Common Law Vs Commercial Law

[ken_ichikawa]

Is this anti council tax video real or nuts?

Or is Injin really right after all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usmevvt7yfI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XiDpJ22XXs

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

Short version: It's all a load of ********.

[6538]

For all the bluff and bluster in there, these idiots actually miss the most important point. They give no actual description of why what they say is true. None what-so-ever. You can't just state something as being the law and not say why, you need to put some legal theory behind it.

This is the way they always do it though; I did this discussion months ago with one of the idiots on here who was claiming something about how maritime law meant that the DVLA couldn't clamp your car or such utter toss and asked for evidence of how this all worked. I even said that I was in a huge law library for several days and asked to be pointed to some publication which would provide evidence of same. Naturally, no response was forthcoming - which I knew wouldn't be. All you ever get told by these morons is "Go and research it and all will become clear", which is just another way of saying that they really have no idea what they are talking about. They really want you to take it on faith and convince your self of their rightness of what they say so that they don't have to. It's religion really.

Besides, that idiot doesn't even understand what a birth certificate is. It isn't a legal person (or whatever he tries to call it) it is what it says it is - a piece of paper which certifies something, in this case the fact that a person called Stephen Barry was born at a particular time at a particular place. It's the human being who is the lgal person, not the piece of paper. The certifiate is not Stephen Barry any more than my driving licence is me!

Like I say, as soon as these people start to produce some actual evidence of what they say I won't believe a word they say.

[Injin]

For all the bluff and bluster in there, these idiots actually miss the most important point. They give no actual description of why what they say is true. None what-so-ever. You can't just state something as being the law and not say why, you need to put some legal theory behind it.

This is the way they always do it though; I did this discussion months ago with one of the idiots on here who was claiming something about how maritime law meant that the DVLA couldn't clamp your car or such utter toss and asked for evidence of how this all worked. I even said that I was in a huge law library for several days and asked to be pointed to some publication which would provide evidence of same. Naturally, no response was forthcoming - which I knew wouldn't be. All you ever get told by these morons is "Go and research it and all will become clear", which is just another way of saying that they really have no idea what they are talking about. They really want you to take it on faith and convince your self of their rightness of what they say so that they don't have to. It's religion really.

Besides, that idiot doesn't even understand what a birth certificate is. It isn't a legal person (or whatever he tries to call it) it is what it says it is - a piece of paper which certifies something, in this case the fact that a person called Stephen Barry was born at a particular time at a particular place. It's the human being who is the lgal person, not the piece of paper. The certifiate is not Stephen Barry any more than my driving licence is me!

Like I say, as soon as these people start to produce some actual evidence of what they say I won't believe a word they say.

I quote agree and that is the approach I take with officaldom myself.

I need a driving licence?

Proof please!

I'm in a country?

Proof please!

law is pretty easy if you presume yourself innocent instead of letting natural guilt condemn you before you set off.

[Injin]

As for the thing itself, it's working but not for the reason they think it does.

The court people, a lot like the police want to attack everyone else. Physically aggress. however, psychaologicalyl they can never, ever admit that to themselves, it's very painful for them. So unless they can come up with a way to attack you but make it look your fault, they have to stop (or have a nervous breakdown.) legalese bloke was calm, collected and muttering gibberish that sounded baroque and crucially gave the loonies he was faced with no opportunity or reason to attack him.

It's scary shit, once you realise the sort of low self esteem psychopath that works in those places. Keep the ****** away is my advice.

[Injin]

There seems to be an increase in these antics, I don’t honestly know what to think of it except that my debt is fiction and my equity is naturally mine.

Anyway here is the down under version.

That stuff tickles me, it realyl does.

Obviously the police and judiciary break the law all the time, it's just bloody words. They have the real power - social organisation and firearms. They make up verbal mumbo jumbo simply to hide their true natures behind.

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

I quote agree and that is the approach I take with officaldom myself.

I need a driving licence?

Proof please!

I'm in a country?

