Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UK - Protestors 'arrest' county court Judge - Police blockaded by protesters (One man hospitalised

page: 10
128
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Well Im just a working class guy. And I have several friends who are failed business solicitors, who now practice in the criminel legal system. They have told me this about the actus reus/mens rea. A friend said that if you are not in the gang (masons). Then you wont get anywhere in the legal system. If you are in the gang and do legal aid work. Then you must obay the judge. So a guy gets arrested for a crime and hes a working class man, who cant afford a lawyer. Then he gets legal aid. So the man who pays the judge and prosecutor, also pays for your defense. If he dosnt do what the judge says then this failed business solicitor will have his legal aid application revoked as soon as possible. He either does what the judge says, or hes on the dole. What a brillient system.




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


We do do that but have you seen the candidates all snobs who have other agendas. they are not in touch.
Have you seen the sort of people that vote in this country. The majority of the votes given are from pitifull at best. How many council estates in the Uk have people who vote?

Through the decline of our social programs we are breeding a country of none voters and immigrants.
edit on 8/3/11 by Ezappa because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/3/11 by Ezappa because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/3/11 by Ezappa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Well Im just a working class guy. And I have several friends who are failed business solicitors, who now practice in the criminel legal system. They have told me this about the actus reus/mens rea. A friend said that if you are not in the gang (masons). Then you wont get anywhere in the legal system. If you are in the gang and do legal aid work. Then you must obay the judge. So a guy gets arrested for a crime and hes a working class man, who cant afford a lawyer. Then he gets legal aid. So the man who pays the judge and prosecutor, also pays for your defense. If he dosnt do what the judge says then this failed business solicitor will have his legal aid application revoked as soon as possible. He either does what the judge says, or hes on the dole. What a brillient system.


I can guarantee you 100% that this is completely and utterly incorrect in the context within which it is presented. A judge can make case management decisions (ie tell the parties when the deadline for exchanging documents will be, decide various applications, admissibility questions etc) but cannot tell the solicitor or barrister "what to do" beyond that. The codes of ethics for counsel are very clear and rigorously enforced.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Ezappa
 


Whats the point of voting??????
Its all the same party/gang. Dosnt matter who gets into power. They dont represent the ordenary man in the street. Corperations pay the politicians. To further their agenda`s and not the peoples.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Voting in this country has been systematically reduced in some form or another. Eventuall voting will be left to a minority of constituents of a higher class as the lower class will be less likley to vote.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Well bob you believe what ever you want. I know 100% that what I said is the truth. Criminel solicitors are failed business solicitors. The bottom of the class and couldnt do what they trained for. ``` failures.`` So next best thing? Got to pay the bills some how. So become a criminel solicitor but to do that you have to be in the gang and do what the boss says.
Of course I no longer talk to my old friends. Why? Because they do legal aid work. They no longer work for the people, but their boss. One is now a judge hahaha I recall another friend giving him £1000 to buy a crow bar from a crooked police man. Which he did. And when this other friend appeared in court, the case was dimissed due to lack of evidence. The crow bar was the only piece of evidence.
edit on 8-3-2011 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ezappa
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


No need to tak th piss.


My apologies, I admit that I was taking the piss a little bit, but not as much as you may think. I was trying to highlight the problem with humanity as a whole – the people who seek power are rarely the people to be trusted with it. Not many people are actually that good with it - in terms of utility and effectiveness, not in the moral sense.

Lots of places have seen “power being returned to the people”. In some places it worked, in others it has been a catastrophe. To quote Churchill, “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. Churchill himself, while a great wartime leader, was ill-suited for peacetime governance.

My closing thought for the post: as an individual, a "person" is an intelligent and rational human being. As a collective, "people" are idiots.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Well bob you believe what ever you want. I know 100% that what I said is the truth.


Then I am afraid we are at an impasse, so we should agree to disagree and move on. I think your summary of solicitors might be perfectly accurate for a very small number, but does not reflect the vast majority of them. If your friend was as useless a solicitor as you suggest then I'm surprised he made it through the assessments for the position. Judges generally have to be work to a far higher standard than you would need just to represent a client. I have yet to meet a judge* who isn't very, very sharp.

* not including magistrates for obvious reasons.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Laurauk
 


God's old law is encompassed in common law, or common law is encompassed in gods law. There is NO difference in Gods law and common law.

Galatians 5:14
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Common Law=cause no harm or loss.

Peace and One Love



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Here is a video of a chief American judge, looking directly at the camera and admitting that the court is a COMMON LAW court.

This is not even a video of a court case but an advertisement to jurors where the chief judge clearly claims common law jurisdiction!

Video: Forward to the 6:19 mark



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by 23432
reply to post by Techy
 

Reality is that the UCC a.k.a Admiralty Law is only enforceable with the consent of the governed .

Withdraw the consent and Common Law dominates the Land , once again .

