Sovereign Shetland

[Ghostrider]

20 February 1472.

 

Wan hell o' a dae, I mind im weel. No been is laek afore ur syn syne.

[Ghostrider]

Hill faces trial after claim dismissed

 

 

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/1658-hill-faces-trial-after-claim-dismissed.html

 

 

Well who expected anything else then

 

Exactly, its where is might go next that is now of interest, this has been the rubber stamping exercise done and over with.

[paulb]

was forvik a signature nation to the 1962 convention on diplomatic relations. has his country been recognized by any nation. has he been invited to send a embassy to the UK and has he been presented to the queen. if not then he does not have diplomatic immunity.

 

has Stuart given up his British citizenship and if so is he refunding his pension. if he has British citizenship then he can't have protection.

 

personally this is all a load of bull. he is doing what he has done in the past being such a pain that he thinks they will get fed up and drop it. he should have been treated the same as anyone else caught doing the same stuff. he should have been banned and stuck with a big fine. he is just wasting court time.

[klanky]

Reading the ST report, it would appear that Mr Hill, having got nowhere with his claim that he does not have recognise the authority of the Shetland court, is now set to appeal to the Scottish court.

 

Is it just me that sees something flawed in his consistency here? Appealing to a judiciary that he says has no right to try him?

 

[Ghostrider]

^^ I was tempted to think the same way initially, but when you think about it. He's contesting the right of a Scottish Court to try him in Shetland, on alleged offences committed in Shetland. His appeal would be in a Scottish Court in Scotland contesting their right to operate in Shetland, which isn't so silly.

 

While it conjours up a rather surreal mental image to do so, he appears to actually be seeing this as challenging the right of an "invader" to pronounce judgement over matters in Shetland. And having unsuccessfully told said "invader" to bog off in Shetland, he's, in a "civilised" manner now going to proceed to the next level in the chain of command in the "invader's" "enforcement" hierachy, and tell them to bog off and take their lackeys they sent here to pronounce judgement over Shetland matters with them.

 

In less "civilised" times, what he seems to be doing would have been to launch a counter attack on a stronghold within the "enemy's" home territory, either convincing them to withdraw their "army of occupation" in Shetland, or cutting them off and forcing them to abandon their posts.

[Kavi Ugl]

Sheriff Napier seems to have based his decision on the fact that neither Norway nor Denmark complained or questioned what happened in 1472 but he didn't consider the rights of Shetlanders then and now in all this.

 

I've thought all along though that what this will boil down to is what the people of Shetland want, and this could come into play with the referendum on Scottish Independance.

 

It might have something to do with SH's campaign and it might not - it might just be a call to go our own way.

[EM]

Is it just me that sees something flawed in his consistency here? Appealing to a judiciary that he says has no right to try him?

His appeal would be in a Scottish Court in Scotland contesting their right to operate in Shetland, which isn't so silly.

I think Ghostrider's interpretation is indeed how it is. Mr Hill completely acknowledges the legitimacy of the Scottish Courts in all of Scotland outwith Shetland. The Sheriff did press him on this matter somewhat. He asked why Mr Hill felt the case of Shetland differed from the other places in the UK which had had Udal systems at one time. One has to also wonder what Robbie the Pict et al feel about the legitimacy of the Scottish legal system within Pictland.

 

... but he didn't consider the rights of Shetlanders then and now in all this.

Actually he did address these matters quite a lot, as I hinted at in my comment on his questions about the rights of land owning versus non-land owning citizens. After Mr Hill had explained how Udal Law made land owners sovereign, the Sheriff sought clarification on how the rights of land owning and non-land owning individuals varied. Indeed he asked if Mr Hill's interpretation did not indicate that non-land owners would have no rights at all. It was an astute question and revealed a glaring hole in the whole land-rights linked to citizen-rights theory.

[icepick239]

personally this is all a load of bull. he is doing what he has done in the past being such a pain that he thinks they will get fed up and drop it. he should have been treated the same as anyone else caught doing the same stuff. he should have been banned and stuck with a big fine. he is just wasting court time.

You got it in one paulb.., but why the wait till October or November for his case to be heard?

 

SH, if he ain't mad, then he must be bad.... take your pick.

Disciples, apparently now numbers 11 (that's down from 12) and is a massive drop of 8% in one day

[icepick239]

FOR SALE: Old bike.

Road-licence NOT required...

[daveh]

If, as has been reported, Procurator Fiscal Mackenzie said that Norway hadn't asked for Shetland back for centuries, perhaps Stuart could now consider approaching the Norwegian government to ask them why.

Would be interesting if they were to make a claim now.

[Ghostrider]

SH, if he ain't mad, then he must be bad.... take your pick.

 

He may well be either or both, but I'd add naive, blinkered and gullible to the list of possibles. Maybe its just me, but insofar as the whole on the ground Forvik excercise has gone, I cannot but help always draw comparisons between it and a Blue Peter program with them demonstrating how to make whatever out of bog roll cores, egg boxes and sticky backed whatever-it-was-they-used.....This excerise in court strikes me similarly as a comparison with a schoolkid who has persisted with a particular line of behaviour for a long time, who has been called out to the teacher's desk, and upon arriving there has attempted to justify there behaviour by pointing out certain passages in the school rules claiming they permit such behaviour. Only to have the teacher inform them that they've misunderstood and misinterpreted the rules.

