Topic: The Queen’s decision has cost Harry and Meghan ten thousands pounds!!! (Read 233 times)

I invited you to bring up the driver license thing again if you wanted, but all you do is blabber and drool.

see months later you cant even be bothered to look in the forums for the driving licence topic.
i talked about the 'la la la' thing many times and prompted you many times to research it...

yet again you avoid it
yet again all you want to do is defend karl blindlingly.

by the way.. its not slander (just to show the world how little you know)
seriously. have just one independant thought for once

oh and may i just skip to the end of the ted bundy story..
he went to prison and died there in the end.. oops sorry for the spoiler
(i know it dis-heartens you to finally realise a cult leader goes to prison.. but its a fact.)

as for the karl lentz stuff.
you yourself are a bible pusher. you quote the bible and yes what you quote is in the bible. but the later interpretation and opion you have of its meaning then makes your whole bible points irrelevant because your context vs the normal understand context of the bible are far different.

same goes for karl lentz. he can shuv as many bible verses and buzz words into his speaches as he likes to make it seem good. but then he goes on a tangeant trying to explain them in a way that is not the common way.

karl does not understand the real common law. he understands the freeman mis-interpretation cult-like narrative
atleast try to learn the real stuff

edit to address post below
i brought up the driving licence subject and even reminded you about karl lentz's 'la la la' part .. i even told you where to go to look it up. so go try

There you go, slandering Karl again.

If you attempted to correct me regarding driver license or anything else, you probably were wrong. If you want to go over it again, state the supposed correction.

You are a cult follower, following the cult of attorneys who want to make money off the sheeple. Perhaps you are an attorney. Or perhaps you are a troll. But you talk and write like a child. I point this out to you for your benefit. Everybody else knows it, even if they don't say so.

You sound like you need to see a psychiatrist. Your inferiority complex is causing you to drool while you blab.

seeing as you  are not getting the point.
karl lentz is dumb.

remember how i corrected you months ago about one example with the driving licence topic where karl 'la la la' over an important part.. i still think to this day you have not even bothered to do independant research to find out what was behind his 'la la la'

instead you act like a cult following just blindly believing his words.
so tke this point in this fashion
do you think that cult leaders and cult preachers twisting words from the bible for their own purposes are actually helping people understand the reality of the world. or are they twisting things that suit them and make them look good, enriching their status and their pockets along the way.

next try to imagine you seen some cult follower who truly believed what the cult speaker was preaching. would you want to try getting them to think beyond the cult..

next realise your the one in the cult and many many many people are telling you that you are clueless about how real life works and you are too endocrinated into the freeman teaching. really try to have that lightbulb epiphany moment and just once try to find the flaws in freeman teachings. just for once put a critical hat on and actually try to have an independant thought about whats behinds the word twists and la la's and truly understand why people like karl skip over important things.
then look at his other flaws

truly just spend a bit of time to actually stop being a media/freeman information slave and actually do some proper research and wake the hell up

its starting to become pathetic how you jibber jabber about the law but show no first hand knowledge of how things work.. and its getting real obvious

it seems your cult philosophy. is:
continue out be a scammer/criminal/a-hole/dummy because you can get away with it
dont care about other people because you think some entity who you never met will forgive you even if victims wont.

you really have no clue how the real world works. but i think its time you started

as for this topic..
can you atleast have the guts to have some first world real life experience like visiting a hotel or a pub in england and realise many businesses can be called royal without needing to be part of the monarchy.

Nobody minds if you don't want to access some of the options available to you in law. People don't even care if you decide to ignore them, or claim they don't exist. If that's the way you want to stand in court, such is fine with me. However...

To continually deny the fact of jury usage in the right way, as well as other things in that are commonly used in law - especially when I have shown you the court cases (Bundy's) that prove it to you...

... and then to suggest to other people that such things don't exist or can't be used...

... simply shows your childishness.

Some people in the forum enjoy watching your childishness. Many dismiss it outright. A few of them that are in the same boat as you are actually think that they relate to you. Perhaps somewhere along the line you actually have something that is worthwhile reading.