It is argueable whether this is a good thing or a bad thing .


It's worth pointing out for clarity that (i) you are talking about a different jurisdiction - UCC and the "Admiralty Law" relate to the US, not the UK, and (ii) even there the argument is still wrong.





(i) It is also worth pointing out that the Sherwood Forest has it's own ' Jurisdiction ' too. (ii) Alas , I am a plenipotentiary of myself hence no quarrells .


edit on 8-3-2011 by 23432 because: gr



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


No hard feelings bob. May be there are decent judges solicitors police ect. But if they are masons then they are in the gang. I think on one of those vidios, some guy was shouting about free mason judges. So I guess he knows what I was told.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Helgas2011
 


I apologize if you didn't catch it in my other post, or if I wasn't clear, but I did explain in my posting the reasoning for my including the quotes...that Common Law derived from Gods law, common law is what the gentleman was fighting for, regarding the attempted arrest of the judge. I offered the explanation that I believe that the scriptures I posted RELATE to the fact that we are slaves to an illegal law system.
all of the individuals I have heard teaching the truth about law, living free of it, ALWAYS explain their understanding that it derives from God's law. So this wasn't even my idea to begin...
No, I am not "religious", I don't believe in any one religion, I feel they are ALL forms of bondage to keep us in line...I believe they are ALL designed with a little bit of truth, to keep us interested, but then lies are added to keep us disconnected from the true and living God. I hate to use the word God, just FYI.
That being said, I believe in a conscious energy that lies in every single atom in the universe, including yours.
Why would God not help us? Why would God allow for our suffering? (and thank you for assuming I'd have no answer : ) God is helping us, God is currently enabling a MASSIVE awakening to the lies of the world around us. What? Oh, you thought that God would just destroy evil? Why, 'cause that's what you would do? Well, see every atom in the universe is connected to God, a part of God. God wants a healing to occur, God doesn't want to destroy a part of him/her/itself.
If you had a tumor in your arm, and the DR said they could cut the arm off now...to avoid a bit of suffering OR you could endure the suffering while it heals itself...which would you prefer.
Again, I use the word God loosely, to ease understanding.
But this is slightly off topic. If you would like a deeper explanation about my post, or anything I've said, feel free to send me a message.
Peace and One Love



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by greenovni
Here is a video of a chief American judge, looking directly at the camera and admitting that the court is a COMMON LAW court.

This is not even a video of a court case but an advertisement to jurors where the chief judge clearly claims common law jurisdiction!

Video: Forward to the 6:19 mark


Without watching the video I am quite happy to accept that courts can and do sit as common law courts.

Personal Injury claims for traffic accidents are almost always entirely tortious, so the common law is applied (notwithstanding that statutory breaches or criminal offences such as failure to heed traffic lights/speed restrictions are also usually alleged as part of the particulars of negligence).

Work accident claims are not considered entirely common law as there are usually statutory breaches alleged as an additional cause of action.

That's not the same as saying that only common law is valid and should be considered by a court, which appears to be what your position is - though please correct me if I am wrong to save me barking up the wrong tree!

My apologies to other posters if I am a little rambunctious at the moment. I've spent a few days banging my head against a wall in the "real world" and I think you're all getting a sharper edge of the tongue than usual.

Edited to add:
It might be worth pointing out at this stage that you will hear some courts referred to as courts of common law (Queen’s Bench Division) to distinguish them from the courts of equity (Chancery Division). This does not mean that they deal exclusively with the “common law” in the context that we are discussing. It was to distinguish the methodology of approach and, in some instances, remedies available.
edit on 8-3-2011 by EvillerBob because: Further information that might help clarify some things.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


First, the common law to which I am referring has nothing to do with rules that man has made up.
Common law, the rules that a child has in their hearts, that no one needs to be told. Hurt no one, cause no loss. These are given laws within everyone's heart. granted, some people, even children, DO break these rules...but when they do, they know it is wrong.
In a legal sense what have I read? 100's of statutes from my country, Blacks Law dictionaries and others, court proceedings, etc. I've probably watched ALL the videos available online, and researched ALL laws mentioned in them. If you are trying to find out info, and not just trying to remove credibility from what I've said, I'd suggest reading the legislative works from your own country, as those pertain to you.
What is a freeman? Well, everyone is born free...yes? We've all lost it because of the system...no? I mean, if you deny that you are not free...try doing what you WANT sometime...try NOT paying taxes....try smoking a joint or drinking a beer in the downtown of your city. See how long it takes for someone to come and try to control those actions. We are not free anymore.
How does one go about becoming free? Well, do your own research, because that's a LONG explanation and I've been reading law for a couple years, I couldn't exactly post it all in one comment, and it's not the purpose of this thread, I don't think. But remember, I said I was trying to DISPROVE these ideas....it's not my fault that all the laws, statutes, acts etc...point to the TRUTH about themselves. Do some reading if you REALLY want to know, if your purpose is for knowledge and not to just discredit.
I'm also not saying it's easy. I mean, they DIDN'T get to arrest the judge, did they. Even though some officials have claimed that he should have been arrested. The system, the beast, is NOT going to make it easy. But that doesn't disprove a thing....it's only disheartening to those who DO want their freedom.
There is NO legal status, or privilege, or authority. Right now, people are giving up their rights to get legal status, or privilege, or authority. When you are free, you are free. That's the privilege,.
The last story you included is unfortunate, it is sad and makes me unhappy. HOWEVER, whoever got away with raping their spouse was clearly NOT acting to "Harm No One"...were they?
Again, these are not MY ideas, these are ideas that have been around probably longer than I've been alive. So don't shoot the messenger.
Peace and One Love



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by greenovni
Here is a video of a chief American judge, looking directly at the camera and admitting that the court is a COMMON LAW court.

This is not even a video of a court case but an advertisement to jurors where the chief judge clearly claims common law jurisdiction!

Video: Forward to the 6:19 mark


Without watching the video I am quite happy to accept that courts can and do sit as common law courts.

Personal Injury claims for traffic accidents are almost always entirely tortious, so the common law is applied (notwithstanding that statutory breaches or criminal offences such as failure to heed traffic lights/speed restrictions are also usually alleged as part of the particulars of negligence).

Work accident claims are not considered entirely common law as there are usually statutory breaches alleged as an additional cause of action.

That's not the same as saying that only common law is valid and should be considered by a court, which appears to be what your position is - though please correct me if I am wrong to save me barking up the wrong tree!

My apologies to other posters if I am a little rambunctious at the moment. I've spent a few days banging my head against a wall in the "real world" and I think you're all getting a sharper edge of the tongue than usual.

Edited to add:
It might be worth pointing out at this stage that you will hear some courts referred to as courts of common law (Queen’s Bench Division) to distinguish them from the courts of equity (Chancery Division). This does not mean that they deal exclusively with the “common law” in the context that we are discussing. It was to distinguish the methodology of approach and, in some instances, remedies available.
edit on 8-3-2011 by EvillerBob because: Further information that might help clarify some things.


What I am saying is the following: How can I have committed a crime, say driving without a license, when no one was injured, I have not breached the peace, I operate my auto mobile carefully and following all of the rules of the road (statues) since I am considerate to my fellow men.

Then when arrested for "driving without a license" it is easily fixed in "court" by paying money, money and more money.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


Come now, we are red blooded Americans with lots of toys (guns)...I agree 100% with the right to bear arms and buy them, I myself have a hand gun and sniper rifle...I regrettably feel though that violence with weapons would be inevitable in our current financial climate and hate for politicians.

Sometimes non-violent protesting is not the best method, look at Libya...my fellow American's be glad you are armed and can defend yourself...!

God bless the Constitution of the United States of America, Bill of Rights...etc!



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Another ATS thread states it's about a council tax issue. It's the Daily Mail as a source and so who knows how much research has gone into it but it's making the rounds at least.

-m0r



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
A small note for those still reading.

This event in itself was an excellent one. I was not present, although I was cordially invited to attend. I had a conflict of interest so I could therefore not be present.

I wish the BCG and the TPUC all the best in their efforts.

However.

I cannot condone a large majority of their movement, as a large proportion of it consists of BNP and other right-wing organisation members. Having attended BCG conferences, and other events associated with TPUC, I was dismayed to find a 'worrying' undertow of racism, bigotry, and Christian fundamentalism.

The BCG and TPUC do not subscribe to these things, but far too many of their followers do. I therefore withdrew my support, as I did not want to be associated with such 'people'.

This event was a blow to the 'system', many more will come.

The Revenant.
edit on 8-3-2011 by The Revenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Scorpitarius
 


Thank you for clarifying this. It has clearly ceased to be about whether there is a legal basis or authority for their actions, and is now about whether they should be beholden to any law other than "what they think is kinda groovy"
The use of the term "common law" is perhaps misleading in describing their actions because it suggests there is some actual identifiable legitimacy to their actions other than "because I want to". This isn't "lawful rebellion", it's being a nuisance and inventing spurious pseudo-legal reasons to jusify it.

I referred to the the "fairy dust" use of the term "common law" earlier and this is the perfect example - attach a recognised term to something that has little or no real relation to the recognised meaning of the term, in an effort to make it sound like it is legitimate. Keep on sprinkling that magic fairy dust and soon we can all fly like Tinkerbell, right? To heck with the laws of physics or gravity.

I was rather hoping someone could point to a specific legal argument for the position - after all, they are there trying to enforce their own set of "laws" claiming the existing set aren't legitimate, if they can't find a real basis for their own that would make them rather hypocritical. It looks like the specific legal arguments I'm seeking won't be found.





new topics

top topics



 
128
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join