Sui Juris: 'I am what I am'
 

from a "We the People" email I get...
---------------------------------

sui juris IMPORTANT UPDATE legal paper....
Sui Juris: 'I am what I am'

SUI JURIS - One who has all the rights to which a freemen is entitled; one who is not under the power of another, as a slave, a minor, and the like.

To make a valid contract, a person must, in general, be sui juris.
Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris.

Since western, even eastern law began, most have recognized the sanctity of the individual, especially under the influence of Greek Platonic philosophy. In this philosophy basic rights or conditions of liberty exist, such as the right to own property, think and act freely without hindrance. The act of subsuming oneself to a collective authority and agreement to abide by the collective laws of the body, tribe, city state, nation joined in return for the protection of the self by the aforesaid, were the basis of the Social Contract but the act of affirmation wherein, the free individual subsumed himself and his property to a collective Sociality, were only legal and binding if he chose to do so. Any hint of coercion or force would be an act against the person and which together, with his private possessions constituted his Personal Estate and his ability in natural law and conditions of life to leave his body and possessions to his heirs, and they their's in their turn. This after all is the very basis of British Common Law and Roman Republican law upon which it is based.

Under the legal principle capitis deminutio minor, Gaius a full Roman Citizen loses the right to vote jus suffragi, the right to acquire property commercium, the right to hold an office jus honorium and the right to become a partner in a legal marriage conubium.

All these things are based upon the inherent rights and privileges of the Roman Citizen and I would hasten to add, all British Subjects and citizens too......This is no idle dabbling in ancient quaint legal principles but legal fact completely and utterly valid today.

Have you ever wondered why the current elite is so determined to do away with our basic rights? Look at the things they are attempting to remove or have removed....

We appear to be about to lose the right to pass on our bodies as a legal statement of inheritance to our children, since time immemorial, the deceased's body has been a kind of physical statement of the will to pass on the title, family name and estate to his sons, who in their time will do likewise. Only some months ago the Prime Minister demanded we surrender our bodies to the state on death, irrespective of what our wishes were whilst alive or what our grieving relatives wanted, for a spare parts scrapyard, for use by the state to harvest our organs for transplants: as laudible as some may find it (I don't), this is an attack upon the very basis of property ownership: ownership of one's own corpse that stikes at the whole concept of sui juris and instead subsumes us and everything we own to the will and whims of the state- In short theft.

Recently we have seen moves by the government and the EU to impose a foreign State upon us called the EU, that we never requested in this form, even though we were lied to in 1975 about the loss of sovereignty and voted 'yes' in a referendum, and the arbitrary way in which our Labour Government has behaved in pushing through the 'Lisbon Treaty' against the wishes of 80% of the British Electorate would in my opinion, under the priniciples of Roman and Common Law above, deprive us of our rights to vote principle capitis deminutio minor.

It also seeks to deprive us not only of our freedom to vote, to own private property but also by undermining marriage and the family, our right to live in matrimony with a partner of our choice, by giving equal or superior right to individuals outside the normally accepted legal definition of marriage such as homosexuals, Moslems given the de facto right to have the right to state support a polygamous realtionship of up to five wives, while Christians and British atheists in civil marriages are denied such a status on charges of bigamy, and those 'living in sin' are given equal, if not superior rights and higher state handouts than married couples who remain loyal and faithful. The removal of the Married Person's Allowance by successive governments, Labour and Tory has also deliberately and systematically destroyed marriage principle capitis deminutio minor the very basis of our society, that is literally falling apart, because of this.....

I have absolutely no doubt that this whole exercise is quite a deliberate and planned attack and assault upon the British and other national peoples of Europe. The same is happening in the United States of course.

Any contract, as any decent honourable lawyer will tell (if you can find one), that the basis in law of any said contract is Offer, Acceptance and Consideration. I happen to be something of an expert in Contract Law because of my legal training and fascination with such law. The contract between the Citizen and the State is based upon an unwritten contract, that in return for legal and physical protection within the laws of the land and the freedom to enjoy therein, without hindrance (unless I break the law), I will obey those laws and defend that land and its people come what may, pay its lawful taxes, and not give succour to traitors and a foreign power in any circumstance. I am also prepared to lay down my life in pursuance of the same...This is the basis of sui juris of course and the reason why we have the rights under Magna Carta, Article 61, and other statutes of law and good governance to withdraw our persons and property from the Social Contract that is now voided by the actions I have described above. This is not some cranky, quaint archaism either but living actual state of law as it exists now. As John Harris proved last month and Idris Francis and John Moran as well with 25 real Peers of the Realm, we have an absolute Duty and Obligation to withhold our loyalty individually and as The People from the Monarch, until such time as the malfeasors (traitors and wrongdoers) have been removed from Government.

It is my belief that the current Labour Government, indeed even the Opposition is actually now an illegal entity, ruling by coercion and against the wishes and interests of the British People. The Government is in the process of handing us over to an alien Communist power and this is Treason, as we know under the various laws of 1351 and 1689 but I also happen to believe, with very good expectation of establishing such a ruling, that an on going act of assault and even battery, may allow us either as individuals or as a group of individuals to bring criminal charges against the Crown and her ministers.

