Random Freemanesque Babblings II: Back to the Futile

[SpearGrass]

Another comprehensive fotler fail: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/com ... p-hartley/
It's a very long read but the essence of it is in the opening: 10 months imprisonment for publishing the names of his wife and infant children on the Internet.

[TheRambler]

Another comprehensive fotler fail: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/com ... p-hartley/
It's a very long read but the essence of it is in the opening: 10 months imprisonment for publishing the names of his wife and infant children on the Internet.

If you’re in a hole the last thing you need is a bigger shovel. This bloke rented a mini-digger. The irony of it is that, I am led to believe that once inside FOTLers tend not to create trouble.

TheRambler

[John Uskglass]

A British Airways pilot banned from flying for refusing to wear a Covid facemask during the pandemic because he claimed to have the 'right to breathe freely' has lost his bid to sue the airline for discrimination.

Peter Burch tried to claim he was 'a sovereign being who has a right to breathe freely' and that he should not be subjected to 'arbitrary and pointless' rules.

The experienced senior first officer argued that his stance against wearing a mask was the equivalent to a religious belief and he should be legally protected as a result.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ation.html

His case can't have been helped by this line of argument.

Giving evidence at a preliminary hearing, Mr Burch said of his views: 'I formed the belief based on the fact no-one wore a mask ever in the entirety of human existence.

'I believe if cloth masks stopped the transmission of disease, humans would have worked that out when cloth was first invented.

[TheRambler]

A British Airways pilot banned from flying for refusing to wear a Covid facemask during the pandemic because he claimed to have the 'right to breathe freely' has lost his bid to sue the airline for discrimination.

Peter Burch tried to claim he was 'a sovereign being who has a right to breathe freely' and that he should not be subjected to 'arbitrary and pointless' rules.

The experienced senior first officer argued that his stance against wearing a mask was the equivalent to a religious belief and he should be legally protected as a result.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ation.html

There’s clearly a lot more to this than is reported in The Mail, no surprise there! The 747 was being withdrawn from service in the period quoted and I’ve a suspicion that the individual concerned had decided he would retire along with it. Any return to duty would have involved considerably more than a couple of sectors refresher, at least a couple of simulator sessions and subsequent License Proficiency Check and Instrument Rating.

I’ll “phone a friend” and see what they know.

TheRambler

[dannyno]

The tribunal judgement is here:

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- ... slash-2022

The claimant’s belief, that he is a sovereign being who has a right to breathe freely and should not be subjected to arbitrary and pointless rules which have prevented [him] from so doing, whilst having no basis in science and for which there is no supporting evidence, does not amount to a philosophical belief for the purposes of section 10 (2) Equality Act 2010.

[TheRambler]

The tribunal judgement is here:

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- ... slash-2022

The claimant’s belief, that he is a sovereign being who has a right to breathe freely and should not be subjected to arbitrary and pointless rules which have prevented [him] from so doing, whilst having no basis in science and for which there is no supporting evidence, does not amount to a philosophical belief for the purposes of section 10 (2) Equality Act 2010.

Thank you, that gives considerably more background to the matter. I have asked, but it seems to have generated no interest within the company or the industry at large, that's probably because everyone else saw it was going nowhere.

TheRambler

[TheRambler]

A British Airways pilot banned from flying for refusing to wear a Covid facemask during the pandemic because he claimed to have the 'right to breathe freely' has lost his bid to sue the airline for discrimination.

Peter Burch tried to claim he was 'a sovereign being who has a right to breathe freely' and that he should not be subjected to 'arbitrary and pointless' rules.

The experienced senior first officer argued that his stance against wearing a mask was the equivalent to a religious belief and he should be legally protected as a result.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ation.html

This case has seems to have elicited no comment or interest within the industry and neither has anyone I've contacted had knowledge of it. Seems like a member of the awkard squad chancing his arm.

TheRambler

[rosy]

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/2684.html

It's Nottingham, by the way. There must be something in the water there.

