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)