But the most important thing for you is to keep on posting. It will give you a feeling of importance. And if you are a troll, it might even make you more money.

Btw, Karl Lentz is close to 100% accurate in his court dealings and his understanding of law setups. But, then, he bears in mind essentially the whole law. Try reading Blackstone, sometime. The things that Karl says are written in there. Blackstone is what any serious student of law (barristers and attorneys) in Britain and the USA refers to for a deeper understanding of what is really happening in law.

unlike you i have actually visited court. studied courts and actually learned about them.
but here is the smart part. i never had to attend court to defend myself because im not dumb enough to get myself into those situation. i am smart enough to learn how things work without having to do dumb things to find out the hard way

you have repetedly only quoted freeman and treated them as your guru's of knowledge but lacked the willing to try finding first hand knowledge.
as for this topic you thinking that the solution to everything is a jury trial is your foolish knowledge of trials and also your foolish knowledge of how the world works outside a basement.

try to do some research on topics you choose to inject yourself into. such as the media stories of meghan and harry drama is outdated before its publicised. you actually still think that harry and meghan have a decision to make later in the year because the media broke a story..
truth is a decision was made months ago, it was boring and no drama involved. so media created a fiction to create drama and make it feel like something new is about to happen.
harry and meghan already paid for stuff that was originally funded using monarchy funds. including the renovation costs of multiple millions. so this drama about £10k. is just outdated meaningless drama

atleast try to stand up for yourself by not just following your freeman guru's like some information slave. actually try to be an independant thinker.. and yes that aslo goes for your affiliated product sales guru's trying to get you to be convinced that drinking chlorine is part of a healthy diet.. because it seems to be affecting your head negatively.

but seriously if you really want to learn the difference between common law and a government legal system. truly honestly and deeply try finding a none freeman source.. it will actually help you. the freeman are a cult

I know. It's scary to stand up in court. I wish you the best in your next court case, that you won't be so fearful of actually standing up for yourself.

canada never had to.. thats the whole point..
again media run scare gossip stories. canada wont and never had plans nor intention to be the purse strings of harry or meghan.


...
as for badeckers jibber jabber. he still has no clue..
and what he does not realise about this topic is that discussions within the family occurred and agreed months ago.. the media gossip after is just drama of things that wont even occur.

badecker you do know more then others and definitely dont know whats occuring in a court room.. you have been proven wrong in many many topics now

all this chest pumping about going to court is just media.. not meghan/harry/queen plan or desire

but anyway i hope one day badecker gets out the basement. switches off youtube and fox news. and tries to experience the word a littlebit.
maybe visit one of the hundreds of pubs in england that have the name royal in them
or the hundreds of hotels
but if he cant get out his basement and only wants to seek his info from media entertainment then he can atleast watch WWE royal rumble and realise none of the wrestlers are monarchs

@franky1 thanks for the clarification in this thread and now I understand this situation even better, furthermore it seems that the media hyped it up and I fell for that hype. Also I wasn’t aware that they purchased their house with their own funds, so does this mean that Canada will no longer have to fund their lifestyle can you shed some light on this too?.

But what does being British or being American mean? People throw these terms around all over the place, and many have fanciful ideas about what they mean.

Let's get right down to it. What is the legal meaning of being British or American? What do the legal dictionaries and encyclopedias say (rhetorical)? And why would anyone believe what the legal dictionaries and encyclopedias say more than what they or their neighbors say?

The point is, the legal meanings are for the legal system, but the non-legal meanings are for the common law people. So, everybody who has a meaning for the words British and American, has the common law meaning. But only the formally legal inclusions in legal writings have the legal meaning, even though they were adopted by common people acting in legal capacity.

Legal meanings are for people when they are acting legally. But other meanings are for people when they are acting in a common way... common law.

Why is this important? In America, Britain, Canada, Australia, Belize, and other countries that were greatly influenced by British law, common law is built right into the legal system as the base for common (non-legal) men and women to act within the legal system. So, common men and women can bypass the legal system, because the legal system says they can. All they need do is use the common law part that is the basis of the legal system.

