I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith

Dear Law Commission,

We are punished for not following state rules that we have [apparently] never agreed to follow.

Therefore, please provide recorded information which evidences how/when/where we (anyone in the UK) agreed/consented to follow state rules.

If there is no recorded information held by yourselves, please state where that information resides.

Without this information, we are, all of us (you too!), Slaves; State-owned-property with no autonomy whatsoever. That constitutes FASCISM: where the state claims to own everyone and everything.

Law would therefore mean nothing more than lawful, than FORCE.

Yours faithfully,
Sarah Goldsmith

Communications Law Com, Law Commission

Thank you for your email. We monitor this inbox regularly and will reply to your enquiry as soon as possible.

You may prefer to contact us in one of the following ways:

General enquiries
Phone: 020 3334 0200
Email: [email address]

Press enquiries
Between 9.00am to 6.00pm, Monday to Friday, please contact:
Phil Hodgson – 020 3334 0230, [email address]
Jackie Samuel – 020 3334 0216, [email address]

For urgent press enquiries outside working hours, please call Phil Hodgson on 07500 087723

Law Commission | Steel House | 11 Tothill Street | London SW1H 9LJ

Visit the Law Commission website: www.lawcom.gov.uk

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Teasdale, Jonathan, Law Commission

Dear Ms Goldsmith,

We have received your two e-mail requests for information: one relating to consent to be governed (20 July) and one relating to state rules (25 July).

The position in English law is that citizens of the United Kingdom and persons physically within the legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are bound by the laws of the United Kingdom, whether those laws are statute-based or form part of the common law. Consent to be bound is implicit not explicit. This circumstance is an integral part of the rule of law as it applies in the United Kingdom.

To the best of our knowledge there is no one statute which deals with the situation you describe, nor is there a prescribed means by which an individual or body can withdraw consent. To seek to withdraw consent would breach the rule of law. The existence of the continuing constitutional principle of the rule of law is recognised in statute: see the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c.4), s 1 (available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005....

The Commission does not hold information directly on the points you raise. However, your researches may be assisted by referring to the following sources -

(1) A W Bradley and K D Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law (13th ed 2003)
(a) The majority of this book is available online following the link below. Chapter 6 refers specifically to the history of the rule of law and its implications today
(b) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HT_GS...
(2) C Turpin and A Tomkins, British Government and the Constitution (11th ed 2011)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PcbsE...
(3) H Barnet and R Jago, Constitutional & Administrative Law (8th ed 2011)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LYc1t...

We hope this information is of assistance. Nothing in this response should be taken to be legal advice, nor should you seek to rely on it in any legal proceedings. Should you require legal advice you should approach an independent legal practitioner for help.

If you are not content with the manner in which we have handled your request for information you can ask us to conduct an internal review of the request. Please contact Dan Leighton, our FoI co-ordinator, who will explain and initiate the internal procedure for you. We ask that your request for a review is made within two months of the date of this response.

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request you have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

t. 0303-123-1112
w. www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Teasdale
Lawyer (Statute Law Repeals team)
Law Commission for England and Wales
Steel House
11 Tothill Street
LONDON SW1H 9LJ

tel: 020-3334 0241 (direct line)
fax: 020-3334 0201
e-mail: [email address]
website: www.lawcom.gov.uk

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith

Dear Teasdale, Jonathan,

Thank you for your clear response.

You have proven to my satisfaction that LAW in the UK is nothing more than FORCE and that we are, all of us, merely State-Property.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Goldsmith

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

The Public Servant who answered this request may wish to consider this : http://info.fmotl.com/GrandJuries.htm
" What is Parliament, anyway, and why can't Parliaments "make the Law"?

And the answer to that is pretty simple. The first Parliament to be recognised (by Edward I) was Simon de Monfort's "Model Parliament", in 1295.

That was 80 years on, from 1215.

Consequently, since The Common Law was applicable at the time (having been founded in 1215), the Model Parliament … AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PARLIAMENTS … have been created UNDER The Common Law.

And, if one reads Statutes created by these Parliaments (the 1835 Statutory Declarations Act, and the Trust Act 2000 come immediately to mind … although there are many others), one finds that these all REFER TO … and DEFER TO … The Common Law.

And this leads to "Jury Nullification" … created by "Perverse Verdicts". A Petit Jury can, by virtue of its Verdict, overturn ANYTHING created by ANY Parliament (past, present, future), by returning (what is called) a "Perverse Verdict". This (effectively) says: "The Accused did no wrong in our eyes, the Statute must be wrong".

Anything created by Parliament can be overturned in this way. It just takes "the right Trial", and "the right presentments & arguments" to the Petit Jury.

And this has happened many times over the intervening years. Indeed, it happened very recently - at the Coroner's Inquiry into the death of Ian Tomlinson, and also at the Trial of Muad'Dib.

This is because Parliaments create "Legislation" ... they don't create "Law".

And the reason for this situation is that PARLIAMENTS ARE CREATED UNDER THE COMMON LAW - AND ARE THEREFORE ALWAYS SUBSERVIENT TO THE COMMON LAW. Therefore they can't "create Law". Only Juries and Statements of Truth (Affidavits) can create Law."

Veronica, 12th June 2012.

I would be interested in their comments after considering and investigating this.

R Austin left an annotation ()

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 - "Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. "

We just need to remind them of the rest of that document and the 1966 Covenants where rights derive from our fundamental freedoms and the natural person HAS THE RIGHT to be represented in the legal world....not an obligation to.

Has this guy even heard of human rights and fundamental freedoms?

This is EXACTLY the sort of tyranny that the UDHR1948 warns about in the preamble and was intended to prevent happening ever again:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, "

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, "

And to take that thought to the next level...
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders and millions have been killed because of this obedience. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves and the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem." - Howard Zinn

spannermonkey left an annotation ()

There are only to laws.
1. Damage nothing that is not yours.
2. Take nothing that is not your.

There are only 3 areas this exists in.

1. The person, injure no one, (damage), kill no one (taking) of a life.

2. Property, (damage) nothing that is not yours, (take) nothing that is not yours.

3. Reputation, slander/libel (damage) no one’s name,
(Take) no one’s name, impersonate, in modern terms id theft.

An absolute proof of all legislation being a contract that can be opted out of, and that you can not opt out of the law is as follows.

A man comes running at you with a knife in the high street and stabs you dead, the legislation says that he just murdered you. And life in prison is the sentence when convicted.

However he turns out to have diplomatic immunity and all we can do is ask him to leave the country. (Diplomats are exempt from our legislation). Proof it’s a contract.

OR

Man runs at you in the street and tries to stab you to death you struggle and you snatch the knife from him and kill him to save your life.

No amount of diplomatic immunity is going to make him not dead, you can’t opt out of the consequences of his actions.

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org