Blikskottel se plek

Common Law Maxims: The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. 11 Coke, 58b. “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” – A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition So in law when you include something, you are excluding all others… so lets take a look at the definition of the Republic from the income tax act: Republic means the Republic of South Africa and, when used in a geographical sense, includes the territorial sea thereof as well as any area outside the territorial sea which has been or may be designated, under international law and the laws of South Africa, as areas within which South Africa may exercise sovereign rights or jurisdiction with regard to the exploration or exploitation of natural resources; Because this definition of the “republic” includes “the territorial sea” it by maxim, excludes everything else…

So the true sense of the word, the definition is similar to this: The “Republic” means the company “Republic of South Africa” which is limited to the “territorial sea” (wherever that may be) as well as areas outside of this sea (non-specific) which South Africa (note not the “republic”) can exercise sovereign jurisdiction with regards to the “exploration and exploitation of natural resources” (an inclusion which like an exclusion, excludes everything else).

So if you start to put the dots together… you should come to this conclusion…

1. Every ACT in R.S.A is limited to the “Republic”

2. The republic by definition is restricted in its scope and jurisdiction, to the “territorial sea” and nothing else

3. When the “republic” means “south africa” (the land) it is limited to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources…

 

AND this is where you have to be careful… if you willingly act as a “natural resource” (natural person ??) then you will be exploited. And this is why it is so important to understand the words that are used when you bump up against the corporate officers of the “republic”…

 

Source: www.thinkfreesa.com

Blikskottel…loves to see legal maxims and statutes explained.

A philosophy lesson given by an professor – I can’t remember verbatim – What is communism the question was. The answers where quite simple money for all. So the Prof then said the following.

 

Today we are going to write a test. The ones that have not learned and the ones that have does not matter. We are going to average the score does not matter how smart you are or unprepared. They wrote the test. The ones that worked hard and normally get 90% where averaged down to 60%.

 

The next day the Prof said we are going to write a test again and again we are going to apply communist practises. The ones that did not learn or worked where extremely happy for they have never reached a score of 60% due to the ones that have, so more the reason not to learn and work any harder.

 

The next test revealed and average of 50% average and all the non hard workers where happy but the hard workers felt done in because only a few of them are carrying the lot.

 

Once the 3rd test revealed a 40% average (Still in acceptance by the masses) the hard working few protested and rejected the plan of Communism.

 

 It did not favour the ones that work hard. It is a simple answer. To work hard and receive the reward is not bad.

 

Found on the internet somewhere…

 

Blikskottel…loves practical applications.

In every legal system the power to prosecute offenders is vested in the state. In South Africa the Attorney General and the public prosecutors have the discretion whether or not to prosecute, according to the Attorney-General Act 92 of 1992. As such, the principle of compulsory prosecution does not apply in the country.

 

Neither the executive nor the judiciary can interfere in exercise of this discretion by the Attorney General, according to Milton et al. (Van Wyk et al., 1994:411). Since the decision of the Attorney General not to prosecute results in the case not coming before a court of law, it means that the victim is denied his/her right to justice.

 

The danger of this situation is that the victim as the aggrieved party, may resort to illegal retaliation in his/her guest for justice.

—————————————————————————

The right enjoyed by the accused to have a legal practitioner assigned to him/her by the state ensures that

substantial injustice does not result in the case. Because the prosecutor represents the state in a criminal

case, the victim is left unrepresented. He/she has to deal, and cope, with the unfamiliar norms and

procedures, as well as the legal jargon of the court all by him-/herself. This may lead to the victim making

serious blunders in giving evidence, with the result that the accused may get an easy acquittal.

 

*

Based on research for the MA-degree

Mr. David Kgosimore

Department of Criminology

University of the North

Blikskottel..cannot agree more that this is an evil thing.

– Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.

– Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.

Do you know the difference,? If you do not, then you will also never realize why you can never get true justice in a de facto court, nor why government has control over you. If you love freedom and want freedom for your children, educate yourself  a bit, or preferably a lot, on laws, statutes and other regulations that enslave you. Realize who and what you are and make sure that no-one forces you to be something that you were never intended to be.

Blikskottel..was born free and prefer to stay like that.

While on a road trip, an elderly couple stopped at a roadside restaurant for lunch. After finishing their meal, they left the restaurant, and resumed their trip. When leaving, the elderly woman unknowingly left her glasses on the table, and she didn’t miss them until they had been driving for about forty minutes.