In Britain, the common law part is found within Queen's Bench. In Queen's Bench men and women are stronger than government... if they understand and properly use their strength.

The American system is different. Americans have common law strength with regard to the U.S. Government in Federal District Court (as distinguished - different than - U.S. District Court). With regard to the States, ALL courts of the States are common law courts at their base. It says it right in the legal law. It is only by agreement with the court that a man or woman moves his case into legal law.

Because common people don't recognize or understand the common law base of law in the USA, they are easily dragged into the legal system without even knowing it.

Here is the basis that shows us that we are in common law systems in both Britain and the US. It's called the jury... the 12 person jury. A person acting with the jury in the USA can get anything he wants done, if he can get the jury to agree with him. Google "Bundy Oregon jury trial." Here are 4 of the many sites:
- https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/us/oregon-standoff-ammon-bundy-acquittal/index.html
- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html
- https://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/ammon-bundy-verdict-oregon-standoff-malheur-court/
- https://katu.com/news/local/ammon-bundy-ryan-refuge-trial-verdict-malheur-wildlife-consensus-jury-federal-portland-oregon

This is one example of many jury acquittals. Can you even believe this? Bundy's used guns and took over a Federal wildlife compound in Oregon for 41 days. But they were exonerated by the jury on all counts. This kind of thing happens in Britain, as well (jury exoneration, not wildlife refuge takeovers). The thing that it shows is that common law is the basis for both governments when the people want to step out of the legal rhetoric of the government, and use the legal basis of legal law to remain in or move into common law.


Now back to the point at hand.

Regarding the legal relations between the Queen and Harry/Megan, it will be answered legally. If Harry/Megan are accused, and don't want to take it to the jury, or realize that the jury will side with the Queen, they pay. But if they want to use the legal system to move over into the common law system and take it to the jury, they can do this. But if they lose in a jury trial, the jury can decide the penalty to be worse that the little bit that they have to pay the Queen in the way it stands now. Of course, if they win, they might wind up getting paid by the Queen, if that's what the jury decides. It's up to Harry and Megan... but it seems that they have not exercised their right to jury trial.


None of this exists this way because I or Karl Lentz said it. It exists this way because it is written right in legal law. Karl Lentz simply says it in ways that common people can understand, better than just about anyone else.

I believe this to be fair. They are no longer duke and duchess of sussex so it's fair not to use those titles commercially. They must know it, there's no other way around it.
When a police officer gets fired he can no longer show the badge in public or stop people and search them. When a duke stops being a duke he cannot promote clothes or whatever with his title, period.

all that means. is knowing that you are an american. you dont have to obide by british law. because you chose not to live in the british system

but that does not mean you dont have to follow any system
again your american. meaning you have to follow the american system and yes that means you are liable and responsible for your actions and that means that you can be arrested charged and put in court by the american system

sorry to inform you but trying to pretend that your basement is some freeman cult commune does not make you immune from american law. ..

if you dont like it move to a deserted island not recognised and not a territory of any government.

learn about territory(its part of property law). you know property.. the thing even common law covers.
yep common law is used to make government power a reality. so dont think its fiction

queens bench is the queen and governments territory. they have policies and procedures wrote by government and the queen on how the court proceedings should occur.

try to learn these things

..
now back to the topic at hand..
this topic title is no news/small news.
as i said the websites still active so its not like its a legal battle over the brand
what actually occured was they had to repay their monarchy funds because the funds used to start the website last year were using royal funds

in bigger proper news
meghan and harry had to pay millions to secure their home because it was originally renovated using royal funds and as part of THEIR desire to show THEY dont want 'royal' hand outs. they bought out their house in full so that it truly becomes theirs.
yep £3million.
so this topic talking about £10k.. is small fries

(seems a lil bit of research instead of just media headline grabbing is worth it)