Proof please!

law is pretty easy if you presume yourself innocent instead of letting natural guilt condemn you before you set off.

And has this approach had many results then?

The thing is, these numpties still get stung with Council Tax Liability Orders anyway.

[worzel]

And has this approach had many results then?

The thing is, these numpties still get stung with Council Tax Liability Orders anyway.

I certainly don't think they are numpties, but it did look like the system just pressed on regardless and continued to press them for the cash. They need to follow one of these through, the real test will be if the lock them up for non payment of council tax or let carry on with their lives.

[6538]

I certainly don't think they are numpties, but it did look like the system just pressed on regardless and continued to press them for the cash. They need to follow one of these through, the real test will be if the lock them up for non payment of council tax or let carry on with their lives.

Of course they're numpties and of course the system pressed on regardless because the guy in that case had zero legal point and didn't even try to establish his basis for saying what he did. He chucked some blokes birth certificate on the desk and started pontificating about what his opinion of it was without actually trying to establish what basis in law he was basing it on. If he thinks that the piece of paper has some legal personality then why did he not say what legal authority that came from?

Exactly the same story as I recounted a few posts up; some bloke tells me that the DVLA have rights over my car under ancient maritime, common-law, admiralty law or some such and then tells me to go and research it my self rather than actually offering a legal basis for his argument.

I'm perfectly willing to believe this stuff but someone needs to show my why it's the way they say it is not just expect me to take it as an article of faith.

[shipbuilder]

Exactly the same story as I recounted a few posts up; some bloke tells me that the DVLA have rights over my car under ancient maritime, common-law, admiralty law or some such and then tells me to go and research it my self rather than actually offering a legal basis for his argument.

Can't the DVLA take your car and crush it for non-payment of road tax? How could they do that unless they had some sort of rights to it? Not saying I'm disagreeing with you, but the point maybe isn't as ridiculous as it seems. It at least points out that laws regarding property aren't as simple as they seem.

[6538]

Can't the DVLA take your car and crush it for non-payment of road tax? How could they do that unless they had some sort of rights to it? Not saying I'm disagreeing with you, but the point maybe isn't as ridiculous as it seems. It at least points out that laws regarding property aren't as simple as they seem.

Oh they can, that's quite true. I forget how the argument went - let me think.

It was, if I recal correctly, that the particular piece of statute which allowed them to do this was actually just a front and that they actually did it under some obscure power in martime law but wouldn't admit it because they didn't want you to know, or something similar.

Anyway, in the case in that video, how come the guy didn't simply explain to the court what his legal reasonaing was? If you can show that there is some doubt as to the legality of something then you will probably get somewhere. Instead, he threw a birth certificate on the table and claimed that the piece of paper had some sort of legal personality and was actually the person summoned to appear. This a rather radical statement so you need to be ready to back up what you say with some pretty strong legal theory.

The narrator also claimed that because the public gallery did not stand then the court had no jurisdiction - WTF, where on earth dos this legal doctrine come from???? Of course, he won't provide an answer. Is he actually saying that if you don't stand during your murder trial then you can't be convicted?

[shipbuilder]

Oh they can, that's quite true. I forget how the argument went - let me think.

It was, if I recal correctly, that the particular piece of statute which allowed them to do this was actually just a front and that they actually did it under some obscure power in martime law but wouldn't admit it because they didn't want you to know, or something similar.

Anyway, in the case in that video, how come the guy didn't simply explain to the court what his legal reasonaing was? If you can show that there is some doubt as to the legality of something then you will probably get somewhere. Instead, he threw a birth certificate on the table and claimed that the piece of paper had some sort of legal personality and was actually the person summoned to appear. This a rather radical statement so you need to be ready to back up what you say with some pretty strong legal theory.

The narrator also claimed that because the public gallery did not stand then the court had no jurisdiction - WTF, where on earth dos this legal doctrine come from???? Of course, he won't provide an answer. Is he actually saying that if you don't stand during your murder trial then you can't be convicted?

