Common law and how to piss off a courtoom.
I wanna shake this guys hand :)
(, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 2:11, Reply)
this should be taught in schools
but it wouldn't be, as it's important
(
(|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 2:36,
Reply)
You misspelt "misspelt" ;)
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 8:24,
Reply)
Oh god ye.
I was merely teasing/being a bellend.
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 15:15,
Reply)
Interesting
But I still don't get it. Did he really dismiss the case?
(
Hellzapoppin, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 7:05,
Reply)
I don't understand.
What the hell is going on? It looks like some jackass spouting legal mumbo-jumbo at a bunch of understandably perplexed public servants. Is this some sort of British-flavoured libertarian bullshit?
(, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 7:15, Reply)
I'm not sure either
But I think by 'denying authority' to the courts under some ancient legislation, they are hoping to avoid paying council tax as nobody would then have the authority to demand it.
One thing I found annoying / disturbing in the vid is that the judgement (or whatever it is called) order was signed before the hearing started. That is slack and should be cracked down on, legal professions get huge amounts of money, so the least they can do is their job properly :-p
(
Hellzapoppin, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 7:32,
Reply)
it's all to do with all of this
www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/john-harris-its-illusion
which is awesome
well worth the watch (when did you last turn informant on your children?)
(
spagaroony, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 8:13,
Reply)
Watched it
Interesting in places, he does has some points to make. The points I found interesting were him observing differences between law and statute etc, that police don't have authority unless you break a law, but surly we all knew that?
But by and large I think he's talking bollocks. I don't really understand what he thinks he / we will all gain from 'destroying the person'. He forgets about the positives that are resulting from these legal fictions, like benefits, the ability to run public services such as libraries etc.
(
Hellzapoppin, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 9:32,
Reply)
They aren't denying authority under ancient legislation.
They're behaving like pricks. They clearly don't have the faintest idea of how the law works - hence all the stuff about common law, commercial law and maritime law. Utter nonsense from start to finish.
As for the point about the timing of the deposition - well, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd've thought that it can't possibly mean what the commentator claims.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 9:48,
Reply)
I'm with Enzyme
And I am a lawyer. Clearly this is just an elaborate way of getting out of paying council tax.
(, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 22:34, Reply)
yus, but it's quite entertaining theatre isn't it
I feel sorry for the coppers caught in the middle and expected to know wtf
'I'd rather be out wrestling a drunk' kinda thing
(
spagaroony, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 11:14,
Reply)
Eh?
Commercial Law is the Law of the Sea? Law degree from the University of LSD, it appears.
Why do people believe this bollocks?
OK - I've got to 4:00 now, and I'm pretty much shaking with anger at this. Anger directed at the commentator, and the "lay representative"... This is incredibly stupid. Really, really, really incredibly stupid.
6:50: "The steward looks bewildered..." I'm not fucking surprised...
12:00: I can't believe that I'm actually watching this shit.
13:55: Treason? Sweet jeebus.
13:35: Hahahahahaha! What an utter fucking idiot!
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 9:18,
Reply)
you lasted a lot longer than I did
complete and utter nonsense. Watched a bit of that talk mentioned up there too ^ and it seems to be based on getting out a dictionary and looking up legal words with their ordinary definitions.
nonsense
(
nivoser tangos with the devil, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 9:53,
Reply)
Not even that.
There's no amount of taking words out of context that could justify the "law of the sea" or "maritime law" nonsense that's spouted. I may have misheard, but I think that the courtroom was referred to as a ship at one point.
That's not just a misunderstanding. It's utter lunacy.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 10:08,
Reply)
hahah
they referred to it as a ship?
oh dear me. Yeah, I don't get that law of the sea/law of the land nonsense. The conspiracy runs deep, they didn't mention that once in my public law lectures
edit: oh man, I just watched some more. They have a bit of an issue with the idea of legal personality don't they? the birth certificate made me laugh out loud..
(
nivoser tangos with the devil, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 10:10,
Reply)
I'm With Him ^
So after all the pseudo-legal bollocks, the liability order was granted so the guy either pays up or the bailiffs will impound his gear and sell it to pay the council tax bill. So being "A Freeman On The Land" achieved the square-root of fuck all.
Simple minded buffoons.
Cheers
(
Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 9:55,
Reply)
When The Goat was peddling this Freeman stuff a while back
I figured that, if it was as important as he claimed, it'd've generated a fair bit of legal and academic commentary. So I did a quick search of a century's worth of journals...
... and came up with nothing.
This suggests one of two possibilities. First, the conspiracy is so deep that every legal practitioner, legal academic, moral and political philosopher and political theorist of the last hundred years has been silenced on the topic, and the only people who know the truth and are willing to do anything about it are internet warriors. Second, there's nothing to say, because the whole thing is nonsense. I wonder which is the more likely...
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 10:04,
Reply)
exactly what I thought
the bollocks-ness of it I thought was made particularly plain by the fact they couldn't get anyone other than one of their own conspiraloons to represent them!
(
nivoser tangos with the devil, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 10:08,
Reply)
hahahahaha what a loads of bollocks.
Im my courtroom its is up to me who sits and stands.
Also I can't watch the video but is it a filming of inside the courtroom? I'd be recommending he be arrested for contempt if it is.
ED: Sorry meant as a reply to the OP
(
t0ria has forgotten how this all works, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 10:03,
Reply)
Yep.
The filming in the courtroom is, by quite some way, the least egregious violation of legal tradition in the vid.