The usual nonsense with an appearance of Andrew Devine (sorry, that's Baron Andrew of the House of Devine)'s yt channel, but I think declaring the court to be a crime scene is relatively new in Freeloaderville.

8. should add that the Defendant expressly disavowed his family name, and wished to be addressed in court as 'Jason-Steven'. His full style is 'Jason-Steven: Wong. Of the House of Wong'. Documents served on him in his family name were met with the response:
"You are in violation of the terms of my Performance-Contract-Claim by the Commercialization-Violation of my Common-Law-Name. [Mr Wong] is a Legal Fiction and it has been made clear to you".

60. I reject the Defendant's primary assertion that the hearing in Nottingham on 18 February 2022 was a "sham court", not 'authentic', not held in a properly constituted courtroom, and was not heard by a duly appointed judge, or one authorised to hear public law CA 1989 / ACA 2002 cases. These propositions are all utterly baseless. It is to be noted that the Defendant made a similar unfounded claim that the hearing of this application for contempt was similarly not properly constituted (the Defendant has continued to refer to these proceedings under "Alleged Case Number…" and referred to me as "… acting as Judge Justice Cobb"), which of course I have no hesitation in rejecting. I dismiss his assertion that the hearing in Nottingham was a "crime scene"; his purported claim under Part 18 CPR for sight of the court file in order to demonstrate this is dismissed as totally without merit.

Q: Do you know anything about section 97 of the Children's Act?
A: I know it doesn't apply to me. Because I'm a living man. I'm not a person. I'm not a corporation. I'm not a dead entity. It's corporate law. I do not consent to it. … I'm not a part of that corporation. I don't agree to the terms. And, one other thing is it wasn't a real -- it wasn't a court hearing."

There's mention of an "investigative journalist" calling herself Sian Gissing-McMeel. I'm sure that the similarity of her name to Sabine McNeill's name is mere coincidence.

[John Uskglass]

There's mention of an "investigative journalist" calling herself Sian Gissing-McMeel. I'm sure that the similarity of her name to Sabine McNeill's name is mere coincidence.

AFAIK McNeill is still behind bars. However it seems that someone going under the unusual name of Sian Gissing McMeel has previously come the the attention of the courts with regard to breaches of the law relating to proceedings in the Family Court.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6 ... b9d68ec1a0

She has also put out a video with Devine. I won't link to it, and haven't watched it, but it is easy to find.

Probably a coincidence, as it is a common name, but a bit spooky. There was a Wong involved in the horrendous case on Anglesey where a child in foster care was kidnapped.
https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com ... nap-child/

[SpearGrass]

I believe McNeill has served her term and was released and booted back to Germany.

Where she has probably joined the Reichsburger movement and is trying to restore the imperial constitution.

[mufc1959]

This is an interesting (to me, anyway) law report about the winding-up of one of those Claims Management Companies that promises to get people's mortgages cancelled, and the making of a Civil Restraint Order against its director.

People were promised their mortgages could be voided using the same fruitless arguments FOTL have tried (and failed with) for years.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/2654.html

Looks as if it's ongoing, and I'll be following it with interest.

[John Uskglass]

As we all know, Michael Waugh 'went on to draft the first legal argument by a lay advocate to be established as a point of UK law'

And to be fair, his case is cited in the judgement. Spoiler, not in a good way.

The second point was considered and dismissed by HHJ Hodge in his decision in the Campbell case, and again rests on a misconception: in Bank of Scotland Plc v. Waugh the problem was that the mortgagor's signature on what was intended to be the mortgage deed had not been witnessed. Consequently that document could not take effect as a deed and thus there could be no legal mortgage of the property in question. Nonetheless, as it happened the mortgagee bank had signed the document as well. Since both the mortgagor customer and mortgagee bank had signed, and since the document contained all the necessary terms to be enforceable as a contract, HHJ Behrens considered that it could be regarded as a binding contract to enter into a mortgage (the signature requirements of s. 2 being complied with); and since the contract was specifically enforceable, it gave rise to an equitable mortgage.