 

Bluntly, IMHO while the subject certainly deserves exploring and questioning, so far it woefully a lacks mature adult reasoned and tactical approach.

[stuarthill]

I'm not commenting about the case for obvious reasons, but somebody posted saying we never see any successes of the sovereignty/freemanlawful rebellion movements. Follow this link and it will tell you why: http://www.prisonplanet.com/british-tax-protesters-arrest-judge-in-act-of-lawful-rebellion.html

Nobody is more securely imprisoned than somebody who doesn't know it.

[JAStewart]

Prison Planet. Really, Stuart?

 

I can't think of a more discredited human being than Alex Jones. Whether he is race bating, perpetuating the myth that 9/11 was an inside job, claiming that people who suffer from schizophrenia are demons, claming that Hollywood is run by Arabs. But actually it's the State Department and CIA. But actually it's the Arabs, claiming that Obama is a muslim, believing vaccinations cause autism... these are just a few of the things he has said. Linking to Prison Planet just weakens your message entirely.

[stuarthill]

Prison Planet. Really, Stuart?

Never mind the site - it's not one I usual visit either - click on the video. If it doesn't worry you that a message comes up saying "This content is not available in your country due to a government removal request", then I repeat what I said in my earlier post: Nobody is more securely imprisoned than somebody who doesn't know it.

[scoots]

Hokaaaaay then.... where to begin...

 

Right. First off, which Magna Carta are these folk talking about? The original document, sealed by John in 1215 at Runnymede, was called Carta Libertatum. The term Magna Carta came some quite considerable time later, after subsquent monarchs had already "re-issued" (edited to you and me) the original.

 

This Article 16 they talk about? They blame the Press, they really meant 61, as 16 deals with the limitation of services exigible in respect of lands held on military tenure. But then 61 relates to the King keeping to the Charter,stating that if he does not, he may be displaced by 25 barons, chosen by their fellow barons, who could then seize the King's lands, castles and possessions until they felt sufficient restitution or amends had been made. It also required any person in the land to swear an oath of fealty to these 25, and required the King to order every man in the land to swear such an oath, whether they

wanted to or not. Women are not mentioned, presumably making them exempt,hmmmmm?

 

Thiis Article is hardly libertarian! Right to lawful protest?? Bullhooey. It guarantees a privileged elite, given their status by birth or accolade of the Crown, to seize power and wield it absolutely with no regard to the rights of any man other than themselves!! Is this what Mr Hill is all about?

 

But,to top it all there's this humdinger from the page Stuart Hill provides the link to.

 

“It is clear, beyond all reasonable doubt and with evidence that would stand up in any properly-conducted court of law, that an influential network of rogue British politicians across the parties is unlawfully involved in carrying out the

hidden strategies and agendas of a centuries-old, secretive and criminal global elite who are seeking the imposition of unlawful global governance on the unsuspecting peoples of the world. Known broadly by researchers as the New World Order (NWO) – though some refer to them as the Illuminati or Zionists (please note that this does not mean Judaism) – the modus operandi of these powerful traitors and criminals is now clear for all to see,†reads the statement.

The group lists the Committee of 300, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Club of Rome as just some of the organizations who control “Subservient and compartmentalised

national networks of influential politicians, industrialists, campaigning groups, charities and key individuals in trusted positions.â€

The British Constitution Group and the movement of “lawful rebellion†is strongly supported by Brian Gerrish, a former Royal Navy Lieutenant Commander who publishes the UK Column newspaper, which documents how

Britain is being destroyed by globalist interests as well as the insidious “Common Purpose†organization which has infiltrated every level of British society."

 

Sheesh... anyone else here ever EVER hear the term Zionists applied to

anyone other than Jews? Nope? Thought not. So, anti-Jewish propaganda? Check! Brian Gerrish, pal of the BNP? Check! NWO and Illuminati? Check! Centuries old conspiracies to control mankind, from which only "we" enlightened free men can save you ignorant cattle? Check!

 

And you really want your argument tied to this outrageous right wing claptrap?

 

BTW, Carta Libertatum was an English document, issued by English barons

(apart from Chester, where it doesnt apply) and sealed by an

English king. I guess if this"enlightened" bunch were to try the same idea with our Sheriff, even with their tenuous hold on reality they'd be acting illegally.

 

And John repealed that Article immediately after the meeting was dispersed, as was his right as King. He was fully supported by the Church being the other major player in politics at the time, who stated he had been co-erced into it. As his was the only authority required to make this Article law, it seems it never really existed, except for a very brief period of time.

 

So all these protesters are breaking the ancient law of their land.

 

I can't think of a single thing Stuart Hill could do to harm his stance or argument other then expose it to the light of day by turning this rock over!