The comedy court of Common Law

[Comrade Sharik]

Mobile phone users are ruining web pages the same way console users ruined video games.

There's something rather darkly pleasing about the fact that people are complaining about newfangled innovations ruining things which I (born in the 1950's) regard as newfangled innovations...

[longdog]

and [click here to conyimue reading, 1 of 4]

If only it were 1 of 4. I've seen some sites where it's 30 or more pages to read a short article. Not that I click through of course... They can get their page impressions from somebody else.

[Philistine]

Mobile phone users are ruining web pages the same way console users ruined video games.

There's something rather darkly pleasing about the fact that people are complaining about newfangled innovations ruining things which I (born in the 1950's) regard as newfangled innovations...

I'll admit it was a bit tongue in cheek.
I was trying to get a possible bite from some console gamer lurkers.
Your point is not lost on me (I was born around '60)

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Mobile phone users are ruining web pages the same way console users ruined video games.

I beg to differ…

[notorial dissent]

I'm still trying to grasp what their actual complaint is, since I'm quite sure they don't even know what the difference is between the two.

[obadiah]

Mobile phone users are ruining web pages the same way console users ruined video games.

I beg to differ…

[/quote]

I still have an old copy of Adventure somewhere and I still play Rogue....

[SteveUK]

Predictably, the scam starts to escalate..

This is serious business. We need to raise £1,500 to get the new Common Law Court website up and running, if people want justice against the system you need to support this. Click on the link and donate, doesn't matter how much just do it. No one will be making any money from this and it's not my account, please donate what you can, thanks.

Sounds like a dead ringer for Goodf, when Colon and Witterfuck pocketed the donations and fled.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Predictably, the scam starts to escalate..

Anyone who requires money to run a website in this day and age quite clearly thinks they will run foul of terms and conditions.

Even so, to maintain editorial independence, I pay £80 a year for full control of a website and all uploaded content. Where do they get these ridiculous costing from, and more importantly, why do their acolytes fall for such an obvious scam?

Clearly a £1,420 beer fund

[SteveUK]

and more importantly, why do their acolytes fall for such an obvious scam?

Remember, these idiots also think CLC judgements are binding, Article 61 is still in force and you pay bills with REs.

Falling for stupid scams is in their DNA.

[longdog]

Why can't they just pay for hosting with their birth bond?

[SteveUK]

quite a few folk questioning the high price already. Crabbie is how having to copy pasta a standard response.

I translate it as, 'just pay the money, we really really really do need it" , unfortunately without any hint of where its going.

I should have explained more but didn’t want the post to be too long, there are a lot more expenses rather than just getting the website up and running, but getting the website going is the important part. As soon as it is up and running it will be a lot easier getting things organised, there’s a lot goes on behind the scenes that people don’t see. For obvious reasons some things can’t be made public until the time is right. The reason for the new website is for security since some solicitors from the system threatened to close the website down.

[JimUk1]

Looking through some of the comedy commercial liens, one does appear to have been stamped by a qualified attorney?

See page 6 on here-

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/fadada_7 ... 743c97.pdf

And the solicitor in question-

http://www.ecpirie.co.uk

She checks out- https://www.lawscot.org.uk/find-a-solic ... n&type=sol

Is she short of work? Why else would you put your name to that crap? And if the common law court doesn’t recognise lawyers ect, why are they getting it stamped by someone registered with the law society? Strikes me as strange?

[longdog]

The reason for the new website is for security since some solicitors from the system threatened to close the website down.

So basically they are trying to create a website which will only really be accessible to the anointed few who have passed the necessary security checks. I can't see that expensive bandwidth is going to be an issue

A good comparison would probably be The Lawful Bank website which was run on similar lines and never went anywhere. It started badly and soon fell to a status that could best be described as moribund. Currently it consists of one man, Neil Warren, talking to himself.