HANG ON: Given that you're one of the evil lizard people who runs the court, you would say that, wouldn't you?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 10:06,
Reply)
Damn, you found me out!
I'll watch the vid when I get home, I'm sure it'll make me smile
(
t0ria has forgotten how this all works, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 10:14,
Reply)
I did think that
silly buggers they are
(
nivoser tangos with the devil, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 10:07,
Reply)
TELL IT TO THE CWMBRAN 10 mate!
/goat
cwmbran 10 ffs!!
(
Avast is still alive!!!!, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 10:19,
Reply)
Wait a minute lemme try to understand this
Okay, so I take it this guy's gone to a Magistrate's court to try to get off paying council tax (which is under common law if it has no statute backing it - right?).
That has nothing to do with Law Merchant?
And what is all the crap with standing and jurisdiction etc (I speak for the majority of b3tans when I say I don't know what the procedures are in a court)
(, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 10:52, Reply)
There's no need to understand it.
There's nothing to understand.
I think he's been summoned for non-payment. He then makes a spurious - and incoherent - claim about common law, and backs it up with false claims about the law in abstracto.
He bangs on for 15 minutes. The policeman stands there looking baffled, and wondering how to get this idiot out of the courtroom. The knownothing interprets this as sympathy. The magistrate gives up and goes for a cup of tea. The knownothing claims this as a victory.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 11:00,
Reply)
Ah right, I wasn't sure whether the guy had found some obscure loophole in the law
... or he was just a fucktard.
Guess it's the latter then!
(, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 13:47, Reply)
Anyone who's been in a trade union, or the forces will have come across "Tea-room lawyers" like this
A pennys worth of learning
Can create a pounds worth of waste.
In short, the man's a timewasting idiot...
(
The magic of chutney Shakes it like an Instagram filter!, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 11:01,
Reply)
I have vomited and made more legal sense than this
This has absolutely zero basis in truth. People like this are a waste of everyone's time and money and should be put to death... under ancient common laws.
Most of the words and phrases he used don't even exist.
It reminded me of some sort of legal cult, where everyone has been indoctrinated with the same turd.
It's sad that the police can't get violent with people like this, because he'd actually get a boner.
(, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 13:25, Reply)
No no no, it makes perfect sense
He has called upon the ancient law of King Arthur and the Seven Dwarfs and is waiting for the judge to dance the funky vuvuzela before he will allow him to do his judgey... thing.
(, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 13:51, Reply)
or
you could just pay your fucking council tax and save everyone a load of time and money. cunts.
(, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 13:41, Reply)
I believe this is GC.
It is an interesting argument. I believe that the link to 'law of the sea' is because statute law courts are based on Naval courts, and there's something in there as well about Sailors swearing an oath to the Queen, and thus they have consented to the Court's jurisdiction. And there's something about statute law being company law or some such.
In a nutshell, they argue that there is a difference between "Human Beings" legal persons. That human beings are governed by common law. That you can opt out (or maybe not opt in) to statute law, and be covered only by common law. And that, generally speaking, most of what is accepted as law is not valid.
I think in this case, they assert that Council taxes are not legal, that the legal person summonsed is not the same as the human being Stephen, and that this court is not acting legally, and basically no-one in the system is doing what they should be.
If they can get the people in power to agree, it will mean the collapse of western civilisation, or something. ;)
There is a strong English Libertarian flavour to it all, which has a very long tradition, and unlikely to go away.
(
Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 13:44,
Reply)
Hmmm...
I believe that the link to 'law of the sea' is because statute law courts are based on Naval courts, and there's something in there as well about Sailors swearing an oath to the Queen, and thus they have consented to the Court's jurisdiction. And there's something about statute law being company law or some such.
There is no such thing as a "statute law court". There are courts. Some laws are set by statute; others are set by legal precedent. That's the nature of a common-law legal system such as exists in England and Wales, and a good part of the Anglophone world.
The law of the sea is simply the laws that have evolved to govern... erm... the sea.
(IIRC, members of the Navy, unlike members of the other forces, don't swear to the Crown, but to the Admiralty. But that's just a detail.)
In a nutshell, they argue that there is a difference between "Human Beings" legal persons. That human beings are governed by common law. That you can opt out (or maybe not opt in) to statute law, and be covered only by common law. And that, generally speaking, most of what is accepted as law is not valid.
There is a difference between a human being and a legal person. For example, a foetus or a corpse are both human beings, but neither has legal personality. That's why you can kill a foetus without it being murder.
Common law, as explained above, is simply a legal tradition in which at least some law is made by judges. It has nothing to do with opting out. You can't opt out of any law.
I think in this case, they assert that Council taxes are not legal, that the legal person summonsed is not the same as the human being Stephen, and that this court is not acting legally, and basically no-one in the system is doing what they should be.
They're asserting all kinds of things, to be sure. None of what's asserted makes any sense, though. Nor does it correspond to reality.
There is a strong English Libertarian flavour to it all, which has a very long tradition, and unlikely to go away.
More "silly" than "libertarian", to be perfectly frank.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 21 Jun 2010, 14:51,
Reply)
Ahhhhhh....
For example, a foetus or a corpse are both human beings, but neither has legal personality. That's why you can kill a foetus without it being murder.
Brilliant - I now have a decent arguement down the pub for the legality of killing corpses / aka ZOMBIES!
(
OldWhit, Tue 22 Jun 2010, 8:29,
Reply)