There are two solutions or paths. The first is a criminal charge of Common Assault or Common Assault and Battery under the Offences against the Pereson Act 1861 and also the more difficult charge of ABH, Actual Bodily Harm brought under the above Act, or the latest version in 1998- Of course one could also bring a joint action for criminal charges and a civil action in Tort for damages as under the rules, one is not prevented from briging one or the other as exists in other criminal actions.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Refer to (Archbold 19-190) for the law.

i. more than transient and trifling: (R v Donovan 25 Cr. App. Rep. 1, CCA). It is an either way offence, which carries a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
ii. As stated in paragraph 1(vi) above, the factors in law that distinguish a charge under section 39 from a charge under section 47 are the degree of injury resulting and the sentencing powers available to the sentencing court. Refer to paragraphs 1(vii) and (viii) for instances where common assault will be the appropriate charge. Where the injuries exceed those that can suitably be reflected by a common assault a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm should normally be preferred. By way of example, the following injuries should normally be prosecuted under section 47:
� Loss or breaking of tooth or teeth;
� Temporary loss of sensory functions, which may include loss of consciousness. T v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2003] Crim. L. R. 622
� Extensive or multiple bruising;
� displaced broken nose;
� minor fractures;
� minor, but not merely superficial, cuts of a sort probably requiring medical treatment (e.g. stitches);
� psychiatric injury that is more than mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic. In any case where psychiatric injury is relied upon, as the basis for an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and the matter is not admitted by the defence, then expert evidence must be called by the prosecution. (R v Chan-Fook, 99 Cr. App. R. 147, CA).

Tort law is the name given to a body of law that creates, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs that do not arise out of contractual duties.[1] A person who is legally injured may be able to use tort law to recover damages from someone who is legally responsible, or "liable," for those injuries. Generally speaking, tort law defines what constitutes a legal injury, and establishes the circumstances under which one person may be held liable for another's injury.

For instance, if somebody throws a ball and accidentally hits a pedestrian in the eye, the pedestrian may sue the ball thrower for losses occasioned by the accident (for example, costs of medical treatment or lost income during time off work). Whether or not the pedestrian wins will depend on whether he can prove the thrower engaged in tortious conduct in injuring the pedestrian (most typically, by failing to exercise ordinary care in undertaking the activity that caused the injury). One of the main topics of the substance of tort law is determining the "standard of care" - a legal phrase that means distinguishing between when conduct is or is not tortious. Put another way, the big issue is whether a person suffers the loss from his own injury, or whether it the loss gets transferred to someone else.

In much of the western world, the touchstone of tort liability is negligence. Unless the injured person can prove that the person they believe injured them acted with at least negligence to cause their injury, tort law will not compensate them. Tort law also recognizes intentional torts and strict liability, which apply to defendants who engage in certain actions.

In tort law, potential "injuries" are defined broadly. Injury does not just mean a physical injury such as where the bicycle rider is struck by a ball. "Injuries" in tort law reflect any invasion of any number of individual "interests." This includes interests recognized in other areas of law, such as property rights. Actions for nuisance and trespass to land can arise from interfering with rights in real property. Conversion and trespass to chattles can protect interference with movable property. Interests in prospective economic advantages from contracts can also be injured and become the subject of tort actions. A number of situations caused by parties in a contractual relationship may nevertheless be tort rather than contract claims, such as breach of fiduciary duty

Tort law may also be used compensate for injuries to a number of other individual interests that are not recognized in property or contract law, and are intangible. This includes an interest in freedom from emotional distress, privacy interests, and reputation. These are protected by a number of torts such as infliction, privacy torts, and defamation.Defamation and privacy torts may, for example, allow a celebrity to sue a newspaper for publishing an untrue and harmful statement about him. Other protected interests include freedom of movement, protected by the intentional tort of false imprisonment.

The charge of False Imprisonment may be actionable, in that by removing our persons and property against our will and locking us into a foreign domain, such a Tort has been committed not only against the person but against the land and People. The great thing about all of this, is that it can be brought as an individual, group or Class action. The minimum penalty in a Magistrate's Court is six month but much longer if the Defendent elects to go to the Crown Court before a jury....

There are other aspects that one may like to consider like theft under the 1968 Theft Act... On the grounds that the imposition of a foreign state's law and coerced entry into the EU superstate, may be constituted as an act of theft under Theft Act 1968 and revisions, since the action by the Government in respect of the Lisbon Treaty, and past acts is actually stealing our persons, our property, our citizenship and all else that makes us what we are.

The theft of the United Kingdom land mass is also an act in like manner. The principle of stealing a 10p coin or a country is just the same and based upon established custom and tradition mos maiorum....

A country is also a legal and physical entity...as is a company with a legal personality seperate from its people and monarch.

The Theft Act 1968 resulted from the efforts of the Criminal Law Revision Committee to reform the English law of theft. The Larceny Act 1916 had codified the common law, including larceny itself, but it remained a complex web of offences. The intention of the Theft Act 1968, was to replace the existing law of larceny and other deception-related offences, by a single enactment, creating a more coherent body of principles that would allow the law to evolve to meet new situations. The Act received the Royal Assent on 26 July 1968.

Basic definition of theft

The basic definition of theft is defined in S.1(1) of the Act.
The Act states that
A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

I hope that this has given everybody something to think over and I think more practical than trying to bring charges under the various treason laws. A Magistrate will have a very hard time refusing such a complaint.....

This is why we want 25 Tribunes of the People or even better, one in each County to act as People's Representative and join together with others with a view to bringing charges outlined above against the State for its activities.