I've seen a video of a 'freeman' talking about this and as I understand it your birth certificate and other documents enter you into a contract with the state, in which you agree to be subject to 'commercial' laws created by parliament, such as taxes, traffic laws etc. This is apparently different from Common Law, which applies to all. I've no idea whether any of it is true or not.

Another example is the ability of the government to take custody of your children. I guess they can't do that if your child has no birth certificate, as technically and legally, they won't exist. The certificate is required for the person's 'legal entity' to exist and hence be subject to law. I think that's it anyway - it does make some sense, I guess.

[Injin]

I've seen a video of a 'freeman' talking about this and as I understand it your birth certificate and other documents enter you into a contract with the state, in which you agree to be subject to 'commercial' laws created by parliament, such as taxes, traffic laws etc. This is apparently different from Common Law, which applies to all. I've no idea whether any of it is true or not.

Another example is the ability of the government to take custody of your children. I guess they can't do that if your child has no birth certificate, as technically and legally, they won't exist. The certificate is required for the person's 'legal entity' to exist and hence be subject to law. I think that's it anyway - it does make some sense, I guess.

The law is all cobblers.

but it generalyl comes in two types.

1) Stuff related to people - john punched jim in the face, so what do we do about it?

and

2) made up shit by the statists so they can attack you or steal your stuff - i.e. councillor bob has taken a kickback from a builder to flatten your house, how can he make it look good?

What you might notice is that the first set has facts and the second set doesn't have facts. So, asking for the facts is a great way to find out if you are simply being bullied or mugged.

I mean, really - "you have to do what I say because I have a piece of paper claiming it and i'll hit you if you argue with me" is a pretty pathetic way to make a living.

[6538]

I've seen a video of a 'freeman' talking about this and as I understand it your birth certificate and other documents enter you into a contract with the state, in which you agree to be subject to 'commercial' laws created by parliament, such as taxes, traffic laws etc. This is apparently different from Common Law, which applies to all. I've no idea whether any of it is true or not.

Another example is the ability of the government to take custody of your children. I guess they can't do that if your child has no birth certificate, as technically and legally, they won't exist. The certificate is required for the person's 'legal entity' to exist and hence be subject to law. I think that's it anyway - it does make some sense, I guess.

Yes, this seems to be their speil, as far as I can tell. Again though, what legal theory are they basing this on? None, that I can see. All they do is tell you this that or 'tother but never actually say why it's true which is what you have to do as far as proving a point of law. If you get charged with something then the prosecution has to show the legal origin of the offence, such as the section of the particular Act you have contravened. Some offences like murder are simply contrary to comon law. If you are trying to prove something then you have to demonstrate to the court that what you are saying is correct. You cannot simply say that something is a fact without having to provide evidence of that.

Their stuff about you being in a contract with the state, at least in this case, is rubbish too. A birth certificate cannot be a contract as it was issued before you were capable of the necessary legal capacity to contract to anything. It's what it says it is, a document issued under statute to certify certain facts; the fact that you wre born, where and when it took place and who your parents are. It has no attributes of a contract and is merely a certificate that tells people what your entry on the register of births says. You do not need a birth certificate to be a legal person as as a matter of law you have that the instant as you become independent from your mother and you may not have a birth cert for several days after that.

Anyway, the guy in that video was saying that the certificate its self was a legal person and that it was this piece of paper which had actually been summoned to appear. What legal theory does he base this on because it just makes him look like a total tool? None that I can see. Also, his reasoning is contradictory. He is unwilling to recognise the jurisdiction of this "commercial" court yet is perfectly willing to accept that the court has jurisdiction under statutes passed by Parliament to summons said piece of paper. He can't have it both ways!

Of course they can take your kid. They don't make the decision to take it based on who's kid it is. They do it if they think the child is in danger and its entirely beside the point who the kid is.