[notorial dissent]

[SteveUK]

The next Farce is announced.

common law court .I am please to announce the next common law court hearing will be in wigan area of greater Manchester 28th October 2018 at Hindley labour club. parking from platt lane entrance at the rear 12pm - 5pm. class action will be taking place 114 children taken by social services the jury will decide if the government take children unlawfully on this date . please share like and be there to make a real difference in this country for England Ireland Scotland and wales. do social workers lie use false allegations to take children well if they get 28000 a year to adopt a child mmmmm you decide. more and more parents are speaking out PLEASE GET THIS NEWS OUT TO PEOPLE

[mufc1959]

Looking through some of the comedy commercial liens, one does appear to have been stamped by a qualified attorney?

S
Is she short of work? Why else would you put your name to that crap? And if the common law court doesn’t recognise lawyers ect, why are they getting it stamped by someone registered with the law society? Strikes me as strange?

I think you might have misunderstood the solicitor's role in this.

If someone walks into a solicitors' office and says they want to swear an Affidavit, then all the solicitor has to do is to witness the signature and administer the oath. The solicitor isn't expected to know the contents, meaning or intention of the document, or even read it - all they're doing is confirming that the person before them has signed the Affidavit and sworn on the holy book of their choice its contents are true. When I was in private practice a lifetime ago, we kept an Old & New Testament, Koran and Gita in reception, so we had the majority of the holy books people might want to swear on. In the case of atheists, it's an Affirmation.

The document is signed in front of the solicitor, and the oath is: "I swear by Almighty God (or, in the case of an Affirmation, I do solemnly and sincerely affirm) that this is my name and handwriting and that the contents of this, my Affidavit, are true."

Then the fee is paid in cash - it used to be £5 per Affidavit and £2 per exhibit - not sure how much it is now, and in my case the money would go into the office cake and ice cream fund to keep the secretaries sweet.

I'm sure I witnessed signatures being put on all sorts of garbage over the years. But just because I've seen someone signing a document and I confirm I saw them sign it and that person has sworn that it's all true, that doesn't mean I'm involved in whatever scheme the Affidavit is being used for.

[JimUk1]

Looking through some of the comedy commercial liens, one does appear to have been stamped by a qualified attorney?

S
Is she short of work? Why else would you put your name to that crap? And if the common law court doesn’t recognise lawyers ect, why are they getting it stamped by someone registered with the law society? Strikes me as strange?

I think you might have misunderstood the solicitor's role in this.

If someone walks into a solicitors' office and says they want to swear an Affidavit, then all the solicitor has to do is to witness the signature and administer the oath. The solicitor isn't expected to know the contents, meaning or intention of the document, or even read it - all they're doing is confirming that the person before them has signed the Affidavit and sworn on the holy book of their choice its contents are true. When I was in private practice a lifetime ago, we kept an Old & New Testament, Koran and Gita in reception, so we had the majority of the holy books people might want to swear on. In the case of atheists, it's an Affirmation.

The document is signed in front of the solicitor, and the oath is: "I swear by Almighty God (or, in the case of an Affirmation, I do solemnly and sincerely affirm) that this is my name and handwriting and that the contents of this, my Affidavit, are true."

Then the fee is paid in cash - it used to be £5 per Affidavit and £2 per exhibit - not sure how much it is now, and in my case the money would go into the office cake and ice cream fund to keep the secretaries sweet.

I'm sure I witnessed signatures being put on all sorts of garbage over the years. But just because I've seen someone signing a document and I confirm I saw them sign it and that person has sworn that it's all true, that doesn't mean I'm involved in whatever scheme the Affidavit is being used for.

True, however I would have thought that it would be best practice to advise if the document in question has real world application?

[Siegfried Shrink]

That amounts to a professional opinion which costs more than a simple oath. Imagine if you told Mr. Smith "This is pointless nonsense" and then had to listen to more pointless nonsense as he says it is solid gold magic paper.

It's not worth the hassle.

[mufc1959]

No solicitor will offer unsolicited advice to someone walking in off the street who just wants to swear a document. To do so would change the dynamic to solicitor/client and create a relationship where the solicitor would be liable for any negligent advice given.

It's also not permitted for a solicitor to administer an oath for their own client, i.e. someone they've given advice to.

I can honestly say that, with every oath I've administered - probably hundreds - I've never once looked at anything other than the attestation clause at the end, and watched the person saying the oath sign it, adding my own name to confirm I've administered the oath.

[SteveUK]

Out of interest, what's the most common type of document you guys would see?