Things that are legal or illegal, are so only for the persons under the legal system. They aren't for people except that people agree that they are persons under the legal system. You have so much to learn about the law.

you only learned about queens bench from Karl Lentz. but you have no clue what is actually involved.
(really try to step away from following karl lentz and try for once to do independant research)

all of your jibber jabbering about taking the queen to court.. yet the funny thing is you tell people to take her to 'her' court..
thats like you stepping on my land .. not liking it. i want to punish you. and yo then want to form a jury in my barn .. formed by people invited by me...
... do you see your flaw..
do you think you will win in my barn with my invitees


as for the word 'royal' it is not illegal to use the term if your not part of the monarchy
i know you dont understand and have never visited england to know how things work. but if you go through any town you will learn that many businesses use the term without official permission or authorisation.

just check out all the pubs and bars. you will see thousands of them..
try to learn a thing or two about a topic next time

It's all about property. If they have property rights to the name, they can use it. If they don't, they should have gotten permission in the first place.

If they are owners of the name but are still forbidden from using it, they should take the Queen to court, person-to-person, at Queen's Bench.

who the hell cares?

it was not a 'queens decision' it was a standard practice and something to of been expected.
seem media now want to make it out like the queen has chosen to disown her grandson..
reality is she has not

all this drama is just media trying to shift the story away from their(media) own involvement and try making it sound like it was a family feud related reason.

.. there is no family feud

fact check:
harry and meghan decided to move out of the 'monarchy' .. but not the family where his gran  just happens to be employed as the queen. they are still tight as a family

the 'sussexroyal' website was not created after leaving the monarchy. but a year before hand.

the queen had  awhile ago told them what they can and cant do. media is just slow on getting the facts and just tries to make it seem relevant now by pretending its new news

the queen did not sack, did not disown and did not do anything to force them out.. they decided it for themselves.

the whole trademark and website stuff happened in and before december 2019 (way before announcing to leave)
its kinda of funny that its mid february and media is trying to bring up news available 1-2-6 months prior.. seems like just some drama provoking clickbait to me

by the way. they are actually allowed and are actually having a 1 year 'gapyear' to see what life outside the monarchy is like. and at the end of the year in 2020 they will tell the queen if they want to make it fully official. extend the trial. or return to duty.

and yes the queen is happy with the gapyear idea




and lastly.. legally.. the UK monarchy. does not fully forbid the complete use of 'royal' by non royalty entities ..
otherwise WWE 'royal rumble' would be suddenly saying that the rock, HHH, and hulk hogan are monarchs.... (but shh they are not)

here is another funny fact. the word 'royal' is the same as 'queen' 'king' 'prince' they can be used by businesses. yep. royal king queen princes nd princess can all be use by uk businesses.

check out a large selection of UK pubs and bars for reference

last funny..
the website is still active.

Oh wow, some Royals already paid 10k pounds for their website to be setup and now their website isn't going to be really worth it anymore -- because of the fact that they left royal life, and are going to be unable to profit from the royal life anymore. What a damn shame.

The Queen is totally going to compensate them, and even if she doesn't -- they're probably set with tons and tons of investments accounts all over the world to cover shit like this. They could go on a signature tour and bring in hundreds of thousands if times are really tough. They'll be alright.

I’ll skip the part about Harry and Meghans decision to leave their royal life behind as I feel all would be knowing it by now, and this decision has cost them dearly as the Queen has now decided that they cannot use the trademark ‘Sussex Royal’. It’s also worth mentioning that Harry and Meghan had spend ten thousand pounds on a new website branded with Sussex Royal, and even had even applied for many trademarks with the name ‘Sussex Royal’ and now they can’t use it anymore. So who’s loss is it theirs or the common man who’s money they had used to build the website, further what do you’ll think of the queen's decision?.

Source:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8018043/Queen-BANS-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-using-Sussex-Royal-brand-cost-thousands.html?ito=social-facebook&fbclid=IwAR2GOoxJG0wQ6B0aWigE206wlFos-h40RVS2B8wW_PaJzhbBZfOZ8wppILM