[Injin]

Yes, this seems to be their speil, as far as I can tell. Again though, what legal theory are they basing this on? None, that I can see. All they do is tell you this that or 'tother but never actually say why it's true which is what you have to do as far as proving a point of law. If you get charged with something then the prosecution has to show the legal origin of the offence, such as the section of the particular Act you have contravened. Some offences like murder are simply contrary to comon law. If you are trying to prove something then you have to demonstrate to the court that what you are saying is correct. You cannot simply say that something is a fact without having to provide evidence of that.

Their stuff about you being in a contract with the state, at least in this case, is rubbish too. A birth certificate cannot be a contract as it was issued before you were capable of the necessary legal capacity to contract to anything. It's what it says it is, a document issued under statute to certify certain facts; the fact that you wre born, where and when it took place and who your parents are. It has no attributes of a contract and is merely a certificate that tells people what your entry on the register of births says. You do not need a birth certificate to be a legal person as as a matter of law you have that the instant as you become independent from your mother and you may not have a birth cert for several days after that.

Anyway, the guy in that video was saying that the certificate its self was a legal person and that it was this piece of paper which had actually been summoned to appear. What legal theory does he base this on because it just makes him look like a total tool? None that I can see. Also, his reasoning is contradictory. He is unwilling to recognise the jurisdiction of this "commercial" court yet is perfectly willing to accept that the court has jurisdiction under statutes passed by Parliament to summons said piece of paper. He can't have it both ways!

Of course they can take your kid. They don't make the decision to take it based on who's kid it is. They do it if they think the child is in danger and its entirely beside the point who the kid is.

Quite right.

They'll take what they want by force and make shit up to justify it.

That's how evil people operate. They are utter scum.

[worzel]

Of course they're numpties and of course the system pressed on regardless because the guy in that case had zero legal point and didn't even try to establish his basis for saying what he did. He chucked some blokes birth certificate on the desk and started pontificating about what his opinion of it was without actually trying to establish what basis in law he was basing it on. If he thinks that the piece of paper has some legal personality then why did he not say what legal authority that came from?

Exactly the same story as I recounted a few posts up; some bloke tells me that the DVLA have rights over my car under ancient maritime, common-law, admiralty law or some such and then tells me to go and research it my self rather than actually offering a legal basis for his argument.

I'm perfectly willing to believe this stuff but someone needs to show my why it's the way they say it is not just expect me to take it as an article of faith.

I did a little bit of reading on their website today, and have looked into it a little bit previously. The argument in short is that the magna carta and subsequently the bill of rights, gives people rights which cannot be repealed by acts of parliment, and the freement are requesting that these rights be upheld.

Seems a bit silly to dismiss them as numpties, especially when they seemed to be winning the argument in the courtroom, and the subsequent paperwork issued by the court was shown to be plain wrong at best and fraudulent at worst (unless I am thinking of one of their other similar videos, but the point is the same).

[6538]

I did a little bit of reading on their website today, and have looked into it a little bit previously. The argument in short is that the magna carta and subsequently the bill of rights, gives people rights which cannot be repealed by acts of parliment, and the freement are requesting that these rights be upheld.

Seems a bit silly to dismiss them as numpties, especially when they seemed to be winning the argument in the courtroom, and the subsequent paperwork issued by the court was shown to be plain wrong at best and fraudulent at worst (unless I am thinking of one of their other similar videos, but the point is the same).

What rights though and why do these righst allow you to ignore a council tax bill?

Magna Carta and the BoR can be repealed and amended as no Parliament can bind its successors and the current Parliament can do absolutely anything it wants to anyone at anytime without restriction. It can make or unmake any law whatever.

That guy wasn't winning the argument as he never even put forward a cogent argument. Where does his spurious claim that a piece of paper is a legal person come from? Certainly neither the BoR or Magna Carta says anything remotely like that and this is the first time I've ever heard of such a notion. Where do either of these documents (or any other legal source) say that you cannot be bound by a court if you refuse to stand up for the judge?

Sorry but these people ar just utterly insane. What they are really doing, of course, is trying to interpret the law in the best way that suits them by using any irrational - not to mention legally spurious - argument they can cobble together.

Do you have a link to their website?

