Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
So to sum your post up.......Blah blah blah....... I gave you think pointers, read it or not, I dont care. Everything I have stated can be easily found on the web.
well you need to understand something pally, if you cant follow suit and put up then you are left with only one choice and that is shut up or look the fool.
If you think I am going to depend on your interpretation which I continually prove with hard evidence to be fucked up and run around and waste my time only to realize that you sent me on yet another wild goose chase it aint gonna happe.
Either put it up like I do or shut the pie ho!
The king is, and ever has been, a corporation sole'; that corporation sole; a corporation is an artificial person that never dies 4; that is invisible, and exists only in intendment and consideration of law; that has no soul, and cannot therefore be summoned before an ecclesiastical court or subjected to spiritual censure; that can neither beat or be beaten in its body politic, nor commit treason or felony in its corporate capacity; that can suffer no corporal punishment or corruption of blood, and can neither be imprisoned or outlawed, its existence being merely ideal5. So far he will be satisfied that the King of England, as described in law books, is in some sense an ideal personage. It may be said, indeed, that the King is not more an ideal personage than a parson or other corporation sole; that it is merely the office, which is converted by a fiction of law into a person ; and that the object of this transmutation is to have the same identical rights kept on foot, and continued for ever by a succession of individuals, possessing the same privileges, and charged with the same duties. But, on reflection, it will appear that there but differ, is a wide difference between the King and other porpora- other corporations sole. Derations
' Blackstone, i. 271. iv. 2. 2 Ibid. i. 252. 257. 3 Ibid. i. 469. 472. 4 Ibid. i. 467, 468. 5 Ibid. i. 477. , . o i i o
The ideal King of the english common- law represents the power and majesty of the whole community. His fiat makes laws2. His sentence condemns. His judgments give property, and take it away. He is the state'. It is true, that in the exercise of these powers, the real King, to whom they are necessarily entrusted, is advised, directed, and controlled by others.
But in the contemplation of law the sovereignty and undivided power of the state are in the King.
' Attorney-General's Speech in Hardy's Trial. Howell's State Trials, xxiv. 246. 2 In an argument before the Court of King's Bench, in 23 Edw. III. it was said, " Que le roy fist les leis par assent dez peres et de la commune, et non pas lez peres et la commune." Y. B. 23 Edw. III. i. 3. b.
8 " The person of the king, in name, is the state.
quote:
State of Wisconsin Statute 0001:
1.01 State sovereignty and jurisdiction.
The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries (unless your name is United States that means OVER YOU lol) declared in article II of the constitution, subject only to such rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall be acquired by the United States over any places therein; and the governor, and all subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction.
He [The KING] is to all intents and purposes the sole representative of the state." Solicitor-General's Speech in Hardy's Trial. Howell's State Trials, xxiv. 1183.
It is in the first place to be observed that the fiction of an ideal King, to whom all the powers of sovereignty are confided, is not peculiar to England.
It is to be found in all the monarchies of Europe, established on the subversion of the Roman empire.
However different in other respects, all these governments agree in recognizing as the fundamental principle of their constitution that the sovereign power of the commonwealth resides in the King.
It is in the next place a coincidence not less remarkable, that, after laying down this principle in terms the most general and unqualified, they all agree in admitting certain constitutional checks and limitations on the exercise of the supreme and absolute authority with which he is vested. What the law appears to give, long established usage is supposed, in the most arbitrary governments, to moderate and restrain. In theory the King of France, before the revolution, was held in law to be an absolute, but in practice to be a limited, monarch. His power was said to be supreme, but it was to be administered according to fundamental laws. <--thats the part nimrods like like jlf and oingker omit when they claim those who are Sovereiegn do not have to abide by any laws.
He was the source of all authority civil and political; but he was to govern by the fixed courts and magistracies of his kingdom. His will was law, and, as such, was to be obeyed; but in issuing his commands, he was bound to respect the honour and even the prejudices of his subjects. He was the judge of his people, but he' could not exercise any judicial function in person. He was the sole proprietor of land in his kingdom, but he could deprive no man of his inheritance, (Land) unless by a judgment of law, over which he had no control. If he transgressed these rules, he ceased to be a King, and degenerated into a despot'. ' Blackstonc, i. 243. iii. 256. 2 Ibid. i. 262. > 1 Gul. et Mar. Sess. ii. c. 2.
quote:
State of Wisconsin Statute 0001:
1.01 State sovereignty and jurisdiction.
The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries (unless your name is United States that means OVER YOU lol) declared in article II of the constitution, subject only to such rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall be acquired by the United States over any places therein; and the governor, and all subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction.
So whats the overwhelming difference between the STATE as SOVEREIGN (KING) of Wisconsin (same for the other 49) and the KING of anglo land? LMAO
Pretty thin slices there but go fo it!
Feel free to put up your LAW citations to refute mine.
Smoke em if ya got em! LOL
(holy crapoly why is 1 point <-- so big!)
So you have the NAME of the king representing the sovereignty and STATE in England and you have the NAME of the STATE representing the Sovereignty the [KING] for each state. LMAO
Damn thats a hard pill to swallow! LOL
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 1/20/2011 6:14:49 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: No protection? To bad! How many times do I gotta te... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread