It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by Ezappa
reply to post by EvillerBob
No need to tak th piss.
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.
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.
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
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.