Scott the Grey
Scholar
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 80
I've been looking up some stuff over the last few days with the aim of being able to write a comprehensive letter to a friend who's going to become a Freeman.
The info is so fragmented that it's actually putting me off lol, report writing was never a strong point - I have no idea how well I can do it as I always managed to avoid it - so the more I gather the less inclined I am to put the letter together.
I looked into Raymond St Clair - who features in the videos my friend posts on his social networking sites - and it's just a mess. In short, it appears that he used a previous name (Gary Beaver) to set up a string of dead end businesses while pocketing investors money, headed off to Spain, got in trouble there after a few years and turned up here with the name change.
Confusing the info, is some guy spreading info about him also using the name 'Tim Rifat' but I couldn't establish if that were true; and accusing Ray of being a peadophile but there was nothing to support that except from clearly photoshopped news reports. It does appear likely that St Clair is a long term conman however and the irony of him calling our legal system 'fraudulent' is massive.
There appears to be another guy whose name I'm less familiar with, John Harris. At first I was looking at the wrong guy but I found the English one with the middle name 'James', on youtube quoting from Black's law dictionary. IIRC, he was referencing the earlier definition of "person" in that book which does mention that--in law--there exists a natural person and an artificial person. It doesn't say however that these can be exclusive of one another, and the later editions explain the definition in a less easily manipulated fashion.
What Harris doesn't do is use the same Law Dictionary to point out the definitions of Common Law, Government or Territorial Law - the latter which gives the recognised government the power to rule over anyone within said territory.
As I say, I haven't got round to trying to compile the info in any kind of fashion (indeed I suspect the learning part hasn't finished yet), and it's not something I'm particularly great at so it may take some time or just never come lol. It's a theory that starts out on a false premise. When we answer all the questions FOTL have (has?) you always come to that starting point where they outrightly disagree with the rudiments of Common Law.
I'm not sure my friend actually realises half of the stuff involved. Either that or he's making a sudden conversion to Christianity or some kind of theism as I'm pretty sure he was an atheist until now.
It makes your head spin at every turn this stuff...
The info is so fragmented that it's actually putting me off lol, report writing was never a strong point - I have no idea how well I can do it as I always managed to avoid it - so the more I gather the less inclined I am to put the letter together.
I looked into Raymond St Clair - who features in the videos my friend posts on his social networking sites - and it's just a mess. In short, it appears that he used a previous name (Gary Beaver) to set up a string of dead end businesses while pocketing investors money, headed off to Spain, got in trouble there after a few years and turned up here with the name change.
Confusing the info, is some guy spreading info about him also using the name 'Tim Rifat' but I couldn't establish if that were true; and accusing Ray of being a peadophile but there was nothing to support that except from clearly photoshopped news reports. It does appear likely that St Clair is a long term conman however and the irony of him calling our legal system 'fraudulent' is massive.
There appears to be another guy whose name I'm less familiar with, John Harris. At first I was looking at the wrong guy but I found the English one with the middle name 'James', on youtube quoting from Black's law dictionary. IIRC, he was referencing the earlier definition of "person" in that book which does mention that--in law--there exists a natural person and an artificial person. It doesn't say however that these can be exclusive of one another, and the later editions explain the definition in a less easily manipulated fashion.
What Harris doesn't do is use the same Law Dictionary to point out the definitions of Common Law, Government or Territorial Law - the latter which gives the recognised government the power to rule over anyone within said territory.
As I say, I haven't got round to trying to compile the info in any kind of fashion (indeed I suspect the learning part hasn't finished yet), and it's not something I'm particularly great at so it may take some time or just never come lol. It's a theory that starts out on a false premise. When we answer all the questions FOTL have (has?) you always come to that starting point where they outrightly disagree with the rudiments of Common Law.
I'm not sure my friend actually realises half of the stuff involved. Either that or he's making a sudden conversion to Christianity or some kind of theism as I'm pretty sure he was an atheist until now.
It makes your head spin at every turn this stuff...