[aesmith]

We all know their esteem for Black law dictionary, but I didn't realise it had to be an out of date edition. Spotted on the Sovereign Fraternity Facebook page ..

Patrick Black
·
I got my hands on a Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition. Anyone know if this edition is worth owning or is it too late an issue? Thanks

[longdog]

I suppose it's because the later editions, those published after the invention of the self-propelled motor carriage, have a different definition of the word 'Driver'.

I've been told that my pdf of the 8th edition is 'too new'.

[SpearGrass]

Blacks is onto its 14th edition now. 7th edition was 1999. Since it relates to the law in another country, I don't suppose it matters, it will always be irrelevant to an issue in the UK (or Ireland, Canada etc).

[longdog]

Blacks is onto its 14th edition now. 7th edition was 1999. Since it relates to the law in another country, I don't suppose it matters, it will always be irrelevant to an issue in the UK (or Ireland, Canada etc).

All very true but I love baiting the loonies with screen-shots of definitions on dictionary.com and waiting for them to scream "THATS NOT TEH LEGELEESE VERSION ,U NEED TO LLOK IN BLACKS!!!" before showing them the Black's definition saying the same thing.

'Law', 'Legislation', 'Act', 'Driver' and 'Person' are the favourites. I don't think many of them have a copy, most that do have a copy of the 1st edition and few of them ever bother to read what it actually says. I'm pretty sure that a lot of them don't really know how to use a dictionary as they don't seem to realise that when a word has multiple definitions you have to use context to pick the right one... Not the one that suits you best.

[Burnaby49]

It's irrelevant as a issue in any country, it's just a reference book with no legal authority. Sovereigns treat it as equivalent to actual laws but, sadly for them, judges don't.

[Albert Haddock]

I suppose it's because the later editions, those published after the invention of the self-propelled motor carriage, have a different definition of the word 'Driver'.

See Waterloo v Bydeley:

[39] The defendant provides a definition of “driver” that reads “one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle”. This is from the Fourth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary. However, the full definition of this term, from the revised Fourth Edition, is as follows: “One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle or motor car, through not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle.” This is taken from Wallace v. Woods, 340 M. 452, 102 S.W. 2d 91 @ 97, a 1936 case from Missouri.
[40] The defendant, in closing submissions, indicates that one of the reasons she chooses to rely on this definition is because of its proximity in time to the initial enactment of the modern HTA. The defendant feels that the language of law ought not change over time as this would change the law.

At paragraph 46:

The defendant’s conclusion that she was not a driver based on selecting a portion of a definition of that term from an out-of-date version of an American legal dictionary is not accepted by this court.

[John Uskglass]

Seen elsewhere - linked possession cases with a mystery guest.
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.u ... /2023/1361

However, an individual did come into the courtroom about ten minutes into the hearing, positioned himself in front of Counsel’s bench without introducing himself and then continued to operate the screen on his mobile phone. When asked to introduce himself he said he was “Beresford”. He declined to indicate he had any other name and, when pressed, provided his address as 124 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX. When asked to clarify whether he was either a party or a legal representative of a party, he confirmed he was neither. In language that was distinctly archaic but otherwise difficult to understand, he said he proposed to satisfy the court that all of the respective debts had been settled. He also observed, however, that the court was not correctly convened unless I could identify “the clerk of the court”.

When it was made clear that unless he was either a party or legally qualified with rights of audience, he had no right to conduct the litigation of others, whether they were present or not, “Beresford” left.

[aesmith]

I suppose it's because the later editions, those published after the invention of the self-propelled motor carriage, have a different definition of the word 'Driver'.

What gets me is that they gloat over (part of) the definition of "Driver", but not of "Employed. Oops ...

EMPLOYED. This signifies both the act of doing a thing and the being under contract or orders to do it. To give employment to; to have employ-ment. State v. Birmingham Beauty Shop, Ala., 198 So. 435, 436..