making their administrative process both legal and lawful as a valid agreement. But how then does this work when we do not consent, or we refuse to comply?
Well in the case of when a man or woman stands their ground, respecting the law and states for the record that they do not consent to any punative sentences or orders, but they shall comply only under duress and necessity to any administrative procedure during the court procedure, then any bonds are rendered worthless- and the court process to the bank is a giant waste of time.
However, when a man or woman is tricked by disinfo into not respecting the law and refuses to comply to some administrative process (excluding sentencing) by not appearing, then the court can use its trustee powers to declare the man or woman delinquent and therefore incompetent. When this occurs, the court may “legally” steal the energy of the man or woman as consent literally as if you signed your name or stood in court and agreed. Thus, the very worst action any man or woman can do it deliberately place themselves in dishonor as it makes the process for the court straightforward and simple.
Yet there is an outstanding issue concerning consent and Ecclesiastical Deeds when considering how and when did the trustee(s), administrators or executors consent therefore making the Ecclesiastical Deed valid?
The answer exists in the canons concerning competence and consent.
In accordance to Canon 1418 “Natural birth of the flesh is proof of lawful conveyance from a Divine Trust to a True Trust as a result of willing consent by the Divine Person to be born in accordance with these Canons. Therefore, the existence of the body of a living flesh Homo Sapien is proof of their divine (ecclesiastical) consent to obey these Canons”.
Now lets consider Canon 1814, namely “As the Divine Person is also part of the Divine Creator, a Divine Person is aways considered competent”. Also consider Canon 1816, namely “While the Divine Person is always considered competent, it is possible for the True Person represented by the flesh to be incompetent” and Canon 1817 being “Only True Persons represented by the flesh of a living man or woman demonstrating knowledge and consent to these Canons and agreeing to obey statutes derived from the Canons may be regarded as competent”.
So what do these Canons tell us? Well for one, it explains why an Ecclesiastical Deed is so important as it is a Deed which evokes the tacit consent given by the living trustees, administrators and executors proven by being born, whether the flesh agrees or not. Now, if the flesh of the Trustee, Administrator or Executor disagrees then they have openly admitted they are incompetent and therefore incapable of administering trust law, nor any kind of property or fiduciary duties.
Introduction
Everyday around the world, hundreds of thousands of people find themselves before the jurisdiction of some form of “Court” claiming some form of law. The reason a person may be before a court are wide and varied – from civil to criminal, from minor alleged offences such as traffic and not paying fines to major alleged offences such as murder and fraud. In fact, modern court systems are so widespread and cover so many issues that even if you have never been to court yourself, chances are you know at least one person who has experienced “justice” through the courts.
Whether or not you have gone through the experience of wanting or having to go to court, or someone in your family or friends, there is one almost unanimous agreement by all who have witnessed firsthand the function of a modern court – it is a mysterious, unnatural and often intimidating experience, often ending in sadness, bitterness and regret.
Ordinary people who have never been inside an operating court room are not the only ones who can find the surrounding and process intimidating. Even if a court room is modern by design, it can still be an intimidating place even for members of the Bar Societies and Bar Associations. So how might one succeed in a case before such a place as a Court when even professionals sometimes are intimidated and unsure?
Succeeding at Court
No one can guarantee anyone that they can win a case within a Court without lying. There are simply too many variables to each case to make such impossible claims. The greatest uncertainty is whether the judge, or tribunal of judges or magistrates choose to follow their own laws and procedures or not. Sadly, because the competency of judiciary officials continues to fall while political and special interest pressures continue to rise, the court system in most countries has become less reliable in predicting outcomes that conform to any kind of law other than blatant corruption, cronyism and sheer incompetence.
Nor should anyone ever pretend to be offering legal advice concerning Roman Western Law unless they are a member of one of the guilds that unlawfully monopolize access and operation of national, regional and community law throughout the world. The Bar Guilds have demonstrated a ruthlessness against anyone daring to question their legal competence for centuries and in most locations have introduced many draconian statutes akin to the heresy laws of the Middle Ages that forbid ordinary people discussing, sharing and learning about the law unless they are obedient members of a Bar Guild.
Yet succeeding at court has little to do with any kind of specific advice relating to a personal case before a court. Instead, success relates to knowing who and what you are?, the philosophy of how to conduct yourself in court and remain in honor and the power you always possess through free will and withdrawing or granting your consent.
Success comes down to the realization that there are no “magic bullet” documents and that when faced with a system of “courts” controlled by a private guild, occupied by private guild members that remedy may not be possible in the first instance, or even under appeal – but that if you remain steadfast in maintaining honor, knowledgeable of who and what you are- then even the Guilds cannot prevail against the law they usurp and claim to control.
This is the purpose of these pages. To help any and all who are facing imminent court cases and concerns to learn more about the history of the courts, what makes them tick? the origins of the Bar Guilds, the importance and function of honor and behaviour.
No one can guarantee success, only remedy “gurus” and other forms of disinformation agents. Nor is any of the information contained specific legal advice. Instead, it is hoped that the information contained within these pages will help you and anyone you refer to these pages to understand your own way of navigating through the maze of tricks, lies and procedures of the Bar.