 

By then, to add to the aggravation, they had to travel quite a distance before they could find a place to turn around, in order to return to the restaurant to retrieve her glasses. All the way back, the elderly husband became the classic grouchy old man. He fussed and complained, and scolded his wife relentlessly during the entire return drive. The more he chided her, the more agitated he became. He just wouldn’t let up for a single minute. To her relief, they finally arrived at the restaurant.

 

As the woman got out of the car, and hurried inside to retrieve her glasses, the old geezer yelled to her, While you’re in there, you might as well get my hat and the credit card.

 

This coming week is National Senior Mental Health Week.

You can do YOUR part by remembering to contact at least one unstable Senior to show you care.

Blikskottel… has now done his part.

All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ advocates and attorneys, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law – and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.

– A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.

– The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).

– There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.

– Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.

Blikskottel…knows that freedom exists only for those who know the truth

Notice: This is an extract from an essay of a well know Freeman on land activist. More to follow….

It is simply beyond the imagination of any right thinking person, that the banks who caused this whole economic mess, has been propped up by tax payers money. The same goes for countries like Greece, Porraland etc, who for years have been living above their means, all because of their socialist system. When people demand things that they cannot deserve, surely this type of outcome is to be expected.

My opinion is that the money given to banks has made no difference really. It would have been better to give that money to people to use, which would have stimulated economies much more. Now the bankers laugh all the way and they even got their fat bonusses.

I believe it is time that we all stand together and fight back against the banks and their legal theft of our hard earned money. Occupy Wallstreet is just the start, but in order to reaaly force the issue, we need to get the issues into the law courts.

The New Economic Rights Alliance is preparing to undertake the largest collaborative lawsuit of its kind in South African history. We need YOU to make it happen. We want to bring together as many South Africans as possible and take on the banks as one large group.

The key focus of this lawsuit will be:       

1. Non-disclosure / secrecy of the money creation and securitisation practices
2. Unconstitutional stripping of homes, vehicles, cash and other assets from South Africans
3. Lack of any workable structure that has succeeded in assisting those in need

Please confirm your commitment to be part of this by clicking here.

 

 The unholy trinity of bankers, the legal proffession and politicians needs to be cut back to size. It’s either that or even more hardship for us all.

 

 

Blikskottel….can see a tide rising up and nothing will stop the truth

http://www.newera.org.za click and join today.

@NooHar It’s nice to see Blackberry showing respect for the loss of Steve Jobs with 3 days of silence.

#BBJokes @Rahul10e Someone stole my blackberry yesterday. It has since been returned

#BBjokes @NooHar Statistically, 10 out of 10 Blackberry users wont get this joke.

#BBJokes @johnnyrc7 When is a smart phone just a phone? ……. When it’s a blackberry

#BBJokes @DevonPharazyn #usesofablackberry keeping anger management councellors in business

@MarkSimpsonHUFC And iPhone users everywhere smile smugly and search for the “I Told You So” app…

#blackberry #BB’s @podakuni “So I bought an iPhone, Steve Jobs dies. I bought the Blackberry, BBM dies. Now going to buy the album of Justin Bieber!”

@KingBiyela Before BlackBerry pulls that stunt again, I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

#PurpleMessage @akyolyasemin Dear Blackberry, do you know what the #iPhone said to the #Blackberry? …” iWork”

@Trendeh Dear Blackberry, i’m glad that you’re back but can I ever fully trust you again? I’ve thought about cheating with an iPhone.

My wifes has a Redberry, she insists calling it that as it would be lie to call it anything else.

Blikskottel..do not argue with her on some things

A sangoma claims the South African Football Association (SAFA) owes him R90 000 for providing the “magic” to beat France in the 2010 Soccer World Cup, the Daily Sun reported on Tuesday.

S’bonelo Madela said Bafana Bafana would not win any matches until he got his money, hinting he was responsible for the team’s failure to go through to the Africa Cup of Nations finals on Saturday.

 

Now this makes me wonder if the Bokke also owes money to someone..perhaps someone with the surname Lawrence?

 

Blikskottel..can only laugh at these locals…

Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.

The USSC (United States Supreme Court)  has ruled and reaffirmed so in Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S. Ct 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11,14, 75 S. Ct. 11,13 (1954).

“A Judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice”.

 

ANY officer committing fraud upon the court renders the orders and judgments of that court void, of no legal force or effect.  This is the reason why everyone needs to get the “judge” on record at the outset, BEFORE any kind of plea is entered into the record, a promise to not commit any kind of fraud to any degree in the proceedings nor to allow anyone else to commit any fraud either.  What kind of “judge” would not gladly make such a promise?  Would any honest judge have a valid reason for not doing so?

 

 

 

Blikskottel…now knows why ordinary folk can find no justice in the legal system.