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

reply to post by The Revenant


The reasons you state were why 'the gathering' was postponed I believe ?
I was all revved up for that having missed the previous one !

Originally posted by greenovni
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.

Although I don't know what jurisdiction you fall under (I'm guessing it's a US state as you use the work automobile) I think it's a fairly safe bet that there is a statute of some kind that requires you to have a licence to operate a vehicle. So, when you say you are "following all of the rules of the road (statues)" that isn't exactly true, is it? You're actually driving in contravention of the "rule of the road (statute)" that requires you to hold a valid licence.

Fines are there because it's generally recognised that there needs to be a penalty for bad conduct but sending you to jail might be excessive in the circumstances. Your fine may or may not be large enough to cover the costs incurred in prosecuting you, but in many cases the whole process is a loss-making exercise for the courts.

Originally posted by EvillerBob
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.

You know what the common law is. Don't steal, cheat/fraud, extort, murder et cetera. Much like legal maxims, commonly accepted principles of contract/commerce law. I don't think you understand that they are not arguing, this isn't case law. When you use case law, you agree to the commercial charges and will argue the accepted facts. You may say semantics, but this is something very important to understand, they are not arguing legal junk.

The judge failed to present his certificate of oath, meaning he is an imposter. That is fraud on the court. The judge takes orders and executes them, he doesn't make his own, he isn't god. He is a public official, public officials are public servants, they serve the sovereign people. All the courts are de facto commercial courts, and to operate in commerce you need to have liability, the judges oath turned into a certificate of oath is his liability.

I do not know if it shows a specific person in that video, but the guy with the glasses and shoulder strap bag, who is somewhat 'bigger' I am pretty sure I know who he is, he has many videos on youtube and has dealt with the criminal magistrates many times. The Judge wouldn't want to give his certificate of oath because that guy will know how to hold him liable, he has made judges run from the court for committing fraud many times.

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by The Revenant

 

The reasons you state were why 'the gathering' was postponed I believe ?
I was all revved up for that having missed the previous one !

I didn't know that. Please do tell me more in this thread or by PM, I'd be intrigued to see if the organisers have seen the threat the nutters pose to their cause.

The Rev.

www.youtube.com...

If this hasn't been posted.

It seems connected to the March 26th protest, although I can't help feeling the guy in the video is a bit of jerk, in his instigations to riot in London (he did say it!)...

But nonetheless, it shows some footage of the event i first mentioned.

reply to post by EvillerBob


Well, there is a "Legal" standing for common law. But it's hard to obtain as one must really follow law procedure to the T in order to achieve it, PLUS there are many tricks that the law society can use to cause someone under common law standing to loose their standing.
One of the main arguments is the LEGAL definition of person. When you read through law dictionaries, the definition of person is Corporation. For example, I cross referenced all 9 Blacks Law dictionaries...again in an attempt to disprove...And found that Person is only defined as Corporation, slave or human being; and the definition of human being leads only to the definition of "Monster", a monster being a mutated creature not allowed to own property. Based on the LEGAL definition of person, I'm sure you wont accept ANY of those definitions for yourself.
This is important because Statutes and Acts are written for the "Person", unless the specific Statute in questions offers a definition for "Individual", which will then always apply to following common law. (IE// "Each person must obey this Statute"....as opposed to "Each individual must obey such and such rule of common law. The word and definition for Individual is rarely seen.
You see, common law was the only law recognized until the 6th Babylonian emperor, Hammurabi, who made the first rules to govern over people, as opposed to rules that everyone naturally lived by (for the most part) This isn't to say that at that time the whole world was governed by his brutal laws, but gradually, over time, it was instilled to the world.
The Law DOES recognize common law (this is why one can have a common law wife or husband, which is essentially marriage without government intervention) but it's quite the procedure to get the law to acknowledge it...they loose power if they acknowledge common law. The Law Society has it's own language, called Legalese ( In know, I know, it sounds fake, Do look it up, it's in their law dictionaries), it can be confusing and people not knowing the LEGAL definition of these words are either forced, or tricked, into consenting to following these laws. You see, government is given the force of law only by consent.
I realized one strong point while reading through endless Statutes and Acts and other legislative writings...writings from lawyers, etc, and that point was this...
If the law was NOT a scam...if it truly had the power that most individuals allow it, it would not be written in such a confusing manner using words with alternating definitions. If they REALLY wanted people to follow the law, they would make it simple for everyone to understand. (IE// You will pay tax or go to jail, period. None of this 100 page tax act that requires you to cross reference 10 other statutes in order to fully interpret it.) It's confusing because they DON'T want people to know the law.
Common law is recognized by the law society...secretively. This is why they tried to have the judge arrested for not upholding his oath...for if the judge HAD upheld his oath, common law jurisdiction could have been claimed...which would have nulled the tax act...or whatever their act is called...which would then have been a case dismissed.
So that, in a nutshell, is the legal argument. Governments, Law societies and other corporations have tricked the masses into joining their society through registration, making them bound by the societies rules. It was imposed upon the people in a manipulative manner.
I can say that the world would see peace and abundance if common law ruled because it is these governments, societies and corporations causing poverty, causing wars, causing 95% of the worlds suffering. It wasn't, and has never been, every day people like you and me deciding to go to war, it was emperors with kingdoms and slaves that started the first wars, and it is emperors with kingdoms and slaves causing those wars today. It has NEVER been the people, always the forced institution. I'm not saying there wouldn't be killings and corruption, it would just be on a much much much much lesser scale, and very easily monitored by the people.
If you are truly interested, do some research; read your local statutes and acts and by laws, read law dictionaries and such. I know it's boring as hell, but when you read it all in a new light, it's actually pretty fascinating.
Hope this helps
Peace and One Love

Originally posted by Essan




.

As for these ignorant anarchists - well, frankly they'd be better off going to school or getting a job. Or if they don't like it, bugger off to their beloved North Korea. If you don't like MY country, then I'm not stopping you frm leaving.

edit on 7-3-2011 by Essan because: typo

YOUR Country? Now just which country might that be? Is that the one which became French in 1066 and is now ruled over by a German Monarch? Or is it the one which is largely Scandinavian historically? Then of course there are Scots to the North and the Welsh to the west, who given that they are largely autonomous both legally and politically - leaves me wondering which country you're referring to? Ah of course it must be England. The great Oppressor. Oppression is the English way - Oppressed the Americans, most of Africa, Australia and India as well as the Irish, Scots and Welsh - I guess it should come as no surprise that they excel therefore at oppressing their own people. As for urging the protesters to 'get a job' just how presumptuous and arrogant is that? It's the same arrogance which drives the class system 'Oh no we mustn't mingle with or associate with them or listen to their thoughts! They're working class and dirty!"

By what psychic ability did you glean that most were unemployed?


Oz

reply to post by Scorpitarius





Application , Submission , Registration .

Originally posted by 23432
reply to post by Scorpitarius

 

Application , Submission , Registration .

You got it lol.

Originally posted by lawlb0t

Originally posted by 23432
reply to post by Scorpitarius

 

Application , Submission , Registration .

You got it

lol.

People don't get it ,when Must really mean May , the whole thing is sooooo in your face .

It's an illusionary game .

"Let he who would be deceived be deceived."

I think many of you are missing the point.
This guy is refusing to pay CouncilTax.
The courts are trying to bankrupt him so they can take his possesions to pay said tax.
The judge refused to reveal his Oath of office as he is legally obliged to do.
The judge acted ilegally and the good citizen tried to do his duty by arresting a criminal.
When the Police intervened, the watching crowd were angered.

Those are the facts.

The Freeman movement is doing temendous work in research here in the UK. Some may disagree with the results of that research but disagree or not, I don't think anyone should stand in the way so as to prevent further research and discussion.
Please try not to let your personal oppinions cloud the real issue at the heart of this event in Liverpool....... Taxation is wrong!


Many Freemen will be joining the March 26th trade union demo in London, as will other activist groups.
The demo is basically calling for a review/end to cuts in the public sector which affect every part of our daily lives here.
One UK bank paid 1million in tax last year after making 6billion in profits ....... Anyone spot anything wrong with this? I will be marching on the 26th because of these tax/cuts issues and the Freemen movement have helped me in many ways to understand our system.
I suspect there will be violence on the day because people here are very angry at the continual fraud and corruption that blights or lives. Any activist movement that brings these issues to the public arena are welcome in my view, even if I disagree with some of their idea's.

So before you dismiss any group as a bunch of lazy benefit scrounging anachists......... Think about the issues they are adressing. And you'd be suprised just how many of these guys actually work for a living.

PS. Im a working man with 3 teenage children. My oldest works 12 midnign till 9 am in an unskilled job for minimum wage and has no life as a result.
He has tried for 2 years to get an apprenticeship as an Electrician after sucessfully completing his first year at college (Full time). He has had absoloutely zero sucess. This is despite the fact he can seee the Olympic development from his bedroom window. He is on the UK's scrapeheap.
My middle child is currently working towards a University (Journalism) place but is in two minds because of the Uni Fee's he will owe when and if he gains employment. He has been accepted at John Moore and we travel there next week to discuss finaces........ I am not hopeful.
My youngest is currently applying for positions on work experience to various companies/organisations in some field of science. Despite posting countless CV's and emails she has recieved very few replies.
Mostly, she is being told that these organistaions/companies cannot afford the insurances necessary to take on 15 year old GCSE level students on work experience .......... So we cant even give our kids away for free now ;(

There's a lot of "American" stuff on this site, I just thouught I'd show you how essentially, we are in a very similar boat.

reply to post by Silvertrowel


Silvertrowel - I empathise enormously. I hold nothing but contempt for Westminster but I love the English people as though they were my own. Like most folks they are just honest to goodness folks trying to make their way in a corrupt world. I hope your kids succeed in their chosen paths. I get tired of people stereotyping the good folks of Liverpool. I lived and worked in London for ten years as well as serving six as a Cop in Glasgow before deciding to get myself an education. I grew up in one of the most deprived areas in Western Europe (Drumchapel) - I was so proud when I became a Cop until I witnessed what inequality and injustice does to the poorest of people. I then decided to go to Uni and get myself my Masters Degree to try and better understand the society we live in, which I did. At 40 years old with 6 years as a Cop and a Masters degree in TWO subjects (Sociology and Social Policy) - No one, absolutely no one would employ me in Britain. Which is why I now live and work in Australia.

I like the sound of these 'Freemen' - I'll be looking into their thoughts more.

Maybe the ghost of Thomas Payne has finally been unleashed in Britain. I hope so.

Oz

Thank you for taking the time to put this answer together. Perhaps if I break it down into chunks, the problems I am having with this idea will be clearer and easier to address. I’ve numbered my reply paragraphs as much for my own reference as anything else.

Originally posted by Scorpitarius
Well, there is a "Legal" standing for common law. But it's hard to obtain as one must really follow law procedure to the T in order to achieve it, PLUS there are many tricks that the law society can use to cause someone under common law standing to loose their standing.

1. What do you mean when you say that someone can lose their standing under common law? Are you referring to locus standi? How can this be lost so easily, especially considering the liberal approach taken by the courts on including parties who would otherwise have no standing on a matter?

2. You refer to the Law Society in a few places. The Law Society is a body that represents solicitors. They have no real impact on the court system. The Law Society is also not relevant to barristers, who form the vast majority of higher rights advocates (as well as the pool from which the vast majority of judges drawn) and are regulated by a separate body called the Bar Council. How does the Law Society (or even the Bar Council) cause the average person to lose “standing” under common law? You are suggesting there is some mechanism here – what is it, how does it work? Do you have examples that might clarify this point?

Originally posted by Scorpitarius
One of the main arguments is the LEGAL definition of person. When you read through law dictionaries, the definition of person is Corporation. For example, I cross referenced all 9 Blacks Law dictionaries...again in an attempt to disprove...And found that Person is only defined as Corporation, slave or human being; and the definition of human being leads only to the definition of "Monster", a monster being a mutated creature not allowed to own property. Based on the LEGAL definition of person, I'm sure you wont accept ANY of those definitions for yourself.

This is important because Statutes and Acts are written for the "Person", unless the specific Statute in questions offers a definition for "Individual", which will then always apply to following common law. (IE// "Each person must obey this Statute"....as opposed to "Each individual must obey such and such rule of common law. The word and definition for Individual is rarely seen.

3. Blacks is an American law dictionary, not one used in England and Wales. This might explain the confusion as we are dealing with a different jurisdiction. Although the systems are related, they have since evolved separately and so arguments that might be very valid for the US are not necessarily valid for the UK.

4. I will continue to address your post from the point of view of the UK as it is most relevant to the original topic of the post.

5. A “legal person” for the purposes of the law is someone who can contract, sue, and be sued, in court. The first and most obvious category is a “natural person” – you and me. We have an inherent right to enter into contracts and seek redress through the courts for wrongs. Originally this was not automatic as a slave could be considered a natural person but not a legal person. That distinction no longer exists, and all natural persons are automatically legal persons. There are further issues of competence in relation to age, infirmity etc, but that is a separate issue.

6. For practical reasons, businesses also need to be able to enter into contracts so they have a further category which includes companies, sole traders and other businesses.

7. Legal personality does have some conflict with Statute. As a legal person, a company in theory is capable of homicide. In practical terms, you cannot send a company to jail though you can impose fines. There is further law in relation to “lifting the corporate veil” where an individual can be identified but this is again tangential to the discussion. This particular conflict has been addressed by legislation creating offences of “Corporate Manslaughter”.

8. So, in relation to your original point, I am more than happy to be classified (quite rightly) as a “natural person” which automatically gives me the right to enter into legal relations etc. The “legal person” construct is artificial but necessary to allow business to function. It is not an attempt by the government or anyone else to create a separate “entity” that represents me. I am me and my rights are inherent in me, nothing more and nothing less.

9. “Individual” is no different to “natural person”. Each “natural person” is inherently an “individual”. You can come up with all sorts of interesting ways to differentiate the two in theory, but practically they are considered to be one and same thing. Perhaps this is why lawyers are so confused over this issue – people have invented this complex distinction instead of just realising that different people sometimes use different words to mean exactly the same thing.

10. Printing in block capitals is significantly clearer than lowercase. If you are writing names on an official document, printing in block capitals massively reduces the risk of error. This is why many application forms ask you to complete them in block capitals, and why legal drafting still requires headings to be given in this manner. Personally, whenever I write anything important by hand I always write in uppercase because my handwriting is terrible and the risk of it being unreadable later is too high. It has nothing to do with creating secret trusts or separate legal entities, and where that really bizarre idea came from I doubt I will ever know. It is similar to saying that because latin by convention should always be written in italics, this secretly means that the latin part supercedes the parts written in English. No, no it does not. It is just a writing convention.

11. You do not need to create a trust entity to interact with the commercial world. You have the inherent right as a natural person under English law. Considering the technicalities of creating a trust under English law, I also have issues with seeing how the requisite elements could be met? I am not a trusts lawyer, however, but have enough of a passing knowledge to feel doubtful that this could work.

Originally posted by Scorpitarius
You see, common law was the only law recognized until the 6th Babylonian emperor, Hammurabi, who made the first rules to govern over people, as opposed to rules that everyone naturally lived by (for the most part) This isn't to say that at that time the whole world was governed by his brutal laws, but gradually, over time, it was instilled to the world.

12. I do not think I am really in a position to comment much on that, as it is an area of history I am vaguely aware of, but no real details. I seem to remember that some of the earliest written records were found to be tax regulations written under Hammurabi? I should probably research further before commenting I suppose.

Originally posted by Scorpitarius
The Law DOES recognize common law (this is why one can have a common law wife or husband, which is essentially marriage without government intervention) but it's quite the procedure to get the law to acknowledge it...they loose power if they acknowledge common law. The Law Society has it's own language, called Legalese ( In know, I know, it sounds fake, Do look it up, it's in their law dictionaries), it can be confusing and people not knowing the LEGAL definition of these words are either forced, or tricked, into consenting to following these laws. You see, government is given the force of law only by consent.

13. The reason why there is “quite a procedure” in terms of the UK courts, is that there is no such thing as a common law marriage under English law, common law or otherwise. What courts do recognise, however, is contribution and reliance within a relationship (used in the general term not specifically a “romantic” relationship). The continued use of the expression “common law marriage” is in effect a simplistic way of recognising the practicalities of that relationship but it carries no legal weight.

14. Legalese will no doubt appear in the dictionary, it is a widely used term. In the UK legal profession it is generally used to identify (i) specific use terms or (ii) bad drafting when overdone. There are certain terms that cannot translate easily or accurately into “plain English”. It is like criticising a doctor because the medical profession insists on using long, complicated latin terms for things. Why not just call it “big red spot”? Well, sometimes that is just too vague and would not mean anything useful to a later reader. Is it the kind of “big red spot” that needs medicine “A”, or the kind of “big red spot” that needs medicine “B”? That fancy latin term is there for accuracy and medical clarity. The current emphasis in legal drafting is the same – only use the fancy terms when the plain English alternative lacks accuracy and clarity.

Originally posted by Scorpitarius
I realized one strong point while reading through endless Statutes and Acts and other legislative writings...writings from lawyers, etc, and that point was this...
If the law was NOT a scam...if it truly had the power that most individuals allow it, it would not be written in such a confusing manner using words with alternating definitions. If they REALLY wanted people to follow the law, they would make it simple for everyone to understand. (IE// You will pay tax or go to jail, period. None of this 100 page tax act that requires you to cross reference 10 other statutes in order to fully interpret it.) It's confusing because they DON'T want people to know the law.

15. Yes, some areas of the law are horribly confusing, even to lawyers. Law tries to set out a framework to encompass all possible permutations within a narrow range of actions. It is not an easy thing to do. Some draftsmen are just… rubbish. Some of the law is just old and written using a different style of drafting. Some areas are genuinely that complex. Part of the role of the courts is to sift through the morass and clarify the ambiguities, identify what Parliament intended. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes a later court disagrees and decides to change the accepted understanding. Annoying? Yes, it can be.

16. For extra credit, there is an interesting case called R v Chambers [2008] EWCA Crim 2467, 2008 WL 4698867. The judge rips into the mess made by current legislation and even tacitly suggests that ignorance of the law might become a valid excuse – he certainly accepted it as an excuse in that case, though from a different perspective. The WL reference is for the Westlaw transcript which contains more of the actual comments made by the judge than ended up in the official report, but those transcripts are harder to access without a subscription.

Originally posted by Scorpitarius
Common law is recognized by the law society...secretively. This is why they tried to have the judge arrested for not upholding his oath...for if the judge HAD upheld his oath, common law jurisdiction could have been claimed...which would have nulled the tax act...or whatever their act is called...which would then have been a case dismissed.

17. And here we start to come to the crunch. What did they expect the judge to do? It sounds like that bizarre myth people used to say about undercover policeman – if you ask them three times, they have to admit they are undercover. No. Nothing of the sort. If there is anything that a judge would have to say then he would have to say it the first time he was asked, if not disclose it before hand. They seem to have pulled this “admit the oath” thing out of thin air and I have seen no actual legal justification for this request. The judge in court sits in place of the Queen and there is no authority to directly question them on their “oath” in that capacity.

18. There is a judicial oath – two in fact, that need to be sworn together – and this is done when the judge takes office. It is not done for every court case or hearing, it is done once at the start of the career, possibly re-sworn when there is a new Monarch but would need to check on the latter point. The judge would not (could not) be there if the oath was not sworn. It is not something that they are left to do on their own, it is done before a specially appointed person.

Link to Judicial Oaths for England and Wales

19. The oaths certainly do not allow the judge to nullify a tax act - though the role of Factortame and EU-specific law actually may allow this, but to explain how that works would take this thread off at a complete tangent so it is safer to ignore those exceptions for the present purposes.

Originally posted by Scorpitarius
So that, in a nutshell, is the legal argument. Governments, Law societies and other corporations have tricked the masses into joining their society through registration, making them bound by the societies rules. It was imposed upon the people in a manipulative manner.

I can say that the world would see peace and abundance if common law ruled because it is these governments, societies and corporations causing poverty, causing wars, causing 95% of the worlds suffering. It wasn't, and has never been, every day people like you and me deciding to go to war, it was emperors with kingdoms and slaves that started the first wars, and it is emperors with kingdoms and slaves causing those wars today. It has NEVER been the people, always the forced institution. I'm not saying there wouldn't be killings and corruption, it would just be on a much much much much lesser scale, and very easily monitored by the people.

If you are truly interested, do some research; read your local statutes and acts and by laws, read law dictionaries and such. I know it's boring as hell, but when you read it all in a new light, it's actually pretty fascinating.
Hope this helps
Peace and One Love

20. You have far more faith in people than I do. Good for you. We need more optimists.

Originally posted by EvillerBob
3. Blacks is an American law dictionary, not one used in England and Wales.

I enjoyed reading your post and you make a good case. You obviously have some knowledge of law.

However, in the above quote of yours, you are wrong. I was recently a Juror in a court case here in London UK and I can tell you that Blacks was used in open court.
One of the accused in the case had been involved in a previous case that had been entered into Blacks for purposes of reference to a point of law.
The blacks Law dictionary was in full view of the Jurors for the entire 3 week case (Infact there were 3 copies on show).

I have a question for you that you may or may not be able to answer. Can you tell me what the exact definition of the term "To Register" is in the eye's of the law? I am led to believe it's definition is "To give away ownership".
There is no controversy here, I merely wish to know if I have missunderstood or been misled.

reply to post by bigyin


At the end of that vid is what part of the major problem is! The officer repeats, "I'm just doing as I'm told." Do you all see what that issue is. These officers are told what to do by these criminal elites such as this Judge. Soon enough though they will have no place to hide due to their naked shame!

reply to post by EvillerBob


First, as with everything I usually say, I like to admit that I may be wrong in my understandings, or specific pieces of info. I always accept that I am not perfect : ) That being said, I feel I have a good understanding.
I gotta make this quick...but I'll do my best to help.
Honestly though, all the questions you're asking took me a LONG time and a LOT of research to understand....but not so easy to explain. I STRONGLY suggest you start researching a bit. You can ask all the questions you like, but ultimatelly, you'll have to proove, or disprove this to your self. Ultimatelly, you'll really have to bring yourself to some understandings....but i'll TRY to help a bit more.
When you go to court, you need to have standing to be heard or recognized by the court...which can be gained several ways. So, in our discussion, we want to achieve "common law" standing...basically ensuring common law jurisdiction.
So, for example, before you enter the court, ask any magistrates if it is a court of record (to ensure what you and the court representatives say and do go on record.)
You want to avoid following orders, as that will change the jurisdiction from common law to maritime admiralty law. So don't "rise" when told to...don't agreee you your name being MR/MRS JOHN/JANE DOE, as this is the corporations name. If you follow any order from the courts, say ensure that it goes on record that you are doing so of your own free will. Etc...etc.. and there is so so so so much more to it.
When a lawyer joins the law society, the bar, they have to take an oath to the bar. This ensures that the "secrets" of law are not revealed. I read a book by a lawyer once...he explained how the lawer goes from being a young, energetic and inspired student, wanting to make a difference, but how the law education slowly breaks him down until...by the time he realises it's such a scam, he's got too much money and power to want to change it. A very in depth book. The law society is what started the Legalese language and people agree to be ruled by the law society when they do (or don't do) certain things. I can't really explain this much further, but like I said, the info IS out there. Some understanding have come to me over a long period of time, after researching many different sources and pulling them together....so Im sorry if Im not much help regarding societies and the Bar.
As someone else pointed out, Blacks Law Books are Mostly globally accepted, but there will be other law dictionaries that may be more local for you, if you prefer.
Asking questions from the POV of the UK is fine....I am not there, so I make no promises that I cn answer to your satisfaction though. : ), this is why I stress you read your local statues and legislation, as it pertains to you. I think you even have the strength of the Magna carta...you should read that.
A corporation is given legal rights. Keep this in mind.
A legal person, according to my findings, is as follows...
PERSON: A human being - Also termed natural person.
Human being is defined as SEE MONSTER; Monster is essentially a creature not allowed to own property. NATURAL PERSON does NOT define what a person is. Thats like saying GLASS-ALSO TERMED TRANSPARANT GLASS...this doesn't tell you what glass IS any more than natural person tells you what a person is. so the only definition left is corporation. Let me know if that doesn't make sence.
Rememeber, "there will be no INVOLUNTARY servitude...but I think everybody voluntarily got registered.
I agree with point 7 I think...If I understood correctly.
I can't remember the specific info, Im sure I could find it again in my mass of notes should you not be able to find it youself, but the capitalization of a name originated from (and here's where i forget...Roman law, corporate law...im not sure.) but this capitalization was carried over when living souls first started being used as colateral.
I'm sure legalese carries the definition you've mentioned, however, you may wish to look up it's definition according to lawers. Read the law dictionaries if you doubt what I'm saying about the language. At least there you'll find tangible proof as opposed to asking for my opinions to try and proove to you. I keep saying, start doing some research of your own as well as asking questions here.
R v Chambers [2008] EWCA Crim 2467, 2008 WL 4698867...I'll definatelly read this when Im done responding...thank you.
The judge takes an oath to the queen and to uphold the comon law, as the queen has sworn an oath to uphold the common law as well as to uphold the faith... and a judge, acting as a public servant, is required to provide his oath when asked. This, I believe, derives from civil law.
"20. You have far more faith in people than I do. Good for you. We need more optimists." Thank you : )
I hope I helped explain things as I understand them. I may have left some things out, but your comment was long, so I'm sure you understand.

reply to post by The Revenant


It says this (snippet)

As some of you may have noticed the advert for the Tpuc Gathering has been removed from the front page, the reason for this is that the event has now been CANCELLED!!

The reason for this may be apparent to those who frequent the forum and whom have witnessed a lot of differing opinions and negativity .

The full thing here:- www.tpuc.org...

It goes on to mention alcohol not being allowed etc but I gather its more along the lines of what you were saying really ?

Originally posted by Silvertrowel

Originally posted by EvillerBob
3. Blacks is an American law dictionary, not one used in England and Wales.

However, in the above quote of yours, you are wrong. I was recently a Juror in a court case here in London UK and I can tell you that Blacks was used in open court.

...

I have a question for you that you may or may not be able to answer. Can you tell me what the exact definition of the term "To Register" is in the eye's of the law? I am led to believe it's definition is "To give away ownership".

That first point is interesting to know, as I have always been told that Blacks is not an acceptable resource to use in court though an excellent resource for research. I stand corrected, but I will stand by the follow-on point that the same term can be used with a different emphasis (if not meaning) in UK law as opposed to US law, so some caution must be exercised. In general terms there appears to be a recommendation to use the Oxford English Dictionary for any word that does not have a specific legal meaning, as this should be the "commonly understood" meaning, or for specific legal meanings the Oxford Dictionary of Law as the next choice if the original source of the definition (caselaw or Statute) is not available. Different BVC providers, Inns and pupilmasters sometimes have their own ideas about these things, of course.

The term "register" is used to describe adding an entry to a list, or the list itself. It does not in and of itself indicate any transfer of property rights. The only way for "registration" to "give away ownership" is for the list in question to be one that carries some form of contractual duty or legal authority to that effect. There may well be a specific legal definition beyond this but I don't have a suitable dictionary to hand.

Registering a birth is a process of entering the details of the person on the index held by the General Register Office. I am not aware of any transfer of ownership that may occur though I have not researched that at all. To be honest I would not expect any to occur. If you're interested, there may be merit in tracking down the legislation that created or empowers the GRO to collect and maintain this information, possibly tracking back through the various incarnations. Potentially big job to do properly. Given the context of the discussion, I take it that your question was leading to people being registered as "corporations" at birth, or something similar?

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by Silvertrowel

Originally posted by EvillerBob
3. Blacks is an American law dictionary, not one used in England and Wales.

However, in the above quote of yours, you are wrong. I was recently a Juror in a court case here in London UK and I can tell you that Blacks was used in open court.

...

I have a question for you that you may or may not be able to answer. Can you tell me what the exact definition of the term "To Register" is in the eye's of the law? I am led to believe it's definition is "To give away ownership".

That first point is interesting to know, as I have always been told that Blacks is not an acceptable resource to use in court though an excellent resource for research. I stand corrected, but I will stand by the follow-on point that the same term can be used with a different emphasis (if not meaning) in UK law as opposed to US law, so some caution must be exercised. In general terms there appears to be a recommendation to use the Oxford English Dictionary for any word that does not have a specific legal meaning, as this should be the "commonly understood" meaning, or for specific legal meanings the Oxford Dictionary of Law as the next choice if the original source of the definition (caselaw or Statute) is not available. Different BVC providers, Inns and pupilmasters sometimes have their own ideas about these things, of course.

The term "register" is used to describe adding an entry to a list, or the list itself. It does not in and of itself indicate any transfer of property rights. The only way for "registration" to "give away ownership" is for the list in question to be one that carries some form of contractual duty or legal authority to that effect. There may well be a specific legal definition beyond this but I don't have a suitable dictionary to hand.

Registering a birth is a process of entering the details of the person on the index held by the General Register Office. I am not aware of any transfer of ownership that may occur though I have not researched that at all. To be honest I would not expect any to occur. If you're interested, there may be merit in tracking down the legislation that created or empowers the GRO to collect and maintain this information, possibly tracking back through the various incarnations. Potentially big job to do properly. Given the context of the discussion, I take it that your question was leading to people being registered as "corporations" at birth, or something similar?

Thnx for the reply.
Blacks law book is definately used in open court in the UK.
As you know, before a jury gets to decide guilt or inocence in a case, they are allowed to be informed of the accuseds prior record. I think this is a relativelly new development.
In the case where I was a juror, one of the accused had a previous case where chages included somthing to do with a gun. The decision in that case set a precident in UK law and was listed/detailed in Blacks.
Once or twice during the trial, Blacks was used for points of law. When the solictor/lawyer brought these points up by referencing Blacks, we, the jury, were escorted from the court whilst debate went on.
I am led to believe that ALL legal definitions are taken from Blacks, if none can be found there, I have no idea what they use. You could be correct about the Dictionary but that info serves little purpose in this thread.... Blacks is the main reference point.
Am I right in saying that only Lawyers can actually buy a copy of tyhis book? I was told that but have no clue as to it's truthfulness. Or maybe it's just very difficult to get a copy as a member of the public.

As for my previous question, yes it was to do with Births but also with Motor Vehichles and registering them with the DVLA. I wanted the exact definition as found in Blacks.

Originally posted by Silvertrowel

Thnx for the reply.
Blacks law book is definately used in open court in the UK.
As you know, before a jury gets to decide guilt or inocence in a case, they are allowed to be informed of the accuseds prior record. I think this is a relativelly new development.
In the case where I was a juror, one of the accused had a previous case where chages included somthing to do with a gun. The decision in that case set a precident in UK law and was listed/detailed in Blacks.
Once or twice during the trial, Blacks was used for points of law. When the solictor/lawyer brought these points up by referencing Blacks, we, the jury, were escorted from the court whilst debate went on.
I am led to believe that ALL legal definitions are taken from Blacks, if none can be found there, I have no idea what they use. You could be correct about the Dictionary but that info serves little purpose in this thread.... Blacks is the main reference point.
Am I right in saying that only Lawyers can actually buy a copy of tyhis book? I was told that but have no clue as to it's truthfulness. Or maybe it's just very difficult to get a copy as a member of the public.

As for my previous question, yes it was to do with Births but also with Motor Vehichles and registering them with the DVLA. I wanted the exact definition as found in Blacks.

No, legal definitions are not always taken from any dictionary. The first source for definitions is, and always will be, statute where it contains a definition (which many now do for important terms) followed by case law. Outside of that, you might start hitting the dictionaries.

The primary practitioner text for a criminal court is Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence & Practice (there is also a Magistrates' Courts Criminal Practice edition which appears to be a "dumbed down" version) which is where the court would normally be directed if copies of the cases are not to hand. Blackstone's Criminal Practice is also widely used as a practitioner text. They will usually contain the relevant quotes from Acts or cases where needed, or a summary that is acceptable to the court.

The jury is NOT allowed to hear about previous convictions unless it meets specific legal criteria - the recent change would be the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which sets out the gateways for this under s 101. If the defendant is accused of assault, you may well be told that he already has a conviction for assault in similar circumstances, but you may never find out about his convictions for rape and murder. What convictions could be adduced would have been decided through hearings that occured long before the jury was ever involved in the trial. Occasionally something the defendant says may allow the prosecution to bring in further convictions, but they would have the jury sent out and then apply to the judge for permission first.

Hmm. Are you sure they weren't referring to "Blackstones" rather than "Blacks"? That would make a lot more sense and would also be quite realistic. I have not met a single judge who would accept a reference to a legal dictionary for points of law from recent cases unless there was absolutely no other way around it.

You can quite easily buy all these books yourself. The problem is that they are very, very expensive for current copies, and you have to replace them each year. I've already mentioned three (the two Archbolds and also Blackstones) that you should be able to find on Amazon or another online retailer. You can buy older second-hand copies for a fraction of the price. The 2010 editions are still (mostly) good law in a lot of areas, especially if they are being sold with the supplements that contain key updates for that edition. They are normally full of notes and highlighter marks though.