[worzel]

What rights though and why do these righst allow you to ignore a council tax bill?

Magna Carta and the BoR can be repealed and amended as no Parliament can bind its successors and the current Parliament can do absolutely anything it wants to anyone at anytime without restriction. It can make or unmake any law whatever.

That guy wasn't winning the argument as he never even put forward a cogent argument. Where does his spurious claim that a piece of paper is a legal person come from? Certainly neither the BoR or Magna Carta says anything remotely like that and this is the first time I've ever heard of such a notion. Where do either of these documents (or any other legal source) say that you cannot be bound by a court if you refuse to stand up for the judge?

Sorry but these people ar just utterly insane. What they are really doing, of course, is trying to interpret the law in the best way that suits them by using any irrational - not to mention legally spurious - argument they can cobble together.

Do you have a link to their website?

Freedom rebels

Would write more, but typing on the iphone

[6538]

Freedom rebels

Would write more, but typing on the iphone

Numpties site

If this is what you were reading then I do hop this isn't what their case relies on. Firstly they give this quote from the Thoburn case;

"“”Lord Justice Laws on 18th February 2002: "The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689…Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…." “.

Fair enough, this is correct, constitutional statues are not subject to implied repeal. However, that quote is immediately preceeded by;

"Part of both the Magna Carta and the 1689 bill of rights states that they cannot be repealed because they are such well made laws and rights!".

They can be repealed, just not by implication, they have to be specifically repealled and parts of Magna Carta and BoR have indeed been.

They seen very enamoured of Laws LJ's statement in that case however they go to say;

"When our government handed over our sovereignty to the EU they committed treason!

This is 100% true, they really have committed treason,..."

If we actually look at the full quote by Laws LJ rather than the selective cut and paste job that the numpties reproduce, it says;

"The special status of constitutional statutes follows the constitutional

status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the

Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the Human

Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The ECA (European Communities Act 1972)

clearly belongs in this category. It incorporated the whole corpus of Community rights and

obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the judicial and administrative machinery

of Community Law. It may be that there has never been a statute having such profound

effect on so many dimensions of our daily lives. The ECA is, by force of the common law,

a constitutional statute... "

So, on the one hand they are kissing the bloke's @rse but on the other ignoring the fact that he's supporting government sponsored treason (by their own admission) because he has said that the ECA is a British constitutional Act! They can't have it both ways.

The problem is that these are people who think they know about the law and probably know a little but it's often the case that people who know a bit about something are often more dangerous than those who know nowt. What they are doing is deciding what outcome they want from the start and then cherry pick the best bits which seem to support what they want without really understanding how everything fits together. Like I say, they seem to have totally missed the very important word "impliedly" from the quote further up. Without that word it fits what they want so they need to mis-quote it.

The bottom line is that the 1972 Parliament did not commit treason, nor did they irrevokably sign away our sovereignty. The European Communities Act can be repealed by a future Parliament without any problems at all. It could do it with a single sentence and we would no longer be in the EU end of.

[kingsgate]

Why do these people's desired freedoms seem to consist of saying to everyone else "I want to live in a society where everyone pays something for certain services to be provided, but I want the freedom not to pay anything for them"?

This "freedom" seems somewhat selfish to me .... if these people don't want to pay taxes, will they also not be accepting any hospital treatment if they crash their (unlicensed and un-MoT'd) car?

Will they send their kids to the local school?

Have the bin men take their rubbish away? Etc....

I am quite rich, compared to the average. My home and business are all UK based, and I pay my personal and business tax.

If I successfully declared myself to be a "freeman" and no longer paid my taxes, would most people on here see me as a hero for fighting "the system" or just a greedy b*****d?

In the end, rather like pushing in to a queue, it only "works" if only a few people do it. If most people push in to a queue, you no longer have a queue, you have a fight.

If a few people say "I opt out of paying for stuff" then they get a free ride off everyone else. If most people do so, there would be no stuff for everyone, no schools, no hospitals, no roads, etc.