http://one-heaven.org/home.asp

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/ta ... 342&cmd=tc
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous's Avatar
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
7 years 1 month ago #72100 by Anonymous
Anonymous replied the topic: Key Concepts

The answer exists in the canons concerning competence and consent.


Who wrote all these canons and what authority are they based?
More
7 years 1 month ago #72107 by reverendjim
reverendjim replied the topic: Key Concepts

davey jones wrote:

The answer exists in the canons concerning competence and consent.


Who wrote all these canons and what authority are they based?

very good question.

political atheist
More
7 years 1 month ago #72111 by reverendjim
reverendjim replied the topic: Key Concepts
here's a concept. when i look at all the stuff out there written all i can say is that it was written by men philosiphying about what they believed to be the truth. and it frequently concerns a devine creator and creation. ok...lets assume their is a devine creator...or not...it does not matter. what did it arm us with...or...what do we have to work with? conciousness (you), a brain capable of thinking and senses to gather information (exterior shit). to make a long story short the only laws i see are the laws of nature. those are the laws of the creator...or...if you dont believe in a creator....its just the way things is. anything else is fiction from men's minds. some natural truths, partial truths and much bs.

case in point. there is a legal system that is damn near impossible to understand. they have used this to their advantage for a long time. now, enter some people who are gaining understanding of their system. what happens? they simply dont obey their own rules. they are bigger and stronger than the individual in their court and they use the big stick. the strong (and i use that term in the widest sense) win. this is how courts function as well as politicians, government bodies, corporations, banks, etc, etc, etc. the fittest survive. mother nature at its finest.

you want to win? then all these "weak downtrodden individuals" (again, in the widest possible sense) had better figure out what strength is and exactly what winning is. quote all the phylisophical bs you like. the laws of this universe are pretty plain and underneath all the legal bs they shove in your face is the laws of nature in action. those are the laws they really play by. like i said. the winner, the survivor, is the fittest. now go figure out how to be the fittest. its not what you think if you have to ask.

and please, dont unthinkingly assume that "laws of nature" automatically entails violence, harsh, cruel, etc (although it can). if you have really observed nature you will see there is far more to it. nature is about the yin/yang. good and bad, negative/positive (in the emotional sense) does not apply unless your view is limited by ego. and yes, it does involve love. its about balance and nessessity and yes, competition. deal with it. thats what your here for.

oaths? vows? for the above reasons...they are meaningless unless you give them meaning.

political atheist
More
7 years 1 month ago #72116 by snowdonx
snowdonx replied the topic: Key Concepts
Canon law comes from the vatican libraries I think, I am not certain on this. However what I actually believe is they came from egypt or one of those other ancient civilisations.
More
7 years 1 month ago #72122 by reverendjim
reverendjim replied the topic: Key Concepts
canon law=control through fear for you soul

they hope

political atheist
More
6 years 5 months ago #94446 by NDT
NDT replied the topic: Key Concepts
Here is an example of the conflict between Roman law and common law during the English "Nineteen Year Winter".

... King Stephen immediately published a proclamation, forbidding the study of the laws, then
newly imported from Italy; which was treated by the monks as a piece of impiety, and,
though it might prevent the introduction of the civil law process into our courts of justice, yet
did not hinder the clergy from reading and teaching it in their own schools and monasteries.
From this time the nation seems to have been divided into two parties; the bishops and clergy,
many of them foreigners, who applied themselves wholly to the study of the civil and canon
law, which now came to be inseparably interwoven with each other; and the nobility and
laity, who adhered with equal pertinacity to the old common law: both of them reciprocally
jealous of what they were unacquainted with, and neither of them perhaps allowing the
opposite system that real merit which is abundantly to be found in each...
... And we find the same jealousy prevailing above a century afterwards, when the nobility
declared with a kind of prophetic spirit, "that the realm of England has never been unto this
hour, neither by the consent of our lord the king and the lords of parliament shall it ever be,
ruled or governed by the civil law." And of this temper between the clergy and laity many
more instances might be given.

~ Commentaries: On the study of the law, William Blackstone
Moderators: UserAbuser
Time to create page: 0.229 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum