U.K Equivalent to U.S International Bankruptcy Legislation

[Mr. Inthmeime H Redenf]

Greetings All..
If I begin to ramble on a bit in this enquiry, please bear with me. My eyes are just beginning to open up to this type of LAW(lessness) and I welcome all corrections to any misconceptions I might state.

I live in London, and it's very apparent that the knowledge of an international bankruptcy of european nation states(U.S included), is not as widely circulated as it is in the U.S. I've read, listened and watched material relating to the usurping of the continental U.S by the corporate U.S via the 1913 Fed Reserve Act. With the (presumed)U.S bankruptcy declared approx 1930 ushering in the UCC after a successful campaign to elevate commercial over common law as the controlling law of the land(Erie R.R. vs Thompkins, 304 U.S 64 (1938). I'm not sure if I have a full grasp of the issues but I'll continue.

I think I can see where people in the U.S who assert sovreignty have their foundation. It seems to be based on the fact that common law rights and/or privilages cannot be infringed upon or, superceded by commercial, contractual agreements. Therefore, there must be provisions within your constitution for sovereigns of the land to extracate themselves from contractual, corporate aggression on a national scale. Sovereignty over commerce is asserted. Ok ok OKAY!!.. my queries:

1; What is the criteria for sovereignty in the U.K and, what provisions are there for myself and others to extracate ourselves from the U.K corporate trap we're encountering? My parents came to Britain in the 50's and had to PAY to BECOME citizens in the 80's.

2; Am I mistaken in thinking that the Bank of England and the Inland Revenue of the U.K are equivalent to the Federal Reserve and the Inland Revenue Service in the U.S and, if so, what can be done to circumvent their effects here?

3; Can anyone point me toward relavent info re: U.K implementation of legislation equivalent to the UCC, Equity Courts and International Nation State bankruptcy?

Proper site with good links and diverse opinions on the subject. HAPI AM I.

would really appreciate direction towards the relavent sites/cites, and, any video links I can access. Peace

[David Merrill]

Here is the basis of the People's courts: http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...ct-1789-a.html

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

It was government forming Article III judiciary in 1789; the people have never formed an Article III judiciary. If the people chose to they could conform to the Constitutional provisions in common law. But they never did that. The common law has always been with the people wherever competent to give remedy.

In 1933 the county courts were abolished here in Colorado. (attached) But the government-formed County of XXXXX courts exist today in their place - and claiming to be the (Post Erie Doctrine "Common Law" at that).

To understand the impact of Erie one needs to accept that stare decisis, case citations are crucial in arguing common law. That is to say swaying a judge or jury requires precedent, if none exists, then that case becomes precedent subsequently cited in those circumstances. There was bad precedent set in America in 1842 with Swift v. Tyson. Justice (Zionist) Brandeis overturned Swift and this threw a shadow of doubt on all case law between 1842 and 1938. This effectively reset the common law as far as case citations go. And 1938 being after 1933 all the common law was reset to accepting only post-Bankers' Holiday style decisions as binding precedent.


I have explained this so many times I hope I am getting fairly good at it. There is probably some parallel instances of resetting case law precedence across the Pond there.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Mr. Inthmeime H Redenf]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Here is the basis of the People's courts: http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...ct-1789-a.html



It was government forming Article III judiciary in 1789; the people have never formed an Article III judiciary. If the people chose to they could conform to the Constitutional provisions in common law. But they never did that. The common law has always been with the people wherever competent to give remedy.

In 1933 the county courts were abolished here in Colorado. (attached) But the government-formed County of XXXXX courts exist today in their place - and claiming to be the (Post Erie Doctrine "Common Law" at that).

To understand the impact of Erie one needs to accept that stare decisis, case citations are crucial in arguing common law. That is to say swaying a judge or jury requires precedent, if none exists, then that case becomes precedent subsequently cited in those circumstances. There was bad precedent set in America in 1842 with Swift v. Tyson. Justice (Zionist) Brandeis overturned Swift and this threw a shadow of doubt on all case law between 1842 and 1938. This effectively reset the common law as far as case citations go. And 1938 being after 1933 all the common law was reset to accepting only post-Bankers' Holiday style decisions as binding precedent.


I have explained this so many times I hope I am getting fairly good at it. There is probably some parallel instances of resetting case law precedence across the Pond there.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Thanx for your attention David, much appreciated. I will study the leads you've suggested and see how I get on.

Question.. Is there a specific agreed upon moment in time when british common law was evicted whilst commercial creditor/debtor law? was being installed as proverbial lord of the manor???. I've asked quite a few friends about this. Most have been sketchy, none have been definitive.. informed direction is what I'm seeking.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Mr. Inthmeime H Redenf

Thanx for your attention David, much appreciated. I will study the leads you've suggested and see how I get on.

Question.. Is there a specific agreed upon moment in time when british common law was evicted whilst commercial creditor/debtor law? was being installed as proverbial lord of the manor???. I've asked quite a few friends about this. Most have been sketchy, none have been definitive.. informed direction is what I'm seeking.

I forget the date but am sure it was sometime in the year 1215. The true sovereign still, considering King George III granted the lost Colonies no sovereignty he did not himself have, is derived from the Knights Templar - at least understanding the esoterics therein. And understanding the 1611 encryption in the KJV Holy Bible.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[palani]

William the Conqueror could not defeat London although he was successful in the rest of England. London was permitted to keep their own system of law and as they were all shopkeepers they opted for the Law Merchant or private commercial code. I have heard it said that to this day the queen of England will not venture into some areas of London without her guard. For all I know though she might not venture anywhere in England without her guard, so this point might not be of any value.

The relationship of London to the rest of England is possibly the same as the relationship of Washington DC to the rest of the U.S. When you refer to the U.K. you are most probably in fact referring to an entity that you are not familiar with.

If you remember the movie Waterworld the earth was covered with water (maritime law) and there was a single spot of dry land (common law) that everyone was searching for. In the movie the dry land was shown as a tropical paradise. In reality it is located on Sark Island in the Guernsey chain of channel islands, as this is the only common law left in existence.

I would think that the book Adventures in Legal Land would be as appropriate in the U.K. as it is here.