[Injin]

Numpties site

If this is what you were reading then I do hop this isn't what their case relies on. Firstly they give this quote from the Thoburn case;

"“”Lord Justice Laws on 18th February 2002: "The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689…Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…." “.

Fair enough, this is correct, constitutional statues are not subject to implied repeal. However, that quote is immediately preceeded by;

"Part of both the Magna Carta and the 1689 bill of rights states that they cannot be repealed because they are such well made laws and rights!".

They can be repealed, just not by implication, they have to be specifically repealled and parts of Magna Carta and BoR have indeed been.

They seen very enamoured of Laws LJ's statement in that case however they go to say;

"When our government handed over our sovereignty to the EU they committed treason!

This is 100% true, they really have committed treason,..."

If we actually look at the full quote by Laws LJ rather than the selective cut and paste job that the numpties reproduce, it says;

"The special status of constitutional statutes follows the constitutional

status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the

Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the Human

Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The ECA (European Communities Act 1972)

clearly belongs in this category. It incorporated the whole corpus of Community rights and

obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the judicial and administrative machinery

of Community Law. It may be that there has never been a statute having such profound

effect on so many dimensions of our daily lives. The ECA is, by force of the common law,

a constitutional statute... "

So, on the one hand they are kissing the bloke's @rse but on the other ignoring the fact that he's supporting government sponsored treason (by their own admission) because he has said that the ECA is a British constitutional Act! They can't have it both ways.

The problem is that these are people who think they know about the law and probably know a little but it's often the case that people who know a bit about something are often more dangerous than those who know nowt. What they are doing is deciding what outcome they want from the start and then cherry pick the best bits which seem to support what they want without really understanding how everything fits together. Like I say, they seem to have totally missed the very important word "impliedly" from the quote further up. Without that word it fits what they want so they need to mis-quote it.

The bottom line is that the 1972 Parliament did not commit treason, nor did they irrevokably sign away our sovereignty. The European Communities Act can be repealed by a future Parliament without any problems at all. It could do it with a single sentence and we would no longer be in the EU end of.

All the law is made up crap that applies to no one, except by the use of force by psychopaths.

The freemen guys want to use the words for their own ends, like that will work and like that matters. If you quote law at a statist they will quote some other law and carry on stealing from you anyway.

best to just ask for some facts from them. Then they can either be revealed as thieves outright or ****** off.

[Injin]

Why do these people's desired freedoms seem to consist of saying to everyone else "I want to live in a society where everyone pays something for certain services to be provided, but I want the freedom not to pay anything for them"?

This "freedom" seems somewhat selfish to me .... if these people don't want to pay taxes, will they also not be accepting any hospital treatment if they crash their (unlicensed and un-MoT'd) car?

Will they send their kids to the local school?

Have the bin men take their rubbish away? Etc....

I am quite rich, compared to the average. My home and business are all UK based, and I pay my personal and business tax.

If I successfully declared myself to be a "freeman" and no longer paid my taxes, would most people on here see me as a hero for fighting "the system" or just a greedy b*****d?

In the end, rather like pushing in to a queue, it only "works" if only a few people do it. If most people push in to a queue, you no longer have a queue, you have a fight.

If a few people say "I opt out of paying for stuff" then they get a free ride off everyone else. If most people do so, there would be no stuff for everyone, no schools, no hospitals, no roads, etc.

no one owes you anything.

Even if you give them loads of gifts.

They have to agree to pay you, just doing someone a "favour" in no way entitles you to the contents of their wallet. Either accept that you can't have the stuff you want and stop moaning or just steal it without the ******** please.

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

no one owes you anything.

Even if you give them loads of gifts.

They have to agree to pay you, just doing someone a "favour" in no way entitles you to the contents of their wallet. Either accept that you can't have the stuff you want and stop moaning or just steal it without the ******** please.

That last paragraph sounds a bit like a law to me.

[Injin]

That last paragraph sounds a bit like a law to me.

I didn't threaten him so it wasn't.

All laws take the form "if you do x behaviour, I will hurt you y amount."